Gimie Katana, Kanemitsu

[jasper]

This is one of my pride and joys even though the signature was rejected at the 1993 LA Shinsa. Still unsure what to do about the gimei. I have had several opinions about when the sword was made. The shinsa team suggested it was a revival sword from about 1860. Others have said it is much earlier then that, 1500 or so. Judging by the nakago with flatened file marks and that it has 4 mekugi-ana, I would think that it was much older too. The shinsa team did judge the fittings, saya, tsuba, menuki and the tsuka. They recieved medium size papers, but dated them to to around 1820. I find that odd that the blade was made after the fittings were?

 

Thought I would share some pics. Any comments are more then welcome.

 

[mike yeon]

Nice blade. I'd agree with shin-shinto revival. This was prob an easy one for the shinsa team (stongest indicators would be placement of mei and the fact that it is the mei of Bizen Osafune Kanemitsu, who was a sai-jo saku koto smith.)

 

As you might know, during the shin-shinto period, smiths were trying to bring back the glory of koto period works. Many attempted to copy old masterpieces, and when they did they were faithful to details including number of mekugiana, horimono, etc. Sometimes they would sign the mei of the smith they were copying, and sometimes they would sign their name as well (as deception was not among the reasons for making the copy).

 

I'd leave the mei alone. You'll never get it papered but its a nice example of this period. If you're super lucky, you might one day come accross the actual kanemitsu blade yours was copied from (if it still exists.) Whoever made it was creating a nambochuko period blade (which fits kanemitsu and the profile of your blade).

 

good luck.

 

mike

[kusunokimasahige]

very nice blade indeed!!

 

say, is the red lacquer i the grooves Urushi or another type of lacquer? i also see this in Yari.........

 

best wishes,

 

KM

[jasper]

I am not sure what is in the grooves. It was put on there well, it does not seem to wear off easily.

 

I appreciate the input. So even if the gimei was removed it still could not recieve papers?

[mike yeon]

Sorry Jasper. I meant that it wouldn't get papered as is. It may get papered if you remove the mei.

 

From your work sheet, where they might have put suspected attribution, it just gives a measurement and the jidai says "shin-shinto" and the locale "kuwana uchi" (not sure what that means, maybe made with skill?)

 

You can submit it again, to see what another shinsa team has to say about attribution.

 

Anyway, mei removal has been well discussed on this forum. It is a long expensive proccess that can't be reversed. Think about it, you pay $2K+ to remove the mei, and then it gets papered to an average level smith/school.

 

In this case I'd recommend that you leave the sword alone as the "gimei" is part of its character and reason for being I think.

 

Anyone else?

 

mike

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

In this case I'd recommend that you leave the sword alone as the "gimei" is part of its character and reason for being I think.

 

Anyone else?

 

mike

 

I agree Mike.

If it was mine it would remain as is.

[jasper]

The only reason I would have it removed is if it were truly an early blade. I did not realize that mei removal was so expensive, that and a polish would run close to $5k, yikes.

 

Thanks for the help and input.

[mike yeon]

I don't believe its an earlier blade. I've read that koto Bizen blades became very popular during late edo. Your blade might have been made to satisfy demand.

 

All in all it looks to be a fine piece. AND you have papered koshirae that belongs to it. I'd just go for a polish and see what the togi says/recommends. Hard to make judgements over the net.

 

mike