Suishinshi Masahide made in 1806 WW2 samurai sword info

[Guest footslime69]

10 hours ago, Ray Singer said:

 

As mentioned earlier, there is a lot of information online. If you search and find one with an associated paper then it is likely an authentic example you can study for reference.

https://www.google.com/search?q="suishinshi+Masahide"+site%3Aaoijapan.net&rlz=1C1GCEU_enUS954US954&oq="suishinshi+Masahide"+site%3Aaoijapan.net&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDY4MDNqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I mean close up photos of Masahide’s artist work like the dragons. I’m not sure what time period that photo is from that Brian shared before. It would make sense to compare Masahide’s proven artistry work from the same time period as mine 1806. 

[Guest footslime69]

11 hours ago, Brian said:

This is the sort of quality you'd want to be seeing on a high end sword by a good smith. Compare the details closely, especially the scales and undercutting.
Not quite sure we are there. But again, just throwing thoughts out. Sword is still a nice piece either way.

 

 

Though is your example by Masahide from earlier 1800’s? It would make sense to compare an authentic sword made by Masahide from the same time period as mine. 

[Guest footslime69]

12 hours ago, Brian said:

Wipe off all the old oil, it is not doing the sword any favors, it wasn't made like that and it is obscuring all the work that needs to be seen, it doesn't add anything to the value. It's wartime grease.
Masahide is an important and valuable maker. This wasn't made for the war, but mounted for WW2 later if it's correct.
The problem is that Masahide's signature is extremely often faked, we call this gimei and it was done often from hundreds of years ago. So common in fact, that there are likely far more fake signatures than real ones, and they are very well done. You would need to clean off the oil, and submit it to a professional body to have it authenticated.
The carving (horimono) on the blade looks only of average quality, and this may lead to a later made wartime sword signed with a famous name. Clean the horimono with isopropyl alcohol and post good pics of it, so we can get an idea if it's the quality to be on a sword made by him. That motif was common on wartime swords too. But until we can see more of the blade etc, it's only educated guesses. The sword is a genuine Japanese sword, the question is whether it's a Masahide or a later sword signed with his name.

 

Thanks so much for all your info Brian. Really appreciate it. I’ve uploaded some more photos of parts of the sword until I can get back to clean the blade and take better photos. Would you know what those small engraved dots on the habaki mean? They were some engraved on the other side as well but I didn’t get photos of that. Thanks again 

[Guest footslime69]

12 hours ago, Brian said:

This is the sort of quality you'd want to be seeing on a high end sword by a good smith. Compare the details closely, especially the scales and undercutting.
Not quite sure we are there. But again, just throwing thoughts out. Sword is still a nice piece either way.

 

 

This sword is from 1860. Mine is 1806..

[Toryu2020]

Footslime - is there something better we should call you? Here is a genuine signature and carving - 1806 and 1807 respectively. Hope this helps…

[SteveM]

Hello Footslime

 

Here is another one. Bunka 3 (1806)

https://www.touken-s...6/K-masahide-02.html

[Guest footslime69]

10 minutes ago, Toryu2020 said:

Footslime - is there something better we should call you? Here is a genuine signature and carving - 1806 and 1807 respectively. Hope this helps…

Haha yeah sorry my name is Matt. 
 

Awesome. Thanks so much for these. They look less refined like the ones on my sword. Most swords I have seen online from the early 1800’s look less detailed and refined than more recently made ones. I’m not taking anything away from the earlier swordsmiths, but would I be right in assuming the technology and process of the engraving may have evolved over time? 

[John C]

1 hour ago, footslime69 said:

Would you know what those small engraved dots on the habaki mean?

I could be wrong here, however if those same dots are on the other side I would be thinking a vise. I've seen that before on habaki when the blade was stuck. But as I said, I could be wrong and maybe it's just a design that wasn't completed. Another possibility are punches like on a tsuba nakago-ana to tighten it up on the blade.

 

John C.

[Brian]

2 hours ago, footslime69 said:

Haha yeah sorry my name is Matt. 
 

Awesome. Thanks so much for these. They look less refined like the ones on my sword. Most swords I have seen online from the early 1800’s look less detailed and refined than more recently made ones. I’m not taking anything away from the earlier swordsmiths, but would I be right in assuming the technology and process of the engraving may have evolved over time? 

That would be incorrect. You don't see horimono from good smiths really changing over time. Just didn't happen that way. Also, the ones in the pics shown are by no means cruder, just poorly represented. They are top class work, with fine detail and overlapping scales. Light years above the ones we see on your sword. I can't comment on the mei, but I'd be surprised if that horimono was done by him. Takes viewing lots of good works be to be able to spot the differences.
The marks on the habaki are damage, not intentional. Not a big deal.

[The Blacksmith]

The marks on the habaki are, as mentioned by John,  certainly vise marks, made by the unprotected jaws of a vise. Possibly, someone has had it in a vise and perhaps hammered the tsuba to free the tsuka at some point.

[Nobody]

4 hours ago, footslime69 said:

Haha yeah sorry my name is Matt. 
 

Awesome. Thanks so much for these. They look less refined like the ones on my sword. Most swords I have seen online from the early 1800’s look less detailed and refined than more recently made ones. I’m not taking anything away from the earlier swordsmiths, but would I be right in assuming the technology and process of the engraving may have evolved over time? 

 

This sword was made by Masahide in 1785. It was made 21 years before your Masahide was made.

Ref. 刀 銘 水心子正秀 天明五年二月日彫同作／ホームメイト (touken-world.jp)

 

[Brian]

That is pretty definitive 

[Guest footslime69]

16 minutes ago, Nobody said:

 

This sword was made by Masahide in 1785. It was made 21 years before your Masahide was made.

Ref. 刀 銘 水心子正秀 天明五年二月日彫同作／ホームメイト (touken-world.jp)

 

That’s awesome! Thanks for that.

[Brian]

Because you are in Oz, the easy answer would be to send it to Andrew Ickeringill for an opinion. He'll tell you whether it's a genuine work of Masahide or not.
Great guy too.
https://touken-togishi.com/

[Guest footslime69]

13 minutes ago, Brian said:

Because you are in Oz, the easy answer would be to send it to Andrew Ickeringill for an opinion. He'll tell you whether it's a genuine work of Masahide or not.
Great guy too.
https://touken-togishi.com/

Thanks alot Brian, I’ll definitely do that. 
 

I’ve just found this one of Masahide’s from 1806. Same year as mine and the design and horimono style looks extremely similar to mine( thick carvings) 

https://www.bonhams....masahide-dated-1806/

[Brian]

2 hours ago, footslime69 said:

Thanks alot Brian, I’ll definitely do that. 
 

I’ve just found this one of Masahide’s from 1806. Same year as mine and the design and horimono style looks extremely similar to mine( thick carvings) 

https://www.bonhams....masahide-dated-1806/

And that one is 100% gimei.
Even stated as such.

[ROKUJURO]

Matt,

besides the fact that the BONHAMS photo is not very good in magnification, the HORIMONO quality is not comparable. And in addition to the carving work, you have to consider that the HORIMONO changes with every polish!

Please sign all posts with at least your first name plus an initial. It is a rule here. You can also show your name in the profile under 'location' instead of 'footslime'. 

[Brian]

Quote

Please note this sword is after Masahide

Which is auction-speak for counterfeit.

[Guest footslime69]

From Markus Sesko’s book Nihon-shinshinto-shi - The History of the shinshinto Era of Japanese Swords.

 

Wouldn’t this mean there’s Masahide horimono on some swords and then others that were done by his student Yoshitane? 

Edited March 19 by footslime69

[Brian]

Again, confirmation that the horimono is not by him or his student.
He didn't do it....no hori-dosaku...and not by Yoshitane (No overlapping scales)

Matt, you have to accept it at some point. We have all been there, but sometimes it's best to accept the evidence. Show the sword to Andrew, he'll tell you for sure.

[Guest footslime69]

10 minutes ago, Brian said:

Again, confirmation that the horimono is not by him or his student.
He didn't do it....no hori-dosaku...and not by Yoshitane (No overlapping scales)

Matt, you have to accept it at some point. We have all been there, but sometimes it's best to accept the evidence. Show the sword to Andrew, he'll tell you for sure.

I’ve reached out to him so I won’t make anymore posts on here don’t worry. It’s not a matter of me accepting it, as I have no issue with it being a gimei (if it is one). I’m simply asking questions because I know nothing about this subject. I don’t think it’s your call to make if it’s a gimei or not anyway but I appreciate your input. 
 

[Brian]

Oh well, Matt requested his account be deleted, and this thread. Thread stays, this is an educational forum and this is an educational post.
I hope @Andrew Ickeringill is maybe able to update us oneday with good news. But a reminder that collectors need a thick skin, and a good eye, and that looking at good swords in polish is vital to understanding this hobby.

[2devnul]

Well ... it pains when you learn that your precious blade is Gimei. Been there, done that. Although, I don't think that 'rage quit on forum' is the best thing to do. 

[Paz]

@Brian 

Good point about education..

 

@2devnul

Thing is If its gimei. Its still nihonto. Still a traditionally made Japanese sword antique. 

 

The question then is what is the value of a traditionally forged Japanese sword ? especially if it's over 100 years old. I mean yes it's gimei. But it's still worth polishing, restoring and preserving. I would not be disappointed unless i spent something stupid over the top. 

 

[SteveM]

I hope he comes back. He asked for info and we gave him a torrent of info and links and opinions... Even the guys who suggested the signature was gimei did it with qualifications, and almost always followed it with, "send it to an expert to be sure". I feel bad that, for whatever reason, he felt he had to leave and slam the door behind him. 

 

Now he's on Reddit asking the same questions. 

 

If Matt is still out there, I'd say come back to NMB and keep us updated and continue to ask questions and don't be offended if some people doubt the signature on the blade. Learning to see the blade and not the signature is a tough, tough thing to do. 

[GeorgeLuucas]

I interacted with him a bit on Reddit messenger 
 

I’m under the impression that it’s an heirloom, and other people are more reluctant than he is about accepting it as gimei. I think he’s got us in one ear, and someone else in the other. 

 

I hope he comes back too, and takes y’alls advice about sending it to Andrew. Gimei or not, It looks like a decent? sword from what little can be seen 

 

all the best,

-Sam
 

Edited March 19 by GeorgeLuucas
Strike through "decent?". Can't see enough, and I am not experienced enough to say

[Brian]

The thing is, people want so hard to believe that a sword is shoshin, that no amount of evidence it may not be, is accepted. We've had this so many times before. Don't like the answers...get in a huff and storm out.
If you'd rather believe Reddit over a forum dedicated to the subject, then so be it. Most novices (including myself even after 20 years) aren't qualified to compare a mei. BUT....we can look at the quality of a horimono and realize it isn't of the expected quality. Novices looks at average wartime mass produced horimono, and never having seen one before, think it's amazing. When you see the really good stuff at the DTI or Japanese museums, you realize how naive you were.
It's ok to keep arguing against ever point made, but where does it stop? Horimono is average quality....must be early work. Doesn't look like his work?....Pull up poor drawings from a book to say they are the same quality. Show even better work of his that is earlier...pull up a reference that his students did some of his work. Show that his student's work was far better. Then prove that he did some carving himself. Ignoring that those works were signed as done by him.
If someone asks a question, don't get upset when you get answers that are not what you want to hear. We've all been there, and had to bear through it. Gimei (if it is, and no-one so far even commented on the mei) is not a train smash. We constantly remind people that gimei doesn't make a sword bad. It's a part of Nihonto history, tradition and convention.
But people would rather go to places that know less and say when we want to hear.
Oh well, we all hope it's good. Not sure that grease is ever coming off the blade though.

 

[ROKUJURO]

I'd even like to go a step back. I did not see more of the blade than a bad HORIMONO - it is not even average. And with all that COSMOLINE on it, I did not see a SHINOGI, a HAMON or something like HADA.  I saw some dirt in the grease - or was it corrosion, or KITAE-WARE?

In my eyes, there is a chance that Andrew will take the sword for a (medium good) joke!

[Paz]

59 minutes ago, Brian said:

The thing is, people want so hard to believe that a sword is shoshin, that no amount of evidence it may not be, is accepted. We've had this so many times before. Don't like the answers...get in a huff and storm out.
If you'd rather believe Reddit over a forum dedicated to the subject, then so be it. Most novices (including myself even after 20 years) aren't qualified to compare a mei. BUT....we can look at the quality of a horimono and realize it isn't of the expected quality. Novices looks at average wartime mass produced horimono, and never having seen one before, think it's amazing. When you see the really good stuff at the DTI or Japanese museums, you realize how naive you were.
It's ok to keep arguing against ever point made, but where does it stop? Horimono is average quality....must be early work. Doesn't look like his work?....Pull up poor drawings from a book to say they are the same quality. Show even better work of his that is earlier...pull up a reference that his students did some of his work. Show that his student's work was far better. Then prove that he did some carving himself. Ignoring that those works were signed as done by him.
If someone asks a question, don't get upset when you get answers that are not what you want to hear. We've all been there, and had to bear through it. Gimei (if it is, and no-one so far even commented on the mei) is not a train smash. We constantly remind people that gimei doesn't make a sword bad. It's a part of Nihonto history, tradition and convention.
But people would rather go to places that know less and say when we want to hear.
Oh well, we all hope it's good. Not sure that grease is ever coming off the blade though.

 

Yep, Gimei doesn't make a bad sword. Actually if it's gimei high chance that it's a quality sword that the smith knew could pass on as gimei. 

[Alex A]

What Jean said.

 

Not even a clear pic of the nakago