kunikiyo...gimei or not gimei

[johnb]

this one measures 77cms to the mune machi an 22cms for the nagako. Choji with loads of sunagashi activity up near the yokote. The signature looks like the same hand as the tachi signed kunikiyo on page 101 of Kanzan Sato's "The Japanese sword". I don't think for a moment that it is the same hand, so I'm pretty sure it's gimei...But then again.....Any thoughts on this one, as always, would be much appreciated. Not a recent find...this one's been in the cupboard for a couple of years.

Again I'll have to put the last two picks on a reply.

 

Thanks

 

John B

[johnb]

the last 2 pics

[johnb]

Sorry Chaps...one more.

 

John B

[Darcy]

There are four generations listed in Fujishiro, and I'm inclined to think there are several more that are not listed. No time right now to go into the evaluation, but the quality of these smiths varies from Jo-saku down to Chu-jo then I'd speculate later generations falling off the map would be quite average.

 

So if not matching one, there is a good chance of matching one of the later generations.

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi John,I strongly believe that the Mei of your sword is a -poor made-Gimei.Even Kajihei (I own the two vol.books about him) faked much better.The Mei was definitely not made by one of the first 4 generations:I have looked at dozens of examples in my books.Hawley lists a 5th gen.one (KUN 366),with no pics in my books.However he would have used the Kiku-mon ahead of his Mei.When the Shodai got the Daijo title in 1627 he was also made "Imperial Swordsmith" with the permission to use the (imperial) Kiku-mon on his swords.From that time on,there is no sword from him and his successors to be found without the Kiku (alone or followed by "ichi").Ludolf