Old Blade in Shōwa Era Fittings

[JBartfast]

Hello,

 

this is my first post on this forum, being pointed in this direction by one of your existing members, Bruce Pennington. I would like to preface this by saying my main interest in this sword is historical. While a monetary valuation would be useful for insurance purposes, I have no real interest in it, and merely wish to learn more about this blade and its history, and most chiefly nail down its age.

 

I have recently acquired this Gunto, souvenired by an Allied soldier during the immediate postwar occupation of Japan, but I believe the blade to be significantly older than the fittings. Having posted this previously on WRF, it has been determined that the nakago is signed ‘made by Kaneyoshi’, though as this was a particularly long line of smiths running from the 1390s through to the 1960s, that alone is not useful as an indicator of age. We were unable to determine if the mei is genuine or a period forgery.

 

The tang has a lovely dark patina, almost black, though it shows up as lighter in my photos. There are two mekugi-ana present, one clearly machine drilled when the blade was refitted for use in WWII, the other smaller and cruder, apparently hand drilled.

 

The overall curve of the blade appears to be koshizori, with the most pronounced curvature occurring closer to the base than the tip. The hada looks like Masame to my amateur’s eye, and the hamon is ‘messy’ in appearance, rather than the more deliberate and refined patterns seen on some swords. It feels very light and well-balanced in hand.

 

I have done my best to provide the necessary photos in the correct orientation. If any more are needed, or if I need to retake some with a sharper focus, that’s no problem at all.

 

one final note, I apologise for the habaki being present in the photos of the naked blade. While it can be removed, it is a very tight fit, and I don’t wish to risk scratching up the nakago by forcing it off.

 

Thank you in advance, and best regards!

J.B.

[JBartfast]

Apologies for the poor photos of the mei. Here are a couple more that should be more legible.

[nulldevice]

Signed Kaneyoshi Saku - 兼吉作

[JBartfast]

Thank you. My real struggle now is to figure out an approximate time period for this sword’s manufacture. I know simpler mei like this were used back in the Muromachi period, but I didn’t wish to make any guesses, at least not without consulting those more knowledgable than me first.

 

Best regards,

J.B.

[lonely panet]

for a katana mei it has a nice tachi appearnce with a graceful sori

[JBartfast]

It is as pleasing to hold in the hand as it is to look at, a very light and well-balanced blade. Worlds away from the Shōwa-era Gunto I acquired last year, though that is well-made in its own right.

 

Best regards,

J.B.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

According to Minoto Daikan, (multiple) Kaneyoshi worked in the early to mid Muromachi period.

 

The first gen Kaneyoshi (around Ōei era) was originally from Yamato no Kuni, and he was the son of Tegai Kaneyoshi (different Kanji, 包吉), grandson of Tegai Kanemitsu, his works were completely in Yamato Den style, mainly Suguha with small Kissaki, narrow Haba, and Tachi Sugata.

 

 

(A similarly signed later gen Kaneyoshi around 1449)

 

 

(Two similarly signed later gen Kaneyoshis)

 

Although the wavy Shinogi line and the vague Yasurime are very concerning......

[JBartfast]

Thank you, I appreciate the continued assistance. The file marks are more obvious in person than in my photos, and appear to be in the takanoha style. Regarding the Yasurime, it looks straight to my amateur’s eye, for what it’s worth, but then I have not looked at a great many Nihonto in my time.

 

The above considered, is it possible I have a period imitation with a gimei inscription?

 

Best regards,

J.B.

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

I don't nearly have enough knowledge to tell, but at least the Kitae (Jigane) looks like Muromachi to early Edo period, and the Mei itself is not an obvious Gimei, and it looks old, also it's narrow, so it fits Kaneyoshi's style. Boshi and Hamon also fit. It's really the Yasurime and Shinogi line that worries me. Some Sue-Seki works do have weird and shallow Yasurime, though......
一

[JBartfast]

I’m glad to hear that, thank you. Even if nothing is certain, it’s very reassuring. I’m grateful to have learned so much already.

 

I can try to better photograph the Yasurime, if that would be helpful?

 

Best regards,

J.B.

[ROKUJURO]

There is one thing I observed on this sword:

It has one obviously older MEKUGI ANA (punched), and a newer one (drilled). A MEI is usually chiseled BELOW the MEKUGI ANA, so you would expect it to be placed lower than the old MEKUGI ANA if it was made by the smith himself. 
On the other hand, the MEI looks as if it was chiseled "around" the newly made MEKUGI ANA. This is at least unusual if not dubious.

Concerning the photos, you could show more important details with another set-up. Please use a plain DARK background (not your bed, not white or bright colours). NAKAGO photos always without HABAKI. 

The condition of the blade is not good enough for my old eyes to see YASURIME, HADA or HAMON clearly. While the SUGATA is quite nice, we should see more details for an assessment. Sometimes, unpolished blades like this remain an enigma.

[Lexvdjagt]

From Sesko’s swordsmiths index:

 

KANEYOSHI (兼吉), Daiei (大永, 1521-1528), Mino –

“Kaneyoshi” (兼吉), “Nōshū-jū Kaneyoshi” (濃州住兼吉),

“Nōshū Seki-jū Kaneyoshi” (濃州関住兼吉), “Kaneyoshi saku” (兼吉作)

 

I think this Kaneyoshi is a possibility, I don’t think it’s likely to be Yamato-den (based on what I can see on the images). Looks like Mino to me, and more likely a little later than earlier. Based on Yasurime and shallow signature.

Greetings,

Lex

 

 

 

[JBartfast]

Here are some more, unfortunately the best I can do with what I have to hand. Taken outdoors in the shade on a black cloth background. Features which stand out quite plainly to the naked eye are proving quite difficult to capture on camera.

 

Edited July 15 by JBartfast