Wakizashi mei

[Splidge]

Hi all, I would appreciate some help with this mei, as far as I can make out the interpretation is as follows “SAKUSHU TSUYAMA KANESAKI”? I have tried my humble library and surfed the internet but cannot find any “KANESAKI” signing in this fashion. I should mention that I have only recently bought this wakizashi and through my search on the internet I have found that the previous owner tried for similar info on another web site.

Is the translation correct? If so does anyone have an idea from which period it is from.

Any and all help is as always much appreciated.

Frank.

[pcfarrar]

I first thought Kanemitsu but on reflection I'm not sure. Could be related to this guy:

 

KANEKAGE TSUYAMA [ENPÔ 1673 MISAKA] SHINTÔ CHÛSAKU

There are among the works of Kanekage those with a nengo of Genroku, and this smith is the nidai of that one. He is in the Mino Shintô Kei, and his works are predominantly a simple chû-suguba. (Wazamono)

Signature: SAKUSHÛ TSUYAMA JÛ FUJIWARA KANEKAGE

 

Some Kanesaki oshigata on this website:

 

http://www.users.on.net/~coxm/5.%20oshigata%20i.html

[Splidge]

Thanks peter, I was going to say I looked at the kanji for mitsu on the kanji pages but it shows this 光 Mitsu, looks different?

 

regards

 

Frank

[pcfarrar]

If you have the Shinto Fujishiro try comparing the Kanekage oshigata with yours. He must be related to Kanekage in someway.

[John A Stuart]

Maybe this Kanesaki 兼先 is the shinto smith that signs 'Mimasaka no Kuni Tsuyama Fujiwara Kanesaki'. Sakushu and Mimasaka are the same province. Or at least closely following him. John

[shan]

Hi,

Firstly i am no expert ,but will try a strange kind of logic.

I have trawled through some volumes I have and a database of smiths and i cannot find a SAKUSHU TSUYAMA KANEMITSU that signed in that way and used that title or those Kanji groupings.

SAKUSHU TSUYAMA is a limited Title and i have searched all that Used it ans just the Sakushu, as well and i only find Mitsu as the nearest Kanji to yours and the Tsuyama is one Kanji not the Two shown in yours.

It does not look anything like Mitsu really (unless a variant but then thats not how they signed either)and as the other Kanji all conform to the usual expectations (mostly),seems "wrong" to me.

I understand that there are some different readings of the kanji ,so can only guess that this mei was done by someone who did not feel comfortable with writing this mei.

Its not much help but the smiths mentioned with that similar name were i believe 15pt smiths.

Perhaps another can confirm

regards

shan

[John A Stuart]

It is 'Kanesaki' without a doubt. Shoshin or not is another question. John

[John A Stuart]

Tsuyama 津山 was the capital of Mimasaka no Kuni 美作国 or Sakushu 作州. Part of Bizen domains at one time. John

 

If you use Grey's index you will find an entry for Sakushu Kanesaki in the Shinto Taikan ST1,81/2,44. Date of 1596, the same date given for Mimasaka Kanesaki. I believe the same smith. John

[Splidge]

Thanks to every one who's replied so far, John was it abit out of the ordinary for the same smith to use different mei on swords? or did this then depend on where he lived at the time as to how he signed each blade?

Any way thanks for your answer,

 

regards

 

Frank

[John A Stuart]

Here is the info for Kanesaki (Mimasaka), Keicho era (1596) to Kanei era (1624). "Saki" is mitsu-shape, seems to be from Mino and to have moved to Tsuyama in Mimasaka province (Sakushu). [H] signed Mimasaka no Kuni Tsuyama ju Kanesaki and Mimasaka no Kuni Tsuyama ju Fujiwara Kanesaki. I have no oshigata for this smith. I do believe that in this case the smith signed Sakushu, based on the description. I see no reason for this to be gimei, but, you never know. John

[John A Stuart]

Hi Frank, Sure, mei changed all the time with some smiths. New titles, new residence, change of name, maturation etc. Some smiths mei never changed. Wakizashi by smiths who had zaimei on katana would have nijimei or mumei, all sorts of forms on wakizashi. John

[Splidge]

Thanks for the info John, I also see no reason for this to be gimei, :D but unfortnately I'm not the expert

 

regards

 

Frank

[John A Stuart]

Me neither.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

If you use Grey's index you will find an entry for Sakushu Kanesaki in the Shinto Taikan ST1,81/2,44. Date of 1596, the same date given for Mimasaka Kanesaki. I believe the same smith. John

 

 

I have checked these books, it's not the same smith.

[John A Stuart]

Right on Jacques, You found both of them? Can you fill us in? John

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Right on Jacques, You found both of them? Can you fill us in? John

 

I speak about the blade discussed here, not the same which is quoted in shinto taikan.

 

the blades quoted in shinto taikan volume 1 and 2 are not only by the same smith but also the same blade as well quoted in the Toko Taikan (page 81/82).

 

I don't find any reference about the following mei "Mimasaka no Kuni Tsuyama Fujiwara Kanesaki" even if this Kanesaki moved from Mino to Tsuyama.

[Splidge]

Hi

So if I’m reading this right :? then it’s not Sakushu Kanesaki dated 1596 as in Grey’s index?, so is this an unlisted smith? or one that is just being elusive?

 

regards

 

Frank

[John A Stuart]

If I read Jacques syntax rightly, it is the smith in Grey's index refering to Shinto Taikan. John

[Splidge]

Hi John

 

Thanks for the clarification,

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

my apologies, it seems to be a misunderstanding by my fault here :?

 

Franck, your blade was not made by the smith who is quoted in the Shinto taikan. it is 2 possibilities, first your blade is made by an unknown smith, second it is a gimei.

 

Sorry for my poor english.

[Splidge]

Hi Jacques

 

I thought that’s what you meant but wasn’t sure, oh well back to the drawing board, I’m ok with an unknown smith, but gimei, it would seem rather a waste of time and energy to put a signature of someone never heard of on a sword. Many thanks for your input though.

Regards

Frank

[reinhard]

The name KANESAKI derived from Mino province and was spread over many provinces during early Edo period. There was a toko working in Tsuyama, Mimasaka province, during Keicho era and he is quite well documented. Two mei for reference attached.

 

reinhard

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

 

The Kanesaki quoted by Reinhard is the same than this quoted in the Shinto taikan, the oshigata on the left shows the same blade which is shown in TK.

 

 

Shinto taikan oshigata:

 

[Splidge]

Hi

Thanks Reinhard and Jacques for the comparisons but even to my untrained, and uneducated eye they seem completely different in style and context, and of course the different layout of the kanji, this would lead me to the conclusion that they are different smiths.

Unknown smith it is then.

Unless, some one knows different of course?

Regards

Frank

[reinhard]

Frank,

 

What I was trying to show you was: After the dispersal of the Mino smiths at the end of Muromachi period, the name KANESAKI went to the provinces Bizen, Kaga, Etchu, Omi, Tango, Tanshu and one LINEAGE was working in Mimasaka around Keicho era. Obviously their mei are not very uniform. This could mean, your blade might fit in there as well. If you want to be sure, you better check the blade first. Does it have Keicho ShinTo sugata and characteristics of Mino heritage? If yes, you can still hand it in for papers to make sure. Not even oracle JdF can do this for you.

 

If you are seriously interested in the subject, I recommend the book about Mino Toko during Muromachi period and their lineage .It contains a small but informative section about KANESAKI and his followers in Mimasaka. (Japanese without translation). ISBN number is: ISBN4-89806-250-4

 

reinhard