Jim Lewis Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 This one measures 12.5 inches. We were told upon purchase that it was a "ladies' sword." It is, I think, the ugliest scabbard I've ever seen. It is lacquer, with pieces of red coral inset into it. The handle of the blade is laquer with diagonal bands of alternatig gold and silver strips with a phoenix menuki on one side and a large red coral flower carving (lotus?) on the other. A larger piece of coral is set into two rings (one is now missing (?!)) and acts like a hinge. Why I don't know. The blade itself is quite attractive. Unless that one slash on on side of the tang is a signature, it is unsigned. The hole in the tang (mekugi?) is larger than it needs to be. The last two pics (next post) is a certificate that I think came with this one, though it may be associated with the next one. Quote
Jim Lewis Posted December 4, 2007 Author Report Posted December 4, 2007 Here are close ups of the tang and the certificate. Quote
Bungo Posted December 4, 2007 Report Posted December 4, 2007 actually I think I can see the kanji " kane " , it's not mumei as the registration paper says. mil the flying ronin Quote
Guest reinhard Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 The registration paper states, there is a mei on the omote: KANE (and) MEI (with the same Kanji as for mei = signature) This seems somewhat strange. Maybe Moriyama-san can help. reinhard Quote
Nobody Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Hi, The registration says only "Mumei". 無銘 Quote
Bungo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 " KANE (and) MEI (with the same Kanji as for mei = signature) " I read... from the same paper........ Mu ( and ) Mei but on the actual nakago, I think I see trace of the kanji " kane " around the hole thingie.......... milt Quote
Guest reinhard Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Sorry for creating some confusion here (should have looked twice). Moriyama-san was right of course: the paper says, it's mumei, and so is Milt: The first Kanji can be read as KANE (partly covered by the mekugi-ana) and the second is illegible. The paper does obviously not belong to this tanto. reinhard Quote
Bungo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 now if we can have the picture set in a proper position ( vertical ), and Rich ( Trickie ) the picture doctoring expert may be able to " sharpen " the focus, then we'll have fun trying to figure out what the second kanji could be. milt the flying ronin Quote
Nobody Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Though this is only a guess, the mei could be "Kanefusa". 兼房 Quote
sencho Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 like looking at shapes in the clouds :lol: .... what kanji are you seeing for Kane, Milt??? Cheers... Quote
Bungo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 like looking at shapes in the clouds :lol: .... what kanji are you seeing for Kane, Milt??? Cheers... to the right of the hole, you'll see Kane and I think Nobody san got the second kanji, I think it's fusa too. Nice tanto. milt the flying ronin Quote
Nobody Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 The paper does obviously not belong to this tanto. The paper says that the blade length is "5 sun 5 bu 5 rin (= 16.8 cm)". If the actual blade lenght of the tanto corresponds to that, the paper still might belong to the tanto. It might be possible that the paper says munei because the mei was too illegible to read. Quote
Bungo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 just a side note..................some sellers insist those registration paper is a certificate of authenticity. and really get upset when told it is not so. milt the flying ronin Quote
sencho Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 KANENARI....？ 兼成 KANETOKI....? 兼辰 .......... Quote
Bungo Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 takes the Kapitan to muddy the wasser............... I see the radical for fusa ( Fu ), the rest is obsure. Make any sense ? milt Quote
Jim Lewis Posted December 5, 2007 Author Report Posted December 5, 2007 Two things I think I've learned here: 1. Vertical is the proper way to photograph the sword? 2. This stuff can be hard to read? I did say in the opening commentary that I wasn't certain that the certificate referred to this sword or not. It was inserted into my sword book with no annotation. I suspect it applies to the sword I'll be posting here later today. I'll reproduce it again there. I can't tell from the comments. Is there a consensus here? :D Quote
Guest reinhard Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Just a notion: There is a consensus of having none. reinhard Quote
Stephen Posted December 5, 2007 Report Posted December 5, 2007 Yes to 1 & 2. were pretty sure reg. its not with the second tanto. Looking forward to #3. so far your 2 for 2 in nice little tantos Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.