Three Fujiwara... one Juyo, one Tonkubetsu, one probably not authentic

[Pierre F]

Hi everyone I Hope alla of you have a great summer ... or winter...

 

I was browsing some swords and saw many from Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro from Hizen province ... I believe many of you know his work.

However, apparently some signatures  of the swords are not authentic ...I compare some of them but for me it is very difficult so see the differences ... of course there is some variations in the signature but it's never exactly the same ... 

 

To illustrate my point, you will find below 3 "tangs", one is an NBTHK Juyo, the other a Tonkubetsu and finally one where the authenticity is disputed.... Is this obvious to you?  Thanks for your comments 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Pierre,

the light on the NAKAGO is not enough to show a MEI - it may be my old eyes but I can't see anything.

By the way, it is TOKUBETSU ( (特別 )

[Pierre F]

Thanks Jean ... yep you are right "Tokubetsu" 

 

I'm sorry for the pictures  ...

[Scogg]

If you click on the original image, it expands with some great detail. Maybe try the brightness on your device. 

I’ve edited a version from your image and adjusted the contrast a little. Maybe it helps? 
 

[Pierre F]

Thanks Sam !

[Nihonto student]

Dear Pierre,

 

Start by saying that the signatures of the Tadayoshi line are tricky and among the most counterfeited. In this case, we're talking about the second generation, which had a long career and its signature has undergone several evolutions.

Personally, I'd say from left to right:
- Tokubetsu
- Disputed
- Juyo

 

 

Giordy

[Mark S.]

My guess is:

1) Disputed

2&3) can’t distinguish Tok/Juyo from mei alone.

[Pierre F]

Thanks for your answers ...

 

the first one on the left is the Tokubetsu

 

the second is the "disputed"

 

the third is the Juyo 

 

So I believe : Giordy  is the winner here !

 

wonderful job !

 

I'm still wandering if the disputed could be a " real" one ..

 

thanks again !

 

you can see all the pictures here : 

the Tokubetsu

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-hizen-koku-ju-oumi-daijo-fujiwara-tadahiro-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

 

The disputed 

https://www.aoijapan.com/katanahizen-koku-ju-omi-daijo-fujiwara-tadahiro-not-guaranteed-nbthk-tokubetsu-kicho-token/

 

The Juyo 

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-hizen-koku-ju-fujiwara-tadahirothe-14th-nbthk-juyo-token/

 

 

[Rayhan]

I am trying to understand the point of this subject because certs are based on the whole sword and not just the Nakago....Nakago is very crucial, but?

[Rawa]

So buying o-suriage is pointless? I found this one and only hozon. For me hada looks good. I know that shortened get no juyo. Do you see anything bad

https://www.samuraishokai.jp/sword/25127.html

[Rawa]

And another question about certificate of one's posted here. From when tokuho started to be 8 numbers. Shouldn't middle 4 digits be a year?

[SteveM]

The first number is the era year, the following four are the western calendar year, and the last number is the month of the shinsa session. This one is Heisei 9 (1997), March. 

 

Starting with the Reiwa era, they added a "0" before any single-digit era year, so nowadays an era year of 9 would be listed as "09". 

 

I don't know why the month is expressed in three digits (i.e. "003" for March). This style changed to just a two-digit style from 1998. 

 

 

[Pierre F]

6 hours ago, Rayhan said:

I am trying to understand the point of this subject because certs are based on the whole sword and not just the Nakago....Nakago is very crucial, but?

 

Really, nothing serious here ! A kind of guessing game ... You are right about the Nakago ...that’s why i put the links to the swords after ... In this particular case, the disputed signature is not at all obvious and I wondered if, for some here, things would be different.

[Nihonto student]

Obviously, certification can't be understood from the nakago or the signature alone, so in this case I was just making a deduction.

Process:

Of the three signatures, identify the one that is definitely genuine... the third is a textbook example and is also the only one dated (Perhaps a coincidence, I didn't open the Aoi links to see if the others are dated).
The other two are both well-executed overall, so need to delve into the details. What doesn't convince me about signature no. 2 is the character 近, which doesn't seem precise, and it seems like more pressure was applied to the strokes than the rest. Then there's the character 忠, where the bottom stroke appears a bit rounded, whereas it should be very square, as can be seen in examples 1 and 3. Overall, his signature is very square with very clean strokes.
The last is a gem from @Jacques (Honor to merit), who in another post had indicated that one Tadahiro's signature feature is the decreasing size of the characters from top to bottom.

For me, this feature is very evident in #3, less so in #1, and completely absent in #2.

An interesting thing to explore in this specific case is that Aoi has decided to list #2 as non-guaranteed. This, to me, means they're ruling out the possibility that it could be a daimei which is common for Tadahiro since he collaborated with both the 3rd and 4th generation, so as I interpret it for Aoi it is gimei.

 

Giordy

[Mark S.]

Based solely on the pictures, #1 fooled me because of the very first kanji.  In the picture, the lower ‘hook’ angles down, but in the oshigata (provided later) the lower ‘hook’ curves upward.  In the mei I have witnessed, Tadahiro’s first kanji the lower ‘hook’ curves upward.  Maybe it was the slight angle the blade was laying at when the pic of the nakago was taken, but you can see the difference between the photo and oshigata.  Guess it pays to have all the info before trying to make a determination.  

[Jacques]

On 8/7/2025 at 10:40 AM, Nihonto student said:

Obviously, certification can't be understood from the nakago or the signature alone, so in this case I was just making a deduction.

Process:

Of the three signatures, identify the one that is definitely genuine... the third is a textbook example and is also the only one dated (Perhaps a coincidence, I didn't open the Aoi links to see if the others are dated).
The other two are both well-executed overall, so need to delve into the details. What doesn't convince me about signature no. 2 is the character 近, which doesn't seem precise, and it seems like more pressure was applied to the strokes than the rest. Then there's the character 忠, where the bottom stroke appears a bit rounded, whereas it should be very square, as can be seen in examples 1 and 3. Overall, his signature is very square with very clean strokes.
The last is a gem from @Jacques (Honor to merit), who in another post had indicated that one Tadahiro's signature feature is the decreasing size of the characters from top to bottom.

For me, this feature is very evident in #3, less so in #1, and completely absent in #2.

An interesting thing to explore in this specific case is that Aoi has decided to list #2 as non-guaranteed. This, to me, means they're ruling out the possibility that it could be a daimei which is common for Tadahiro since he collaborated with both the 3rd and 4th generation, so as I interpret it for Aoi it is gimei.

 

Giordy

Nice observation and thanks for the kind words (they are so rare )

 

 When Tsuruta san says not guaranted, you can understand gimei.