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 🫪

[reinhard]

The "Machida" inscription on the kashira is irritating, politely said.

Japanese Kanji written horizontally had to be read from right to left until the end of WW II.

This is not the case here.

So this gun-to koshirae was in all probability made after WW II.

 

reinhard

Edited July 30 by reinhard

[SteveM]

4 hours ago, reinhard said:

Japanese Kanji written horizontally had to be read from right to left until the end of WW II.

 

Actually there was no law that determined the direction that Japanese had to be written. Writing from left to right was not forbidden, or unheard of, and there were official publications as well as commercial publications that wrote left to write. The Ministry of Education and the Army promoted a left-to-right writing standard in the middle of the war, in 1942, but ultra-nationalist elements of the military, as well as the newspapers, never got on board. But the army as an entity was not hostile to the idea. 

 

And, just to throw this out there, Tamachi (田町) is also an acceptable Japanese family name, though Machida is much more common. 

[John C]

9 hours ago, SteveM said:

Army promoted a left-to-right writing

To add to this thought, I read a US Army manual about identifying Japanese weapons and ammunition from this time period. And they stressed that the name could be written right or left and to identify the direction by looking at the word "type" and whether or not the numbers came before or after it (i.e. 98 type vs type 98).

 

John C.

[reinhard]

Further information about writing direction of kanji:

 

https://teamjapanese.com/Japanese-read-right-left/

 

reinhard

[reinhard]

And a rare goodie for you all:

A photograph of the great Kano Natsuo from an old Japanese newspaper.

Text must be read from right to left.

 

reinhard

 

 

Edited Friday at 10:43 PM by reinhard

[SteveM]

Reinhard, no one is arguing that text wasn't read right to left, or even that it wasn't the main form of writing horizontally. I am merely pushing back on your statement that kanji HAD to be written right to left. This is false, and there are examples of where it was written left to right. 

 

Here is a copy of a mathematic textbook from 1939 written left to right

 

Here is a copy of an advertisement from 1919, again, left to right. 

 

[reinhard]

Steve,

"..had to be read from right to left" was too restrictive a formulation.

You are right there was no law and both directions of writings were possible.

It depended on the media and the purpose.

In this particular case it just doesn't look right.

 

reinhard