Disputed Attribution: Unjuy Korekazu/takei Naotane

[Valric]

Hello, 

 

I thought I'd share a story. I was this year on honeymoon in Japan, and in between two wonderful moments shared with my wife, I visited sword shops in each of our destinations. I wanted to bring back an immemorial gift for our home, and the Nihonto was the quintessential choice for me. A dream entertained since childhood, finally realized. 

 

Being a neophyte, having browsed just a few of Sesko's excellent compendiums, I set off to let a sword find me, within the constrains of my budget. I never cared much for signature, or attribution, what really mattered for me was the quality of the craft and the story. I saw national treasures, Tokubetsu Juyo swords to crumbling Showatos. And many things in between. I tried my best to hone my aesthetic appreciation, and my understanding of this immense universe. 

 

Finally, having perhaps unbeknownst to me taken advantage of Japanese politeness, I found a shop, specialized in selling swords to other dealers across Japan. The owner was sympathetic to my request, and took off time from his usual, far more profitable business in high volume trading. He arranged to show me swords within the bounds of my constrains. I am very grateful. 

 

I found one that stood out of the crowd amongst those I could afford. A beautiful, flawless blade that was cut-shortened, hence mumei. It feels strong and heavy, its design uncompromising of function. I feel sympathetic to the man who, certainly broke during the hardships of the Tempo era, had it cut to fit the requirements of his time.

 

Worst, the two of the foremost authorities in Kansei disagreed on who made it. Hon'nami Koson says it is "as Takei Naotane" - and old Shinsa papers (probably local branch) states it is "Unjyu Korekazu". While the former seems dubious, owing to the fabrications and "acts of politeness" of the time, the latter is less questionable, but still remains uncertain due to the scandals that shook the venerable institution of the time. For me, however, it was all the better. A mystery to solve. 

 

I learned later, based on different excerpts from the Books of Sesko and various sources, that both smiths are often confused in Kanteisho. No less that three times did I find passages relating how even seasoned appraisers had been lead astray due to the similarities. The mystery thickens. I studied the common mistakes, and the absence of midare-utsuri comes out in two of them. The blade I purchased, to my untrained eyes, shows no marked shadow of the hamon. No slated hamon, or carvings that often mark - I read - the work of Naotane. Hence I have veered strongly towards Unjyu Korekazu in my judgement. 

 

I do wonder what members of this community think of this sword. Naotane, Korekazu, or does it carry the mark of another maker of more dubious motives? To the best of my abilities, I have compiled some photography. A daunting experience to impress upon pixels the majesty of a Nihonto. But I have tried.

 

Thank you,

 

Chris H. 

 

 

[Valric]

And more. Tentative pictures what I think is a tight, Ko-itame Hada along with the tang. Very tricky. 

 

[Valric]

And finally, the disputed certificates. The Origami was kindly translated by a member of this board. As the name of the person who commissioned the Shinsa is still on the certificate, I have obscured it out of respect for his privacy (or those of his descendants). 

 

[Valric]

Besides the point, but it is perhaps pleasing to see. A custom Koshirae ordered to fit the sword before I departed Japan, six long months of waiting but the chance to make something unique. 

 

[Ichi]

am I the only one who can't see the pics?

 

Erol

[Greg F]

Pics work for me.

 

Greg

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hello,

 

For your consideration ..... Katana signed Zou Taikei NAOTANE 

http://sanmei.com/contents/media/S2798_S8899_PUP_E.html

[SwordGuyJoe]

Is the blade still in Japan? If so, just resubmit to NBTHK. Otherwise, send to NTHK shinsa in CA next year.

 

Edit to add: You could always reach out to Joe Forcine, who collects Ishido mon swords. He may be able to point why it could or could not be Korekazu.

[Valric]

Neither does it exhibit the beautiful swirling grain hada often present in Naotane's work. 

 

Some of Unjyu Korekazu's (also known as Fujiwara Korekazu, to add to the confusion...) blades do seem, to me, very close. 

 

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-sekido-unju-korekazu-seitan34th-nbthk-juyo-paper

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-fujiwara-korekazu-7th-generation

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-teme-otsuka-kazunobu-kun-sekido-unju-korekazu-seitan-saku-koreansei-5-nen-inu-uma-2-gatsu-hi

 

The Ko-itame hada, the kissaki shape, the hamon patterns and style, the thickness of the blade and general geometry. The third one especially with its deep bo-hi, is very close.  

[Jim P]

Hi, Have a look at this blade by Taikei Naotane my bet is with Naotane but you have to resubmit to get a definitive answer

[Valric]

Hi Jim, 

 

Amazing. You just thickened the mystery. Do you have a link with the attributes/descriptions of this Naotane blade? It seems intimately close too. It goes to show the breath of Naotane's work, and puts a canvas on statements such as "If Naotane, would have shown strong midare-utsuri". 

 

Hi Joe, 

 

The blade is no longer in Japan. Maybe one day I'll submit it to Shinsa, but for now I am forming my own beliefs, and taking this mystery as a learning experience to expose myself to the subtleties of Kanteisho. The intuitions of the members of this board are very valuable to me. 

[Greg F]

Hi Chris, You have a very nice sword with a great experience for you to remember there. I wouldnt have a clue but im leaning towards Naotane going by the pic Jim provided. By the way congratulations on getting married. My fiancee is pretty much sold on the idea of a Japan honeymoon too. Enjoy.

 

Greg

[SwordGuyJoe]

Hi Joe,

 

The blade is no longer in Japan. Maybe one day I'll submit it to Shinsa, but for now I am forming my own beliefs, and taking this mystery as a learning experience to expose myself to the subtleties of Kanteisho. The intuitions of the members of this board are very valuable to me.

Understood and agree. It sounds like fun. I'm not sure if Joe F. is a member here but he's a great guy and very knowledgeable on the Ishido school. Shinsa or not, you should seek his opinion as another that could help you.

[Valric]

Joe, I sent a small request to Joe Forcin via his website. I wholeheartedly agree, his insight would be valuable.

 

Greg, thank you. I highly suggest you book well in advance, and AirBnB is by far your best bet. Make sure to visit at least one of the better Onsens, and make arrangements at least four months prior to the trip.  

[Greg F]

Cheers Chris I appreciate that. We are in no hurry but once ive got all my ducks in a row I will be fulfilling a life long dream going to Japan also. Cool way to get your 1st sword, well done.

 

Greg

[seattle1]

Hello:

 It is very unusual to see a nakago o-suriage like that like that on a blade that is early 19th Cent. if either Naotane or Korekazu, both considerable smiths. If either it would in all likelihood have been signed and probably dated, and why would it be shortened as it is still quite long, and leave no notation or evidence of the original mei? My guess is that it was and is a nice blade that once tried to masquerade as a koto something or the other. The NBTHK has the usual notation of mu mei above their attribution, but there is another kanji just above those two that I do not know and it might be a clue. It is certainly worth a shinsa and there might be a NTHK shinsa before long in the US.

 Arnold F.

[Valric]

Hi Arnold, 

 

I agree with you that it is odd to see a Tempo blade having been shortened. Especially given that soon after, the wearing of swords became banned hence the hypothesis of a broke Samurai who had his Tachi cut in order to fulfill social expectations seems a prior unlikely, unless I am missing something historically speaking. I think it's a very interesting hypothesis, that a skilled Shinshinto smith would have tried to pass this blade as one of as an old, famous Koto master in order to survive the harsh economic conditions. 

[Markus]

The NBTHK has the usual notation of mu mei above their attribution, but there is another kanji just above those two that I do not know and it might be a clue. 

 

It's actually a big clue as the first character is ubu (生).

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Thanks to Markus's help it makes more sense. Korekazu worked in the Bizen tradition and it is logical that it was made to look koto if some origami or sayagaki called it something early, assuming that the market price would be higher than for a signed Korekazu, if indeed it was a signed Korekazu at all. I suppose Korekazu could have done that himself, ego bruise that would be. This is another reason why every collector should read a copy of Nobuo Nakahara. Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords: A Collector's Guide. (Kodansha, 2010).

 Arnold F.

[Valric]

Thank you Markus,  

 

This is surprising to me. I assumed immediately is was cut-shortened when I saw it was mumei and had a second peg hole. A good lesson about making assumptions. But I all comes together now, especially when you look at the habaki area and you can clearly see the start of the hamon. Thank you for the reference book. It looks excellent, however the price is daunting. I wish I could pay for an ebook version. 

 

Thank you Arnold, 

 

I know that blades by Takei Naotane were sold for a small fortune even at the time (approx 5 ryu or 20'000 coin) based on Sesko's essay on the historical prices of blades. It seems implausible, for the owner to engage in erasing a signature with the hope of passing it off as an older, more valuable Koto blade. I do not know how much Korekazu charged for his work, but I assume it was less - and he went out of business when the ban hit Japan. Perhaps this blade was crafted after the ban, when demand hit an all time low and life became for him very difficult. 

 

The argument that the signature was removed in order to pass it off as a Koto blade doesn't quite make sense to me, as the Nagako would lack the profuse patination inherent to old blades - and hence it wouldn't fool anyone. 

 

I found a very good discussion on the topic of ubu mumei on this board. One of the documented reasons that would fit to the shinshinto era is some smiths had extra blades awaiting completion, and didn't always sign them and sold them off at a discount. I can't quite make sense of the argument, but it gives us an alternative to deception. 

 

Shinshinto Ubu mumei, this is a mystery. 

[Jim P]

Hi Chris, The info you wanted,  Shouji Chikuzen Daijyo Taikei Fuji Naotane (Kao)/Bunsei 13 nen Chushun (Spring1830)

http://www.aoijapan.com/appraisal-quiz-290 

and answer is on 291

also just a thought but if the bo hi is original  Korekazu seems to cut the edge a bit thicker IMHO I think this blade was made to look like an old koto sword

[wublet]

Thank you for the reference book. It looks excellent, however the price is daunting. I wish I could pay for an ebook version. 

There are plans afoot to republish it.

[Valric]

Thank you Jim, 

 

It is striking the similarities, even in the characteristics of the steel (e.g traces of Kinsuji). On the topic of Koto, the blade is not pure Bizen, but rather a hybrid between Soshu and Bizen style called Soden-Bizen. As I understand it, the grain (ko-itame) and strength of the blade (thickness, mass) tend towards Soshu, but the tempering technics, hamon characteristics and curvature/Bo-hi tend toward classical Bizen. 

 

You make a fine observation with regard to the Bo-hi edge. But it is difficult to judge the amount of variation in bo-hi placement in Korekazu's work as I have not seen enough examples.

 

Jeff, 

 

I look forward to it. I'd gladly pay 100-150$ for second-hand. 

 

My current working hypothesis is that the smith (Naotane, or Korakazu, or someone else...) made multiple blades for a commission, and one was chosen by the client. The rest were left unsigned. While I don't clearly understand the economic rational behind it, apparently this was documented practice for Shinto and Shinshinto era. 

[Darcy]

It's very pretty work.

 

This is a great example to show the breakdown in understanding between how you should be understanding opinions and how we tend to understand opinions. 

 

I do not see any disagreement in the two attributions. 

 

(Paraphrasing from memory), Sato Kanzan wrote, "Yukimitsu, Norishige, Masamune, they are three ways of saying the same thing."

 

Nobuo Ogasawara in Selected Fine Japanese Swords from European Collections writes some very practical advice. He says in there (at some point, again paraphrasing), "there is no disagreement in the judgment of appraisers who may appraise a sword to Bungo, Ko-Mihara, Uda, etc." ... that is really badly paraphrased but he was making the point that the third and fourth tier koto schools are somewhat fungible and if two appraisers give you different answers within this set, they are not in disagreement. 

 

To the western brain we are looking at an appraisal as the answer to a question that requires a time machine to accurately answer. We want to know who made this thing. What Ogasawara san is trying to say is that the further you fall away from the peak of the mountain, the less clear the view is and the more fungible the answers are. Truly great work will distinguish itself to a very narrow band, or in some cases, to an individual. As you fall to the third and fourth tier not only does it become impossible to differentiate reliably, he's saying that the differentiation doesn't mean so much. I try to bang home the statement that attribution is the first form of quality assessment, above the level of the paper. If you have a mumei sword attributed to Awataguchi, this is a Tokuju form of thing in and of its own, because the school carries forward the highest reputation possible for quality. The sword has to be in keeping with that reputation to get that assessment. If you have a mumei sword attributed to Bingo something or other, this means that the sword did not elevate itself when it was examined. If the fourth tier schools made blades in general that were competitive with the first tier schools, then they would be first tier schools. And weaker work would not be attributed to them.

 

In this case with this blade, they are two top tier Shinshinto smiths and Shinshinto is not exactly a time with highly distinguishable work. Two appraisers may disagree on the fine details but it doesn't matter, what they are coming back with is saying that this is in line with the reputation of the finest smiths alive at the time. 

 

Consider the game when we were kids where you could guess the amount of candy in a jar. If I am the only one who really knows how much candy is in there and I never tell, all you can really do is try to make a reasonable guess. If it is a full jar and someone says "5" then maybe it's because they are blind and can't see. This is what we have when people think their rust bucket from ebay is the Honjo Masamune. Good candy eyeballers are going to say "647" or "721". If I never actually reveal the number, those answers are equivalent if from all angles and ability to subjectively and objectively measure that jar's contents without ever breaking it open and counting, says that they are within some range of error. 

 

This is what you have with your sword. 

 

If you paper it again you will get another top ranked Shinshinto smith maybe if not a repeat of one of the two existing answers. Most likely, they will look at the green paper and say well that is a reasonable stab at it, and for consistency sake just verify the attribution there. You won't find out anything new. Send it to the NTHK and you may be able to add a third smith to your list.

 

Put this piece in the koto period and the likely candidates narrow for the skill level and regional styles and steels make for greater differentiation, and so easier to nail a maker. Give me a beautiful sword in thick rolling nie deki with chikei, jewel like steel, suriage mumei and 70cm, proud Kamakura sugata and ichimai boshi on a chu kissaki.... I will say Go Yoshihiro, you will say Go Yoshihiro, Honami Koson will say Go Yoshihiro, the NBTHK will say Go Yoshihiro and the NTHK will say Go Yoshihiro. Even though we have no signed Go Yoshihiro to compare against, this is the definition of Go Yoshihiro and the picture is crystal clear to anyone. 

 

Make it rolling even notare, extended kissaki, add utsuri, straighten it out a bit and make it wide from top to bottom, with precise forging and a flame like boshi and small sunagashi throughout. Every one of us will say Kanemitsu. 

 

Give us your blade and there is no reliable answer to fall onto. As long as the answers are not directly opposed, they are in agreement. If someone says Muramasa, another says Ko-Bizen Yoshikane, and another says Naotane, now you have conflicting assessments that require some explaining or having one or two thrown out.

[Valric]

Darcy, thank you for taking the time to reply with such a erudite and didactic post. It's fascinating how culture shapes perception, and in the end, shows that learning is more about asking the right questions than seeking answers to naive ones. A humbling and poetic conclusion to my inquiry.