Jump to content

tachi help please


Markdd

Recommended Posts

Hi,

Been a long time lurker here,I know very little about Japanese swords so please be gentle with me I do have 6 at the time of writing that I have picked up over the years but would love to become more competent in them.

Bought this sword from a online dealer recently assume most swords that are for sale are known about in the collecting world?

Would love some views on what I purchased Mei is iv'e been told is Shigeuji Saku which appears to be to early a maker for this blade so did they have later dependents that used this name or is it gimei?

thanks in anticipation for any input.

Mark

w93-10.jpg

w93-bizen-style-shin-shinto-itomaki-no-tachi-koshirae.jpg

w93-5.jpg

w93-7.jpg

IMG_1558.jpg

IMG_1555.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mark, and welcome.

 

What you have isn’t a tachi but a Katana in Handachi koshirae (mountings that are half Katana, half tachi). The shape and temper line look shinto (maybe Kanbun ~1670s era though the patina doesn’t look that old). Much is obscured by the condition. There seems to be a bad ware (opening) in the nakago that is ubu (unshortened). Others will comment on the validity of the mei (signature) but the mei looks crisp, thus quite recent. Shigeuji lived in the 14th century, so what you have is almost certainly a Gimei (fake) signature, unless some Shinto smith signed that way too. Actually looking at it again, with a rather deep sori ( curve), I’d lean towards Genroku Shinto shape, so basically 18th century.

 

I would suggest reading a few books now that you have swords. :)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2021 at 5:28 PM, 16k said:

Hi Mark, and welcome.

 

What you have isn’t a tachi but a Katana in Handachi koshirae (mountings that are half Katana, half tachi). The shape and temper line look shinto (maybe Kanbun ~1670s era though the patina doesn’t look that old). Much is obscured by the condition. There seems to be a bad ware (opening) in the nakago that is ubu (unshortened). Others will comment on the validity of the mei (signature) but the mei looks crisp, thus quite recent. Shigeuji lived in the 14th century, so what you have is almost certainly a Gimei (fake) signature, unless some Shinto smith signed that way too. Actually looking at it again, with a rather deep sori ( curve), I’d lean towards Genroku Shinto shape, so basically 18th century.

 

I would suggest reading a few books now that you have swords. :)

Hi,

thanks for your help you mention patina and the Mei,

What affect the patina{rust] on the Nakago assume damp getting in to the handle? what if the sword was never in a damp place would the Nakago not rust as much, you mention the crisp Mei, I assume rust would wear it down so if it has little rust and is not disassembled often the Mei may not wear down ,it is very tight in the handle. also the first part of the Mei is not as sharp as the other 2 could it not have been done at a different time.

when the last smith used this Mei what happened to his successors did they no longer work in the industry or just that they are not recorded.

Thank Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi again Mark,

 

Patina is natural and is mostly affected by the hand of the owner. It is customary to hold the sword unprotected by the nakago when you clean the sword. Sweat and any humidity from the hand will naturally add patina to the nakago although, yes, external factors also play a role (climate, etc). So patina is a very important asset when judging the age of a blade. It isn’t always accurate of course, but on an ubu sword like yours, it’s a good indicator of age. moreover, don’t forget that the only part being polished from time to time is the blade, not the nakago. You should never temper with the patina of a nakago or the sword will lose a lot of value.

 

So judging by the patina, this isn’t a very old sword (note: not being very old doesn’t mean bad. There are excellent Shinshinto swords).

 

The signature doesn’t look too good, honestly. It lacks precision and consistency I think. The file Mark being very visible is another clue to a rather recent sword.

 

Finally, the katana is an evolution of the tachi. I don’t think I’m making a mistake by saying they appeared after that particular swordsmith lived. So if I am correct, Shigeuji would have made a tachi, not a Katana. Besides, most of the swords from that age have been shortened, yours haven’t. So the conclusion is probably Gimei.

 

Which, again, doesn’t necessarily mean a bad sword, just a false signature.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...