A potentially Gimei Gassan. What do you fine people think of this?

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

Greetings, good people of Nihonto Messege Board!

 

I always thought my very first topic would be in the Izakaya forum,

 

where I finally introduce myself, a random person just all of a sudden showed up there and started typing random stuff, properly to everyone,

 

and more importantly explain in what kind of stage of Japanese Swords learning I am,

 

but I just can't resist sharing this peculiar sword I saw tonight with everyone, alongside a very little research of my own on signed Gassan.

 

(Multiple sources in PRC posted this for sale at 4600 dollars americano without any certification, but I don't know if the sword itself is in PRC.)

 

 

As we can all see, this is indeed a very beautiful Ayasugi-Hada sword.

 

However, as is one of the conundra of Japanese Swords appraising,

 

a precious Koto with very fine Hada is sometimes rather hard to tell from a Shinto or even Shinshinto,

 

and I am truly stumped by this.

 

There are so many schools that make Ayasugi-Hada swords throughout the history of Japanese swords,

 

Gassan, Mokusa, Naminohira, Hoju and so on,

 

even the later appointed Living National Treasure, Gassan Sadaichi, was once a known Gimei maker in the record of Fujishiro Yoshio Sensei. 

 

As for the signature, I compared this with more than ten different signed Gassan including a designated Important Art Object, but failed to find anything alike.

 

However, it suddenly dawned on me that there might be something wrong with this Nakago.

 

If this is indeed from the early Muromachi period, like the signature implied, then there should be more pitting corrosion and rusting in general on the outskirts of Nakago than the inside,

 

a phenomenon that, if we pay enough attention, is then everywhere to be found on Japanese swords, even with Shinshinto or Gendaito from Showa.

 

(I first learned this in Nakahara Nobuo Sensei's book. Yes, I am aware that many of his views are highly controversial, but he does have some valid points on spotting Gisaku.)

 

This Nakago, however, is suspiciously evenly rusted, and almost without any pitting corrosion.

 

If this Nakago is tempered with artificial rust, then the authenticity of its signature is in question, too.

 

Because I have great concern about the whole Mumei Kiwame system,

 

It has always been my dream to obtain an affordable, signed, and most importantly, stunning Koto before Muromachi,

 

this sword looked like it at the beginning, but I am afraid I will have to dream on.

 

What do you think of this sword? Is the Kitae-Hada Koto-like? Does the Nakago look at least 400 years ago?

 

Do please share your precious opinion. Thank you!

 

(Some would argue that Utsuri is a telltale sign of Koto, but I think someone capable of making this stunning sword would also be able to make Utsuri,

 

just like people in Shinto, Shinshinto or even Gendaito period.)

[Cola]

Not currently in Japan, and no papers I suppose? If it is koto and looking like this, it should easily be able to get papers, so why would the seller not do that?

The third picture looks possibly acid treated to enhance the hada.

As a starting collector, I would be very cautious. 

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

Just now, Cola said:

Not currently in Japan, and no papers I suppose? If it is koto and looking like this, it should easily be able to get papers, so why would the seller not do that?

The third picture looks possibly acid treated to enhance the hada.

As a starting collector, I would be very cautious. 

 

Indeed. I would assume this sword failed its Shinsa at NHTHK, and that's why it's without paper and at this price.

 

(I'm not sure if this sword is physically in PRC, though. Dealers here rarely photograph swords this well. These photos could be from a Japanese dealer.)

 

And yes, the Hada on the Shinogi is almost as clear as below. Not impossible for a traditionally polished sword, but also a little suspicious.

[Rivkin]

Clear picture showing sugata would help a lot, but otherwise - I see nothing obviously wrong with the attribution.

Weak hamon, ayasuhi hada - not too many other options are here. Nakago is ok. Not burnishing above shinogi is a choice, and often a fine one.

Theoretically it is possible that with detailed photographs the signature comes out as very weird and its Muromachi (Tembun) Gassan with a gimei Gassan signature.

Such things do happen - mumei from birth and then someone quickly "corrects" the omission and we have a genuine blade with a horrible writing. Another possibility it has a hagire, running off hamon or other issue the seller does not want to show.

 

But again it is most likely Muromachi Gassan.

[Jussi Ekholm]

It is to be noted that there is huge variance in accepted Gassan signatures. Unfortunately I wont be able to check my resources at home until next week but I should have 40+ Gassan signatures for pre-Edo swords.

 

I will admit off the bat I would agree that signature might not be stereotypical. However if the work looks like Gassan as it seems to look, then I dont personally see a huge issue. I like Muromachi Gassan a lot and I was lucky to see very nice Gassan tantō today.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

1 minute ago, Rivkin said:

Clear picture showing sugata would help a lot, but otherwise - I would bite.

Weak hamon, ayasuhi hada - not too many other options are here. Nakago is ok. Not burnishing above shinogi is a choice, and often a fine one.

Theoretically it is possible that with detailed photographs the signature comes out as very weird and its Muromachi (Tembun) Gassan with a gimei Gassan signature.

Such things do happen - mumei from birth and then someone quickly "corrects" the omission and we have a genuine blade with a horrible writing.

 

But again it is most likely Muromachi Gassan.

 

Thank you!

 

Oh, I know this one by the NHTHK!

 

"刀 銘 月山 (と銘がある・室町時代)/ Katana Mei Gassan (To Mei Ga Aru, Muromachi period)",

 

for when it is Gimei, but it's correct about the attribution.

 

Sadly, there is no photo that shows Sugata well, the first one is the best one we have here,

 

and from the looks of it, it's not from late Nanboku-Cho, when one of the earliest signed Gassan, the only designated Important Art Object, is attributed to.

 

it looks a little Koshi-Zori, and if this is indeed Muromachi, then there should be a little Saki-Zori, too.

 

(Typical Muromachi Tachi Sugata, with both Koshi-Zori and Saki-Zori. I chuckled a little when I first saw one referred as such in a book.)

 

Still, a possible or controversial Gimei is as bad as Mumei to me, and I would also hesitate to spend almost 5 grand just to find out what NHTHK would make of this.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

4 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

It is to be noted that there is huge variance in accepted Gassan signatures. Unfortunately I wont be able to check my resources at home until next week but I should have 40+ Gassan signatures for pre-Edo swords.

 

I will admit off the bat I would agree that signature might not be stereotypical. However if the work looks like Gassan as it seems to look, then I dont personally see a huge issue. I like Muromachi Gassan a lot and I was lucky to see very nice Gassan tantō today.

 

Wow! That's a huge number of pre-Edo Gassan signatures!

 

Yes, I understand there is huge variance in accepted Gassan signatures,

 

so not finding anything like this in a very small sample pool of 10+ signatures is not the end.

 

I think I even saw one where the character 月 looks like it's lying down on the ground, very weird indeed.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

Two more photos of this sword. Gimei or not, this looks quite good.

 

From time to time, I see Shinshinto or Gendaito with Ayasugi-Hada at this stunning level instead of Hada-Tachi and mediocre ones,

 

but Koto Gassan like this are even rarer.

 

[Lareon]

@Jussi Ekholm I would be interested in seeing your collection of Ko Gassan signatures if you have them compiled.

 

Thank you in advance 

[ROKUJURO]

On 6/24/2025 at 5:01 PM, Cola said:

....The third picture looks possibly acid treated to enhance the hada...... 

Carlo,

you may have read that somewhere, but it is nonsense. Acid treatment can only work in case different materials (= alloys) react differently to the acid attack. In most swords, the HADA (= KAWAGANE) consists of a rather homogeneous steel, so that will not work. To an acid, the YAKIBA is chemically different from the JI, so there a different reaction may occur which enhances the YAKIBA/HAMON. 

If you have different alloys in, say, a Damascus steel of the fire-welded laminated type, then an acid helps greatly to define the different layers. This is why in the West, an manganese steel and a nickel containing steel are often combined for "Damascus" steel (which has nothing to do with the wootz steel made traditionally in India and Persia).