STRANGE MEI KANESADA ON NAKAGO

[Bruno]

Hi all,

 

I was a bit surprised to find a strange mei engraved on a nakago, it is said signed KANESADA. To me it looks like the mei has been cut up from another nakago and put on this one.

I am not sure having read about such a process before, but it is the first time I see such a "curious" mei. Is it what I tink, a gimei one, or as the seller says rather than loose the signature, the two character "KANESADA" was cut out then inlaid back into the tang to help keep its identity.

 

I'll be grateful to have your wise opinion about that.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://cgi.ebay.fr/KOTO-Japanese-SAMURA ... 439b99e2bd

 

Regards

[Bruno]

I just want to add that I am not looking for purchasing this sword, it is just about curiousity and better nihonto knowledge.

 

Thanks

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Hi Bruno.

 

Search for Gakumei (額銘)

[Bruno]

Thanks Carlo!

 

Gaku-mei: Framed signature, in this process, the metal on which a blade's signature is inscribed is excised in a rectangular section, thinned, and then reattached to the reshaped nakago.

From The connoisseur'sbook of Japanese sword-KOKAN NAGAYAMA

 

I found the article that states that this process wad also used to excised famous mei to reattached it on a different nakago to give the sword a higher value. In that case it is gimei.

 

In the case of this sword, I am wondering if it could be gimei as KANESADA was a wellknown smith? it seems that even the nakago has been shortened it was a mumei nakago at first and that the signature has been cut up from another nakago.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards

[Grey Doffin]

There were 2 methods used to preserve a mei if a sword was to suffer o-suriage: gaku-mei and orakashi-mei. Orakashi-mei is when the mei is preserved on a rectangular piece of the old nakago dangling from the new nakago, which is then bent back on itself and inlaid into a rectangular recess on the other side of the new nakago. On average, orakashi is less likely to be a gimei than gaku, simply because it is still part of the original nakago. A gaku-mei can come from any sword.

Of course, any kind of mei can be gimei. The same caution taken with the mei on an ubu sword should be taken on gaku-mei and orakashi-mei.

Grey

[Marius]

In the case of this sword, I am wondering if it could be gimei as KANESADA was a wellknown smith? it seems that even the nakago has been shortened it was a mumei nakago at first and that the signature has been cut up from another nakago.

 

What do you think?

 

Hi,

 

this has been said on this Forum many times, but it is always good to reiterate:

 

anything on eBay signed with a great (or just good) mei should be treated as gimei, unless accompanied by a relatively new (not before the 90-ies) NBTHK or NTHK certificate.

[Bruno]

Thanks Grey and Marius.

 

I supposed that it could be gimei because of the famous name. I think it is always interesting to have new examples of gimei or not, in order to train our amateur eyes. It was more the aim of my topic to be honest.

 

BTW, never heard about orakashi-mei before this topic, it was also one of the goal, learning a bit more on nihonto. I hope that at least few people were interested in our discussion, I was!

 

Thanks guys.

[Nobody]

BTW, never heard about orakashi-mei before this topic, it was also one of the goal, learning a bit more on nihonto.

To be precise, that is orikaeshi-mei (折返し銘).

[Bruno]

Thanks Koichi M!

 

Very accurate as always!

 

Regards

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Why that sword should be gimei? It is not Kanesada Nosada for sure but the name Kanesada was used by numerous smiths, in both Koto and shinto era. A blade must be judged on its own characteristics.

 

 

anything on eBay signed with a great (or just good) mei should be treated as gimei, unless accompanied by a relatively new (not before the 90-ies) NBTHK or NTHK certificate.

 

 

New false origami is not an impossibility

[Grey Doffin]

Why that sword should be gimei?

Gaku-mei and orikaeshi-mei imply importance; you don't go to the trouble to save the signature of an unimportant smith. If this mei doesn't match that of someone important the blade wasn't made by someone important and you can assume gimei.

Grey

[Bruno]

To me it could be gimei because the nakago seems to have been just a bit shortened and I do nor see where the mei could have been engraved first on it. It appears to me that this nakago has never had any signature at first. And I always keep in my mind that" 80% of mei are gimei even more when famous smiths were implied".

 

Of course I can be completly wrong, it is just an amateur's thought.

 

 

Regards

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

 

If this mei doesn't match that of someone important the blade wasn't made by someone important and you can assume gimei.

 

 

Fujishiro lists five Kanesada only in Koto, also i would not say it is gimei before having checked these smiths.

[Jean]

Fujishiro lists five Kanesada only in Koto, Also i would not say it is gimei before having checked these smiths.

 

All the more that it can be an unlisted smith as Fujishiro listed only the 5OOO best ones and that some of them have escaped his attention.

[John A Stuart]

In the sue-Seki school there are 8 smiths named Kanesada. 10 in the Kanesada Ha. 4 in the Hachiya Ha. 1 in the Echigo-Seki Ha. This is just in the koto period and doesn't include all. Not a simple task. John

[Bruno]

Yes as you said John "not a simple task"!

 

Maybe the key is more on the way the mei has been changed than whose smiths is implied?

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I would add in case of fraudulence, a real mei should be inserted on a blade which is counterfeited and not a wrong mei.

[Grey Doffin]

If this mei doesn't match that of someone important the blade wasn't made by someone important and you can assume gimei.

The point I'm trying to make here is that if the mei doesn't match any of the illustrated mei in the references (any of the smiths important enough to make it into Fujishiro, say), it is likely gimei. If we were talking about a regular mei (not gaku) it could be from a lesser known smith who signed Kanesada, but a gaku-mei needs to match someone important.

Of course there are always exceptions. Someone performing o-suriage on a run of the mill sword once upon a time probably did do a gaku-mei for whatever reason, but I've never seen it; gaku-mei I've seen have always been big names. And there probably was at sometime a smith who didn't have a great reputation but who did fine work and one of his swords received a gaku-mei to preserve his work; that's possible. But, these slim hopes are nothing to spend good money on; the great majority of gaku-mei that don't match the references are fake.

BTW, there are 2 variations of gaku-mei gimei. In the 1st a real mei from a broken or burnt sword is let into the nakago of a different, undamaged sword, and in the 2nd a fake mei is let in. Neither is something we want to collect.

Grey

[cisco-san]

As long as this sword has not been judged from an well experienced guy I am not sure if it is really a gimei - two reasons for that:

1: the color of the inserted steel (mei) looks like very similar as the color of the nakago

2: the habaki seems to be a niju stile habaki - which could indicate a better blade?!

 

Of course I am not sure with my theory it´s just one more idea.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

1: the color of the inserted steel (mei) looks like very similar as the color of the nakago

 

I wonder if in the case of Gakumei the colour wouldn't be different because the rust of an Osuriage nakago bearing the mei should be much older then the part in which it's inserted in. Would they ?

 

Anyway,

 

A) the signature still present quite crisp border but no sign of original Yasuri (as far as I can see...)

 

B) It is possible something has been deleted on the bottom of the nakago (image rotated, still Katanamei). If this is thrue, they better have choose orikaeshi in case of a good one.