Jump to content

Jussi Ekholm

Gold Tier
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jussi Ekholm

  1. Jussi Ekholm


    I think there are at least 6 signed tachi by Sueyuki. I have 5 on record and I know about the 6th one in Jūyō session 39 but unfortunately I don't have that book yet. There is long one (83,2 cm) at Itsukushima Jinja, the Jūyō 58 one is 80,4 cm and I know 3 signed tachi (77 - 71 cm) with Tokubetsu Hozon papers. For Sadayoshi I have only found 1 signed tachi that is in the collection of Tokyo National Museum. However needless to say they are extremely rare as those are the ones I have found after years of searching. For comparison I have 27 signed pieces for Sadatoshi.
  2. That Hōju tanto is interesting to me but at the same time it might be bit overpriced as the dealer has had it for long time. I remember it appeared years ago with Hozon papers. They ran it through Tokubetsu Hozon in 2019, yet it is still for sale. Sometimes NBTHK adds on extra information in the brackets after attribution. For example here is my Naminohira tachi, which has approximate dating added. 時代室町前期 - Early Muromachi Period, I am not totally sure what qualifies as Early Muromachi by NBTHK standards but I do personally think it would be somewhere around Ōei to Eikyō c. 1394 - 1441. You can often encounter Nanbokuchō Period / 時代南北朝 in brackets for example in Hokke (法華) school katana, here is an example http://www.shouzando.com/k-hokke210728.html Here is a signed Hōju tachi with interesting info: https://toyuukai.com/2015/10/太刀宝寿/ In brackets there is 時代南北朝末期乃至応永 - Period - Late Nanbokuchō to Ōei. This is a tachi by Mitsushige: https://www.kusanaginosya.com/SHOP/371.html NBTHK did not state which Mitsushige made it as it has Kuni Fumei (Unknown province) 国不明 but they state Late Kamakura Period for this 時代鎌倉末期 in sayagaki this has been appointed as work of Rai Mitsushige.
  3. I would think 286 might be signed Tsuguhiro - 次広 (old form of hiro kanji 廣) even though it says it is unsigned. I think 292 would be my personal favorite but I won't be bidding anything.
  4. I think Kamakura is often used as marketing gimmick, and I believe for several of these items the transition from late Kamakura to Nanbokuchō is plausible. Giving very specific dates on shortened mumei items of old age is quite tricky. And I do think dealers often use all the tricks in the book to make them more marketable. There are some Early to Mid Kamakura period blades being sold too but they are quite rare to encounter compared to late Kamakura stuff. In your examples the first one that is attributed to Wake, kinda points towards the end of Kamakura period. I have three date signatures for Shigesuke 1326, 1328 & 1328. And Shigenori was active around the same time but I have no dated signatures by him. The second one Yoshimitsu (義光) I would actually think as a Nanbokuchō smith. In Seskos Index it reads that he has dated work from 1322 to 1375, most likely spread through 2 generations first ending around 1356-1361. I have personally found dated signatures from 1337 to 1358. I think as Aoi is mentioning this work reminding Kagemitsu, which would possibly indicate an earlier work by Yoshimitsu. I think Ko-Naminohira has very long time frame, there are even few late Heian / early Kamakura pieces, going until end of Nanbokuchō. I believe attribution wise the ko-prefix is dropped when we enter Ōei (this is just my personal opinion). In my opinion dealers love to list Ko-Mihara items as late Kamakura, however I believe many of them are from Nanbokuchō period. I know that Masaie the founder of Mihara school was working at the end of Kamakura period into Nanbokuchō. However so far I have not yet found a Kamakura dated blade from Mihara school. Date ranges I have for Ko-Mihara items so far is 1353 to 1394. I know there are few signed tachi of Mihara school that are thought to be late Kamakura work. But I do believe that the majority of Ko-Mihara is Nanbokuchō period stuff. And just by looking at the shape of this particular item I might personally lean more towards that on this item too. I personally like Hōju stuff a lot. Unfortunately they also span through long time period. Earliest work being from early Kamakura and continuing onto Muromachi. I cannot identify if this particular item is thought to be late Kamakura or Nanbokuchō item. As it is mumei and Tokubetsu Hozon it cannot really be later than that. And lastly I think Tegai is also spanning through quite lot of time. I think the earliest work by Kanenaga is thought to be made around Middle of Kamakura but Tegai attribution can run all the way into early Muromachi (at least in my personal opinion). Late Muromachi Tegai work is identified with Sue-prefix. Also to be noted that shirasaya has attribution towards Tegai Kanekiyo (包清), I know there is one tanto dated 1329 by 1st gen Kanekiyo but when looking signed of attributed work other than that one item, it is pretty much towards late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi for Tegai Kanekiyo. Of course NBTHK attributed this as den Tegai instead of Kanekiyo though. Beats me if it is Kamakura or Nanbokuchō work. All of the above is just a personal opinion, I think this is interesting topic that will be fun to discuss.
  5. I checked it when it appeared on the site few days ago. I like the size & shape and of course the treasure hunter mentality peaked and I was toying with the possibility if it could be bit older. However I would think the Late Muromachi and Mino is sounding like a very reasonable origin, I do not have the knowledge of picking individual smiths. Interesting feature to me is that when you look at the sword both sides side by side the 4 peak portions kinda mirror each other. I could not find reference examples by this Kanesada (兼貞) quickly so I don't know if it is a trait seen in his work.
  6. Jussi Ekholm


    I think you were bit too fast to pull the trigger Kirill. As we are spread among multiple time zones and countries it is different for others. I was actually just looking into this when you posted the answer. I can't claim that I would have guessed it. I would have guessed Senjuin. Based on my limited info I could gather from the OP. However as you posted the example by school founder that made my guess kinda impossible. I looked into Tanobes Yamashiro book and there is oshigata of Jūyō blade by Sadatoshi that has quite similar looking upper portion as your hint there. Ayanokōji is fascinating and not too commonly known school, I am puzzled how Sadatoshi is appreciated very highly but rest of the school almost falls into obscurity.
  7. Unfortunately it is much too difficult to read for me to get fully. Here is part of the start of which I am thinking I got correctly but there are few blanks as I am not sure if I was correct on those. 備前国長船則光 文明九年製囗囗五郎左衛門尉囗囗囗同工七十二歳同六祐光囗囗応永備前囗囗末備前
  8. Very nice Austin, well done. I didn't want write too much to not influence other guesses. To me I thought the shape and size would fit into Ōei-Bizen and as it was suguha I went for Yasumitsu. Unfortunately I lack the skill & knowledge to do accurate identification and guessing based on fine details. Thanks for posting this up Eric, it was really fun guessing game. I am always hoping more people would participate in these, of course it is usually very tricky and as you need to enter the guess out in public it might put some people off. Big thumbs up for everyone who made a guess
  9. I think the mei might be starting with - 関善定 - Seki Zenjō...
  10. I used to have a collecting goal of having c. 10 different tachi from Kamakura / Nanbokuchō periods from various parts of Japan from North to South. However realities hit me and I had to tone down that a lot. Now my priorities are getting rare books about Japanese swords and travelling to Japan to see stuff in museums etc. Of course I am open to items if something pops up that interests me and would be possible to purchase, however unfortunately my taste in swords and my finances don't walk hand in hand... so I am not stressing about items.
  11. I think the Kunimune in the opening post might have the bottom kanji for Uda (宇多) showing above Kunimune, with first one missing. Still not a genuine Uda Kunimune signature either in my opinion.
  12. Also I think the paper is neutral in that sense as it just states there is shumei with attribution, so it does not confirm the shumei attribution but instead goes against it and attribution in paper is as described before. The wakizashi looks quite nice to my eye from the little that can be seen in the few bottom pics.
  13. I was wondering who had this great looking Kunihiro for sale? I have my guess who it might be, and I am just curious as it is way out of my league.
  14. What Steve said above, I hope my above message didn't feel too blunt as I wrote that on my phone as I took the pics from books.
  15. Here are two reference signatures for early Kunimichi mei but they are without Fujiwara, as I couldn't find one featuring both Heianjō & Fujiwara. Note the style of Kuni that Kunimichi used.
  16. I think this might be resembling yours most from the book. It was listed under Shintō / Shinshintō section as were all of the Yukinaga oshigata in the book.
  17. I think there are 11 different swords for Yukinaga spread throughout the Bungo book as an oshigata. The unfortunate thing is that none of them are of the late Muromachi era smith. The pictures of the book are not the best as they might already be scans or photocopies from the 70's. I can try to take a picture of one that might be the closest for yours that will show in photo at least somewhat. There are also 3 dated items in the book, katana 1600, katana 1608 and naginata 1611. I would assume these would be by Yashirō (1st gen) but unfortunately no info on these pages.
  18. I am bit confused where the information about guards comes in? The signature on your sword is 九州肥後同田貫次兵衛(丞) - Kyūshū Higo Dōtanuki Jibei (X) As seen above even members very proficient in reading signatures are bit uncertain of the use of the last character. Here you can find some other works of Dōtanuki smith Jibei: https://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/A62300_Y1407.htm http://ginza.choshuya.co.jp/sale/gj/h30/06/10.htm https://www.aoijapan.jp/刀九州肥後同田貫次兵衛/ Dōtanuki smiths were known to make very large yari, here are some reference items of 70cm+ yari by named Dōtanuki smiths. Matahachi: https://sanmei.com/contents/media/K44018_Y1410_PUP.html Hyōbu: https://www.e-sword.jp/yari/1610-4031.htm Minamoto Saemon: https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1304.html (notice that this one has the same last kanji as your yari) Genzaemon: https://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/a00381.html I do think your yari is very nice item and historically quite interesting. Surviving signed yari of this length are important.
  19. Unfortunately I don't have too much info about the named Dōtanuki smiths but in general I believe they are quite highly appreciated. You can find some work by Jibei at few Japanese dealer sites.
  20. I am really liking your approach Michael. Here is the lineage from Markus Seskos index 1. YUKINAGA (行長), Tenshō (天正, 1573-1592) 2. YUKINAGA (行長), Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615), Bungo → NAGAYUKI (長行) 3. YUKINAGA (行長), Shōhō (正保, 1644-1648) 4. YUKINAGA (行長), Manji (万治, 1658-1661) Here is the lineage from Bungo book (I have combined this info from various pages of that book so there might be an error by me as I tried to cross reference it too). Unfortunately the Bungo book is in Japanese which makes it difficult for me to read but it is still great resource, even though some info on it might be bit dated as research goes on and more things are uncovered. 1. YUKINAGA (行長), Tenshō (天正, 1573-1592) [same as 1. in Seskos] 2. YUKINAGA (行長), Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615) [same as 2. in Seskos] 3. YUKINAGA (行長) (1st gen), Keichō (慶長, 1596-1615) [same as 3. in Seskos] name (弥四郎) Yashirō 4. YUKINAGA (行長) (2nd gen), Kanei (寛永, 1624-1644) name (又左衛門) Matazaemon 4. YUKINAGA (行長) (3rd gen), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673) name (佐吉) Sakichi? I think the boshi is in reality bit different but due to poor state of polish in kissaki area it shows that way. Also while minor I think the hada might be more itame than mokume.
  21. Thank you Moriyama for correcting the reading. I think very little features can be seen on the pictures and trying to identify based on them would be incredibly difficult. The signatures have good pictures and they can be the start of conversation. I feel we have been getting nice discussion in this thread overall, and I feel it is nice for the forum in general. We haven't even yet really touched on the koshirae (fittings) yet. That will be an interesting subject too as it is paired and themed koshirae. Maybe because of the current situation as I haven't seen swords live in long long time, I feel there are many very interesting items for researching popping up lately in the forum.
  22. I think the first three are 傅駿州 - den Sunshū (Suruga province) and followed by Shimada Yoshisuke. NTHK tends to always use den in their attributions for mumei swords.
  • Create New...