Help with information on katana.

[jason c]

Im looking to see if somebody can help verify if this is a real katana and what does the both sides of the tang translate to.

[Ron M]

It is not a Japanese made sword, imo. The writing is not the kind you would see on an authentic piece, it is a poor imitation.

[Lewis B]

Tsuba looks stamped and mass produced. 

[jason c]

Ok thank you, the person who i was buying it off was looking for 1000 for it and would really like to get my hands on a real one.

[Matsunoki]

Are these all pictures of the same blade because it looks like two different habaki….one copper and one possibly a better quality silver one? 
In one or two images  The nakago has two distinct patinas suggesting shortening. it looks like a poor condition genuine shortened blade where someone has tried to add a signature and a date and done it very badly thereby ruining it financially. 
Have you actually handled it?

 

 

[jason c]

20 minutes ago, Matsunoki said:

Are these all pictures of the same blade because it looks like two different habaki….one copper and one possibly a better quality silver one? 
In one or two images  The nakago has two distinct patinas suggesting shortening. it looks like a poor condition genuine shortened blade where someone has tried to add a signature and a date and done it very badly thereby ruining it financially. 
Have you actually handled it?

 

 

Thank you for your reply.

I have only handled the sword very briefly in a militaria collectors show.

These are just pictures from the seller sent on to me. I assume all the pictures are from the same blade, but if the mei is forged and the blade is bad quality like you were saying i would rather wait and buy a better quality real on. 

[George KN]

I would stay away from this one at that kind of price to be honest. Ignoring the signature (which I don't feel qualified to give an opinion on), even if the blade is genuine (50/50 chance from those pictures imo), it's not in a good state of polish, and the fittings are also not great. 

 

Adding on to what others have said about the tsuba seeming to be stamped - you can tell because it almost looks the whole thing has been shifted to one side, with the rim being thicker on one side and thinner on the other side:

 

Another mild warning sign is that the seller has allowed the blade to be directly put onto a wooden table, without a cloth or cushion. To me that suggests they either don't know anything about what they have, or conversely, know exactly what they have and it isn't worth treating with respect...

On the bright side you 100% can buy a real nihonto if your budget is $1000 (or even better if Euros/Pounds). Either a rather rough katana, or a half decent wakizashi. They are out there, and this forum is a great place to check things before you buy (as you've already done!)

[jason c]

24 minutes ago, Ghoul said:

I would stay away from this one at that kind of price to be honest. Ignoring the signature (which I don't feel qualified to give an opinion on), even if the blade is genuine (50/50 chance from those pictures imo), it's not in a good state of polish, and the fittings are also not great. 

 

Adding on to what others have said about the tsuba seeming to be stamped - you can tell because it almost looks the whole thing has been shifted to one side, with the rim being thicker on one side and thinner on the other side:

 

Another mild warning sign is that the seller has allowed the blade to be directly put onto a wooden table, without a cloth or cushion. To me that suggests they either don't know anything about what they have, or conversely, know exactly what they have and it isn't worth treating with respect...

On the bright side you 100% can buy a real nihonto if your budget is $1000 (or even better if Euros/Pounds). Either a rather rough katana, or a half decent wakizashi. They are out there, and this forum is a great place to check things before you buy (as you've already done!)

 

Thank you for taking the time to reply and explaining what is wrong with the tsuba, i would like to gather as much knowledge about nihonto as i can. One person said that the blade itself could be a genuine shortened blade with an added signature, so would you have any tips on identifying how old the blade is. Thank you. 

[George KN]

Identifying the age of a blade can be a tricky subject, and something I'm still learning about too. I've only been collecting for a year, and got fairly decent at spotting fakes, but not much else, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt!

 

That being said, for dating purposes signatures can mostly be ignored, as even in genuine blades, gimei (fake/homage) signatures are a major issue (yours definitely seems highly suspect - it's not only really big, but also carved rather poorly). Instead one of the major things collectors rely on to give a general date to a sword is the patina on the nakago (tang). That's why it is so important to never clean it. There are structures and patterns caused by centuries of rust that just can't be replicated, like heavy pitting. There is some evidence of this on your example further down the tang:

 

The file marks, ana, and wear marks from the tsuka (handle) being removed are also worth looking at, and I can't see any red flags in your examples in this regard (although better pictures would be good). The general brown/rusty patina can and is able to be replicated in fake swords, but I've never seen fakes pull off proper pitting and rust structures yet.

 

For reference, here's three of my nakago. The first is from a Shinto era sword (1597-1780), with nice even patina:

 

 


And then here's a wakizashi likely from the late Koto period (pre 1596), but has been partly cleaned (likely to search for a signature). Even though it is cleaned, the structures in the steel show it has been oxidizing for a long time previously, suggesting its real age:

 

 

And here's a gendaito nakago made during WW2, only 80 years ago. A bit more active rust (brown), but a lot less patina (dark brown/black), and none of the rust structures shown above:

 

It is worth noting that lighting makes a huge difference with these pictures though - and why it is so hard to give a definitive answer for your example. Here's all three together and it's quite a bit harder to tell the details:

 

Other than the patina on the nakago, experts (such as many of the other members of this forum!) are able to tell the age of a sword (or at least whether shinshinto/shinto/koto) from its sori (curvature), hada, hamon style, and the shape of various parts. Other clues such as certain kizu (flaws in the steel), and the blade being suriage (shortened) would also suggest a blades age.

 

Here's some links from the Japanese Sword Index I've found very useful whilst learning:

Japanese HISTORICAL AND SWORD ERAS
SWORD BLADE MEASUREMENT
Japanese SWORD FLAWS

That site is honestly great for learning the basics - but so is reading through all the old posts on this forum. 

 

Just a further clarification though - although I've said some of the patina on the nakago in your example seems ok, I'm still 50/50 about the sword being genuine

[Lewis B]

The lower mekugi ana (hole in the tang) is possibly the original one. In earlier swords the holes were punched and look quite different to holes that are drilled or those that were added when the blade was shortened at a later date. The position of the kanji wrt the lower hole does not look right if originally chiseled when the sword was made.

[jason c]

2 hours ago, Lewis B said:

The lower mekugi ana (hole in the tang) is possibly the original one. In earlier swords the holes were punched and look quite different to holes that are drilled or those that were added when the blade was shortened at a later date. The position of the kanji wrt the lower hole does not look right if originally chiseled when the sword was made.

Thank you that is very helpful, how can you tell that the hole is punched instead of drilled just for future refrence.

[jason c]

3 hours ago, Ghoul said:

Identifying the age of a blade can be a tricky subject, and something I'm still learning about too. I've only been collecting for a year, and got fairly decent at spotting fakes, but not much else, so take everything I say with a pinch of salt!

 

That being said, for dating purposes signatures can mostly be ignored, as even in genuine blades, gimei (fake/homage) signatures are a major issue (yours definitely seems highly suspect - it's not only really big, but also carved rather poorly). Instead one of the major things collectors rely on to give a general date to a sword is the patina on the nakago (tang). That's why it is so important to never clean it. There are structures and patterns caused by centuries of rust that just can't be replicated, like heavy pitting. There is some evidence of this on your example further down the tang:

 

The file marks, ana, and wear marks from the tsuka (handle) being removed are also worth looking at, and I can't see any red flags in your examples in this regard (although better pictures would be good). The general brown/rusty patina can and is able to be replicated in fake swords, but I've never seen fakes pull off proper pitting and rust structures yet.

 

For reference, here's three of my nakago. The first is from a Shinto era sword (1597-1780), with nice even patina:

 

 


And then here's a wakizashi likely from the late Koto period (pre 1596), but has been partly cleaned (likely to search for a signature). Even though it is cleaned, the structures in the steel show it has been oxidizing for a long time previously, suggesting its real age:

 

 

And here's a gendaito nakago made during WW2, only 80 years ago. A bit more active rust (brown), but a lot less patina (dark brown/black), and none of the rust structures shown above:

 

It is worth noting that lighting makes a huge difference with these pictures though - and why it is so hard to give a definitive answer for your example. Here's all three together and it's quite a bit harder to tell the details:

 

Other than the patina on the nakago, experts (such as many of the other members of this forum!) are able to tell the age of a sword (or at least whether shinshinto/shinto/koto) from its sori (curvature), hada, hamon style, and the shape of various parts. Other clues such as certain kizu (flaws in the steel), and the blade being suriage (shortened) would also suggest a blades age.

 

Here's some links from the Japanese Sword Index I've found very useful whilst learning:

Japanese HISTORICAL AND SWORD ERAS
SWORD BLADE MEASUREMENT
Japanese SWORD FLAWS

That site is honestly great for learning the basics - but so is reading through all the old posts on this forum. 

 

Just a further clarification though - although I've said some of the patina on the nakago in your example seems ok, I'm still 50/50 about the sword being genuine

Thank you very much that is really good information😁

[Lewis B]

5 hours ago, Lewis B said:

The lower mekugi ana (hole in the tang) is possibly the original one. In earlier swords the holes were punched and look quite different to holes that are drilled or those that were added when the blade was shortened at a later date. The position of the kanji wrt the lower hole does not look right if originally chiseled when the sword was made.

On the drilled holes there is usually a slight ridge, which can be seen unless the the smith has gone the extra mile to file it down. That in itself will leave a slightly different shape to the aperature. Punched holes are done when the tang is heated allowing the punch tool to do its thing. The hole is not created in one step but after the blade is turned over and the punch applied on the reverse side. This process can create another telltale feature of a small ridge of metal inside the hole. Holes created with a punch are quite sharp at the opening and close to perfectly circular. I believe swordmakers had the tools and means to drill the tangs in the mid to late Edo era and on, although I'm not sure how widespread it's use might have been then.

[Jacques]

In my opinion it's a fake. Does the nakago have a shinogi going until the nakago jiri ?

[jason c]

21 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

In my opinion it's a fake. Does the nakago have a shinogi going until the nakago jiri ?

No the blade itself dosn't have a shinogi line going through it.

[jason c]

3 hours ago, Lewis B said:

On the drilled holes there is usually a slight ridge, which can be seen unless the the smith has gone the extra mile to file it down. That in itself will leave a slightly different shape to the aperature. Punched holes are done when the tang is heated allowing the punch tool to do its thing. The hole is not created in one step but after the blade is turned over and the punch applied on the reverse side. This process can create another telltale feature of a small ridge of metal inside the hole. Holes created with a punch are quite sharp at the opening and close to perfectly circular. I believe swordmakers had the tools and means to drill the tangs in the mid to late Edo era and on, although I'm not sure how widespread it's use might have been then.

Thank you for the information😁.

[ROKUJURO]

As Jacques stated. If you look at the width of the SHINOGI-JI in the NAKAGO, you see immediately that it is plain wrong - as is the NAKAGO-JIRI.

[jason c]

19 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

As Jacques stated. If you look at the width of the SHINOGI-JI in the NAKAGO, you see immediately that it is plain wrong - as is the NAKAGO-JIRI.

Ok thank you iv'e decided to turn this blade and invest in a better quality one, thank you for the help😁.

[Jacques]

No nakago shinogi on a shinogi zukuri sword = fake