C Nelson Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 (edited) You've probably seen this kind of post before...my grandfather returned from WWII service in the Pacific Theater with many souvenirs, including this sword. I believe that it may have been purchased in Hawaii. The intricacies of Japanese sword identification seem somewhat daunting, to say the least. I would like to know if this sword is "real" or a knockoff sold to American GIs. Any further information you can provide would be helpful. I'm not interested in selling the sword, just curious as to what it actually is. The Reddit translator section tells me that the inscription on the tang reads "Bishu Osafune Yasumitsu" and that the paperwork accompanying it is a samurai sword certificate. I have not had the inscription on the edge of the hilt translated; any translation help is appreciated. Images are at https://neotokyo2040.imgur.com/all/ (image of certificate is also uploaded) I can certainly add more photos if this helps; just let me know what images you need. Thank you in advance, C. Nelson Edited October 26, 2022 by C Nelson image link did not work 1 Quote
C Nelson Posted October 26, 2022 Author Report Posted October 26, 2022 Sorry about that; added images to the original post. Fiddled around with Imgur more; perhaps this link will work? https://imgur.com/gallery/WfQKhXG Quote
Rivkin Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 The work looks like a circa 1540 wakizashi in sue-Bizen style. I am no specialist on signatures and don't want to check the books for generations of Yasumitsu, but the work itself seems a good match and I would assume (without consulting the books) by default its genuine. Fittings are so and so. 2 Quote
Jacques Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Does it have a nengo on the ura side ? Quote
C Nelson Posted October 26, 2022 Author Report Posted October 26, 2022 There is no writing or inscription on the reverse side. Quote
Grey Doffin Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Hi Cathy, A care and handling brochure: https://nbthk-ab2.org/sword-characteristics/ Everyone should know this. Grey 1 Quote
Jacques Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 On 10/26/2022 at 11:19 AM, C Nelson said: There is no writing or inscription on the reverse side. Expand It's a big red flag, all Bizen Osafune swords with a nagamei since Oei must have a nengo on the ura side. Quote
Alex A Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Should these have a nengo Jacques, do you think ? https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-Japanese-sword-katana-signed-by-osafune-kiyomitsu-nbthk-kicho-certificate/ https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-bizen-osafune-norimitsu/ https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-Japanese-sword-katana-signed-by-bishu-osafune-sukesadanbthk-hozon-certificate/ Quote
Nihontocollector752 Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Why is the mei positioned in the centre of the Nakago? The areas of the mei over the Mekugi-ana seem to indent into the mekugi ana with downward inlay indents, almost like they were intentionally cut over the Mekugi ana Quote
SteveM Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 The Reddit translator was correct 備州長船康光 Bishū Osafune Yasumitsu It means, "Yasumitsu of Osafune in Bishū Province". In other words, its the swordsmith's name and location. Yasumitsu is a somewhat common name, and there were quite a few swordsmiths who signed with "Bishū Osafune Yasumitsu", or some variation. Osafune is a famous sword-making region in Japan, located in present-day Okayama prefecture. The sword is a real one. It is not a Chinese knock-off. But as you may know from looking at some of our recent threads, it is hard to authenticate the signature across the internet. Anyway, it looks like a good, interesting piece, so definitely read up on the care and handling of it. It has survived for a few centuries, so we need to do all we can to help it survive a few more. The fittings look OK, too, by the way. Maybe not museum quality, but they look authentic. Fittings (scabbard, tsuba, all the other metal bits) are meant to be interchangeable, so we assume that the fittings are probably not the original ones made for the sword. We evaluate them separately from the sword. It's possible the sword is from the 1500s, and the fittings from the 1800s. It isn't a big deal, and has no bearing on the authenticity of the sword. The certificate is a registration card, required of all antique swords in Japan since the late 1940s. Yours dates from 1956, which is fairly early. It doesn't guarantee the authenticity of the signature. It is just a registration card - nice to have since it has a date and notes the details of the sword (length, number of holes in the tang, inscription). Nowadays the registration card has to be turned in to the issuing authority when you export the sword. 5 Quote
Rivkin Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 There was a period in early Muromachi when shift from central to side placement is significant and can potentially disprove the signature, but... This is Sengaku's piece. Plenty of generations, lots of weird signatures and tons of produced pieces. If this would not be signed what can it get? Sue Bizen or Kaga. Not too many other options. It does not have strong Kaga feel. So its something that feels sue-Bizen with sue-Bizen signature... Hmmmm.... I had plenty of Sengaku pieces papered with a note on the judgement sheet (even the tiny NBTHK one) that the signature is not in the references or even a vocal statement that it matches the work but might have been added later. Its uncommon to take a run of the mill Sengaku piece and brand it as gimei because the signature is a bit off, as long as it matches the work. I had signatures with extra multiple family names still papering - it matches the work and no proof this smith did not sign like that at one point. Though I had the opposite experiences also, in this case with NTHK gimei-ing a nijimei blade, and NBTHK then passing it. This said, I would feel better were it a more typical shallow and thin written signature right at the nakago... and frankly I don't really understand signatures well enough. 1 Quote
Jacques Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Ok, i should have been more specific, Are not concerned suriage swords and sue Bizen kazu-uchi-mono. More, ALL sword signed Bishu Osafune Yasumitsu (Oei era) must have a nengo. Quote
Jacques Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 On 10/26/2022 at 2:33 PM, Nihontocollector752 said: Why is the mei positioned in the centre of the Nakago? The areas of the mei over the Mekugi-ana seem to indent into the mekugi ana with downward inlay indents, almost like they were intentionally cut over the Mekugi ana Expand Nothing wrong with the placement of the mei on this kind of sword https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords5/WK328357.htm Quote
Nihontocollector752 Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 On 10/26/2022 at 3:58 PM, Jacques D. said: Nothing wrong with the placement of the mei on this kind of sword https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords5/WK328357.htm Expand I stand corrected. But having gone through a few more examples of the various lineages does this signature look authentic? Cannot argue with the forging style though Quote
Jacques Posted October 26, 2022 Report Posted October 26, 2022 Nihonto meikan lists 6 Yasumitsu (Koto, Bishu Osafune) Fujishiro ranks the shodai and the nidai jo saku Due to the lack of nengo we can exclude these 2 smiths; for the others i don't know because generally the books show the best's swords Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.