Is this legit Yokoyama Sukenaga?

[BialyLH]

Hello Everyone here,

I have a sword in my colection, supposedly Yokoyama Sukenaga.

Some pictures have been verified by Paul Martin and Ray Singer, They both agreed it looks okay,

yet it doesnt match anything from their collections or experience.

Maybe someone here can tell me more?
Best regards!! 
 

 

 

[Jacques]

I would say it's gimei.

[Geraint]

Dear Daniel.

 

Welcome to NMB.  As I am sure you already know famous swordsmiths are a target for gimei signatures.  Fortunately certain smiths or schools adopted distinctive styles of cutting mei, the Yokoyama are a particularly distinctive school in this regard.  It is therefore relatively easy to find papered examples of this smith's signature and to make comparisons.  Bear in mind that you are looking at several things; the shape of the nakago, the position of the mei in relation to the nakago and the mekugi ana, yasurime and nakago jiri.

 

With those things in mind compare your sword with examples such as this, https://nihontocraft.com/Yokoyama_Sukenaga_Wakizashi.htm

 

Remember that a sword which is gimei is not necessarily a poor blade.  If you wish to pursue studies of Yokoyama school then might I suggest as a starting point this book, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Cutting-Edge-Japanese-Swords-British-Museum/31809028143/bd  I belive one of the JSS/USArt and the Sword volumes is also useful in this regard.

 

All the best. 

[Nobody]

I think the mei is suspicious. The date on the nakago is 弘化元年二月日 (Koka 1^st year, 2^nd month). However, Koka era started from 12^th month, and “Koka 1^st year 2^nd month” did not exist.

 

The attached image shows Sukenaga’s genuine mei at around the same time (Koka 4th year, 2nd month).

Ref. 刀　横山加賀介藤原朝臣祐永 (KA-070515)｜刀・日本刀の販売なら日本刀専門店の【銀座 誠友堂】

 

[BialyLH]

8 hours ago, Nobody said:

I think the mei is suspicious. The date on the nakago is 弘化元年二月日 (Koka 1^st year, 2^nd month). However, Koka era started from 12^th month, and “Koka 1^st year 2^nd month” did not exist.

 

The attached image shows Sukenaga’s genuine mei at around the same time (Koka 4th year, 2nd month).

Ref. 刀　横山加賀介藤原朝臣祐永 (KA-070515)｜刀・日本刀の販売なら日本刀専門店の【銀座 誠友堂】

 

Thats what i was afraid of, unfortunetly my suspcions are coming closer and closer to being truth. Thank you so much for your reply!

[BialyLH]

10 hours ago, Geraint said:

Dear Daniel.

 

Welcome to NMB.  As I am sure you already know famous swordsmiths are a target for gimei signatures.  Fortunately certain smiths or schools adopted distinctive styles of cutting mei, the Yokoyama are a particularly distinctive school in this regard.  It is therefore relatively easy to find papered examples of this smith's signature and to make comparisons.  Bear in mind that you are looking at several things; the shape of the nakago, the position of the mei in relation to the nakago and the mekugi ana, yasurime and nakago jiri.

 

With those things in mind compare your sword with examples such as this, https://nihontocraft.com/Yokoyama_Sukenaga_Wakizashi.htm

 

Remember that a sword which is gimei is not necessarily a poor blade.  If you wish to pursue studies of Yokoyama school then might I suggest as a starting point this book, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Cutting-Edge-Japanese-Swords-British-Museum/31809028143/bd  I belive one of the JSS/USArt and the Sword volumes is also useful in this regard.

 

All the best. 

Thank you for answering! 
Yeah, especially as the sword is not from "reliable" source, it was a risky deal...
Would posting more of a blade pictures help?
Thank you in advance!

[BialyLH]

12 hours ago, Jacques said:

I would say it's gimei.

I was afraid of that, unfortunetly, 

thank you buddy!

[BialyLH]

 

9 hours ago, Nobody said:

I think the mei is suspicious. The date on the nakago is 弘化元年二月日 (Koka 1^st year, 2^nd month). However, Koka era started from 12^th month, and “Koka 1^st year 2^nd month” did not exist.

 

The attached image shows Sukenaga’s genuine mei at around the same time (Koka 4th year, 2nd month).

Ref. 刀　横山加賀介藤原朝臣祐永 (KA-070515)｜刀・日本刀の販売なら日本刀専門店の【銀座 誠友堂】

 

Regarding the date, 

Please note that Im really beginner in Nihonto topic, so my opinion may not be worth anything..

I have a feeling that there is some part of date missing on Mei, 

Knowing that Koka Era started at December 2, 1844 of Gregorian calendar,
could Mei say this, rather than 2nd month? 

I may completly misunderstand the Kanji behind signature, if so then im sincerely sorry! 

Also ive tried help of chat gpt regarding the date,
Here's what it says:

 

"Kōka 1 (弘化元年) runs from Dec 2, 1844 (Gregorian) — the date of era change — through to about mid-February 1845, which is when the next lunar year begins.

The 2nd lunar month of Kōka 1 then falls in late Feb to late Mar 1845.

Only after the lunar New Year (around Feb 1845) does it become Kōka 2."

"So as you can see, Kōka 1 doesn’t end with January or February—it continues through the intercalary month and into March. 
Therefore, a date like 弘化元年二月日 (a day in the 2nd lunar month of Kōka 1) corresponds to sometime in March 1845 (Gregorian)."

Its a GPT only so it may be in complete wrong,

Best regards,
Daniel

[Jacques]

I didn't found an example with the kikumon ichi on that side. 

[BialyLH]

4 minutes ago, Jacques said:

I didn't found an example with the kikumon ichi on that side. 

Yeah, me neither, thats why its so fascinating, yet Ray and Paul both looked at the blade together with Mei, and they matched it, so its a big unknown for now...

[Nobody]

30 minutes ago, BialyLH said:

............................................

I have a feeling that there is some part of date missing on Mei, 

Knowing that Koka Era started at December 2, 1844 of Gregorian calendar,
could Mei say this, rather than 2nd month? 

.......................................................................................

 

 

I do not understand what you are saying. But anyway, the first day of Koka era was

Koka 1^st year, 12^th month, 2^nd day (Lunar calendar in Japan at that time).

 

The day is equivalent to

January 9, 1845 (Gregorian calendar), or

December 28, 1844 (Julian calendar).

 

[BialyLH]

9 minutes ago, Nobody said:

 

I do not understand what you are saying. But anyway, the first day of Koka era was

Koka 1^st year, 12^th month, 2^nd day (Lunar calendar in Japan at that time).

 

The day is equivalent to

January 9, 1845 (Gregorian calendar), or

December 28, 1844 (Julian calendar).

 

Thank you for explaining, 
i may have messed up the Julian calendar and Gregorian, 
None the less,
Everywhere i search there is said that 2nd month of Koka 1 is a valid date,

Can you please explain why it is not in your opinion? Im open and curious for learning

Thank you in advance Sir!

[Nobody]

Frankly, I do not understand why you think that 2nd month of Koka 1 is a valid date after reading my comment.

 

[Bruce Pennington]

53 minutes ago, Jacques said:

I didn't found an example with the kikumon ichi on that side. 

 

45 minutes ago, BialyLH said:

Yeah, me neither, thats why its so fascinating, yet Ray and Paul both looked at the blade together with Mei, and they matched it, so its a big unknown for now...

 

I have 2 on file with katana mei like this:

 

1842 found on nipponto.com website

 

1846 from tsguiart.com site:

 

[BialyLH]

3 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Frankly, I do not understand why you think that 2nd month of Koka 1 is a valid date after reading my comment.

 

Sir, 
i never said that I think that its valid, but sources say so, and asked for your explanation.

If you are not going to help and keep being passive-agressive please do not reply at this topic.

I tried to keep everything as friendly as possible, 
Im new in this topic and trying to gather informations, learn etc.

Thank you,
Daniel 

[Nobody]

Frankly, I do not know how to explain more than my previous comments.

I said that the first day of Koka era is Koka 1^st year, 12^th month, 2^nd day.

So naturally, Koka 1^st year started on the 2nd day of 12^th month and ended on the last day of 12^th month. The following day is Koka 2^nd year, 1^st month, 1^st day.

How can Koka 1^st year, 2^nd month exist?

[Geraint]

Easy Daniel.

 

Moriyama san is one of our most respected members and is generous with his time in assisting us.  As he has said the first year of Koka does not start with the beginning of the year but in the twelfth month, ie there is no second month of the first year of Koka.  I see Moriyama san has beaten me to it.

 

All the best.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think Moriyama-san is referring that normally when era changes in Japan, the month count do not reset. And he explained that Lunar year in Japan at that time was already at 12th month. I believe what Moriyama-san is referring that Kōka 1st year was only 1 month long period.

 

For example when Reiwa started in May 2019 the first month of 1st year of Reiwa was 令和元年五月.

 

I am not into these newer swords but I have legitimate signature examples of Kōka 2, 2nd month. In similar way when Kōka changed into Kaei mid year at the end of 2nd month the earliest Kaei date on swords I have is Kaei 1, 3rd month.

[BialyLH]

Just now, Jussi Ekholm said:

I think Moriyama-san is referring that normally when era changes in Japan, the month count do not reset. And he explained that Lunar year in Japan at that time was already at 12th month. I believe what Moriyama-san is referring that Kōka 1st year was only 1 month long period.

 

For example when Reiwa started in May 2019 the first month of 1st year of Reiwa was 令和元年五月.

 

I am not into these newer swords but I have legitimate signature examples of Kōka 2, 2nd month. In similar way when Kōka changed into Kaei mid year at the end of 2nd month the earliest Kaei date on swords I have is Kaei 1, 3rd month.

Thank you so much Jussi!
You explained it spot on, i understand it much better from this point of view.

I appreciate it a lot sir, 
Thank you!
Daniel

[BialyLH]

4 minutes ago, Geraint said:

Easy Daniel.

 

Moriyama san is one of our most respected members and is generous with his time in assisting us.  As he has said the first year of Koka does not start with the beginning of the year but in the twelfth month, ie there is no second month of the first year of Koka.  I see Moriyama san has beaten me to it.

 

All the best.

Sure, 

I just didnt understand Moriyama san reaction, maybe there was some misunderstanding between us two, 

Sir Jussi below explained it spot on though, i feel i understand this topic better now.

Thank you,
All best
Daniel

[BialyLH]

8 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Frankly, I do not know how to explain more than my previous comments.

I said that the first day of Koka era is Koka 1^st year, 12^th month, 2^nd day.

So naturally, Koka 1^st year started on the 2nd day of 12^th month and ended on the last day of 12^th month. The following day is Koka 2^nd year, 1^st month, 1^st day.

How can Koka 1^st year, 2^nd month exist?

Thank you Moriyama San for giving your help as much as i could understand it.

Sorry if previous message seemed rude, we probably misunderstood eachother. 

I appreciate your knowledge, just did not understand you.

Thank You
All best
Daniel
 

[Jacques]

7 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

 

 

I have 2 on file with katana mei like this:

 

1842 found on nipponto.com website

 

1846 from tsguiart.com site:

 

Both are irrelevant as the kikumon is not engraved above the mei as it is on the sword discussed here.

[Alex A]

Edit, didn't realise you already owned it.

 

[BialyLH]

1 hour ago, Alex A said:

Edit, didn't realise you already owned it.

 

What do you mean, sir?

[Alex A]

Hi Daniel.

 

Id assumed you were thinking of buying this sword and i made a comment that instead, you should buy an example that had already attained NBTHK papers.

 

Sukenaga is a big name and its right to be suspicious of swords without papers.

 

You could go around in circles here or send it to Shinsa. At the end of the day, the only opinions that matter are those of a Shinsa. Its just how it is with more expensive swords made by popular smiths. No future buyer will give a hoot about anything said elsewhere and i mean that with respect as there are knowledgeable folks about.

 

 

[Alex A]

This thread had me thinking today, just a realisation. 

 

Not talking about anyone mentioned in this thread. 

 

Over the years seen swords that look close, without papers, at certain dealers. Dealers lay it on thick that they they think the sword is legit but have not sent it for Shinsa as too much hassle, too much expense.

 

You only have to ask one question. 

 

Will you guarantee it passes Hozen?

 

Reality hits with a resounding "no". Don't think i ever heard a yes, maybe for a dozen swords.

 

This hobby sometimes described as a minefield, sometimes Shark infested.

 

Just memories.