NTHK confidence in evaluating mei

[John C]

I know...here we go again. But please bear with me. I've done some research before asking.

The lower part of the pic is of a Kanehide papered blade by the NTHK. The upper part is what is typical of Kanehide's post-war mei (I have pulled and cataloged 24 examples of his mei with the upper one in the pic being post-war typical). Striking differences, which makes me question the validity of the evaluation. Note the 4 "tick" marks in the Kane character. This is the only time I have seen this. As well as the straight "J" mark in Hide. (Sorry for butchering the terminology).

Opinions please.

John C.

[Guest When Necessary]

Hi John,

 

These are examples of Kanehide's mei in 1944 - so, personally, I think you are right to question the certification. 
 

(The last picture with the translation is from Yakiba.com.)

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by When Necessary
To add more examples.

[Guest When Necessary]

I'm assuming that the NTHK papered example you are referring to is this allegedly wartime tanto?

 

Like you, I've not been able to find any examples of this smith's work using the 'Kane' character with four strokes at the bottom. However, as this is by far the most common form of that kanji, it would be the obvious one for an unresearched forger to choose...... and - more worryingly - an unresearched NTHK shinsa member to let slip through.

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by When Necessary

[John C]

56 minutes ago, When Necessary said:

Kanehide's mei in 1944

Dee:

Yes on the assumptions. I have pulled over 24 examples of Kanehide's mei - 18 war time RJT and 2 pre-RJT and 4 post war. The pre and post war use the same style of kanji for Kane (the OP pic top), while the RJT blades all use the same style you have listed above. The NTHK tanto, which I assumed was post war anyway, is a completely different style. The kanteisho only notes "showa period".

In your opinion, is the blade still a nice blade assuming it's actually gimei? 

 

John C.

[Guest When Necessary]

Hi John, 

 

Speaking purely from my own, subjective point of view then yes, I think it is a beautiful piece. I love the sugata and the thin suguha hamon. Looking at it more closely, I would have expected a wartime blade to still have its original, simple habaki rather than a wooden replacement. Also, the NTHK results sheet, while indeed stating 'Showa' is very specific about the smith's personal name "Nakata Kanehide". Therefore, they may well know something that both you and I do not - and he could perhaps have signed in that manner for a period of time. (My gut instinct tells me that it looks postwar.)

 

Edited October 9, 2025 by When Necessary
Clean up photo.

[John C]

Thank you for your opinion, Dee. I appreciate the help.

John C.

[Rawa]

It went for 1.3k dunno if gimei is worthy that amount. From yours examples "Kane" is consistent so if you bought it speak with Eric. Maybe it's after war dai mei? NTHK states showa and he restarted in 1954. So all is possible as blade is finely made. Nakago is clean could you add some legit nakago with yasurime visible?

Also it's funny seeing how kane was writen in NTHK paper and have oshigata attached.

Edited October 9, 2025 by Rawa

[Brian]

I wouldn't immediately jump to gimei. Perhaps they went on the workmanship first, and the mei second. There can be many reasons for differences in mei, but the work has to confirm the mei, not the other way around. Plus although you can find gimei on Gendaito, the likelihood is far less than antiques.
It's well signed too. What are the chances that someone took an unsigned decent sword and added this signature? I'd lean towards shoshin for that reason alone, but the work needs to be matched before you consider the mei.

[mecox]

@John C     here's a few from a quick grab , from left:   early war,  1940,   mid war,  1943,   1944 (star),   1944 (star),   1945,    1986.    Quite a bit of variation in mei and cutting.    Wartime yasurime are takanoha  but does he change to sujikai post war?

 

 

 

                                                                

[John C]

Thank you everyone for the input.

4 hours ago, mecox said:

Quite a bit of variation in mei

Yes, Mal I have most of those and about a dozen more. The one I didn't have is the pic of the 1940 mei that is very similar to the OP tanto. From what I could see, he had a certain style in 1940 prior to the RJT program. He changed his Kane character during the program then reverted back to his 1940 style until his death. I don't, however, have any examples from his 1954 to 1973 period so there is an information gap there.

 

Much appreciated,

John C.

[Guest When Necessary]

2 hours ago, John C said:

Thank you everyone for the input.

Yes, Mal I have most of those and about a dozen more. The one I didn't have is the pic of the 1940 mei that is very similar to the OP tanto. From what I could see, he had a certain style in 1940 prior to the RJT program. He changed his Kane character during the program then reverted back to his 1940 style until his death. I don't, however, have any examples from his 1954 to 1973 period so there is an information gap there.

 

Much appreciated,

John C.

Hi John,

 

Here is one apparently dated 1986 with the link.

 

刀　銘　濃州住兼秀作　昭和六十一年六月日

[Guest When Necessary]

Another dated around 1989, just before  he passed. 
 

The link: 

脇差　濃州住兼秀作　平成元年二月日 Wakizashi [Kanehide]日本刀　刀剣販売 サムライ商会[samurai shokai]no

[John C]

Thank you, Dee. I have those as well. Note how the Kane character is different than that of the OP. Mal graciously provided me with a pic that matches the OP blade. Now I just have to figure out if it is post or pre war.

 

John C.

p.s. If anyone is interested, I have a DOCX file of the Kanehide mei I have collected so far tracking his changes. It is a work in progress and missing a lot of data. I currently have 26 of his mei on file. If anyone has a Kanehide blade that is not listed online anywhere, PLEASE feel free to let me know. I would love additional input.

 

p.s.s. Just to clarify what some may be thinking. There is no issue with the sale itself. Eric and I have spoken about this blade already. My personal issue is with the NTHK attribution to this particular smith and not some other gendai smith named Kanehide.

Edited October 9, 2025 by John C
corrected a line