Naginata mei and date out of synch?

[groyn]

Hi,

I would be grateful for the community's thoughts. A friend kindly translated the mei (Fujiwara Naoshige) and date (1665) on my naginata, as shown in the photos.

However, ref. Markus Sesko and Nihontoclub (screenshots), the style of the mei ("Oite Nan Ki Fuji Wara Nao Shige") seems to indicate the Nidai smith (Hoei 1704-1711).

If mine is dated Kanbun 1665, it should be the Shodai smith (1661-1673) and it seems the style of the mei should be "Ki Shu Ju Fuji Wara Nao Shige Saku" 

Does this make it more likely to be gimei, or is there a reasonable explanation for the inconsistency?

Many thanks for your help.

 

Roy

 

[Geraint]

Dear Roy.

 

First of all, that is a lovely naginata you've got there!  Now to the imponderables.  The available listings tend to indicate the main period of a smith's work and they are often compilations of what is available.  This means that although a smith is given as working predominantly in Kanbun period in fact his dates of production might span quite a time before and after the limits of the reign period specified.  For example according to the sources you provide the second generation ends thirty years before the third starts; this is clearly not the case.  

Another factor is that many smiths changed their mei over time, often this reflects an elevation in their honorary tittle, in many cases it indicates that they were working in different parts of the country and so forth.  I have a yari by  a smith who worked in Edo, then moved to Odawara following the daimyo for whom he worked and then back to Edo.

 

All this is to suggest that the lists are not to be taken as infallible, especially with regard to date, that new information adds to our knowledge as time passes, that mei change according to what is happening in the smiths life and in the family for whom he works and so on.

 

Now the gap of thirty nine years is a bit of a reach here but, as I am sure you already know, this is a smith about whom not much information is available.  I assume from your question that the naginata is not papered so you are left with a slight conundrum.  If you can find papered examples of the mei then you can compare handwriting.  You might consider sending it to shinsa and seeing what current scholarship suggests, or you might just enjoy it for what it is and keep your eye open for references to this line of smiths and see what you come up with.  You have a research project on your hands.

 

Whatever you decide to do enjoy this for what it is and enjoy the search.

 

All the best.

 

 

[groyn]

Dear Geraint,

Thank you very much for your very helpful reply. My thoughts were similar but you've expressed the issues far better than I could have. The 39 year gap is a long one and without further info coming to light, it may as you suggest, be down to a shinsa panel. It is, as you kindly say, a lovely naginata and it may be worth the polish/shinsa route. Before that however, the (lovely, period, full length) pole it is mounted on needs the raden and fittings on the tachiuke restored and that'll be the focus for now. I might post it in a new thread to enquire about potential restorers in the UK. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the blade as it is...... :)

Regards,

Roy 

[Ken-Hawaii]

As Geraint points out, Roy, there is a lot of "imprecision" when it comes to matching dates & what you're holding. In most cases, if I can identify my blade to within 100 years, I'm happy.

 

Also, in most cases, I assume any mei is gimei, until I have kanteisho in hand, but your blade contains so much information, that I can't see someone spending that much time, just to fake a mei. It adds no value if he's selling it, because it's not associated with a big name. Yes, definitely shinsa.

 

And I have to compliment you on the detective work, so far. 

[groyn]

Thanks for the compliment Ken . It's great that the forum can expand on anybody's efforts so as to build a clearer picture of a blade. And I agree, I can't see anyone devoting so much effort to faking this "lower-rated" (chu-jo) smith. Regardless, it's a lovely thing to have, especially as it's mounted full-length, so definitely a keeper!

Roy

[Jussi Ekholm]

It is wonderful naginata in full length Roy.

 

I would second Geraints thoughts above. As this smith lineage is not famous there might not be too much data to base the information on. In general discussion chūjō usually means that he was given that specific ranking by Fujishiro in his book. I can not find this Naoshige (直茂) in Fujishiro and unfortunately I seem to find very few authenticated examples by various generations, the ones I did find are not dated but I focus on pre-Edo items and my references too. It could be plausible that the 1st generation did also sometimes sign in form that we are seeing on your naginata.

 

Well worth further research in my opinion

[groyn]

Hi Jussi,

Thank you for your thoughts. I got the Chu-Jo ranking from the listing on Sho-shin.com, but if he's not in Fujishiro, I'll accept that he's perhaps even less well known than already supposed

Meanwhile, I have received the link below from another member via DM. It's a papered Hozon katana signed the same way by the nidai smith and the carving of the characters is so different that I think  it pretty much confirms mine as gimei, especially with the wrong date thrown in.

https://www.seiyudo.com/ska-060320.htm

I don't think I'll bother going down the route of mei removal/polish/shinsa, though I might consider just a polish. It has a nice-looking boshi and hamon.

Regards,

Roy