Ive been told that when they have a ring around the meatball then its likely s Seabee or Marine made souvenir made by holding fabric over military issue bucket and painting. That and lack of corner ties and reinforcement would make it a no go for me
I posted this yesterday but there continues to be problems with the platform -- I get a lot of "time outs".
Consequently, I agree with Steve -- I agreed before he agreed!! (^__^)
======
Nothing wrong with the calligraphy, it's very nice! BUT .... the fact that it has a painted rising sun and there are no ties (so it's not a flag), give me some pause. It is signed multiple times by two families, the "flag" is dedicated to Sumizawa.
武運長久
Bu'un Chōkyū
Continued luck in the fortunes of war
order: 武 top right, 運 bottom right, 長 top left, 久 bottom left
It's not a CB special, in spite of the hand traced and painted hinomaru. Quite a few flags were made at home; some had corner tabs sewn on them and strings attached in order to make them look like a "real" flag, while others lacked that addition. The "flag" might be good but like any example that lack a diversity of signatures, it's difficult to say.
MikeB
I'm glad that you took additional images. You can see the corner tabs that were made for two of the corners. You can also see the holes where tie strings were once located. Very cool and quite similar to others that I have seen over the years.
MikeB
A repeat of info about same flag in a separate post:
The fact that the same hand signed multiple names gives me pause. The 大竹 names seem to be the same person, as are the 宗村 names. Generally speaking, the individual would sign his/her own name.
This is not a CEEBEE special, but let's not forget there are many Japanese people who also can see an opportunity to make a profit.
In my opinion, this is not a legit signed flag. It may be a flag from that time period, but why in the world would one person write 9 different names? and another hand write 4 different names?
No matter where the actual flag originated from, the inscriptions are far too suspicious.
I understood your implication, MikeB. Just thought a more explicit statement doubting the flag's authenticity was needed. Maybe not; perhaps I was just being redundant. If so, sorry.
Comment