ID & Condition Help Request for Possible Gassan Nihonto

[Rafuino]

Hi, everyone --

 

I've inherited a Japanese sword from my grandfather and have some reason to believe it could be authentic. I speak/read some Japanese but sword terminology is definitely not my forte (yet!). I've taken some pictures of the vital parts of the sword and am hoping for general comments on whether my mei translation is correct and then thoughts on the condition of the sword and whether it is salvageable.  If it's totally fake, of course, by all means don't hold back and do let me know. I originally posted a version of this on Reddit's r/swords and the reply received encouraged me to come here with additional pictures. That post for your reference is here:

I've since updated the pictures as best I could based on the photography guide in the Reddit wiki, and while these are of course majorly amateur (I only have an iPhone, not a real camera or lighting setup), it's sort of an improvement over what I had before.  Here's the link:

 

https://imgur.com/a/EkhaDIx

 

First of all, reading the nakago, this appears to be from 1866 (2nd year of Keio era) on a day in November.  慶應二年十一月日

The signature side reads 浪華月山源貞一, for having been made in Naniwa (aka Osaka) by Gassan Sadakazu, followed by the signature and then an imprint of the Gassan owl (I believe).

 

My grandfather was involved in the automotive industry and this sword was gifted to him by a close Japanese business associate.  The man who gave this to my grandfater included his own written translation of the signature as Gattsusan Minamotono Sadaichi, but I'm pretty sure he just misread the signature.  If it is Gassan Sadaichi, well... he was born after this sword was made, so I don't think that's right (https://markussesko.com/2013/07/21/gassan-sadaichi/). If it is Gassan Sadakazu, well, it seems he didn't always use the Minamoto character in his signatures (found one here though: http://www.nihontocraft.com/Gasan_Sadakazu_Tanto.htm), but the date of creation seems possible based on his lifetime. He didn't use the characteristic 造 kanji I've seen in other Gassan signatures, but I don't think that's a dealbreaker.

 

Of course, it could absolutely be a fake (super interesting review of a fake vs a real Gassan found here: https://resources.metmuseum.org/resources/metpublications/pdf/The_Metropolitan_Museum_Journal_v_5_1972.pdf), so I'm keeping my expectations LOW.  I found that article, by the way, by searching through the forums here, so thank you!

 

 

As for the rest of the nihonto, the nagasa is ~28.75 inches, though I'm not sure exactly where the mune-machi begins, so it might be ~28.125 inches. Definitely not a wakizashi or tanto, so I'm assuming katana at this length.

 

The condition isn't great from what I can tell, but I'm hoping it's not too far gone.  The saya (scabbard) has some damage primarily from rubbing against the stand my grandfather kept it on for many years, the mekugi (peg) appears to be missing, and one side of the tsuka (handle) is cracked down the middle.  The ito (braid) is a bit frayed, as is the sageo (cord).  I see some rust on the what I think are the seppa (spacers) and habaki (blade collar), and there's a loose piece of thin metal that would seem to hold some of the parts in place, but I'm not sure what it's for.

 

The sword came with some basic maintenance kits, though I'm not sure how long sword oil is good for and am DEFINITELY wanting to speak with an expert about how to maintain, and possibly restore, this sword. For that, would you all recommend I reach out to the Northern California Japanese Sword Club?  I assume I should pay for a membership and show up to next month's meeting, but I welcome any ideas.  This is not for any commercial purpose!  I want to maintain it as a memory of my grandfather and, ideally, learn more about its provenance and history.

 

Thanks for any guidance and sorry for the long first post.

 

Andrew R.

[Bryce]

G'day Andrew,

I am in no way an expert, but I have spent a fair amount of time studying Gassan Sadakazu blades recently. Based on what I can see in your photos, I think your blade is gimei. This means that it is a genuine Japanese blade, but wasn't made by Gassan Sadakazu. Someone has forged the signature of Sadakazu to pass this blade off as Gassan. However, there is a lot of variation in the way Sadakazu signed. Are you able to post some better photos of the blade's nakago (tang) showing the mei, kao and kokuin in crisp detail? Below are the photos you posted showing your blade.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[Rafuino]

  On 1/25/2023 at 4:10 AM, Bryce said:

Are you able to post some better photos of the blade's nakago (tang) showing the mei, kao and kokuin in crisp detail?

 

 

 

Expand  

Hi, Bryce. Thanks for the response! That's disappointing to hear it may be gimei.  Do the photos in this Imgur page provide better detail by chance?  If not, I can try to take more photos tomorrow morning.

 

https://imgur.com/a/5UhaDdR

 

What in particular stands out to you as a potential forgery at first glance?

[Brian]

Sadakazu is a BIG name, and any sword with that signature would be considered gimei until papered and proved otherwise. He is vastly faked and his signature is usually impeccably well done. I also think this is likely gimei, but let's wait for better opinions. There is a ton of info on him here, so search the forum for plenty of examples. It's also important to remember that gimei in the Japanese sword world is common, and doesn't make the sword terrible. There are very nice swords out there with false signatures.
So not confirming it's gimei, but you do need to consider that as a strong possibility. A detailed close-up of that kokuin/owl stamp will help. They usually differ from his real ones.

[Bryce]

G'day Andrew,

Yes these photos are better.

What stands out to me? Basically, the way that almost all of the kanji are formed, the kao and the kokuin don't conform with how Sadakazu did it. It is a bit like comparing hand writing. Compare your example with some of the others I posted in the "Works of Gassan Sadakazu" thread. The other part of the story is the work in the blade. Unfortunately I can't see any details of the hada or hamon in the other photos of the blade you posted. You need to be able to see this to decide if the blade does or doesn't look like the work of Sadakazu.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Agree with Bryce, the Kao does not look well done at all. The mounts are quite nice though.

[Rafuino]

Thanks, Bryce. I've definitely been comparing signatures as best I can and I do also see some differences. It seems Sadakazu signed in many different ways over the years though (sometimes no kao, sometimes no Minamoto, etc etc), so I have some hope it could be real still, but like Brian said, it's best to assume it's fake until proven otherwise with the name involved.  The 浪華 and 貞 look most suspect to me while the 山 and 一 seems closer to confirmed examples I've seen. I'm looking for better kao examples to compare and will look again through the other thread.

 

I tried to take detailed photos of the blade but the lighting I have is pretty bad.  I'll keep trying and will read more threads on photography tips/tricks.  I suppose you might not be able to see the hada/hamon given the condition though, so it's a bit of a chicken/egg dilemma!  I do have a basic maintenance kit, so I'll try to remove the oil that is on the blade now, take photos, then reapply oil as best I can.  I don't want to ruin what I have though so I'll study up before I make an attempt.

[Jacques]

Définitively gimei and a bad one.

[John C]

Maybe @Bruce Pennington can shed some more light on the kokuin. His stamp document lists a hot stamp for Sadakatsu which is a close match but not Sadakazu. Did Sadakazu have a kokuin? And if this kokuin is not legit, I suspect the tang would have to be reheated to press it in. Would that leave some sort of tell-tale sign?

Just spit-balling,

John C.

[Rafuino]

  On 1/25/2023 at 9:08 PM, Jacques D. said:

Définitively gimei and a bad one.

Expand  

 

My disappointment is immeasurable. Told myself I wouldn't get my hopes up but I did slightly and it hurts!

 

Just to add a bit to the mystery, I just found the boxes that came with the sword containing some sword oil and other tools, and I found a registration card at the bottom of one of these boxes.  I've translated most of the front side of the card, but the 銘文 section does not seem to match anything written on the nakago.  Frankly, I can't make out these handwritten kanji, so if anyone has an idea, I'm all ears.  I've recognized these characters (州長) and started searching the signature database (https://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=sword_record&mei_op=contains&mei=州長), but I haven't found a match yet as I can't read the handwriting on the remaining characters.  Maybe there was a mixup when the sword was exported to the US or some crazy switcheroo happened...?

[Rafuino]

  On 1/25/2023 at 10:04 PM, John C said:

Maybe @Bruce Pennington can shed some more light on the kokuin. His stamp document lists a hot stamp for Sadakatsu which is a close match but not Sadakazu. Did Sadakazu have a kokuin? And if this kokuin is not legit, I suspect the tang would have to be reheated to press it in. Would that leave some sort of tell-tale sign?

Just spit-balling,

John C.

Expand  

 

I welcome Bruce's input for sure! I've found this site showing the kokuin for Sadakazu, though I'm not sure if the site is legitimate: https://www.aoijapan.net/tanto-gassan-minamoto-sadakazu-kokuin/

[Bryce]

G'day Andrew,

Here are some shots comparing your blade to papered examples from the same time period. The forger put some effort into copying Sadakazu's mei and kao, but the kokuin and date side is way off.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[Rafuino]

Thanks, Bryce. You're right that the kokuin and kao are way off. The kokuin in particular is a tell with the middle strokes not connecting on the legit example and them connecting on my version, as well as the roundness of the owl's torso overall being a different shape. Oh well!  No need to bring this to the NCJSC meeting next month and waste time.  The registration card is definitely bothering me too since the meibun section doesn't at all match what's on the nakago. Maybe the name written is the actual smith who did the forgery? Would be strange though for sure...

[ROKUJURO]

Looks a bit as if the TOROKUSHO is for BIZEN OSAFUNE SUKESADA.

You can compare the NAGASA; is it 69,6 cm?

[Rafuino]

  On 1/26/2023 at 12:05 AM, ROKUJURO said:

Looks a bit as if the TOROKUSHO is for BIZEN OSAFUNE SUKESADA.

You can compare the NAGASA; is it 69,6 cm?

Expand  

I believe it is slightly longer than that at around 71.4cm. This is definitely strange. 

[Brian]

It just means that card is for another sword. Also, the card is irrelevant as it's just a license, it doesn't verify authenticity.
Take it with to the NCJSC meeting! You still need the guys to check it out, and see the quality. It may still be a very nice sword. As mentioned, gimei doesn't mean a bad sword.

[Bruce Pennington]

I only have 2 other examples of Sadakazu kao, both kakihan and kokuin.  He seemed to have a bit of variation in his kakihan, but the kokuin seems singular.  Until Bryce's example, the only ones I've had were from Slough:

But you can see in all of them, the horizontal lines inside the owl do not touch the sides, whereas the lines go all the way across in the one in question.  The overall crudeness of that one stands out as well.

 

The kakihan of Sadakazu seems to have some variation, but my sample size is extremely small.  The 2 strokes on the upper right, in my other samples have more flair than the one in Bryce's picture.  But none of the 3 bring the top left stroke around and down the left side, as we see in Andrew's.  Just based off the kakihan, I wouldn't rule Andrew's out, but considering the kokuin and the rest of the discussion of the mei, I'd say the kao evidence supports a gimei verdict.  Sure seems like a lot of hard work went into it.  But, I suppose it would be worth it for the increased asking price.

[Rafuino]

Thanks, James and Bruce, for the responses.  Very interesting comparisons, Bruce, I appreciate it.  The owl stamp definitely gives it away as gimei, but as James said, just because it's a forgery doesn't mean necessarily it's not worth checking the quality. Regardless, I'm investigating further with my family about its provenance. I did try to get in touch with the man who gave it to my grandfather when I studied abroad many years ago, but he'd already passed, unfortunately. Could be a continued mystery, but we shall see!

 

James, yes, I found that the registration card has nothing to do with authenticity. It's just interesting that I have a card for a totally different sword!  I'll need to seriously bone up on my sword terms if I want to email the Mie prefecture government to ask about sword #3577 in their log book.

[Bryce]

G'day Bruce,

I think the two kao you posted above are by Gassan Sadakatsu, rather than Sadakazu. The one on the left was late in his career and the one on the right early.

Below are the four different kokuin I have seen on Sadakazu blades papered by the NBTHK, with the earliest on the left grading to latest on the right. Some people think that number 3 (going from left to right) is gimei, but the NBTHK do paper these.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

[Rafuino]

Wow they really do change over time then. Still none look like mine but it’s fascinating to see the differences

[Bruce Pennington]

  On 1/26/2023 at 5:23 PM, Bryce said:

G'day Bruce,

I think the two kao you posted above are by Gassan Sadakatsu, rather than Sadakazu. The one on the left was late in his career and the one on the right early.

Below are the four different kokuin I have seen on Sadakazu blades papered by the NBTHK, with the earliest on the left grading to latest on the right. Some people think that number 3 (going from left to right) is gimei, but the NBTHK do paper these.

Cheers,

Bryce

 

Expand  

 

Thanks Bryce, great collage of kao!  And you're right about my post above coming from Sadakatsu rather than Sadakazu.  Took me a while, but I've finally got the two mei down.  Out of time for now, but I still want to see if there are any distinguishing features that set the two kakihan apart.

So, just to be sure:

Sadakazu mei                         Sadakatsu mei