paulj

Here's an image of the sword and part of the hamon. Unfortunately, I don't have a decent camera for this type of photography.

Here's the signature. As mentioned, Hawley SU 415 seems to be a match. Most Sukesada signatures shown in Hawley begin with "Bizen" rather than "Bishu" as this one does. The overall length is 76cm and from the tip to notch is 59cm. I'll try to post an image of the entire blade soon.

I recently obtained an old wakizashi in a shirasaya (held together with electrian's tape) from a local veteran's estate. The 59 cm blade has a bo bi groove, nice hamon, etc. It is signed Bishu Osafune Sukesada and has an Aoi mon. The Hawley match seems to be SU 415. However, I can find no information on the Aoi mon for this smith. Any input?

The signature looks closer to the edge than it really is. I'll take some other photos to show more of the tang, etc. I don't have a great camera and used natural light and flash and that created a shadow. The photo was posted correctly the first time. It's not a mirror image. The Mitsu part was always apparent to me but not the first kanji.

I live in Milwaukee and the central library has the 2 volume Hawley in its art reference department and some works on swords. These books may only be used in the reference area but photocopies may be made. I presume most better library collections would have these and perhaps other works as well as auction catalogues (Milwaukee has Sotheby's, Christie's and others) for research purposes.

Thanks, I just got back from the library and looked through the Hawley and found one Uda Kunimune with the matching 4 kanji signature followed by the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th generations from the 14th-16th centuries. Now the question is, which one?

Thanks, the Mitsu was clear but Masa didn't occur to me. Any info on him?

the original post was correct. Here it is again.

I have an old wakazashi and, again, I'm stumped. Any help?

Is there a significance to the use of a kokuin vs. a kakihan? Some resources state that a signed blade with kokuin seal may be made by the swordsmith's apprentice, student or simply have been produced by his foundry. For example, the nihonto site states "(Asano) Kanesane swords which bear a Showa or Seki tang stamp are not considered traditionally made (gendaito)" and the presence of the kokuin does not mean the swordsmith made the sword himelf. I have also seen blades with both kakihan and kokuin as well as blades signed by the same swordsmith, forged in the same month and year (and with his age), one with a kokuin and the other with a kakihan. So, I'm confused. Is there a rule of thumb?

Here's a 2 kanji tachi mei signature of a sword I acquired about 25 years ago. It is in very nice quality army fittings, 68.25 cm blade, with an original field officer's tassle. I can read the second, Mitsu, but the first has me stumped. I also have a general's sword with very high quality standard army fittings with its original general's tassle. The 66.8 cm blade is signed Fujiwara Sukeyuki with a tachi mei. A third army mounted Ansei era sword in my collection has a tachi mei. It is slightly shorter than the others but according to research the smith always signed with tachi mei. Is there a significance to a tachi mei vs a katana mei?