Jean Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Andy is right: gimei http://www.nihonto.us/KATSUMITSU%20&%20 ... 0TANTO.htm But why? - Tip: no need to read Markus'book or Hawley's. I have already stated why in other posts.
Veli Posted February 1, 2014 Report Posted February 1, 2014 Am I correct to assume that the answer is located around the 住-kanji? Veli
Jean Posted February 2, 2014 Author Report Posted February 2, 2014 Yes Veli it helps to spot this, it will avoid problems to many members/people. The price is for the koshirae and a mumei blade.
Darcy Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 I won't give it away as I wrote some articles on that before. But I like those mounts a lot. I am tempted to buy them to match with another piece.
Brian Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 It's about the placement of the "ju" before or after Osafune. Brian
Eric H Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 In my understanding the kanji ju usually follows the kuni. Bizen kuni ju Osafune Katsumitsu dosho ju Harumitsu. Eric
Stephen Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 What the hell, say he had a massaive hangover and was saying to him self dan i need to do that mei today...started then went oh snap...i forgot to add the Ju...oh well who will know a few hundred years from now??...just saying
cabowen Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 Yeah, or maybe he was abducted by aliens and after suffering an extended period of merciless anal probing, was so shaken he accidentally miss cut the mei....just sayin'....
Stephen Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 My post was done tounge in cheek, you want to place yours there as well its fine with me.
Peter Bleed Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 Thanks to those of you who explained this matter For what it is worth - not much! - my reaction when first seeing the sword on Andy's page was that the signature "looked" pretty good. But without (any) interest in the sword/era/school, and faith in Andy's typically erudite assessment (did he almost use a triple negative? they are likely to say it is not authentic...) I didn't get the books out. Now I wish had. Peter
cabowen Posted February 2, 2014 Report Posted February 2, 2014 My post was done tounge in cheek, you want to place yours there as well its fine with me. I figured if we are going to dream, why not dream big!
Jacques Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Hi, No need to check the mei, nagasa is talkative enough... :D
Jean Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Posted February 3, 2014 Thanks NBTHK, they don't pink slip a blade on its nagasa
Eric H Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 I have noticed examples where the ju is placed after Osafune, but only in combination with „Bishu Osafune ju....“ About this Eisho Katsumitsu is known that gassaku works exists with Sakyo no Shin Munemitsu, Yosozaemon no Jo Sukesada and with his son Jirobei no Jo Harumitsu. Assumed that this Tanto hasn‘t been polished in Japan I would submit it to NTHK-NPO Shinsa this month in Tampa. BTW, the Fuchi/Kashira of this Tanto have been changed, the pair that is mounted now seems to be the original. Eric
Jean Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Posted February 3, 2014 Yes, Eric but not in Sue Bizen. In sue Bizen, smiths considered Osafune as a family name and not as a place. My name is: Osafune Katsumitsu like my name is Robinson Brian or H... Eric. Now look at the gassaku mei in Markus book: e Index of Japanese swordsmiths and check where is located the "ju". Edot to add: i just checked Markus book: Katsumitsu signed Bizen kuni (no) ju ...... BTW, There are a few lines about this syntax in the Nihon To Koza - sue Bizen part.
Jacques Posted February 3, 2014 Report Posted February 3, 2014 Hi, Thanks NBTHK, they don't pink slip a blade on its nagasa Jean I don't understand what you mean, that blade has never been to shinsa.
Jean Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Posted February 4, 2014 Ypu are making a kantei fromthe nagasa Jacques. In case of shinsa, first thing the panel does, is to examine the mei and not the nagasa. Nagasa can seldom be an indication and not waterproof as during sue Muromachi, you can encounter nagasa from 16/17 cm to sunobi tanto. An example of a blade with a nagasa of 27,8 cm. BTW, NBTHK seldom gives an indication of the smith generation. Tsuruta san gives a year of 1450 which corresponds to the first generation (younger brother of the famous Gisuke). Problem, it seems there are no extant work of this first Shimada Sukemune... It is probably kodai http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-mumeishim ... i-kanezane In kantei session, the nakago is hidden by the tsuka, so you have no way to know if the blade is machi okuri, o suriage or not or ubu, so the nagasa is not a principal kantei point, the sugata can be.
Jacques Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 Hi, Jean, You simply don't know how a kantei must be made. It always begin by the sugata (as yourself said, a mei is only a confirmation of a workmanship). Nagasa can seldom be an indication and not waterproof as during sue Muromach I speak about the work of Katsumitsu only.
Jean Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Posted February 4, 2014 Jacques, You are absolutely right, I don't know how a kantei must be made, neither I am the translator in French of Paul Martin's book Nyusatsu Kantei, which is for sale at the NBTHK 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 No need to check the mei, nagasa is talkative enough you just declare first thing of Kantei process is studying sugata and you are doing it by nagasa. Then you add you know very well all the Katsumitsu tanto nagasa (lucky guy), unfortunately it is a gassaku mei: I speak about the work of Katsumitsu only Which means by the way that you have first read the mei to know it is Katsumitsu (but forgot Harumitsu) we are talking about and should have spotted immediately the fake, instead of referring to nagasa (which comes after the mei in the description given by Andy).
Eric H Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 Edot to add: i just checked Markus book: Katsumitsu signed Bizen kuni (no) ju ...... Jean, Exactly what I said in my first posting. I don‘t have the Nihon to Koza. The mei of this Tanto is suspect because of the placement of the ju...is this evidence enough to judge as gimei? As the gassaku work by Katsumitsu and Munemitsu has been mentioned twice, I add the pic. It‘s a Juyo Bijutsuhin. Don‘t miss to read Marcus‘ Blog on Workmanship of the later Bizen Tradition. Eric Marcus' Blog: http://markussesko.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... tradition/
Jean Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Posted February 4, 2014 Eric, Thanks for the link, concerning the question of the Nihon To Koza, the author is affirmative, all swords he had studied with a mei beginning by Bizen kuni osafune ju....were gimei. Considering that Osafune was considered as family name by sue Bizen smith, there are few chances but I let open this issue. Remember that I proved wrong the author of the Oei Bizen part in finding Oei naga mei swords without nengo. Nevertheless, I would like that someone be able to provide a certified sue Bizen blade beginning by Bizen kuni Osafune Ju...... or Bishu Osafune Ju ..... As so far nobody has been able to do it... But Markus index left no chance for a Bizen Koku no Ju mei for Katsumitsu......
Jacques Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 Hi, you just declare first thing of Kantei process is studying sugata and you are doing it by nagasa. So ? A kantei begin by the sugata and the nagasa (katana or wakizashi) neither I am the translator in French of Paul Martin's book Nyusatsu Kantei It's not a defence. Remember that I proved wrong the author of the Oei Bizen part in finding Oei naga mei swords without nengo. I'm still waiting to see that proof.... In Nihonto koza author says exactly: " Within the limits of what i have actually seen, most of the Sue Bizen mono with a mei of BISHU OSAFUNE JÜ NANIGASHI and BIZEN NO KUNI OSAFUNE JÜ NANIGASHI were gimei and as for genuine mei JÜ is above OSAFUNE.
Jean Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Posted February 4, 2014 viewtopic.php?f=9&t=17307&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=Juyo+yasumitsu&start=0 See last post, page 2 Your memory is short Jacques, you participated to the topic and was notified of these posts. There is even the corresponding juyo Zufu. :D Concerning the "ju" I let the topic opened but not for Katsumitsu and I asked if anyone was able to provide a papered sue Bizen with a Bizen kuni osafune ju. ... Or Bishu Osafune ju .... blade, so you are welcome to post one. In forty years, I have never seen one. Edit to add: it seems that Darcy has written something on the subject, if someone has doubt just send him a mail.
Jacques Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 Hi, Jean, This sword is suriage, so it cannot be a proof. Find me an ubu sword with a nagamei and without nengo. About the location of je ji JU, i quoted what has written the author, nothing else.
Eric H Posted February 4, 2014 Report Posted February 4, 2014 anyone was able to provide a papered sue Bizen with a Bizen kuni osafune ju. ... Or Bishu Osafune ju Any search for Bizen kuni Osafune ju will be unsuccessful, but two examples of Bishu Osafune ju. The gassaku mei states explicitly that Harumitsu, his son, lived in the same town -Osafune ju- as his father Katsumitsu (Osafune onaji tokoro ju or Osafune dosho ju)...i.e. the same place. Eric
Jean Posted February 4, 2014 Author Report Posted February 4, 2014 Eric, Forget the Eikyo Bizen, it is not sue Bizen, the second seems valid for Bishu ju, it will be interesting to see papered blades with these signatures. Considering Bizen kuni osafune ju, it seems confirmed as gimei.
Darcy Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 About "Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune" The first smith that seems to have done this is Kunimune but it was not a habit. He has some examples that read "Kunimune Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune". All of the Juyo blades though are Nijimei with the exception of the Nakahara Kunimune blades. Sukemitsu in Bun'an (1444) is not recorded by Fujishiro as signing "Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune" but only using the Bishu style signature. The first smiths doing this by habit seems to have been Munemitsu (Bunmei, 1469) and Katsumitsu (Bunmei) and then Hikobeinojo Sukesada (Entoku). So it appears to have been something which comes up between these generations (Sukemitsu to Munemitsu/Katsumitsu). Fujishiro remarks on the habit as Osafune being used as a family name under the Kiyomitsu entry. He comments also under Munemitsu that "Osafune is the name of a place, but considered from the point that Osafune is inscribed after Bizen Kuni Ju, this means that Osafune is used like a surname. This example also appears in others of late Bizen" (i.e. Sue Bizen). The latest entry in the koto period which follows this pattern is for Yukikane and Harumitsu (Tensho). Harumitsu also signed unusually with Bishu Ju Osafune and Bushi Zen no Kuni Ju Osafune. He seems to have not always used the Osafune though. Hichibei Sukesada in the Shinto period (late 1600s) also used "Bizen Kuni Ju Osafune". The rest of his line seems to have continued to do this as there are entries in Kawachi no Kami Sukesada in 1688, and Godai Sukesada (Hichibei) 1751. Yokoyama Sukekane in the Shinshinto period is back to signing "Bizen Osafune Ju" (Keio, 1865) as does Sukenao (1854), Sukenaga (1830), and others I assume. My conclusion (which can also be picked up from several other books) is: 1. from Bunmei on, Osafune works in the Koto period, the rule of thumb is that Ju precedes Osafune. 2. if the order is not reversed, then the blade is most likely gimei 3. no general rule in swords is absolutely certain -- if only for the fact that we have certainly lost works so potential dissenting examples that break the rules have possibly been lost AND Japanese habit is to eliminate examples that break the rules. This further distorts the rule in that dissenting examples may seem to be more in the minority than they may have been at some point in the past, which means that conclusion #3 here needs to be respected (bearing in mind that it's a general rule itself!). 4. the reverse ordering clearly needs to be kept in mind in the Shinto period as well for Osafune smiths though it is not clear how tightly they kept to the habit without doing a full study of smiths more obscure than appear in Fujishiro.
Darcy Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 About: nagamei on Oei Bizen with no date. Juyo 19 has a tachi signed "Bishu Osafune Yasumitsu" with no nengo. Juyo 21 has the same. Juyo 29 has the same (example included). Juyo 38 has the same. Juyo 42 has two tachi like this. Juyo 18 has a signed "Bishu Osafune Morimitsu" tachi with no nengo. Juyo 32 has the same. Juyo 13 has a tachi signed "Bishu Osafune Moromitsu" with no nengo. Juyo 56 has the same. There are others. Additional facts: There are tachi with nijimei and no date. There are tachi with nagamei and date. There are no tachi that I can recall that have nijimei and date. There are numerous katana, wakizashi and tanto with nagamei and date. There are tanto with nijimei and no date. There may be other configurations, this is off the top of my head for what I've seen. My conclusion: 1. obviously nagamei with no date is an accepted signature form for Oei Bizen and is not to be ruled out. 2. the accepted examples all seem to be tachi and rather large examples as almost all are slightly suriage, so it may be restricted to this form and one would have to look at a katana in this configuration skeptically. 3. it's possible that these were dated below the signature but it does not seem to be the case from these examples and the positions of the signatures, and I didn't see any that did follow this pattern, though I have seen it on Aoe. But without anything solid it is just speculation.
Darcy Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 About: kantei by nagasa. In general Sue Bizen tanto are on the small side but it is not an absolute. Sue Bizen Juyo works are not very common so it's a bit hard to study by the Juyo examples. There is a Meio 8 nen (1499) dated Katsumitsu tanto which is 27.6cm., and another with the same date which is 27.6cm. Yosozaemon Sukesada has a tanto of 25.6cm and Juyo with a Daiei 7 date (1526). There is another Sukesada (I think Genbeinojo) of 29.9cm dated genki 3 (1573). So, a date of 1518 and a length of 28.5 would not be out of place with these examples. Keeping in mind conclusion 3 above, that general rules of thumb are only rules of thumb, these kinds of outliers exist for various reasons. Smiths copied old work for one, and they made custom work directed by the client, and especially the Osafune workshop catered to custom orders. If someone walks in and says "I want a really big tanto, here is a pile of gold", the smith is not going to say, "I'm sorry sir, this is the Sue Bizen period, we're not supposed to do that." Rather the weapons were made to fit whatever current trends and techniques were. And with anything, be that weapons, cars, clothes, watches, there are always conservatives who did not get with the times, throwbacks/homages to past work, and those that push the envelope seeking change. Those create the statistical outliers. Most importantly I think is to always remember: JUST BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE A GHOST DOESN'T MEAN IT DOESN'T EXIST! Hey, it probably doesn't, but sometimes it does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth It's your problem for using incorrect logic and ruling out examples because you have not seen them. You can rule them in when you have seen them, but you can never totally rule them out. You can indeed make a qualified statement like I have done above, where all the nagamei examples of Oei Bizen have been restricted to tachi, where I then say, "it would seem that they are restricted to tachi" and that you should then be skeptical of a katana. I didn't go out and make the conclusion "therefore all katana like this are gimei" (as one particular poster likes to do on this board, when he has not seen something therefore it does not exist). After all Hiromitsu only left behind zaimei wakizashi until a tachi was found. It's the only tachi strongly confirmed to be Hiromitsu but they didn't say it's not a Hiromitsu because there are no others so he didn't make tachi. So you really have to give thought to ruling by inclusion or exclusion unless you know for sure you have made an exhaustive analysis of all possible examples. And we know in this field that we have lost probably the majority of examples so many things we take as fact are extrapolations and take on faith a lot of things in old books for which we have no tangible evidence today. In the end, in order to be a good student or scholar, statements need to have some built in fuzz factor to take in the fact that you didn't see everything yet and to keep your mind open to learn new things. Fujishiro ranked Yasumitsu as Jo-saku only even though by his work, its price in the marketplace, its appreciation by scholars and collectors, and its standing in Juyo consideration is equivalent to Sai-jo saku. He also has some inverse conclusions about the type of work vs. what Kokan Nagayama has to say. My gut feeling on this is that he just didn't see the full scope of work or didn't draw a personal appreciation for what he saw. He had obviously to see a whole lot of everything but he seems out of step on this particular case so maybe the conclusion was too hasty without the full field of data available to him. An example maybe of making this kind of mistake.
Jacques Posted February 5, 2014 Report Posted February 5, 2014 Hi, it is obvious that there is no comparison possible between Honma Junji sensei's knowledge and Darcy's knowledge or Jean's knowledge. So my choice is clear, i will believe Honma Junji sensei until someone can show an ubu nakago with a nagamei and without a nengo.. The sword shown above has a suriage nakago you can compare the location of the mei with an ubu one. There is 999999 chances on a million the nengo was filed out during the shortening of that nakago.
Recommended Posts