Soshu no Masatsugu? (相州住正次)

[kyushukairu]

Hello all,

I'm fairly new to this forum, and would like to thank you all for the wealth of information which you have contributed and continue to do so. I've already learnt so much in the short time I've been a member.

The purpose of my post is that I recently purchased what I believe to be a Soshu no Masatsugu wakizashi and would like to learn more about it. My first question is whether anyone can provide me with any information on this smith, and secondly whether the signature is correct/real.

 

Thank you in advance,

 

Kyle Shuttleworth

[hxv]

Kyle,

 

You will need to post pictures of:

 

1. the entire bare blade

2. the nakago on both sides

3. the hamachi

4. the boshi

 

Is the blade mitsu mune? A close up picture of the mune will help.

 

The registration paper (which should have been kept in Japan) doesn't tell you if the signature is shoshin or gimei. It just gives physical description.

 

EDIT: I saw the nakago you just posted. I have not dug into my reference books, but my first impression is gimei. Here is why I think so. If I were naive and simply took the bottom nakago ana as the original, the mei is completely in the wrong place. More pictures of the blade as I suggested above will help.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[k morita]

Hi,

 

The mei says Nissyu(Hyuga province), not Soshu.

[J Reid]

I agree with hoanh. Mei placement is definitely NOT where it should be. Where it is currently, would have been above habaki, originally.

[kyushukairu]

Hoanh, yes, it's mitsumune (see munemachi photo). Is this indicative of a particular era or school?

I just posted the registration paper for clarification of the signature. The reason why I have it is because I'm living in Japan and purchased the sword here.

Thanks for clearing that up, Mr Morita. It's interesting because where I live now isn't too far from Hyuga (modern day Miyazaki)

Hoanh and Mr Reid, I think you gentlemen may be correct. On nakago 'A', if you look closely at the file marks you'll notice that they are consistent from the bottom of the nakago until the third ana (from the bottom). And although there are other file marks above it, they only appear on one side and look like someone attempted to file it but then stopped.

My question is why would someone later sign it? Could it possibly have been done by the person who shortened it?

 

Kyle

[Geraint]

Hi Kyle.

 

There are sword inscriptions that record the fact that a blade was made by a smith and then shortened by another but as yours simply has the signature then that is unlikely. Much more likely that it is gimei with a signature added simply to enhance the value of the sword. This does not mean that the sword is without value of itself, sometimes mei are removed and the sword then submitted for papers however this is probably not a course of action you should consider with this one.

 

Enjoy it for what it is and what it can teach you.

 

All the best.

[hxv]

Kyle,

 

Fuganata and mitsumune are typically associated with Soshu swords, hence my question. I am pretty certain your sword is gimei, but that by itself does not preclude the sword to be a Soshu sword. You will need to ascertain that question as a separate issue.

 

Regards,

Hoanh

[Marius]

Looks like a re-tempered blade or one made to look like o-suriage. Please note that the drops off rapidly below the hamachi. Unless that's just the hadori polish.

 

Kyle, if you want to show us the boshi and not just the kissaki, you must wipe off the oil and maybe experiment with light and angles so that you can catch the nioiguchi. Not easy, but feasible :-)