tachi Can someone tell me if this is fake. Thanks

[deldoe]

It's Been cut down I'm sure of it. I need someone else to tell me if its real I need some closure on this piece, WW2 family heirloom.. I've been on ai and went through everything in the sword it tells me it's a very very old sword 15th century owned by the Machida family which as heavy ties to older samurai family's 

Edited Wednesday at 08:57 AM by deldoe

[deldoe]

One more image 

[Hoshi]

Hi Caleb, 

 

Welcome to the forum. This is an interesting blade you posted, could you tell us more about its history and how it came into your family? 

 

The signature looks old, but the first kanji does not appear to make sense. The best guess is that it is a "助真" (Sukezane) with a missing radical for the first character (possibly erased, damaged, or omitted by a forger). The style of the sword is not consistent with Ichimonji Sukezane, one of the foremost smiths of all time (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK460). 

 

It could, however, based on the gentle suguha pattern be the work of Senoo Sukezane, a great and extremely scarce Bitchu province smith of the Middle Kamakura period (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK456)

 

This is your best candidate, as far as I can tell. 

 

This is the good news. 

 

Now, the bad news. 

• One of the mekugi-ana is in a meaningless position (the bottom one) - which is a sign of shenanigans (something trying to be passed off as old). 
• A radical is missing on the signature, which can be forger error - or, in the best case, a deliberate disfiguration to avoid "gift-giving" ceremonies (sword extorsion by powerful feudal families). For a sophisticated forger, it may also be an attempt at imitating disfiguration.  
• Someone appears to have heavily damage the area near the base of the blade causing significant and irreparable damage.
• There is what appears to be an extended chu-kissaki or even O-kissaki (hard to discern, I can't see the shape properly on your photos), which are inconsistent with the period attribution of smiths signing Sukezane. This can also be a sign of shenanigans. This can invalidate the call. 
• The "真" character deviates significantly with the way these smiths executed the kanji although the variance is admittedly large. 

 

For these reasons, the odds are stacked against you, just to set expectations. But nonetheless, it is well worthy of further investigation. 

 

 

My recommended course of action, given that you live in Australia, is to send it to Andrew Ackermill. 

 

Posting more and better quality photos would also help going a step further. 

 

What you have could be precious, and it is well worth further investigation. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi 

[SteveM]

For completeness, the kanji on the end of the handle do indeed read "Machida" (町田) indicating this was the name of the owner, at least during the war when the fittings were made. Machida, however, is a very common family name, and there is nothing that explicitly ties it to any famous family bearing that name. Having said that, to me it indicates the family who possessed it during the war had enough money to spend on this small customization, which is something. And it ties the sword to an actual person, even though we may not know that person's full name. So its a nice thing to have on a bit of militaria. Well, this is one of those swords that straddles the gap between militaria and antique "samurai" sword. Or, militaria and "nihonto", if you like. 

 

In regard to Hoshi's comments above, I agree with just about everything he has written, except for this one bit which I think is highly unlikely, 

4 hours ago, Hoshi said:

A radical is missing on the signature, which can be forger error

 

Pretty hard to imagine this was a spelling error. I think the second part of that sentence is much more likely; i.e. some kind of disfiguration intended to deceive, or maybe someone started to erase the signature and either gave up, or abandoned it for some other reason. And I think the person to whom he is referring towards the end of his post is @Andrew Ickeringill, NMB member, Australia-based polisher, and occasional poster here. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

This is just based on the one low quality overall picture but I do think if the sword is a bit shortened tachi as it would look like, then the 3rd hole would be the original one. To me it would seem like the upper 2 ones would be used when it has been used as a katana.

 

Please post more high resolution pictures of the sword, and like was said above people with knowledge in Australia would be best option for real life verification.

[Bruce Pennington]

@Kiipu @BANGBANGSAN @SteveM

Any idea what we are seeing here?

[ROKUJURO]

Bruce,

Steve explained it above. It is "MACHIDA" (町田)

[Rivkin]

I would try to get good pictures. I would not focus on the signature (which is as was noted is an interesting one) - but the overall shape with good light, select couple of areas where work is visible and photograph them.

Edited Wednesday at 04:40 PM by Rivkin

[deldoe]

[deldoe]

[deldoe]

7 hours ago, Hoshi said:

Hi Caleb, 

 

Welcome to the forum. This is an interesting blade you posted, could you tell us more about its history and how it came into your family? 

 

The signature looks old, but the first kanji does not appear to make sense. The best guess is that it is a "助真" (Sukezane) with a missing radical for the first character (possibly erased, damaged, or omitted by a forger). The style of the sword is not consistent with Ichimonji Sukezane, one of the foremost smiths of all time (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK460). 

 

It could, however, based on the gentle suguha pattern be the work of Senoo Sukezane, a great and extremely scarce Bitchu province smith of the Middle Kamakura period (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK456)

 

This is your best candidate, as far as I can tell. 

 

This is the good news. 

 

Now, the bad news. 

• One of the mekugi-ana is in a meaningless position (the bottom one) - which is a sign of shenanigans (something trying to be passed off as old). 
• A radical is missing on the signature, which can be forger error - or, in the best case, a deliberate disfiguration to avoid "gift-giving" ceremonies (sword extorsion by powerful feudal families). For a sophisticated forger, it may also be an attempt at imitating disfiguration.  
• Someone appears to have heavily damage the area near the base of the blade causing significant and irreparable damage.
• There is what appears to be an extended chu-kissaki or even O-kissaki (hard to discern, I can't see the shape properly on your photos), which are inconsistent with the period attribution of smiths signing Sukezane. This can also be a sign of shenanigans. This can invalidate the call. 
• The "真" character deviates significantly with the way these smiths executed the kanji although the variance is admittedly large. 

 

For these reasons, the odds are stacked against you, just to set expectations. But nonetheless, it is well worthy of further investigation. 

 

 

My recommended course of action, given that you live in Australia, is to send it to Andrew Ackermill. 

 

Posting more and better quality photos would also help going a step further. 

 

What you have could be precious, and it is well worth further investigation. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi 

Hey mate I've talked to him he's told me it's fake with just the pictures he's seen.. I really don't want to believe him I need the most opinions I can get 

[SteveM]

My opinion: ignore that internet sales blurb. There is nothing to indicate that sword was handed down from any illustrious person or clan. It has a name on it, as many WW2 swords do. The name is reasonably common. The location of the engraving is unusual. Often the family name or crest will be pressed onto a small steel or alloy cartouche (something about the size of a small button), which is then affixed to the pommel. A name engraved on the handle (tip of the pommel) is slightly unusual to me, but as I said, it indicates some level of customization, which is a good thing to have in WW2 memorabilia. Forget about any presumed samurai clan affiliation. Its just the seller trying to add some romantic allure to the item. 

[deldoe]

[deldoe]

2 minutes ago, SteveM said:

My opinion: ignore that internet sales blurb. There is nothing to indicate that sword was handed down from any illustrious person or clan. It has a name on it, as many WW2 swords do. The name is reasonably common. The location of the engraving is unusual. Often the family name or crest will be pressed onto a small steel or alloy cartouche (something about the size of a small button), which is then affixed to the pommel. A name engraved on the handle (tip of the pommel) is slightly unusual to me, but as I said, it indicates some level of customization, which is a good thing to have in WW2 memorabilia. Forget about any presumed samurai clan affiliation. Its just the seller trying to add some romantic allure to the item. 

The seller never told me this info.. this is what I want to find out 

[deldoe]

Just now, deldoe said:

The seller never told me this info.. this is what I want to find out 

I bout this as a memorabilia, it's cool it has a name in it so I went researching.. officers in WW2 and Machia's inparticular. It gets very interesting dots start connecting especially with how old the blade is 

[deldoe]

7 hours ago, Hoshi said:

Hi Caleb, 

 

Welcome to the forum. This is an interesting blade you posted, could you tell us more about its history and how it came into your family? 

 

The signature looks old, but the first kanji does not appear to make sense. The best guess is that it is a "助真" (Sukezane) with a missing radical for the first character (possibly erased, damaged, or omitted by a forger). The style of the sword is not consistent with Ichimonji Sukezane, one of the foremost smiths of all time (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK460). 

 

It could, however, based on the gentle suguha pattern be the work of Senoo Sukezane, a great and extremely scarce Bitchu province smith of the Middle Kamakura period (https://nihontowatch.com/artists/sukezane-SUK456)

 

This is your best candidate, as far as I can tell. 

 

This is the good news. 

 

Now, the bad news. 

• One of the mekugi-ana is in a meaningless position (the bottom one) - which is a sign of shenanigans (something trying to be passed off as old). 
• A radical is missing on the signature, which can be forger error - or, in the best case, a deliberate disfiguration to avoid "gift-giving" ceremonies (sword extorsion by powerful feudal families). For a sophisticated forger, it may also be an attempt at imitating disfiguration.  
• Someone appears to have heavily damage the area near the base of the blade causing significant and irreparable damage.
• There is what appears to be an extended chu-kissaki or even O-kissaki (hard to discern, I can't see the shape properly on your photos), which are inconsistent with the period attribution of smiths signing Sukezane. This can also be a sign of shenanigans. This can invalidate the call. 
• The "真" character deviates significantly with the way these smiths executed the kanji although the variance is admittedly large. 

 

For these reasons, the odds are stacked against you, just to set expectations. But nonetheless, it is well worthy of further investigation. 

 

 

My recommended course of action, given that you live in Australia, is to send it to Andrew Ackermill. 

 

Posting more and better quality photos would also help going a step further. 

 

What you have could be precious, and it is well worth further investigation. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi 

Hey mate, reading the links you sent everything seems to line up with this blade  and the kanji is missing at the start it's so heavily oxidised and got rust flakes but the blade is beautiful straight and still really sharp 

[brentlewiis]

I wouldn’t mind adding that one to my collection.  Budget and time permitting, I could see a bohi taking the place of that chisel trail. Or just enjoy as is

[deldoe]

3 hours ago, brentlewiis said:

I wouldn’t mind adding that one to my collection.  Budget and time permitting, I could see a bohi taking the place of that chisel trail. Or just enjoy as is

It is one of a kind the flaws is what makes it everything to that time period 

[brentlewiis]

The mark looks like someone used a chisel or screwdriver to remove a stuck habaki 

 

[ROKUJURO]

The photos are mostly useless and do not help much for an assessment. 

[Robert S]

6 hours ago, deldoe said:

T

6 hours ago, deldoe said:

 

 

 

The gouge at the base of the blade is an issue, but the defect in the blade which is shown in the photo above (if I'm interpreting the photo correctly) is a potential major issue.  I have no idea what could have caused that, but if it's as deep as it looks its pretty close to irreparable, even by a skilled togishi.  Looks like a major loss of integrity in the steel, leading to loss of part of the steel.

 

 

[Tensho]

2 hours ago, Robert S said:

T

 

Remnants a Horimono perhaps? 

[Brian]

Remember that age doesn't mean anything when it comes to desirability. An old sword isn't automatically better than a sword made 100 years ago. Judge the sword by it's own merits, not by the age. Flaws are never an asset to a sword. And sharpness isn't a thing either. 
Also remember that old swords were bought cheaply for re-issue during the war, doesn't mean it is a family sword. Dealers sold plenty of antique sword to people going to war to be mounted for use then. Quality dictated price. Don't think that name can be associated with any 1 officer. 
But....it is genuine and old, so not a fake. 

[deldoe]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Remember that age doesn't mean anything when it comes to desirability. An old sword isn't automatically better than a sword made 100 years ago. Judge the sword by it's own merits, not by the age. Flaws are never an asset to a sword. And sharpness isn't a thing either. 
Also remember that old swords were bought cheaply for re-issue during the war, doesn't mean it is a family sword. Dealers sold plenty of antique sword to people going to war to be mounted for use then. Quality dictated price. Don't think that name can be associated with any 1 officer. 
But....it is genuine and old, so not a fake. 

Thankyou if it's an old sword shouldn't it have a history? Story to tell, xxxxed not knowing that story 

[deldoe]

5 hours ago, Tensho said:

Remnants a Horimono perhaps? 

Maybe a very early horimono hense the fukure the chizel mark seems to be there for a reason I believe. It doesn't look tampered or accidental 

I'll post better photos with a black or white background over the weekend 

[deldoe]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Remember that age doesn't mean anything when it comes to desirability. An old sword isn't automatically better than a sword made 100 years ago. Judge the sword by it's own merits, not by the age. Flaws are never an asset to a sword. And sharpness isn't a thing either. 
Also remember that old swords were bought cheaply for re-issue during the war, doesn't mean it is a family sword. Dealers sold plenty of antique sword to people going to war to be mounted for use then. Quality dictated price. Don't think that name can be associated with any 1 officer. 
But....it is genuine and old, so not a fake. 

Family heirlooms also where taken to war. And thankyou for the final answer that ist not fake Ill hear that a few times gives me peace of mind. hopefully maybe find some info about it more with you guys 🤘🏼 post better pics over the weekend 

[ROKUJURO]

10 hours ago, deldoe said:

Maybe a very early horimono hence the fukure. The chisel mark seems to be there for a reason I believe. It doesn't look tampered or accidental. 

I'll post better photos with a black or white background over the weekend 

Please no WHITE background, as it reduces the contrast of the photos.

Unfortunately, the chisel mark is a damage, whoever made it and for whatever reason. FUKURE and HORIMONO are genuinely not related unless a HORIMONO is executed to get rid (cosmetically) of a KIZU/FUKURE.

[BANGBANGSAN]

23 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

@Kiipu @BANGBANGSAN @SteveM

Any idea what we are seeing here?

Owner 町田 Machida

Smith  助真 Sukezane

[deldoe]

10 hours ago, BANGBANGSAN said:

Owner 町田 Machida

Smith  助真 Sukezane

Could this be a big find ? 

[Ian B3HR2UH]

Highly unlikely