Request for sayagaki resources

[bigjohnshea]

Hope you are all well.

 

What resources would you all recommend to verify the authenticity of a sayagaki by Honami Choshiki?

 

Appreciate some advice on books and/or online resources to use.

 

Cheers,

[seattle1]

Hello:

A good place to start would be to get a copy of Markus Sesko's. The Hon'ami Family. Choshiki is mentioned in there several times, but a quick search did not reveal the important kao cypher. Arnold F.

[Grey Doffin]

Hi John,

An important online resource is right here. Post some pictures and ask opinions.

Grey

[nagamaki - Franco]

FYI, quick example for comparison .... http://nihonto.ca/miike/ .... http://nihonto.ca/miike/sayagaki-l.jpg

[bigjohnshea]

Thanks everyone for your comments. Sorry it took so long to respond. Had a busy day yesterday.

 

I made an offer of about 2000$ on this tanto a few days ago.

 

http://www.ricecracker.com/inventory/87 ... to_sa.html

 

I approached the purchase of this tanto as though I was simply buying a mumei early Koto era tanto and not a Samonji. I'm assuming that since it hasn't been submitted for shinsa that the current owner and the merchant are even more in doubt about it being a Sa than they let off in the description.

 

The truth is I will be perfectly happy with it for the roughly 2000$ I paid as long as it turns out to be a Kamakura or some early era tanto. I think that's a fair price for a tanto from that period. Also the old document that comes along with it is interesting.

 

It does have a number of features consistant with it being a Sa, such as those written of in the description, and the fact that he tended to make shorter tantos than what was common for the time, with just a hint of sori in the nakago. However, I wanted to try and find a resource that might detail which blades had sayagaki written for them by Honami Choshiki. I guess I was assuming there was some kind of list somewhere out there that detailed the blades he had made attributions for.

 

Love to hear some additional thoughts if anyone would care to share.

 

Thanks for the links and the advice.

Cheers,

[nagamaki - Franco]

The attribution is by Honnami Choshiki, but we have to question as to the validity of this sayagaki. - ricecracker

 

Did you talk to Mike about this yet?

[bigjohnshea]

Edit: I just emailed him via his website. Thank you for the suggestion. We'll see if I hear back.

 

Cheers,

[Darcy]

Choshiki is not one of the most reliable Honami. It's not clear if this is because of the difficulty of working in his time period or lack of skill but probably the former.

 

As a result we see a lot of unreliable attributions he's made. I've seen several Masamune that were not, and a Sadamune that was not. But I have him on a Norishige which is (and it is zaimei and Juyo). So he's not always wrong but it's not like Kotoku. Gotta take this guy with a hefty grain of salt when you see him.

 

So all told it's probably reliably made by him when you see a Choshiki sayagaki, it's just not worth anything until you get papers or Tanobe sensei or a new Honami sayagaki that will confirm it.

 

My Norishige sayagaki by the way by Choshiki has a little side note "Kunzan agrees with this (kao)" ... which shows you what the owner of the time thought of Choshiki's prowess.

[Darcy]

Mike has made an honest appraisal of the blade, said nothing is guaranteed and doesn't conclude the sayagaki is accurate which is in keeping with the reputation of Choshiki. I don't think anyone takes anything Choshiki did at face value.

 

Ignore all the documents which are just historical curiosities, study the blade and come to your own conclusion about who made it. Prepare to remove the signature and hope for the best when it goes to the crapshoot of shinsa.

[bigjohnshea]

Thank you, Darcy.

 

I wasn't sure if they really had any good reason to think the sayagaki was wrong or if they were simply being doubtful due to a rare attribution.

 

After studying the blade a bit more the last few days I'm realizing that it lacks two kantei points that appear to be key to the attribution of O-Sa tantos. These are both as described by Fred Weissberg on Nihonto.com The first is a widening hamon described as transitioning from yakikomi at the hamachi and growing wider as it ascends. The second is a long kaeri extending down the back of the mune. My blade lacks both of these features seen in every example of a Samonji tanto available online, particularly the three seen on sho-shin.com.

 

I am wondering if this may be a Sa Yukihiro tanto given a few points Fred makes on his description of the difference between O-Sa tanto and tanto by Yukihiro. I'd be thrilled if that were the case, but either way I've convinced myself the last few days that the "Sa" mei does not belong, and the attribution is likely wrong if genuine. Your description of the reputation his sayagaki have, Darcy, seems to fit giving these missing features.

 

As for the two samurai mentioned in the document, it appears to be well known that Takeda Harunobu carried a osoraku-zukuri style tanto, which would ofcourse not be this, but that does not mean the document is wrong. As for it having been owned by Yamamoto Kansuke, I haven't found anything talking about what tanto he may have used.

 

Hope you have had a great weekend.

Cheers,

[bigjohnshea]

Raising this thread from the dead to post the results of Shinsa.

 

The supposed gimei was removed and this was submitted to NBTHK shinsa.  The result is Hozon as Hirado Sa, one of the two minor schools branching from Chikusen Sa. 

 

From Nihonto Club I see that one of the smiths from this school actually signed "Sa", so is it possible that the remnant of a signature which resembled the symbol "Sa" might not have actually been gimei?  The Honami Chosiki Sayagaki was attributing it to O-Sa, and while that sayagaki was erroneous, could the mei itself have still been genuine?

 

Hope everyone is doing well!

Cheers,

[Kronos]

Did you not submit it with the mei first before removing?

[bigjohnshea]

No, the mei was removed first.

 

There was alot of discussion above about this being gimei O-Sa but we never actually thought about the possibility that this was another smith signing Sa in a lineage school of Chikusen Sa.

[bigjohnshea]

Additionally, Mike's assessment of the sword, and the features of the sword itself, did not support the mei being attributed to O-Sa as the Sayagaki would indicate. These are the primary reasons for why the mei was removed. I don't think anyone who saw it prior to shinsa, perhaps including Mike, knows the Hirado Sa school well enough to make a solid attribution of this.