Opinions on old Katana in WWII mounts

[cabowen]

Just a small question, is no one in doubt about the very rough date signature?

 

To me it looks like it was done by someone who did not know how to carve.

The kanji are all over the place, and not deep and also not firm.

 

KM

 

 

Yes, it is weak and looks more like amateur work. I would give this one a wide berth....

[george trotter]

I really think a student should do study of swords before purchasing one. It is really not a great learning experience to rely on members' assessment of a sword a person is interested in buying...one should know what he is buying by personal assessment technique...ie study.

 

Since it has been raised for comment...I express my opinion of this item now that the date is shown. I am concerned at the date cutting compared with the mei.

Mei is worn and faint like an old mei but IMHO has the "look" of WWII Seki style Nakirishi work (maybe this is just pic quality?)...in contrast the date is "clumsy" but clear and easily readable but is dating from Tenmei....230 years ago....this looks odd to me.

I also think the student should pay attention to the placing of one compared with the other...mei is passing considerably over the shinogi line while date is essentially staying behind shinogi line on shinogi ji....usually, these are cut the same. Pay attention to ana...some (all?) look drilled in more modern times.

While nakago shape and rust look "OK" I have concerns here...better, detailed pics of nakago and machi and blade and boshi etc would make assisting better.

BTW Does tsuka fit nakago properly? More than one hole in tsuka? etc...

Hope this helps

Geo.

PS...about tsuka...slide a thin item into the nakago hole...if it goes further in than the length of this "shortened" tang, then it is probable that the tip of the nakago has been fraudulently cut off to look shortened.

[gtstcactus]

I'm not totally relying on any one member or persons input..... Getting info from members here is a bit like a supplement to reading the books, and physically inspecting the sword if possible.

 

There are 4 mekugiana holes in the tang. This one is not in my city so I can't inspect it in person. The photo of the date was taken after the mei, so there may be some issues there, regarding why the mei is hard to see, or you could be right and it's a fraud...

 

George I thank you for your post, you have given your response, and given me clear and consice reasons for your thinking, this is more helpful than it's crap stear clear....

 

I really think a student should do study of swords before purchasing one. It is really not a great learning experience to rely on members' assessment of a sword a person is interested in buying...one should know what he is buying by personal assessment technique...ie study.

 

Since it has been raised for comment...I express my opinion of this item now that the date is shown. I am concerned at the date cutting compared with the mei.

Mei is worn and faint like an old mei but IMHO has the "look" of WWII Seki style Nakirishi work (maybe this is just pic quality?)...in contrast the date is "clumsy" but clear and easily readable but is dating from Tenmei....230 years ago....this looks odd to me.

I also think the student should pay attention to the placing of one compared with the other...mei is passing considerably over the shinogi line while date is essentially staying behind shinogi line on shinogi ji....usually, these are cut the same. Pay attention to ana...some (all?) look drilled in more modern times.

While nakago shape and rust look "OK" I have concerns here...better, detailed pics of nakago and machi and blade and boshi etc would make assisting better.

BTW Does tsuka fit nakago properly? More than one hole in tsuka? etc...

Hope this helps

Geo.

PS...about tsuka...slide a thin item into the nakago hole...if it goes further in than the length of this "shortened" tang, then it is probable that the tip of the nakago has been fraudulently cut off to look shortened.