Jump to content

????


Darcy

Recommended Posts

About this "Naokatsu," my own opinion is that the NTHK gave the wrong attribution.

 

I think the sword is an Osafune sword.

 

Basically, I think every single thing is wrong in terms of the NTHK's appraisal of the sword.

 

The biggest problem is the yasurime.

 

I was just discussing the Tadamitsu tanto I found with friends via email, one of whom is very knowledgeable and helped me quite a bit. It's interesting, because this discussion all goes back to Jean's original question on the board a while back about yasurime. That had me ask a lot of questions, and several discussions flowered, then this Tadamitsu showed up and I had a case in point to look strongly at Yasurime.

 

What I am told is that a smith learns his habits of yasurime from his teacher, and there is a strong tendancy to keep those throughout his life. He becomes comfortable with a way of approaching the sword, of holding it and his tools, and this carries into the kind and style of yasurime he creates. The mei may evolve, but the yasurime tend not to.

 

The Tadamitsu tanto I found is most certainly Fujita Tadamitsu. This smith is a student of Horii Toshihide, one of the greats of the Showa period. This conclusion can be arrived at without much documentation on Tadamitsu. We know that Fujita Tadamitsu was a student, and then we look at this tanto, and then we look at the work of his teacher. This is what we see:

 

tadatoshi.jpg

 

The Yasurime are identical, and even the spirit of the tagane used in carving the mei carries through to the student. The strength of the yasurime, the kesho, the way they are laid out, all conform to Horii school as set out by his teacher.

 

So we know that yasurime are a big deal, it is such a big deal that it should basically be considered part of the mei. If the yasurime are wrong, then we should be suspecting the mei.

 

In the case of a mumei sword that is attributed to a smith, if the sword is ubu mumei, then if this is the work of the smith, then it should still be finished correctly regardless of whether or not he signed the sword unless the work was abandoned or the smith died.

 

So let's look at Naokatsu:

 

naokatsu.jpg

 

What do we see in regards to yasurime? Very strong sujikai yasurime with kesho. They are strong and deep, and the swords are not of sufficient age to dull them or make them weak through decay of the nakago. All of them are the same.

 

When we look at his teacher Naotane, we see:

 

naotane.jpg

 

Again, sujikai yasurime with kesho. These look a bit older, as would be expected, though not substantially. These two smiths actually died within a very short timeframe though they are teacher and student. Also, look at the changes in mei over time... but the yasurime, very conservative! They like to stay the same.

 

So let's look to one of Naokatsu's students, Naomitsu (the infamous Kajihei, faker extraordinaire and the bane of collectors everywhere):

 

naomitsu.jpg

 

Once again, strong sujikai yasurime with kesho (the quality of these oshigata is not so good, but you can see the kesho marks a bit at the top). The one on the right being hirazukuri seems to have a different angle on the sujikai, but this is the only difference pretty much in all these swords and may be because of the form of the sword.

 

I wish I had my Naohide pictures, because they would show yet another nakago identically finished.

 

So here we have yasurime so tightly controlled within this school, that three generations, one of whom is the most proficient maker of gimei to have lived, all produce the same style so that they are practically interchangeable.

 

Now when we consider the mumei sword above, it is completely lacking these strong sujikai yasurime. There is no kesho either. What we see is katte sagari. Completely wrong not only for Naokatsu, but wrong for his entire school!

 

Furthermore, the yasurime are fine... they seem made fine, and they seem decayed by age. None of these Naotane school blades are old enough to see that kind of wear or decay. Furthermore the nakago patina seems old to me, and I would also speculate that the nakago jiri is wrong for Naokatsu though I'd need to look at more swords. However, look at the examples of the smiths of this school. Look at the nakago ha and the nakago mune and where they terminate at the nakago jiri. They are almost the same depth where they move into the jiri. Now look at Peter's sword, the blown up picture of the nakago jiri. The ha is substantially higher than the mune. So I think this too shows a deviation from the pattern. The more deviations, the stronger the argument.

 

So this nakago, I think there is zero chance it was finished by Naokatsu. The yasurime are part of the mei... this is not coming from the hand of Naokatsu. One option is that someone completely refinished this nakago... but it now appears older, instead of newer? And why would someone refinish the nakago of one of the best Shinshinto smiths? If it was already finished, fake his name or something. Add a Naotane. Why make it mumei but with a mismatched nakago instead of one that was beautifully finished in the style of this school? If you plan on faking an old koto great, why not go the next step and put a name on it? I don't think this line of reasoning holds any water in a practical sense.

 

I think the sane answer is that the attribution is not right, and the nakago is original and normal for the smith who made the sword. If a logical answer can be supplied that matches the sword as it exists, I think this is better than an answer that requires a lot of theories and maybes to explain.

 

Let's look at the checklist then:

 

Nagasa: 62.2 cm, correct for Shinshinto? No.

nearly ko-kissaki: correct for Shinshinto? No.

yasurime: correct for Naokatsu? No.

kasane: correct for Shinshinto? No.

evidence of polish: correct for Shinshinto? No.

patina on nakago: correct for Shinshinto? No.

 

So that's how I come around to all the head scratching and questions on this sword. I fail to see any evidence that it is Shinshinto, let alone Naokatsu.

 

Color of steel, look of steel... this is primarily the work of the polisher. I remember someone posting about asking a polisher if the color of the steel was right for the maker, and the polisher asked, "What color do you want me to make it?"

 

Reading through Kenji Mishina's website, there is a good essay on what a high class polisher will do for jihada that a low class polisher can't. I have seen this evidence first hand on swords I have given him with old polish and how they have come back.

 

I think the logical conclusion is strengthened: this is not a Naokatsu. With a good polish, the "look of the steel" may end up completely different, and this sword seems to be out of top polish.

 

So after tearing down the existing attribution, the question becomes, OK, who made it then?

 

Going to the sugata (shape and size of everything) and the nakago, the nakago looks to be more typical of koto Bizen swords. The hamon in gunome is also one of the typical styles of Bizen. From the little bit of horimono visible in the nakago on one side, I predicted a suken for this sword, and there is bonji on the other. This also appears in Osafune work. The sugata to me is out of place in Shinto and Shinshinto.

 

Yasurime being visible but decayed would place the sword I think in the Muromachi period. Earlier would be a stretch, but not out of the question if it is well preserved (referencing my Rai Kunitoshi tanto with clearly visible yasurime). It is actually a bit on the short side for a katate uchi and the curvature and taper may be too much. Is this a kodachi from earlier than the Muromachi? I would entertain that possibility. I would want a close look at the boshi. I would want to go through a good reference and check the yasurime for the Osafune smiths (no book with me other than Fujishiro). I would be making my case starting with the most reasonable answer for period based on the sugata, then I would look at the nakago and those yasurime. It is mumei, so the yasurime are working in place of the mei.

 

Maybe I am wrong, and every single criticism I make can be countered with the exception to the generalization that we've been talking about.

 

But when every single thing visible seems to counter the attribution, the most fair conclusion is that the attribution is lacking.

 

If I owned the sword I would be sending it in to an alternate authority to get an answer. If I were in England I'd at least try to get Clive or Victor Harris out for a scotch and a sword talk over this blade.

 

But crack open the books, and find someone who fits the period shown by the sugata and make damn sure the yasurime fits.

 

One other note about yasurime: kesho marks. These are invented (or at least become popularized/standardized) by Nidai Sukehiro. Through the Shinto period the finish of the nakago becomes ever more stylized, and the koto period finish is much more basic. This is one of the turning points, when the yasurime start being part of the decoration instead of being purely functional.

 

Lacking kesho yasurime proves nothing much about period, but for sure with kesho you have to look at Sukehiro and later. So koto is definitely in play.

 

I think that this sword is an open question, and I think should provide a good month of study, comparison with books, and looking things up, discussions with the local knowledgeable guys, and then maybe capped off with a trip to the NBTHK for Hozon papers to see what they have to say. I am relatively sure it will not come back as Hozon Naokatsu. If so I will pay for the papers, and you can take me up on that :-).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I have trouble buying the theory that Jo-jo saku smiths from the Shinshinto would go to the excess trouble of faking a sword that might get mistaken for mumei Sue-Bizen and be of a length and kasane that would make it an unusable weapon in regards to the demand of the time....

 

I think there is an economic argument that this school is very prosperous and their works are in demand until the big crisis hits. At that point, maybe someone might be tempted to take a file to a Naokatsu mei to try to create an older Bizen work, but then the work would at least otherwise be normal dimensions.

 

I don't buy that the above blade is a deliberate attempt by this smith to create a fake. If you are going to fake something, I think you will do a good job to fool someone into it being an o-suriage tachi. For this at least you're going to need the right nakago jiri and multiple mekugiana and so on. I have trouble feeling comfortable with that approach until there is a real economic reason to do so.

 

Inferior smiths try to fake superior smiths. Superior smiths have less incentive to try to fake something that might be considered Sue Bizen as an option. Perhaps a superior smith might try to fake a grand-master.

 

I dunno, this starts getting into a lot of theorizing and that's what I don't like... the more complex the explanation the less likely it is, when a sword may have a perfectly suitable explanation for why it is like it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a very interesting sword. I am wondering if NTHK attribution has not been based only on the hamon.

 

I agree with Darcy, the sword looks verymuch like a sue Bizen Katate uchi, the nakago has deep rust and deep pits and yasurime are almost totally faded.

 

Now I do not have any experience with Shinshinto smiths but I cannot remember having seen this kind of nakago associated with katate uchi when they were trying to revive a tradition. From what I have seen they tried to revive great masters from end of Kamakura/Nambokucho but I have never seen them imitating their Nakago or this sword has a strong flavour of sue Bizen, not an era of study for shinshinto masters.

 

Considering the Horimono, I cannot see if it is worn out or not by polishing. This kind of Horimono was quite frequent during Oei/Eikyo.

 

What is a puzzle for me : why masame near/in the hamon, it would rather point to Mino (Naoe Shizu). But the hamon as shown seems to be crablike (sue Bizen)

 

To compare, here is a short inventory sheet of my katateuchi Tadamitsu (around Eisho):

 

Nagasa : 62,7 cm

Sori : 2,1cm

Hamachi : width : 2,9 cm - kasane : 0.73cm

Yokote : width : 1,84 cm length : 3cm (Chu, considering the nagasa)

 

In short, It damned looks as a Katate Uchi sue Bizen.

 

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

As stated by Darcy, yasurime are very important for two reasons, its quality give you a good indication on the smith value (on ubu nakago) and can be also (in case of mumei ubu nakago sword attributed to a smith) a confirmation kantei to the school

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What is a puzzle for me : why masame near/in the hamon, it would rather point to Mino (Naoe Shizu). But the hamon as shown seems to be crablike (sue Bizen)

 

Yes it's definitely masame in the hamon and I think it also says itame nageru on the papers. The hamon is very bright and healthy so maybe as you say it was the hamon that fooled the shinsa team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am too lazy to open a new Topic, but what is the difference between itame nagareru (running itame) and masame? if anyone has pictures.

 

It seems depending on people that either word are used to describe the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jean,

its a good question and like most topics there isnt a definitive answer (I dont think) As you say nagare is running itame, basically it looks like the itame hase been stretched and pulled length-ways. At some point if stretched enough it becomes masame combined with itame. At which point one becomes another is as subjective as when mokume is itame or choji becomes gunome.

The problem with any form of visual assesment there is a high degree of interpretation. The one that really throws me is when people talk about colour in steel. I can see hue diffrences on occasion when comaring two swords but when looking at a single blade I am always amazed when some pronounces that the steel is black or blue or golden.

(I have worked in colour for 30 years do you think I should change jobs?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul,

 

In fact according to where swords were forged during koto times, it seems there was some difference in the steel (colour) but as any skilfull polisher can do anything, I am unable to make distinction in steel colour in *koto times. It seems that during shinto times it became very homogeneous throughout Japon.

 

Now, I think that to be able to see the difference in steel colour, we should see several swords from different provinces polished by the same polisher with the same treatment.

 

I am not sure to see the difference, it seems that koto swords are less shiny than shinto ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jean,

"I am not sure to see the difference, it seems that koto swords are less shiny than shinto ones."

 

yes I agree I think koto steel looks somehow softer, I think in one of the reference books I read it was described as looking like grey velvet. Shinto blades look shiny and therefore harder.

As you say differentiating colour is very much koto related. As the supply of steel unified through the shinto period regional differences in composition and therefore colour was greatly reduced. This is another possible reason why shinto smiths put so much effort into producing loud and blousy (personal opinion only) hamon to enable them to differentiate their work.

I knew there were reasons i prefered koto :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the silky velvety look comes from ji nie.

 

I wrote elsewhere but one way to try to look for them is the light over your shoulder. I found that sunlight filtered through a tree is quite nice, especially if the blade is in a bad condition of polish.

 

The sword that starts this thread has intense ji nie seen this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...