Legit Kagemitsu?

[Firstdive]

Hi,

 

I´m new here. I got a Katana, and it says it`s from Bishu Osafune Jyu Kagemitsu, and February 1330

I tried my very best to find an obivious mistake, with "Connisseurs Book of Japanese Swords" and the Internet, and my very unexperienced me,couldnt`t find any. Nagako, Kissaki, Hamon and even the Bo-Bi with high ending Maru-Dome, (the same as on the Books front Cover, wich is from Nagamitsu, who shared this ending with Kagemitsu, Backside would have been a Kagemitsu but the engraving makes comparing hard) looks right. I checked the Hada Pattern with a 10x Magnifier, and for my eye also this seems right, but again unexperienced, hard to see and never seen a Katana in real.

The only thing that concernes me, is the Side where the inscription was made. It´s made as a Katana..Wich I heard Kagemitsu always signed his as Tachis, but on the other Hand it`s a late work of him, who knows... :-P

If you judge my Pictures, please be nice, since it`s almost a Livelong dream of me, and I never thought about getting one, and espacially, not such a great one. I knew the risk when I bought it, and honestly it looks too good for a 700 Year old piece, but it would at least make a little crack to my heart if it is indeed a Fake.

The Blade is 64 cm, Total Lenght 92 cm, Sori 1.1cm

 

Thanks in advance for your help

 

Jörg

 

[CSM101]

Just a question: Did Kagemitsu sign with katana mei or with tachi mei?

[Brian]

Jörg,
It's definitely not a fake. It's a real, antique Japanese sword.
Whether the signature is real or not, that's the question. But if you consider how many signatures were faked, it is extremely common and doesn't make a sword fake, just gimei.
The torokusho there suggests it was exported from Japan. That one looks like the original license too...which is supposed to be handed in when deregistering and exporting, so you have to wonder if it left via the proper process...but that's another story. But bear in mind that a sword with potential high end signature seldom exists and sells from Japan without someone having submitted it for papers, or having the signature checked. They aren't in the habit of selling top swords to Westerners for cheap prices unless they are sure they don't have big potential. So without papers, you have to start out assuming it's gimei. Which is likely until proven otherwise.
But even if it is gimei, that doesn't change the fact that the sword is real and antique and likely a few hundred years old. The sword has to confirm the signature, not the other way round.
Could be a mid to late 1500's sword with date added, or totally gimei. You're going to have to get better opinions on the workmanship to work out if it's shoshin or not. Something like an NBTHK meeting or show it to a polisher etc. Nice looking sword either way.

[Firstdive]

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks a lot for your fast reply. It´s great to hear it´s at least an antique, wich is the most important Part for me :-) So, do you think it`s worth the Work and Time sending it back to Japan for an NBHTK Shinsa? It would be hard after all that, giving it again away for months.

I thought also about what you said, no great Sword is leaving Japan without checking it some where, but after everything was done, and I had the Sword in my Hands, I told the Seller I knew abot the Risk, and I wouldent blame him if he sold a known gimei, but he answered me he doesn`t know anything wrong about it. He seemed honnest but also doesn`t mean someone else check it before.

The Registration Card, I Uploaded, is the original Picture from the seller, I got only a copy, and as far as I know, everything was done Propably. It needed to get de Deregistration from The Japanes Cultural Administration, and went through normal Customs Process.

[Lewis B]

As Brian says, nice blade. Although I have issues with the attribution and mei. Depending what you paid, I assume it wasn't priced as an authentic Kagamitsu, you did well for a first blade.

 

Here is an example of Bizen Kagemitsu's tachi mei. Your's is signed katana mei. The boshi is not typical for Kagemitsu or his father Nagemitsu, whom he emulated.

 

You can read more in depth info about this smith here:

 

https://nihonto.com/bizen-osafune-kagemitsu-備前長船景光/

 

[Brian]

Seller in Japan would have papered it if he thought it had a chance of being shoshin. I think you can comfortably assume it's gimei.

[Firstdive]

9 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

As Brian says, nice blade. Although I have issues with the attribution and mei. Depending what you paid, I assume it wasn't priced as an authentic Kagamitsu, you did well for a first blade.

 

Here is an example of Bizen Kagemitsu's tachi mei. Your's is signed katana mei.

 

You can read more in depth info about this smith here:

 

https://nihonto.com/bizen-osafune-kagemitsu-備前長船景光/

 

 

Thanks for your reply!

 

Yes, I knew about that, as I mentioned above, but as I also noted in you Link, wich is close to the one I was reading on NBHTK-AB, he Changeded the direction he chisseled his signature, after working together with some other Smiths (Different ones, Depending on where you read about him), and also the tipping Point from Tachi to Uchi-Katana was exactly at this time, and he was a Leading Swordsmith, wich means for me, doing things first and beeing innovativ, I thought, it could be possible... ?

[Firstdive]

22 minutes ago, Brian said:

Seller in Japan would have papered it if he thought it had a chance of being shoshin. I think you can comfortably assume it's gimei.

So the only concern you have, is the same as I have...It´s simply too good to be true?

[Lewis B]

While the characteristics of Mei can and did change, especially if the smith had a long career, there are some elements in swordmaking style that remained consistent for many makers. The boshi style is quoted as being a kantei feature suggesting it changed little over time. Study the fine details in the blade, compare with others (especially anything dated around the same time) and then ask yourself, could this smith have made this.

[PNSSHOGUN]

The Mei is rather crude and awkward, and would be suspicious no matter the smith presented.

[Brian]

To the Japanese, tradition was everything. If you were taught to make things a certain way, innovation wasn't you goal. Continuing your master's tradition was. That's why we have schools of swordmaking tradition. No-one can tell you for sure that it's gimei, but honestly, there is no way a Japanese seller is selling you a sword that could be high level at bargain prices.
Do you have a relationship with the seller or was this en eBay/website purchase?
Honestly, treasure hunting is a natural part of Nihonto collecting, but it seldom works that way. Did you pay several thousand $'s for it? I'm guessing it was from one of the usual sellers that unloads stuff like this to the West. Again, not a bad sword at all.

[Lewis B]

26 minutes ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

The Mei is rather crude and awkward, and would be suspicious no matter the smith presented.

Well more convincing than this disaster on the usual suspects site.

https://www.supeinnihonto.com/product/nihonto-katana-osafune-ju-kagemitsu/

[Lexvdjagt]

This sword was sold by a known seller that mainly sells swords on eBay. But also some on his own website. I have had experience with this seller before. I would say that the blades he sells without NBTHK papers are most likely gimei if they mention a popular smith.

 

 

EDIT:

I found the original sale listing, and I can confirm that you can assume it is gimei, the seller would not have started an eBay auction at 10$ for a sword that carries such a big name if he even had the slightest doubt that the signature could be legitimate. This seller often sells other swords like Tadayoshi’s without any papers.

 

This blade still is quite good! I would say it is definitely muromachi, I would say mid to late muromachi. But that is just my opinion.

[Lewis B]

Yes I found it too. Not the most reliable vendor but certainly not the sketchiest. Price paid was fair for a decent antique nihonto in koshirae. I've seen a lot less bought for a lot more.

[nulldevice]

2 hours ago, Firstdive said:

So the only concern you have, is the same as I have...It´s simply too good to be true?

Aside from the mei/blade matching which can take a very trained eye to see, if a sword is coming from Japan with a big name but no papers, you can 99.999% assume its a gimei.

 

If the sword had any chance of being real, it would have been sent for papers and instead of a $10 auction, it would've started as a $10,000+ auction. No seller would leave that much money on the table when papering blades in Japan isn't that difficult.

 

It's still a nice authentic nihonto and a lot can be learned from this as your first blade! Enjoy it and treasure it!

[Rivkin]

I would consider late Muromachi as a possibility also.

[Hoshi]

100% Gimei. 

 

Quote

If the sword had any chance of being real, it would have been sent for papers and instead of a $10 auction, it would've started as a $10,000+ auction. No seller would leave that much money on the table when papering blades in Japan isn't that difficult.

 

If it had any chance of being real, with the high-level deki that is expected of Kagemitsu, it would be valued well beyond $100,000, and then and likely go straight to Tokubetsu Juyo. 

 

Here is a genuine signed/dated Kagemitsu nakago for comparison. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Firstdive]

ok, it could be worse  :-)

If it`s a Gimei, it makes no sense to send it to Japan for NBTHK, but since you suggest it`s still an old Blade, is there a way to determine, roughly, how old it really is?

I love to think about the ages it´s gone through, and I want to tell people the truth if I someone asks.

[Firstdive]

10 minutes ago, Hoshi said:

100% Gimei. 

 

 

If it had any chance of being real, with the high-level deki that is expected of Kagemitsu, it would be valued well beyond $100,000, and then and likely go straight to Tokubetsu Juyo. 

 

Here is a genuine signed/dated Kagemitsu nakago for comparison. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks a lot for the Pictures, it`s really hard to get good ones, and I can see now the difference

At least someone, also not too bad, tried to make a real copy, and not only chisseld a famous name on an piece of Junk.

A lot better than a "Kill Bill" Replica

[Nihonto student]

8 minutes ago, Firstdive said:

ok, it could be worse  :-)

If it`s a Gimei, it makes no sense to send it to Japan for NBTHK, but since you suggest it`s still an old Blade, is there a way to determine, roughly, how old it really is?

I love to think about the ages it´s gone through, and I want to tell people the truth if I someone asks.

Dear Jörg,

 

as already indicated by Brian and Kirill sugata fits well in the late Muromachi Period, if I had to bet I would say Tensho (1573 - 1592) but it could also be 20-30 years older.

 

All the best,

 

Giordy

[Jacques]

Gimei at 100%.

[Firstdive]

Just now, Jacques said:

Gimei at 100%.

I fully believe everyone, and it doesn`t change how much I like it. But what Points indicate that?

1. The Mei doesn`t look probably Chisseled and

2. is on the wrong side of the Nagako

(3.) Since it`s from Japan, it´s not realistic to believe it`s not already Judged

and for the sake of learnig, is there more?

 

but, the remaining Parts of the Sword are looking like an Original Kagemitsu should look?

Can I see it as an antique Replica, like a good, antique Copy of, for example an Van Gogh, wich has the signature in the upper left corner?

Made about in the 16th Century?

[Schneeds]

The quality of the work generally serves to confirm the mei. 

 

In the case of a very high level smith such as this, the work would need to be outstanding for the signature to be considered.  It would be extremely apparent to Japanese sellers. Additionally, as Brian and Kirill pointed out, it is consistent with later period work (more than a hundred years later than the signature).  I assume that is based on the sugata and quality of jigane; they are much more knowledgeable than I.  

 

I don't in any way mean that to diminish your blade, I am a novice as well, but to the experienced it would  immediately obvious.  So I just use deductive reasoning as has been mentioned: high level smith with no papers = gimei. 

[Gakusee]

11 hours ago, Firstdive said:

and also the tipping Point from Tachi to Uchi-Katana was exactly at this time, 

No. Wrong  

[Jacques]

Quote

The quality of the work generally serves to confirm the mei. 

No, there are some very well-made gimei

[klee]

Almost looks like the " Bi shu " portion of the mei was original and the rest was removed chisled in by a different person

[Schneeds]

8 hours ago, Jacques said:

No, there are some very well-made gimei

Of course, but if they were the same quality and characteristics, how could you ever be certain?

[Jacques]

2 hours ago, Schneeds said:

Of course, but if they were the same quality and characteristics, how could you ever be certain?

This is where the study of the mei comes into its own.

On the sword disussed here, all is wrong, let's just talk about nakago, we can't talk about the workmanship based on photo.

 

The sugata of the nakago is wrong, Kagemitsu's tachi with an ubu nakago are rare (I know of only 2) and their nakago is long.

 

Mei is inscribed the wrong side, location of the mei should be close to the mune and above the mekugi ana, size of the kanji are wrong (must be smaller)

[Firstdive]

Thanks a lot for all your very nice help!

You gave me a more realistic estimation of the Sword without shattering my Heart.

I understand now, getting a uncertified Sword espacieally from Japan, can`t be a Masterpeice, but for me this was an important point to meet, since from China had me even think more about what it really is, and from the US would mostly mean it`s likely came there through WW2. 

I can now appriciate the Sword for what it really ist, rather then thinking what it possible could be.

 

Great Community here!