Shinkai Sukehiro collaboration gimei?

[pcfarrar]

A friend recently picked up a Katana signed by Sukehiro and Shinkai. The blade itself is in poor condition, someone had it chrome plated and its been badly buffed. We think it might have a chance at restoration.

 

Anyone have any thoughts if it's gimei or not? It's similar to the example of a collaboration given in the Shinto Bengi oshigata but the date is different.

 

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I'm not sure but it seems that Shinkai and Sukehiro worked together only for two blades, a katana and a wakizashi. The katana was made in Enpo 3 and was listed int he Bengi Oshigata:

 

Concerning the waki Tanobe sensei (Token Bijutsu n° 606) says that:

 

It is speculated that the wakizashi is one of his works around Kanbun 10 inferring from his mei. The hamon of the wakizashi is gentle notare consisting of five notare (Sukehiro’s peculiar formation) and the jigane appears to have been forged by Shinkai inferring from the hataraki of ji-nie and chikei. Sukehiro became to sign his mei in running style from February of Enpo 2 (1674).

[pcfarrar]

There must be quite a few of these collaboration blades around because we also have another in Liverpool museum. However the Liverpool museum one is definitely gimei, and the date matches the oshigata in the Shinto Bengi.

 

Anyone have any other thoughts?

[Jacques]

I think that this blade is gimei, look at the oshigata below and be attentive with the second and third kanji, they are differences in the chisel strokes.

 

[Brian]

Just an amateur opinion here, but I think that this is one that needs to go to shinsa whether popular opinion says gimei or not. The strokes might not match exactly, but they seem pretty fluent with little hesitation and weakness we see in many gimei. It is also a long mei to forge, and would have to be a real expert to tackle a fake mei like this. The forger would also have to know he did co-operative work with Sukehiro, the style of signature, and probably have access to a shoshin one to copy.

Much easier to just gimei Shinkai on his own, unless a faker was an over-achiever

Nakago jiri and yasurime are close, but the work will have to speak for itself.

I'm not saying it is shoshin by any means, just saying that on a blade of this potential, it is an ideal shinsa candidate.

Good luck with it, it would be a great find.

 

Brian

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

The best for comparison (and pleasure for the eyes). Both blades are juyo Bunkasai.

 

 

[Darcy]

I'm reserving an opinion until I can spend some time looking at it closely.

 

I would say this though, someone either had super huge balls to make this if it is a fake (haha), or else it is an out of the park home run.

 

Because of the importance of such a find if it is legitimate, I think that you must submit it to shinsa even if everyone says it is gimei.

 

The Nosada I used for kantei a while back, almost everyone said it was gimei and it passed Hozon without a problem.

 

If you have the Nihonto Koza, start by going to the section on Kajihei and see what he did if there are examples of him faking either smith (I think there may be). Kajihei was kind of a lazy genius and I gather he made the mei good enough to pass though he was capable of extremely good fakery in this regard. I'd suspect him first of something like this, he certainly had the balls.

[Darcy]

To contradict myself on the time issue, after a quick look I am leaning towards gimei, just on the Shinkai signature. The strokes seem to lack some confidence, and the first character of the Inoue seems poorly laid out. The Shin character looks particularly weak.

 

Still, verify this one and I'll keep out hope for you.

[Guest reinhard]

The Sukehiro mei is in all probability gimei. Though it is done in Sukehiro's style during later Enpo period, there are some differences, which cannot be made consistent with his style of chiselling. Apart from the slightly uncomfortable feeling it gives, two of the most obvious deviations can be seen in the nengo: The kanji for Ho in Enpo and the kanji for Gatsu are too far from Sukehiro's norm.

Since Darcy brought up the subject of Kajibei, I remember Tanobe-San saying, that in Kajibei's well-done gimei you sometimes find a little hint, as if he was saying: "Catch me if you can!"

[pcfarrar]

Thanks everyone for the replies. The sword should be polished in the next few months so I'll try and get some pictures. The current condition as mentioned previously is dire, but maybe it will come back.

Should be interesting to see how good the quality of the workmanship is, maybe it is a Kajihei!

[KarlPeterSmith]

I presented this pic of your 1678 (twin signed) blade yesterday between two examples (from both Smiths) from the same year... and with an extra 2 examples from the following year (1679)... yet today found this information to have been removed.

 

So here it is again.

 

Your blade is real, I said it.

 

Put it in for Shinsa.

 

 

 

[Mark]

can Peter reply and let us know what happened and the results?

[pcfarrar]

can Peter reply and let us know what happened and the results?

 

Sorry I can't remember exactly what happened to it, I think it barely survived the polish, was very tired and not much hamon left.