tachi Can someone tell me if this is fake. Thanks

[Rivkin]

My read would be:

Name on tsuka - most likely real, unusual customization.

Signature - strange and best to be considered as gimei or irrelevant at least until more is understood about the work.

The blade - likely koto.

Has what appears to be weak suguha hamon, possibly bo utsuri, nagare and itame.

Can be whole bunch of things, but I would consider the box covering provincial Yamato-related work. Ryokai school, Naminohira etc. etc.. Without seeing much better images who knows.

Dating - can be Muromachi, can be earlier, but by default I would fear its Muromachi

[PNSSHOGUN]

Unless you have detailed information on where the sword was surrendered or captured, there is little chance of further discovery about the Japanese officer. 

[deldoe]

2 hours ago, Ian B3HR2UH said:

Highly unlikely

Isn't sukezanes work sought after 

[deldoe]

I must say most of you.. keep an open mind please. 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Caleb while we appreciate your enthusiasm over this piece, it's best to approach this subject with a very level head and not get too caught up in delusions of grandeur. If you take the time to read some of the posts, nobody is saying this even remotely appears to have the quality expected from Sukezane - it merely bears a poor imitation of his signature. 

 

 

[deldoe]

I will be getting it appraised 

[deldoe]

I appreciate everyone's time with helping me get this far alot more I know now 

[deldoe]

49 minutes ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

Unless you have detailed information on where the sword was surrendered or captured, there is little chance of further discovery about the Japanese officer. 

Damn, Cheers dude

[deldoe]

2 hours ago, Rivkin said:

My read would be:

Name on tsuka - most likely real, unusual customization.

Signature - strange and best to be considered as gimei or irrelevant at least until more is understood about the work.

The blade - likely koto.

Has what appears to be weak suguha hamon, possibly bo utsuri, nagare and itame.

Can be whole bunch of things, but I would consider the box covering provincial Yamato-related work. Ryokai school, Naminohira etc. etc.. Without seeing much better images who knows.

Dating - can be Muromachi, can be earlier, but by default I would fear its Muromachi

I'm getting it appraised to see if it's proper 

[deldoe]

I'm just hoping it's not fake.. something made in the 70s as a knock off.. 

[deldoe]

I must say I've been looking at all the fakes of these and they look nothing alike. Which makes me believe I don't have a fake.. the blade feels too real, I'm getting it appraised by the shop I bought it from here in Qld 

[deldoe]

Just now, deldoe said:

I must say I've been looking at all the fakes of these and they look nothing alike. Which makes me believe I don't have a fake.. the blade feels too real, I'm getting it appraised by the shop I bought it from here in Qld 

He has a guy from the US that will fly here 

[nulldevice]

20 minutes ago, deldoe said:

I must say I've been looking at all the fakes of these and they look nothing alike. Which makes me believe I don't have a fake.. the blade feels too real, I'm getting it appraised by the shop I bought it from here in Qld 

Nobody is saying that the sword you have is fake.

 

They’re saying the worn out signature is not authentic to the famous Sukezane and the workmanship of the blade (the grain structure, temper line, shape, dimensions, curvature, etc.) also fails to line up with the famous Sukezane.

 

So to recap. The sword is 100% a real and old Japanese sword. However, the signature is either to some unknown Sukezane or is a forgery attempt to imitate the famous Sukezane. This is very common in Japanese swords, specifically when dealing with signatures purporting to be big name wordsmiths. 

[deldoe]

32 minutes ago, nulldevice said:

Nobody is saying that the sword you have is fake.

 

They’re saying the worn out signature is not authentic to the famous Sukezane and the workmanship of the blade (the grain structure, temper line, shape, dimensions, curvature, etc.) also fails to line up with the famous Sukezane.

 

So to recap. The sword is 100% a real and old Japanese sword. However, the signature is either to some unknown Sukezane or is a forgery attempt to imitate the famous Sukezane. This is very common in Japanese swords, specifically when dealing with signatures purporting to be big name wordsmiths. 

I guess so, thankyou it does have chips in the blade. Not cracks.. from. Halfway upwards it's some places. Photos on the weekend 

[Bugyotsuji]

Rarely is anything 100% guaranteed in this field. There are likelihoods, stronger and stronger, while you narrow down the possibilities. It takes time and patience, and in the meantime even the ‘experts’ may give differing opinions. A well-made case can eventually be satisfyingly convincing.

 

In the meantime we are all allowed to dream. “Indulge in the romance”, one of my teachers would say with a wink.

[Brian]

I think you need to do some research into the concept of gimei, and the fact that there are more gimei swords (false signatures) out there then genuine ones most likely. It was extremely common, going back hundreds of years, to add false signatures on real swords. Check out the FAQ above, there is a section on gimei.
I'd say you have 90% chance of it being gimei. Doesn't mean it is a fake sword it worthless. Just one of the hundreds of thousands of swords signed with a name that isn't the maker.
But if you want it checked out, send it to Andrew as mentioned. Any shop you send it to is going to know less than many of the guys here, and it's pointless flying anyone out to look at it, that is an unnecessary expense. If it turns out to have possibilities, then an expensive polish and papers are the next step but you could spend $3000 on restoration and have it come back gimei. 
That damage is also a serious factor, and affects it quite a bit. Can't see that being from a horimono. 

[deldoe]

37 minutes ago, Brian said:

I think you need to do some research into the concept of gimei, and the fact that there are more gimei swords (false signatures) out there then genuine ones most likely. It was extremely common, going back hundreds of years, to add false signatures on real swords. Check out the FAQ above, there is a section on gimei.
I'd say you have 90% chance of it being gimei. Doesn't mean it is a fake sword it worthless. Just one of the hundreds of thousands of swords signed with a name that isn't the maker.
But if you want it checked out, send it to Andrew as mentioned. Any shop you send it to is going to know less than many of the guys here, and it's pointless flying anyone out to look at it, that is an unnecessary expense. If it turns out to have possibilities, then an expensive polish and papers are the next step but you could spend $3000 on restoration and have it come back gimei. 
That damage is also a serious factor, and affects it quite a bit. Can't see that being from a horimono. 

Yeah I've been lead to believe it's fake ✌🏼 thankyou everyone 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Caleb,

it is not a fake, but probably not a treasure either.

[Hector]

Yours is on the left and on the right is a Juyo papered Sukuzane courtesy of The Soshu Den Museum website.

 

Different mei.

[Lewis B]

And another example from the Kokuho Nikko Sukezane

[deldoe]

49 minutes ago, ROKUJURO said:

Caleb,

it is not a fake, but probably not a treasure either.

Thankyou 🫪