Thank all of you for your comments, they are much appreciated.
Mike (komonjo) told me to always assume an unpapered sword is gimei, until proven otherwise. I’m okay with keeping this sword, even if it’s gimei. What I seek in this forum is that proof.
Though a rank novice “collector” of Japanese swords, I have avidly collected other types of edged weapons for over 50 years. With nothing but my “spidey sense”, I have a hope this mei is genuine.
Regarding the absence of the Rai, I was silly enough to ask “AI” . Here’s what the robot said:
“Signature Variations of Izumi-no-Kami Fujiwara Kinmichi
Common Signatures
The swordsmith Izumi-no-Kami Fujiwara Kinmichi, particularly in his first generation, is known for several signature styles. The most recognized include:
Izumi-no-Kami Kinmichi (和泉守金道)
Fujiwara Rai Kinmichi (藤原来金道)
Use of "Rai" in Signatures
The term "Rai" in his name signifies his connection to the traditional Rai-style of swordsmithing. It is important to note that:
The first generation Kinmichi often used "Rai" in his signatures to highlight his lineage and craftsmanship.
The use of "Rai" was a significant aspect of his identity as a swordsmith.
Instances of Exclusion
While the "Rai" designation is prevalent, there are instances where the signature may not include "Rai." However, these cases are less common and typically occur in specific contexts or variations of his work.
In summary, while the "Rai" is a key part of his identity, there may be rare exceptions where it is omitted, but these are not the standard practice for his mei.”
Regarding the atypical chrysanthemum, I lifted this from a commenter on the WAF Forum:
I checked Markus Sesko's swordsmith list and found an interesting post on the second son of Kanemichi and that smiths son:
"KINMICHI (金道), 1st gen., Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615), Yamashiro – “Echigo no Kami Fujiwara Kinmichi” (越後守藤原金道), “Fujiwara Rai Kinmichi” (藤原来金道), second son of Kanemichi (兼道), he tried to revive the Rai school and used therefore the supplement “Rai” in his signatures, according to the genealogy of the Mishina family, he received the honorary title “=Izumi no Kami= (和泉守) on the seventh day of the twelfth month Bunroku four (文禄, 1595) but we only know blades that are signed with the title Echigo no Kami, the honorary title Izumi no Kami was only in use from the 2nd gen. onwards, some sources list the 1st gen. also with the signature “Izumi no Kami Rai Kinmichi” but this should be considered as mistake, he died on the seventh day of the twelfth month Keichō five (慶長, 1600), jō-saku
KINMICHI (金道), 2nd gen., Kan´ei (寛永, 1624-1644), Yamashiro – “Izumi no Kami Rai Kinmichi” (和泉守来金道), “Fujiwara Rai Kinmichi” (藤原来金道), “Daihōshi Hokkyō Rai Kinmichi” (大法師法橋来金道), “Daihōshi Hokkyō Rai Eisen” (大法師法橋来栄泉), he received the honorary title Izumi no Kami on the sixth day of the fifth month Genna two (元和, 1616), later he entered priesthood and took the gō Eisen (栄泉), his Buddhist priest-rank was that of a hokkyō, he carved also a chrysanthemum and a chrysanthemum on a branch onto his tangs, gunome-midare, wazamono, jō-saku"
Is it possible to look at photos of this mei, as well as its file marks, hamon, etc… to see if there is some other disqualifying feature that prevents this sword’s mei from being authentic? Or must it be personally handled by an expert?
Thanks again for your comments,
J Ambrose
