Koto Tanto Signature

[Martin]

Hi,

 

 

I bought a koto tanto some time ago that has the following mei (at least that´s what I found out...):

 

 

Bichu Osafune Munemitsu

 

 

Could anyone help me in judging this mei? What I want to know is from what exact time it is from and if the mei is authentic. In this context I would also like to know how you can recognize if a mei is authentic or not. Is it the way the chiseling was done or what other hints are there?

 

I have to admit that I am still much a novice regarding nihonto and do not know which books I could consult that would help me to answer my questions.

 

I have got a few books on Japanese Swords (amongst them the "Conaisseurs book of Japanese Swords") but I don´t know if that is the right book to consult in this case. Does anybody have a recommendation of what english language books to buy as a beginning collector of nihonto that really give you profund information on Japanese Swords and their identification.

 

Any help would be highly appreciated.

 

Kind regards,

 

Martin

[Brian]

Martin,

 

I am also not qualified to judge a mei, but this is one of the harder aspects of collecting Nihonto. Basically this is why we have Shinsas and experts with huge libraries of oshigata that they can reference to see if the mei matches known examples. It comes down to being able to recognise the strokes the make up the signature, and then see if the blade characteristics match his known works. Most of the books used to compare signatures are in Japanese, and the most well known one is the Fujishiro Nihon Toko Jiten with Koto and Shinto volumes, and also all the Nihonto Koza volumes that AFU has translated into English. Those can be found at http://www.afuresearch.com/index.html

Weak strokes, wrong placement and unconfident chiselling can be indications of gimei, but there is much more to it.

So basically you compare it to known works, and then see if the hamon/hada/sugata etc matches his work, and then you will have only an educated guess

Take a look at the top of the forum for the suggested reading, and also the Swordsmith Database can be helpful. The Hawley books, Japanese Swordsmiths, are also popular, and have a good section on gimei.

 

I am sure someone will take a look and give you a good opinion on the smith in the pics.

 

Regards,

Brian

[Henry Wilson]

From Hawleys there appears to have been about 15 smiths from Bizen that signed MUNEMITSU dating back from 1233 to 1966. The most celebrated was the 5 th generation who worked from around 1478 to 1526 and is described as being extra sharp. He is listed in Fujishiro Koto volume and some oshigata are included. I don't have a scanner so I can not enclosed the oshigatas but here is a transaltion of the text

p.249

MUNEMITSU SAKYÔNOSHIN [bUNMEI 1469 BIZEN] SUEKOTÔ JÔJÔSAKU

He is the second son of Rokurô Sahyôemon Sukemitsu, toured other kuni with his older brother Ukyônosuke Katsumitsu, and left behind works made jointly with him. After his older brother passed away, he helped his brother's heir Jirôzaemonnojô Katsumitsu and worked as a swordsmith. He also taught tempering to Akamatsu Masanori, Lord of Mimasaka Castle. His works are largely sunzumari tantô, hamon is gonome choji, suguba, and horimono are seen. (Ryôwazamono)

Signatures: BIZEN KUNI JÛ OSAFUNE SAKYÔNOSHIN MUNEMITSU

BIZEN KUNI YUKEI GÔ JÛ OSAFUNE SAKYÔNOSHIN MUNEMITSU

Plate I: BIZEN KUNI JÛ OSAFUNE SAKYÔNOSHIN MUNEMITSU

Plate II: BUNMEI JÛNEN HACHIGATSU KICHIJITSU ? ? ?

Osafune is the name of a place, but considered from the point that Osafune is inscribed after Bizen Kuni Jû, this means that Osafune is used like a surname. This example also appears in others of late Bizen.

Akamatsu Masanori (Daimyô of Harima, Mimasaka, Bizen) learned tempering from Munemitsu, and made swords. Also, in later years, the house of Urakami (force which replaced Akamatsu) commanded Minamoto Hyôei Sukesada and Gorôzaemon Kiyomitsu nado to make swords. This means that both the houses of Akamatsu and Urakami had deep relations in late Bizen. After all, it appears that in the early period of late Bizen it was administered under the house of Akamatsu, and from the middle period on it was under the house of Urakami. [TN]

 

Page 250

Plate I: BUNKI KYÛNEN HACHIGATSU KICHIJITSU

Plate II: BIZEN KUNI JÛ OSAFUNE SAKYÔNOSHIN MUNEMITSU

Plate III: DAIEI GONEN HACHIGATSU KICHIJITSU

Plate IV: BIZEN KUNI JÛ OSAFUNE SAKYÔNOSHIN MUNEMITSU, OSAFUNE JIRÔZAEMONNOJÔ KATSUMITSU

There is a work among the Tsuchiya Oshigata of Bunmei Sannen in which Ukyônosuke Katsumitsu is 37 years of age and Sakyônoshin Katsumitsu is 35. It is a wood block printing of the oshigata, but it is thought to be genuine. The Daiei 5 oshigata to the right is equivalent to the time when Munemitsu was 87 years of age, and his works extended over a period of 55 years. In his twilight years, his nephew Katsumitsu inscribed Munemitsu's signature in the senior position to show his respect for the long lived Munemitsu.

 

 

Page 251

MUNEMITSU SAKUSHÛ [MEIÔ 1492 MIMASAKA] SUEKOTÔ

He is probably of the extended family of Sakyônoshin Munemitsu. (Wazamono)

Signatures: MIMASAKA KUNI JÛ MUNEMITSU

SAKUSHÛ JÛ MUNEMITSU

Plate I: BUNMEI JÛROKUNEN JÛNIGATSU YOSHI [TN]

Plate II: SAKUSHÛ JÛ MUNEMITSU

 

To be honest by comparing your mei with the oshigata in Fujishiro I think that they are not the same as the strokes sizes are quite different. However your tanto could be work by one of the other smiths. I could be wrong thought as I am a newbie too but just my two pennies worth.

 

Hawleys is a dictionary of sorts that lists most if not all known smiths and is a good start in pinning down a smith. Fujishiro is a 2 volume book set that has examples of oshigata and text on the better smiths for the koto and the shinto period. The Fujishiro koto volume and Hawleys are the sources of this info. They appear for sale sometimes on ebay or on this board if you are interested in buying them and are highly recommended.

[Darcy]

What are the measurements of this tanto? In style it does not look like the typical Muromachi shape. You can see an example of that here:

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/yosozamon-sukesada/

 

The "standard" shape is about 22cm of cutting edge, a longish looking nakago , with obvious uchi sori. You should consider getting it into the hands of someone like Bob Benson, who will tell you if it is worthwhile to submit for papers or not.

 

The following is just my personal opinion and could be wrong.

 

The nakago patina on your tanto also looks almost unnaturally uniform and the sharp line of distinction between the patinated area and fresh steel in the ji looks odd to me does not seem overall to be that old. Note the crisp edge of the mekugiana. A sword that is 500 years old will tend to have these sharp edges and flat surfaces become more organic through the action of time and rust. This is not a hard and fast rule, some are exceedingly well preserved (see below). This tanto though seems to me to be a shinshinto piece.

 

Below: well preserved 720 year old nakago. Even still, imperfections and wear cause sharp lines to become rounded.

 

 

500 year old nakago: mekugiana still retain some crispness, but areas of deeper pitting become evident in the nakago, making the surface uneven. Note the organic contour between the patinated nakago and the beginning of the unrusted ji. Compare to the razor sharp line in your tanto. The spray of rust above this line on your piece is the natural process that is beginning to assert itself, and if all of that patina were natural I think that you would not see that black-and-white distinction over that line.

 

[Martin]

Hi,

 

thanks so far for your great effort and informative replies.

I´m a bit astonished (and definately disappointed if this would be confirmed) to hear that this piece may not be a koto tanto. Here are some pieces of information that the seller gave to me before the purchase:

A KOTO Japanese TANTO BIZEN SCHOOL SIGNED

TOKORU paper dated Showa 32 / August 25th 1957 Late MUROMACHI period 15th / 16th Century

NAGASA : 240 mm, NAKAGO : 102 mm

Actually the patina on the tang as it was discussed seems not to have that distinct border between the unrusted ji and patinated part of the nakago in natural. Maybe the foto was a bit misleading. Furthermore I couldn´t really see the crisp edged impression of the mekugiana. I add another one with this post and try to make a good picture of the whole blade later on that gives a better impression of the sugata.

 

Thanks very much so far and kind regards from germany,

Martin

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Martin

 

Can you post a picture of papers if you have them?

 

Thanks

 

Henry

[Martin]

Hi Henry,

 

this sword doesn´t have any authentication papers (NBTHK or NTHK) yet. Or do you mean the Tokoru paper?

 

best regards,

Martin

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Martin

 

Sorry I was thinking of NTHK / NBTHK papers. Do you mean the torokusho (not the tokorusho ) which is the paper / license issued by the Japanese prefectual education board? Either way what ever documents connected with the sword you have would be interesting to see.

 

Regards

 

Henry

[Martin]

Hi Henry,

 

yes, I meant the torokusho paper which I added as an attachment. I was told it dates from August 25th 1957. Too bad I don´t understand Japanese...

It´s pretty much worn and I have to admit I don´t really know what is written there. Is it a kind of affirmation that the sword in question is authentic?

Or is it just a kind of registration card for weapons?

I would really like to know if the sword is from the koto period or much younger (as assumed in Darcy´s post). Any help on this would be highly appreciated.

 

best regards,

Martin

[Darcy]

Hi Martin,

 

The nakago looks older on this picture than on the others, but still there is that impression of a line where the patina stops and then sprays above it. So it nags me that it had a patination job at some point to make it look older.

 

The length is kind of OK for Muromachi, it is a bit long but not too long.

 

The Torokusho is the government registration paper. It is *not* an attribution. There are some people who sell things on ebay and use these as attribution papers and call them government papers or government origami. This is deceptive as they are only a description of the sword to identify it. If the sword had on the nakago it was made by Elvis and Jesus as a joint work by way of a time machine, then this would go on the Torokusho. I had one that said Masamune. That was only because the tanto bore a sumei to Masamune, and so it was dutifully recorded in the torokusho. It means something historically in this case and is useful for analysis, but when it papered to Juyo Token the NBTHK had already instructed the owner to remove the shumei and the tanto passed to Takagi Sadamune.

 

The Torokusho is also supposed to be surrendered when it leaves Japan, as it gets deregistered. There is apparently some loophole that allows them to be preserved, and I don't know what it is. So sometimes some of these slip out, I have owned a couple and I like having them. But I think in the case of people who supply these as origami they may send them out as claimed authentication.

 

Disclaimer: I do deal in swords, and there are some people out there who label things on their auctions that "other dealers may give you bad advice trying to derail my sales." That *does* happen and has happened to me, however *some* people will hide behind that kind of statement in order to deflect any criticism. Sorting out good criticism and bad items vs. bad criticism and good items is something that each person has to do on their own, the best way is by obtaining some degree of experience. So that is what you should aim for and why you should continue to research this tanto to get the best opinion possible. It gives you experience which is valuable even if the mei turns out no good.

 

I would say with your tanto, that the mei is not so good and if I had to choose I would say gimei. From seeing the new picture and knowing the length am not prepared to rule it out as late Muromachi work. Do look at the kasane as I mentioned, and keep studying the piece. Remember the saying about opinions... everyone has one and with swords you will get a lot of varying opinions, some will be right and some wrong, and even very experienced people will make errors. Us more inexperienced people have to recognize our opinions are as likely to be faulty as to be correct.

 

I think for you to satisfy yourself, you need to send this in to the NBTHK to try to get a paper, or else send to someone with a lot of experience who can give you good advice on it.

[Henry Wilson]

I think Darcy has summed it all up. The second pic of the mei looks older but I too think the mei looks slightly odd just by comparing with documented examples. Just my two pennies worth.

[Martin]

Hi,

 

many thanks for your informative replies. Although your conclusion doesn´t sound that good

I heard of the possibility to submit some pictures to the NTHK to confirm the authenticity of the mei. Would you suggest to do so? And do you have any information of how much it costs and how much information you gain from this kind of "shinsa"?

 

Martin

[Darcy]

Hi Martin,

 

It can be useful to do that, the cost is $50.00 to submit via email. Best to give them a good scan of it, flat on. The information is just basically thumbs up, thumbs down. Sometimes they will give generational information.