Assistance Please Date And Mei Seem To Be By Different People

[b.hennick]

I was asked to translate this signature. The date seems to be done with a thicker chisel and more square formal writing than the name which seems to be done by a thinner chisel in a more fluid style.

For the date I got Jowa go nen ? (Masa) gatsu hi. 1349 does not seem possible for tang that I'm seeing. 

The name eludes me except for the third last (Yo) and the last character (Saku). Your help is appreciated. 

[Kronos]

Echizen Ju,..

 

not sure on the rest.

[John A Stuart]

Nengo is Teiwa 1345-49. Northern court reckoning. As to the smith 千代鶴 Chiyotsuru ????

John

[John A Stuart]

Not sure of place either Saimae 裁前 ??? Can't be right. John

[Nobody]

越前住千代鶴作 - Echizen ju Ciyozuru saku

貞和五年正月 - Jowa/Teiwa 5th year, January

[b.hennick]

Thanks for the translations. Any comments on the possibility of two different people signing this blade? 

[flemming]

Hi Barry

Since the actual swordsmith is not mentioned in the inscription in favour of the generic "Chiyozoru", I might expect that the signature was applied by someone else in the workshop if it is Chiyozoru ha work. In that case, it possibly need not be the same man applying the nengo either. Had this been signed "Kuniyasu" or another member of the group, then I would expect his work on the signature in favor of daimei etc., but that is just a guess.

That being said, I think you are right that the nengo was not applied by the same person, for a multitude of reasons, including tagane size as you point out. I have handled similar dissimilarly signed swords without too much doubt of the nengo unless it is out of sync with the sword itself. It seems the date is a little early for the Echizen Rai group which was I think a decade or three later getting in operation than your date shown. I guess the question is, is the sword Echizen Rai group? Also, I cannot be sure from the photo, but is it possible the nengo kanji are fresher with respect to the rest of the nakago? 

 

Lloyd Flemming