Kozuka identification

[Wakizashi]

[Bugyotsuji]

It’s upside down, but that’s the easy part.

 

Are we seeing

Masa(?)hide(?) Saku(?)…正秀作?

(Something)hide Saku?

 

Or is that 守？

 

*just to get the ball rolling. But usually these are names of smiths who the makers aspire to.

[Wakizashi]

Belongs to the Saya and wakizashi signed by kuniyasu if it’s the original kozuka to these items

[Shugyosha]

As Piers says, the signatures on kogatana (the blade part as opposed to the handle which is a kozuka) are generally aspirational and more often than not the name of a famous swordsmith that bears no relationship to the actual maker or the maker of the main blade to which the fittings belong.

 

That the kogatana is signed, and that the signature is probably false, doesn't add to or detract from the value of the piece or the package as a whole and, unfortunately, in this case isn't very clear and it's very much a peripheral issue relative to the interesting wakizashi in quite a nicely made scabbard that you have.

 

 

[John C]

4 hours ago, Shugyosha said:

the signatures on kogatana (the blade part as opposed to the handle which is a kozuka) are generally aspirational

John:

I'm curious how this notion came about. Not doubting it, as many of these small knives were probably made by blacksmiths rather than swordsmiths, however it must also be true that many swordsmtiths made kogatana and signed them. The Kanehide below is just one example. Examples from other smiths can surely be found in books etc. 

 

John C.

[Shugyosha]

Hi John, I'm sorry I can't help there, however, but it has been the received wisdom since I've been interested in the subject.

 

The vast majority seem to not be high quality items and confirm that rule whereas the one you've shown is clearly the exception - it has a hamon, and is well finished on the side with the signature and the mei is well carved and is clearly something that the smith was rightly proud to sign.

 

In my post I was careful to qualify what I said by use of words like "generally" and "probably" because, as with most things nihonto and I've made the error more than once before, the instant something is stated as an immutable rule, something appears that proves the opposite and there are undoubtedly good kogatana out there. 

[Brian]

The percentage of ones fully forged, folded and with decent hamon are a very small percentage of the total seen, and when you see them, they are usually in shirasaya or apart from average kozuka. Yes, of course they exist, but look at the way yours is signed compared to the usual "chicken scratch" type mei we see on most.
Now show me one like yours in full polish in that condition that is original to an average kozuka and mounted that way from the Edo period? Again, they exist, but best to always consider them gimei until proven otherwise.
Once you see a hamon with nie and hataraki, you can start looking closer at the mei.

[Bugyotsuji]

I have a kozuka signed Sukekane on the blade. One of our NBTHK members questioned it with the sensei, who took one glance and said 'genuine'.

 

Another kozuka has a rubbish-looking wildly inscribed (Kunisada?) Mei on it, but after polishing the hada and hamon on the other side are totally beautiful. I still have no idea who chiseled the Mei or why.

 

So, as expressed above, the exceptions do sometimes seem to prove the rule!