Bryce

G’day Guys, I was a bit surprised by the pushback I received about this topic. One of the most asked questions on this forum is “is my blade gimei?” and there are usually no shortage of eager volunteers ready to shout “gimei!”. What I was trying to show is that this is a very complex question. Smiths changed the way they signed over time and at any given time there may have been more than one person signing for the same smith. In the case of Gassan Sadakatsu there were at least two people (including him) signing his blades. You cannot compare any mei to a single oshigata and decide it is gimei. So what if Sadaichi was signing some of Sadakatsu’s blades, they are still shoshin. As far as I know this was common practice across all schools, across all time. I have seen no evidence that Sadakazu was a better smith than Sadakatsu, or that Sadakatsu was a better smith than Sadaichi. I wonder if some of the criticism I have received was because of a theory that early Sadakatsu blades were somehow better than later ones. Again I have seen no evidence of this. A blade from 1943 is every bit as good as one from 1933. I have also seen several Tanobe sayagaki for Gassan School blades where he has stated that it was the work of the son, rather than the father as signed, so he has no problem with disclosing that information. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Neil, I only have bits of the book, not the whole thing. Any good? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Neil, This entire hobby is based on opinion and speculation, because the people involved in the production of these blades are all dead. What you are really asking is why anyone should take notice of my opinion. Fair enough, there is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism. I have focused on studying Gassan Sadakatsu blades for the last two years. I am not asking you to just believe me. Look at the evidence I have posted and make your own conclusions. Below are some further comparisons, signed by Sadakatsu on the left and Sadaichi on the right. These are tantos dated 1925 and katanas dated 1921 and 1926. These are all papered by the NBTHK to Sadakatsu. Lastly I will finish up with a comparison of a Sadakatsu tanto dated 1933 on the left and one dated 1940 on the right. Yes there are some changes in his mei over time, but the basics of how he forms his kanji doesn't really change. Interestingly the spine of the nakago on the 1933 tanto was signed by Sadaichi who carved the horimono. Remember, I am only saying these were signed by Sadaichi for his father. I am not saying these were made by Sadaichi. Sadaichi being his father's apprentice would have been involved in the production of all of his father's blades in some form. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Someone asked me what date Sadakatsu daimei/daisaku by Sadaichi began to appear. The answer is very early on. The earliest blade I have seen to date, which I believe was signed by Sadaichi for his father, was dated 1925. Below are two Gassan Sadakatsu signed tanto blades dated 1933. The one on the left was actually signed by Sadakatsu. The blade on the right I believe was signed by Sadaichi for his father. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Steve, What about this bit. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, AOIJapan have this Gassan Sadayoshi tanto on their site. It has a Tanobe sayagaki stating it is the work of the nidai Gassan Sadakazu. I agree that this is likely to be the work of Sadakazu rather than the elderly Sadayoshi. Recently we have seen a blade by Sadakatsu where he signed as the sendai Gassan Sadakatsu. Was there a previous Gassan Sadakazu (before the famous one) or is Gassan Sadayoshi the shodai in this case? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Bruce, Here is another one from a 1940 dated Gassan Sadakatsu tanto. They all follow the same theme, but each one is slightly different. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Bruce, He did use a stamp, but the stamp changed over time. The first photo you posted was one I put together showing how his stamp changed from the Keio period left to late Meiji right. I have just realised that this example dated Genji 2 is the earliest example (just) of his kokuin I have seen so far, so a possible explanation is that this was his first attempt at a hot stamp. I still don't like some aspects of this mei though. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Thanks to Simon posting some screen shots of a sword that sold on ebay in 2005, we now have another example of these blades. This one is dated 1939. The other 7 examples are dated 1940, 1941 and 1942. The Japan Iron Sand Steel Industry Company changed its name from the Japan Iron Sand Industry Company in February 1940 to better reflect its status as an industrial steel manufacturer. This change is confirmed when you compare the nakago of the 1939 blade (left), with a 1940 blade (right). Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Here is an odd Sadakazu I found on the net somewhere. The sugata looks OK, it has ayasugi hada, NBTHK papers and a Kanzan sayagaki, but I don't think the mei looks right and it has a very odd kokuin. The mei recorded on the sayagaki isn't exactly the same as on the blade, so I wonder if that shirasaya isn't from a different blade? I would say it is probably gimei, but the NBTHK has papered it? Cheers, Bryce

Thanks Simon, That is a cracker! Another example made with steel smelted by the Japanese Iron Sand Steel Industry Corporation. Most of these were made in 1940, but this one is dated 1939. Cheers, Bryce

Thanks Jacques, In the absence of more detailed images, my opinion is that the differences you highlighted are all well within the limits of variation I have seen in Sadakatsu's mei. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Jacques, What are the characteristic marks that you aren't seeing? Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Gassan Sadakatsu was very consistent in the way he signed. He almost always signed "kinsaku", occasionally "saku" only, these are the first blades I have seen not even signed "saku". This is also the first time I have seen him sign as the sendai Gassan Sadakatsu. Also on custom ordered swords he usually writes "Tame" then the person's name. I am not for a minute suggesting these blades are gimei, but am simply trying to determine the significance (if any) of him changing the way he signed for these blades. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, The fact that there are at least 3 examples found now suggests to me that we are missing something in the translation. I don't think these were commissioned by an individual, but were made by Sadakatsu to commemorate something? Cheers, Bryce

Small correction to Nobody's translation. Looks like Showa 12 so 1937 not 36. Cheers, Bryce

Congratulations Noah, It looks 100% right. Even has a Gassan habaki. I would love to see some better photos when you have time. Have a look over at the Gassan School thread as David suggested and see if you can make out what sort of hada it has. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, Here are the photos in case the link is broken. It looks to have very little distal taper, so not sure how "good" it would feel in hand. I have read several times about mythical blades being able to be coiled up. In this case it is into a small box, in the case of Andrea Ferrara blades from Scotland it is being able to be wrapped around the waist and Damascus steel shamshirs being able to be coiled up in a hat! In all cases it doesn't stand up to logic. To be able to perform a cut or thrust effectively a sword needs to be fairly rigid. If it is flexible enough to coil inside a small box or hat, it isn't going to be much use in a fight. Sword blades aren't very bulky to ship, so I don't see any reason you would want to coil it into a box to send. If it was rigid enough for a thrust, imagine the explosive potential a long blade would have if compressed into that small of a space. As the above article goes on to say, it is an exaggeration. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Guys, I have to agree with Jean on this one. Compare below a nice, gendaito nakago from the same year as the subject blade. Craig can tell us if we are wrong. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Bruce, I think the two kao you posted above are by Gassan Sadakatsu, rather than Sadakazu. The one on the left was late in his career and the one on the right early. Below are the four different kokuin I have seen on Sadakazu blades papered by the NBTHK, with the earliest on the left grading to latest on the right. Some people think that number 3 (going from left to right) is gimei, but the NBTHK do paper these. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Andrew, I haven't found any evidence that Sadakazu preferred a certain style of habaki, unlike his son Sadakatsu. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Andrew, Here are some shots comparing your blade to papered examples from the same time period. The forger put some effort into copying Sadakazu's mei and kao, but the kokuin and date side is way off. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Andrew, Yes these photos are better. What stands out to me? Basically, the way that almost all of the kanji are formed, the kao and the kokuin don't conform with how Sadakazu did it. It is a bit like comparing hand writing. Compare your example with some of the others I posted in the "Works of Gassan Sadakazu" thread. The other part of the story is the work in the blade. Unfortunately I can't see any details of the hada or hamon in the other photos of the blade you posted. You need to be able to see this to decide if the blade does or doesn't look like the work of Sadakazu. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Andrew, I am in no way an expert, but I have spent a fair amount of time studying Gassan Sadakazu blades recently. Based on what I can see in your photos, I think your blade is gimei. This means that it is a genuine Japanese blade, but wasn't made by Gassan Sadakazu. Someone has forged the signature of Sadakazu to pass this blade off as Gassan. However, there is a lot of variation in the way Sadakazu signed. Are you able to post some better photos of the blade's nakago (tang) showing the mei, kao and kokuin in crisp detail? Below are the photos you posted showing your blade. Cheers, Bryce

G'day Colin, well done! I completely missed your daisho, but I did win the British 1796 sword presented to a survivor of the famous charge of the light brigade, which was a few lots earlier. Cheers, Bryce