brentlewiis

The research I’ve done indicates that the mei compares favorably with those found on known good examples. I didn’t see any of the usual indicators of gimei. I bought it for a pittance, because I liked it and thought it had merit. Not because I necessarily believed it to be Yanagawa school work. Is the school of such standing that applying a false signature would result in a return on investment greater than the effort required to effect the deception?

Seems to me that rather a large issue has been raised by questioning the legitimacy of the mei. Perhaps one could be prevailed upon to share one’s reasoning? I would much prefer an informed discussion.

The software rotated all the images 90 deg. clockwise. Don’t known why.

My apologies for the discourtesy of my poor photography, and the mis-orientation of the products thereof. These failures notwithstanding, perhaps one could share one’s reasoning for finding the legitimacy of the mei questionable?

Hello friends, I acquired a tsuba a while back and am interested in what others might think. I believe the mei is that of Yanagawa Naoharu. The examples of that school/artist’s work that I’ve seen have mostly been in soft metals with amazingly fine nanako. This one seemed atypical in having a plain iron ground.

Please forgive my poor photography. My phone does not have macro capability

My initial thought was unokubi zukuri but there is no evidence of a yokote and something I read suggested that such blades were likely cut-down polearms or imitations of them. Kanmuri-itoshi was not considered due to the point shape. I initially thought that the relatively short nakago might be the result of its having been shortened just above the original Ana. In any event the rust on the nakago is very dark and consistent.

I agree that it could also be Naginata zukuri. There are some features that suggest it might be a copy of another, perhaps older blade—there is an area on the katana ura where the soe-bi has the appearance of having been polished away but I cannot perceive any corresponding irregularity of the blade’s surface that would indicate the removal of a flaw. The Bo-hi lack the curved foot and traditional point of Naginata-hi. There is no sign of machi okuri. If the nakago was shortened it was very long ago. The overall impression is of an old sword that has not been terribly well cared for but has also not been chipped or nicked or significantly corroded. If made as a katana, perhaps early nanbokucho?

Hello friends, I recently added an old sword to my collection. It is naginata naoshi, with deep black rust on the tang. Temper is generally narrow with many ‘irregularities’. The blade is hard for me to read due to condition. Nagasa is 24.5 inches. The kissaki is obscured so I can’t tell if there is a boshi. Please forgive my general lack of tech savvy. Any thoughts/opinions regarding age/school? A cut-down naginata or born this way?

Thank you so much. I overlooked the entry in Slough.

Hey there... I recently acquired a katana in gendai mounts and am having trouble with the mei. The nagasa is 27 inches and the blade is magnificently forged with many effects. No date, no stamps, just a 3 character signature; blade has ubu ha and strong machi. Mounts all have matching single digit assembly number. http://s350.photobucket.com/user/brentlewiis/library/ Any assistance in translating this mei would be greatly appreciated.