Lewis B

Tony makes some great suggestions. I'm constantly reminded how good some collections are, especially within Europe. These connoisseurs keep a low profile and prefer not to brag or discuss their collections in public forums, which is perfectly understandable. I'm fortunate to see many of these superb pieces as a NBTHK member so know they exist. There are 'elite' (sorry but hard to find a better word) collectors in Japan who hold some of the finest collections outside major nihonto museums that are only known or talked about in tightknit groups. I think a 'private room' might encourage a little more openness as sharing these top tier blades can only be positive for encouraging the next generations of collectors that follow.

My preferred choice for togishi has accepted the commission and already started work. First step, removal of the corrosion under the habaki so that the shirasaya can be constructed.

The link is blocked.

Currently as a non member the feature I find most frustrating is the search button delay, especially if I'm scrolling through multiple pages of a thread. Good to hear this is addressed for Gold subscribers. The search system is a little annoying (or maybe I'm missing something) if I'm searching a particular topic by a specific member.

As a newcomer to nihonto and tosogu collecting I have found this forum to be invaluable in so many ways. We are in an enviable situation now with plethora of sources of information from books to societies like the NBTHK-AB and EB, as well as local organisations within our jurisdictions. These society interactions no matter how important, are, by their nature, sporadic. The NMB is always there, with members who are often very willing to share the knowledge they've acquired over many decades of diligent research. This is how a field of study grows by participating and sharing. I have found many friends on NMB in the course of the last 18 months, since starting my journey, people I might not otherwise have met. I know for a fact I wouldn't be where I am today without NMB and its participating members. I would not have had the confidence to take a chance on a forgotten blade, one that might have been lost to history in its current state, if its fate had not been secured. Just as I saw something in that blade so we must all decide how much this forum has contributed to our own growth and enjoyment. By subscribing we are doing something small to preserve the knowledge and experience for future collectors, especially those outside Japan. Losing Darcy and his Yuhindo website was a massive loss and it would be a crime if something similar happened to the NMB. By subscribing we ensure this wealth of knowledge, a lot of it only found here, is preserved. As Brian says it's a bargain in the grand scheme of things. Someone made an interesting comment recently which really struck a cord with me. Why are there no grassroots Japanese nihonto forums? You would think this would be the obvious place for such a community to grow and thrive. Is the collecting culture so different in Japan that there is a reluctance to share knowledge and ideas? That really brought home how lucky we are to have this community and one that shouldn't be taken for granted. I will be subscribing as soon as my replacement credit card arrives from the US. As for other ideas to increase revenue? I don't see any problem in charging a small fee to list items in the Classifieds and/or make this a perk for subscribers. Perhaps a third level of membership eg $5 for a month if people want to list items for sale on an occasional basis. Many forums operate such a business model, the VW California Club, Home Barista and Kitchen Knife Forum (for new members or those with low post counts), 3 forums that I also frequent on a daily basis.

Thanks Dee. Juyo is a different story as the Mei must be shohin to get to this level. We are only considering Hozon submission in this instance. As for the accompanying documentation. Under normal circumstances this is true, however this tanto is being resubmitted after receiving Horyu paper. The Shinsa panel are effectively inviting additional information to support the Mei. Precisely what they need to make an informed decision for shohin is up for conjecture. All I can do is gather enough data, which can only be circumstantial, to make a convincing argument that the blade came from the Shintogo atelier, at a time when daimei-daisaku were being produced by apprentices and that the style of Mei suggests one of two possible candidates, although this is probably less relevant from the perspective of their adjudication. Based on current knowledge it is accepted that Norishige and Kunihiro were working as apprentices directly under Shintogo in 1308. Of these two my gut feeling, by comparing known examples by the smiths, is that the carving style is more suggestive of the younger Norishige than his older fellow student, Kunihiro. Hoshi's suggestion that Norishige might have been illiterate or at best of limited ability, at this period in his life, given his provincial origins, was especially compelling. Kunihiro and his siblings were more likely to have had some formal education and literacy ability due to their backgrounds. In fact the 3rd son Kuniyasu (Daishinbo) was a buddhist priest and they were almost always literate in the 14th century.

My best bet is that the habaki represents the 3 celestial bodies ie sun, moon and stars. With the silver of the polished blade showing through the design it would be reminiscent of the moon and a star in the night sky. But you're right it would be impossible to see any celestial body in that precise position relative to the moon. From AI In Japanese art, the sun symbolises imperial authority and vitality, the moon represents beauty, impermanence and enlightenment and stars symbolise guidance, fate and the passage of time.

Correct. In polish along with a dossier of supporting evidence for a daimei-daisaku attribution by an apprentice (with Norishige being the clear favourite). The 2018 Horyu papers recommended more research and so far none of the experts have dismissed the Mei as gimei. I hope the documentation from extant blades and oshigata will sway the panel. Whatever the outcome, its academic. Having the blade assessed as Shintogo, in hand, by a leading expert is all I really needed to hear. Anything above and beyond that is gravy.

It was always going to come down the forging style of the hada and structure of the hamon/boshi that would make or break the attribution. I'm very happy to hear someone with that much experience has confirmed what I thought I was seeing in the photos. Together with Tanobe-sensei's appraisal I feel pretty confident it is what it purports to be. I look forward to seeing how it looks after polish. The icing on the cake will be if it has masa-gokoro forging style that has been observed for some blades from the Kagen (1303) and Tokuji (interesting tidbit, this era started on my birthday in 1307) eras in which 1308 falls.

A top Soshuden togishi has seen the blade and thinks without the Mei it can get Mumei Shintogo at Shinsa. The hada is typical Shintogo. The nioiguchi from bottom to middle has been worn away but he says he can polish it in a manner that balances the appearance. But don't worry the Mei is not going anywhere.

Another piece of circumstantial evidence. Norishige's mei chiselling style has some characteristic nuances. One feature mentioned in the Soshuden Museum notes on the smith state " The second upper and lower lines of the 重 character were made thick and deep, so that they look like a frame for the inside of the kanji." His verticals are not that precise either. From what I can see in this image of the nakago the horizontal line in the 2nd kanji 'mitsu' is noticeably deeper. Compare this to the strikes on the 1306 tanto that is possibly Yukimitsu signing daimei Shintogo. The strikes on this blade are of a consistent depth. Obviously nothing definitive but a feature worthy of consideration.

Ohhh. Well there is always that. Thought it was a new HS Code or something.

Don't leave us hanging.....

I'm not an expert but my gut feeling is that the last 2 kanji were inscribed at a later date by a different hand (see the kanji for kuni). Not sure why. The yokan-iro has developed to a higher level on the other kanji affording some protection. The lower 2, especially the penultimate were likely chiseled later, thus exposing the bare metal to corrosion and red rust took hold after the work was completed. IMHO.

Speaking of Norishige what do people think of this early Juyo Norishige tachi that just dropped on Eirakudo? Are the cloudy areas utsuri? https://eirakudo.shop/928608

Quite surprised by the Tametsugu attribution. I would have thought Sanekage would be a closer fit given this hamon. Some very nice nie formations highlighted in the YT video.

A couple more examples of Norishige mei with the kuni kanji showing some consistencies and inconsistencies in the style of chiseling. This time one with a sloping centre line and the other like the example above with a vertical line ala Shintogo Kunimitsu. What is consistent in all 3 is the sloping horizontal of the 2nd strike and the gaps between the 1st to 2nd and 3rd to 1st strikes.

Some useful and current info for artisans in the USA doing this kind of work contained in this thread.

Nice little after show presentation in case anyone is thinking of attending next year June 12-14, 2026. Highly recommended. https://youtube.com/shorts/DrrY8G1-4T4?si=U3V_2lzIJNAU-9FG

I enjoyed reading that treatise Okan. Certainly provides more food for thought and some hypotheses regarding the organization of the Kunimitsu atelier. I thought what was especially interesting was the use of a thin chisel between 1306 and 1308, and the differences in forging style with pronounced masa-gokoro during this period. It will be interesting to see if this forge welding pattern is present in my 1308 tanto after polish. Another useful datapoint is that the Buddhist koshin inscription was posthumous. Given this fact, did Shintogo Kunimitsu die in 1310 or earlier (the 2nd character for the tachi nengo is a little unclear)? I like the idea of a collaborative/cooperative working environment. This would fit many of the theories that connect the different smiths, both directly as apprentices and possibly later as a partnership with 2+, more or less independent groups, working in the same atelier. Headed by the master Shintogo Kunimitsu with his own apprentices, Kunihiro, Kunishige, Norishige and Kuniyasu (Daishinbo), whilst on the other side there's Yukimitsu and his son by birth or adoption, Masamune.

I've been checking other entries in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen and found a Norishige tachi mei with some similarities to the kuni kanji on the 1308 tanto. The upward sloping angle of the upper box element appears to be quite similiar. Furthermore the left side vertical and horizontal line placement is quite different to the regular Shodai and 'Yukimitsu' daimei examples posted earlier in the thread, where they connect the lines. Norishige leaves a gap top and bottom. But I don't know enough about Japanese calligraphy to know how individualistic, as a writing style, this could be. The kanji, from my understanding, is closer to the normal character for 'kuni' 国. Is it possible the handedness can be determined from the archaic mei examples and that this might factor in the stylistic anomalies? The tachi mei dates from the Karyaku 嘉暦 period (1328)

To my eye this looks like a deliberate strike of the chisel. Why would this be here in the tachi mei above but no other examples I can see..... except the 1308 tanto? Both also have the horizontal strike (shallow but present) above the mirrored 'S' which is absent in most mei.

Nice detective work Okan. So much for the notion that Shintogo Kunimitsu always signed in an identifiably consistent manner. Unless of course these later inscriptions are daimei or the blades themselves are daimei-daisaku. I do find it odd he would add the buddhist name himself. All these discrepancies occurring late in his career raises question marks too. Just because the blade is dated 1315 does not necessarily mean it was forged then. Are there any other examples of smiths inscribing their atelier name AND a buddhist name on the nakago? Masamune was also a priest so this may have not have been an uncommon situation in the 13th and 14th centuries. If not, perhaps it was a sign of reverence and respect by whomever signed the blade.

All very curious. One might think that these later period, embellished Shintogo Kunimitsu Mei examples were created by a third party, especially with all the differences in the kuni 国 and mitsu 光 kanji, which are a clear departure from the Masters earlier signing style. Looking closer I would even say the 2nd character in the Kunimitsu Mei in the blue box is atypical. Looks like the same Mei as on the 1306 tanto. Checking Jussi's reference database the 1315 Kurokawa Research Institute tanto (# 3631) has Juyo Bijutsuhin papers so this was passed as authentic? Another blade with partial Mei 鎌倉住人 (Resident of Kamakura) dated 1312 passed Juyo 34, although which Shintogo is not specified. Certainly seems like a pattern is emerging, many dated blades exist between 1306-1315 (besides the Kurokawa, none of the other blades pictured in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen are recorded in Jussi's list). Another trend is that the later dated extended Mei examples tend to be longer, a feature that is more characteristic of Kunihiro's output. Shintogo Kunimitsu's tanto were mostly shorter in comparison.

Thank you. I would not have figured that out.