Real Muramasa

[Takahashi]

I was just wondering, if the following Tanto was a real Muramasa as I could not see any Kanji for Muramasa on the Nakago.

The sword is offered on e-sword.jp:

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2012/1210_3000syousai.htm

 

Oddly the description only says "There is a Muramasa signature", without stating it "is" a Muramasa blade .

On the other hand there is a NBTHK Hozon certifikate, which should indicate that a Shinsa Team came to such a conclusion.

 

What do you think of this blade? Is it a true "Muramasa"?

 

Cheers,

[Brian]

Nakago is signed, just doesn't show up well in the photo.

Features all look ok for Muramasa. Note the hamon coming close to the ha in places, the nakago shape, and especially the identical hamon both sides of the blade. If gimei, it's a good one.

 

Brian

[DirkO]

From the top of my head, Muramasa fell out of favor with Tokugawa Ieyasu because a number of friends/relatives got wounded or killed by Muramasa blades. He ordered that no samurai would use Muramasa blades any more.

 

Obviously those who were against the Tokugawa shogunate reverred these blades. Sometimes they changed or removed the signature in order to conceal it's maker's name. I think this might well be such a tanto. Hamon, nakago, ... seem correct.

 

[Takahashi]

Sometimes they changed or removed the signature in order to conceal it's maker's name.

I see, so this might be a case, where the owner tried to hide the signature of "Muramasa". Thanks for the input.

 

Cheers,

[Bugyotsuji]

Seller seems confident in stating Nidai Muramasa.

[DirkO]

Interesting post from a while ago:

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8879

[Veli]

Am I correct to assume that with the phrase "と銘がある" the shinsa team just states that this signature exists, without saying anything about its validity?

 

Veli

[DirkO]

Doesn't it mean that the mei itself is illegible but that it's signed nonetheless?

[Pete Klein]

OK -- real Muramasa according to the NBTHK which does not knowingly paper gimei. Note above the kanji for 'Muramasa' it has the kanji for 'mei', then the kanji for 'Mura' and 'Masa' are in boxes. They are qualifying the mei as being there but partially defaced.

[Kevin]

Agree with Brian - features consistent with the smith

 

Kevin

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Am I correct to assume that with the phrase "と銘がある" the shinsa team just states that this signature exists ?

 

Veli

 

 

Correct と銘がある (to mei ga aru) means the mei is on the nakago. It is not readable that's all..

[Bugyotsuji]

The real art may lie in defacing the Mei just sufficiently to fool most people, but not too much for an expert to verify it if ever such a need might arise in the future.

 

(I have a gun with the family crest defaced, supposedly to hide the shame of parting with it, but you can still tell what is was originally. Different situation, agreed, but added just for reference.)

[Takahashi]

Correct と銘がある (to mei ga aru) means the mei is on the nakago. It is not readable that's all..

Thanks for the information. I learned something new regarding NBTHK papers. Until now I thought in case of a unreadable mei the NBTHK would consider the blade mumei as they cannot verify whether or not the signature was gimei.

 

Cheers,

[Nobody]

When one says "XX to mei ga aru (XX と銘がある)", it literally means that the mei is inscribed as XX.

However; it usually intimates that the mei is inscribed as XX, but its legitimacy is unknown.