Hizen School? Fake mei maybe?

[Kren]

So i'm new to the community and I've recently picked up the study of Nihonto (been a couple weeks now). I've sat and spent a lot of time just reading your guys' posts, looking at pictures, studying online, etc. I thought I would test myself by just browsing whatever I could find online and see if:

1) I could translate mei (which has been proven to be difficult and time consuming.)

2) Identify different styles of hamon

3) Try to use all information that I can to try and piece together a story. I.e. If someone said they have a signed blade and that's it...could I figure out roughly who made it and maybe around what time...At this point I hope to be "on the right track".

 

Here's what I need help on:

I have the best photo I can get of the mei from this sword. I guessed it to say Hizen Kuni Ju Tadayoshi...What do you guys think? Also, from all the different pictures I've seen of authentic mei, this particular mei looks really sloppy with a really skinny chisel it appears which doesnt look like the chisel used in most of the mei i've seen from Hizen School.

 

 

2nd Question (This doesnt fall in the realm of translation help but it goes with this same sword so I dont know if I should have made a new topic elsewhere of if this is okay.) So I'm trying to identify this style of hamon and I can't quite find what I think it should be or if I'm even close.

 

I'm guessing it to be either gunome or gunome mixed with choji...so muromachi era-ish? This kissake looks to be O-Kissake but I dont have measurements on it. 

 

 

Sorry for the poor quality photos of the hamon and grain of the steel. Best I could find.

 

All in all, if I was right with the translation, this hamon doesnt seem to match up with anything Hizen School that i've seen and the thin chisel on the mei doesnt seem to match any mei from Hizen School....Even very little specific details like the chisel direction doesnt seem to match. I guess my overall consensus is that this is a fake....or at least a fake mei....I dont know what to make of the blade itself. Please help me and correct me where I am wrong or point me in the right direction.

 

Sorry for the long post and thank you so much taking the time to help me along in my new journey. I'm still doing the studying before purchasing my first sword yet :D

 

Thanks,

Kren

[PNSSHOGUN]

Kren, you are correct on all of your deductions, well done. Hizen-To are one of the more distinct styles to recognize and there is essentially nothing visible on this sword that corresponds with Hizen work. You have made a very accomplished first post and it will be interesting to see what you end up purchasing as your first sword.

[Geraint]

Dear Mitch.

 

Just one observation to add to what John has said.  It's very tempting to think in terms of a single description for a hamon.  Many swords require more than just one name to describe what is going on.  For example you might see something like, " suguha becoming notare towards the monuchi", Or, "gunome midare with some togari".

 

One rule for sure, nothing about this hobby is ever simple!

 

All the best.

[ROKUJURO]

With the KIZU in the KISSAKI and below, this blade does not look very desirable. 

[Kren]

What kind of hamon would you guys say that this is and who would you guess would make such a blade? This might be a wild thought but the blade does look authentic as well as the rust on the tang looking to be very aged. Is it likely that the blade is in fact Muromachi timeframe and that the blade was forged with kitae-ware and to bring some sort of value to the sword, they forged the Tadayoshi mei? Is that type of kizu (flaw) kitae-ware and did it happen in the folding process? It definitely doesn’t look like a crack.

[Kren]

Bump

[SteveM]

Hello Kren,

 

It is a kitae-ware. It is a result of the forging process. It was not intentionally added to the sword. 

 

Many swords have a small kitae-ware. It is usually not considered a fatal flaw, but in this sword's case, with the kitae-ware running for so long into the kissaki, it might be considered problematic enough to keep it from getting papered. 

 

Tadayoshi is a big name, and therefore the signature is often copied. 

 

With kantei, I would suggest looking at the features in the opposite order that you have above. In other words, start with the shape and the hada and the hamon, etc... and then lastly look at the signature. The signature often seems like the most crucial part of the sword, and for sure it is a very important part, but let the sword itself first reveal its quality to you. Or at least, train yourself to think; Is this a good sword? If so, I wonder who made it? 

 

Edit: It does look like a real antique Japanese sword. The signature was added by someone trying to tart up the sword. It could have been added hundreds of years ago. 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Kren, I would like to suggest that you approach kantei (sword appraisal) in the same order that NMB member Markus Sesko recommends in https://markussesko.com/2015/02/06/kantei-introduction/

 

You might notice that Markus doesn't even bring up the mei, in this article. Why? Because the vast majority of sword mei are gimei - fake!

 

I've lost count of how many books Markus has written, but he's one of the real experts, that we all can learn from.

[Kren]

Yeah, I wouldn’t put much emphasis on it either but for this example, I sort of used it as supporting evidence in my claim that it was a fake since the hamon didn’t match the alleged mei even and the mei wasn’t even close to any of the authentic mei. In the future I’ll be sure to take note.