Jump to content

Help with mei please


DARREN

Recommended Posts

Hello to you all,newbie here so go easy! ;)

 

 

Would appreciate all help possible please in translating the follwing mei on my Katana.The sword was purchased from the Lanes Armoury(Brighton, England) owned by the Hawkings brothers and was described as being late Koto era.

 

Congrats on an excellent site and hope to be a regular visitor here

 

mei2.jpg

 

mei.jpg

 

A few pictures of the Hamon and Kissaki

 

 

 

Hamon2.jpg

 

Hamon.jpg

 

kassiki.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darren,

 

Good to have you here. I edited the first post. The pics uploaded fine, but due to the large size it converted them to links instead of displaying directly.

 

Just wanted to ask who cleaned the tang on this one? It's a pity, because cleaning the nakago is one of the big no-nos of the Nihonto world. Hope it was done before you got it. The patina and rust on the tang (nakago) is very important to judging the age of a sword, and far better to have a rusted and uncleaned tang even if the mei is unreadable, than one that has been ground or filed to make the signature readable.

 

At a bad (and novice) guess, I would say Noshu ju KaneYoshi? Not too sure about the Kane though.

Haven't tried the date yet.

 

Regards,

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Brian and thanks for the welcome.

 

I'm afriad I have to own up to cleaning the nakago in my impatience to get a better look at the mei etc and yes, I feel guilty as sin.I must state though that at no stage were any abrasive materials used just a bit of Brasso and elbow grease,it was only cleaned around the signitures and heavy rust (almost black) and pitting remain extensively.......I will not touch it again! :oops:

 

I hope to post some further pictures of the blade and some more technical(blade length etc) info very soon to help with further appraisal.I recently bought 'the connoisseurs book of Japaese swords' by Kokan Nagayama to do a bit of self research but to be honest being a novice the choices are mind boggling!

 

 

Once again,a big thanks for the welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darren,

 

Nope..that is pretty much fairly accurate. The original patina on the nakago is THAT important to the value of a sword. :(

There are people that specialise in repatinating tangs, but they are not common, and it is an expensive job. Looks like you lost a lot of the pitting too, which will never match the rest of the tang.

You aren't the first to do this though...and will not be the last, so consider it an expensive lesson learned. At least some others will be warned hopefully.

I once had a nice katana where the previous owner had sandblasted the nakago in an effort to read the mei. I eventually sold it off as there are no decent guys to repatina here, and it was getting to me more and more.

Anyways...looks like a nice blade otherwise, and let's see if we can get you more info on your sword and anyone who can read the date.

 

Regards,

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Darren,

As Peter said an interesting sword. While I dont think you have halved its value by cleaning the nakago you certainly havent done it any favours. One of the keys to judging the age of a blade is the colour and condition of the nakago so cleaning it not only makes it look unsightly it also makes dating more difficult.

With regard to the blade itself. personally I cant judge with any certainty from the photos. The hamon is ok for Mino and seki (Noshu) If I had to guess earlist would be Sue-mino (1470-1590) but I am more inclined to put it late shinto. it is always difficult trying to judge from photos, with few exceptions it is very difficult to capture detail of hada and hamon. Where are you based? I know you bought the sword in Brighton do you live in the south?

I would strongly recommend joining the Nortern Token Society, although they meet in Manchester they do have country members who recieve their newsletter. There a lot of keen students who would be happy to help you through the early stages of collecting and study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nakago has not been altered shape wise and like I say only had a very light polish around the signitures.......I do understand the error of my ways now though but hey ho, no use crying over spilt milk!

 

I live in Blackburn Paulb and joing the northern Tokein society would be ideal for me.

 

 

Thanks to all :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second kanji is the difficult one. Did you take a look at Rich's excellent page at http://www.nihontokanjipages.com/koto.html ?

With the sword in hand, maybe you can see more than we can. I was also looking at Ei... and thought maybe Eiroku, but it is just a guess.

Nice example of a Mino sword though, and I like that tsuba and fuchi that you posted in the other thread! :)

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Brian, the second Kanji is causing a problem,resembles nothing on that list.Its surprising how difficult it is to the novice and untrained eye,everything looks different in the books etc! :?

 

Thanks to everyone for their time and input to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been hesitating to reply, because I did not find any reasonable conclusions. And I am still unsure.

 

At first, I read as follows.

??三年十月日 (October in the 3rd year of ??)

 

The first Kanji looks like Ko (康). So I naturally imagined Koo (康応). It is the same period of 1st generation Kaneyoshi. But there is a BIG problem. The 3rd year of Koo never existed. Koo era was ended at March of the 2nd year.

 

I have not got any answers yet. But I am almost sure that the first Kanji is not Ei (永), though I am not so sure that it is Ko (康).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I'd go with "Ei" too. Maybe Ei-kyo. Mid 1400s. Which would point to the nidai Kaneyoshi. Or if Ei-sho, there was a mino Kaneyoshi that worked around 1500.

 

Hamon is sanbonsugi. It certainly looks mino-den muromachi (wide shinogi ji. less pronounced sugata. coarse hada.)

 

Also, Darren, this guy is definitely mino-den, no need to look at yamato or bizen kaneyoshi.

 

There are few togi outside Japan than can handle a repatination (cleaning effectively altered the mei. they might also suggest removing the mei entirely.) You have enough of the blade left to make a close call on the smith. The mei is not the most important thing in kantei.

 

Then figure out:

 

How much do you like the blade? Restoration is very expensive. You might even end up spending more than the blade is worth.

 

In the U.S. I know Moses (nihontoantiques.com) handles repatination. One of the best guys you can deal with. Good luck.

 

mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi Darren,

I have just today see your message.

As far as my knowledge reach is say it reads Noshu ju Kaneyoshi an dated Keian san nen, 1650, the second kanji of the date is not clear so it could also be Keio san nen, 1867, but looking into the sword and at the hamon it lloks to me to be Keian, the hamon suggest it is made by a smith of the Mino Seki Kanemoto school. It is a typical example of the sanbonsugi hamon of this school. Being very regular it must be of a later period of this school which started about 1530.

Hoping this will help you.

greetings Yoshii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

 

Interesting sword as I have come along few months ago across a nijimei tachi Kaneyoshi (Mino kanji for Kane) which a strong Yamato flavour.

 

Zenjo Kaneyoshi went to Mino end of Nambokucho, beginning of Muromachi. As a lot of Mino smiths, he was coming from Yamato and said to be a son of Tegai Kanenaga. he is part, as Honami Koson has stated, together with Akasaka Senjuin, of Yamato Mino Mono.

 

I am quoting Honami Koson :

 

"Zenjo Kaneyoshi an the Akasaka Senjuin Group worked in the strict Yamato tradition. Therefore works of the smiths belonging to these two groups can be considered the same as Yamato works, such as those of the Yamato Tegai smiths."

 

If you check with Kokan Nagayama book, this blade does not belong to the Kaneyoshi smiths group. The boshi of this sword is Jizo, typical Mino, far from Kaneyoshi boshi (which is untypical Mino).

 

IMHO, it is not a smith from the 15th century, rather 16th/17th century;

the hamon is typical Mino, Gunome midare and perhaps based on but not sansbonsugi, definetly too irregular. Furhermore, looking from the munemachi the blade does not seem to have been polished a lot of time.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoshii,would I be correct in stating that the patina and pitting of the nakago appears far too 'weathered' and old for a blade circa 19th century?

 

Jean,the blade was described as being Koto era on purchase( I fully understand this can NEVER be taken for granted,especially when date Kanji are unreadable) so your estimate of 16/17th century may be close.

 

The hamon is good and strong,peaking to nearly touch the shinogi in places.One or two areas of small ware(is this down to over-polishing or fault at forging stage?) in the hamon otherwise its aesthetic appearance I think is very good!

 

Fascinating and diverse range of comments and much appreciated......please keep 'em coming.

 

 

 

 

A belated happy new year to all board members! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...