Can someone identify this sword??

[atomicfrogg]

Hi: was wondering if anyone can comment on this sword. Looks like different flower than cherry, gold accents, bamboo scabbard, one side of blade engraved. Any help greatly appreciated. Was only able to download the one pic, have more. Tryed to download more, but site would not take. Probably something i am doing wrong. Thanks

 

Solomon M.

[Mark]

it is a tachi or slung sword. from the picture i would guess it is a Showa period (1926-1945) sword

[atomicfrogg]

Great, is there more you could tell me with more pics, heres signature.

[Jamie]

Fixed this one for you.

[Mark]

made by Kunihiro a resident of Hizen province, so the blade may be older

[atomicfrogg]

Thanks, read top to bottom or b to t ? heres another

[Stephen]

read t -b

 

Hizen Ju Kunihiro

[sanjuro]

Stating the obvious here, but the blade was obviously made as a katana since it is signed katana mei, rather than as a tachi. The mounting seems later than the blade if the signature is genuine, so its a remounted katana. Common enough practice in the Meiji period.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

He's not Hizen Kunihiro working around Shoho (1664)

[atomicfrogg]

Hello:

 

Blade is....not.....Hizen Kunihiro? What about engraving?

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

What about engraving?

 

 

Hideous

[Stephen]

What Jacques is saying its not the Kunihiro from 1664.

[atomicfrogg]

Thanks Steve: I take it Jacques does not like artwork.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Solomon m :|

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Solomon, sorry to be blunt but this is not artwork. Might be the horimono has been added later to hide flaws. Would you like to post a closer pic of the suspension cords ? The tsuba has a retention-system hole that is puzzling me...

[Grey Doffin]

Hi Solomon,

What people are getting at:

The signature of your sword doesn't match those of authenticated examples in our references. What's more, the characters are cut clumsily (the gap between Kuni & Hiro is especially bothersome to me). While it is possible that the signature is by some unrecorded, later smith, it is more likely that the signature is a gimei; it's a forgery. Forged signatures are very common with Nihonto, and Hizen Kunihiro is well enough known that forgeries are to be expected.

The horimono (artwork/carving) is very poorly done, nothing any self respecting smith would allow on his blade. Sometimes horimono is put on a blade decades or even centuries after it is made to cover/remove a defect that has surfaced due to repeated polishing; this is a possibility here. It is also possible that the horimono and questionable signature were done at the same time, not terribly long ago, to make an otherwise uninteresting sword more desirable to the unsuspecting.

None of this can be know for certain, at least not by me. Bottom line, though, is that this sword likely isn't a treasure or even close.

Grey

[nagamaki - Franco]

It's not always possible to change a persons point of reference, however, it can at least be demonstrated what is possible in hope that they will see the differences for themselves.

http://www.sho-shin.com/naotane.htm

[atomicfrogg]

Grey: Thanks for the straight up assessment!

 

 

Solomon M.

[atomicfrogg]

Here is picture of hangers

 

Solomon M.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Ok, there's no Mon (nor apparently a retention system...).

 

Thanks Solomon.