grapppa Posted October 13 Report Posted October 13 This mei is on a 1943 dated gunto (sho wa ju hachi nen hachi gatsu). The tang was heavily rusted; I removed some to discern the mei. There are only 2 characters on the signature side. The second character is "mitsu 光", I believe. Looking up Slough for similarly signed swords, I thought this may be a Yasumitsu ( made by a disciple/student - not the master as he died in 1941!). Thank you in advance. Quote
Mark Posted October 13 Report Posted October 13 maybe Yoshimitsu (義光), Shōwa (昭和, 1926-1989), Gifu – „Yoshimitsu“ (義光), civilian name „Yabushita Fujio“ (藪下不二夫) but just my guess. 4 Quote
Bruce Pennington Posted October 14 Report Posted October 14 康光 Yasumitsu vs 義光 Yoshimitsu I'd go with Yoshimitsu, too. One for comparison: Quote
grapppa Posted October 14 Author Report Posted October 14 Thank you Bruce and Mark. I think the suggestion of Yoshimitsu is spot on. Now the question remains, which one My guess this would be the RJT smith; I will be looking at the nakago for a "na" stamp (following from Bruce's "stamps of the Japanese sword" document). The blade measures 25 3/4" (65.4 cm); sori 3/4" (19mm). I dont know the RJT specs from 1942-43 so further research is warranted. Quote
PNSSHOGUN Posted October 15 Report Posted October 15 Given the style of the Mei and Yoshi - 義 character , it is more likely one of the Seki Kaji Tosho. The RJT Yoshimitsu smiths used different variants of Yoshi in their Mei. Pictures of the blade would be needed for confirmation either way. 1 Quote
grapppa Posted October 15 Author Report Posted October 15 Thank you John for your insights. Here are a few pics of the sword. From your comment I guess you are referring to Shitada Yoshimitsu... Quote
ROKUJURO Posted October 15 Report Posted October 15 Laying it down on pavement is really one of the worst things you can do to a sword. Even if it were completely rusted, this should never be done! The other thing is that we don't see much except the SUGATA. Making good photos of swords isn't easy and takes a lot of experience. Try to post images that are: - well focused, not foggy or blurry - made with a dark, non reflective background for good contrast - made with light from the side (may not apply for HAMON photos) - made directly from above (not at an angle) - made with correct orientation (vertically tip-upwards, especially NAKAGO photos and TSUBA) - without HABAKI but showing the MACHI and NAKAGO JIRI - made in high resolution to see details - showing details (in magnification) like BOSHI, HAMACHI, HAMON, HADA, NAKAGO JIRI etc. or the fine work on TSUBA - presented as cut-outs so very little background is shown If you cannot provide good photos (..."these photos are all I have from the dealer...."/..."I do not have a good camera but only an old mobile phone...." ), DO NOT POST BAD ONES. They will not be helpful. Quote
grapppa Posted October 15 Author Report Posted October 15 Thank you Jean C for the advice - will never, ever put a sword down so again! Here's additional photos Quote
grapppa Posted October 15 Author Report Posted October 15 +1. I took these close ups to see if there is a "na" stamp; the pitting is too extensive to discern (first is the omote side; second ura). If there are others that would be helpful; please let me know. Thanks again Quote
ROKUJURO Posted October 15 Report Posted October 15 Paul, we would see more if the images were - made with a dark, non reflective background for good contrast - made with light from the side (may not apply for HAMON photos) - made directly from above (not at an angle) - made with correct orientation (vertically tip-upwards, especially NAKAGO photos and TSUBA) - presented as cut-outs so very little background is shown 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.