Jump to content

Mino O-Kissaki Keicho Period Wakizashi? Munenaga Or Gimei?


T14
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently bought my first nihonto for $1565 shipped, I think I might of overpaid a bit but I like this sword. Its a Munenaga Mino School wakizashi o-kissaki with a really thick 7.5mm blade with late Edo period made koshirae originally made to fit this sword, also interesting that the menuki is gunbai military leader's fan. Seller says this sword is from the 1660's period, do features of this sword make it likely made in an earlier or later time period than 1660's Edo? Is the mei real Jumyō Munenaga based on pictures or gimei?

Full Sword description here http://www.ebay.com/itm/WAKIZASHI-ANTIQUE-Japanese-SWORD-SIGNED-MUNENAGA-MINO-SCHOOL-EARLY-EDO-/131777059437?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=XQSu%252FQbxSlIwcMGyF0t6LSPRNPM%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

post-3658-0-95352200-1461184913_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-17399700-1461184921_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-14377200-1461184947_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-62384100-1461184958_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-47130200-1461184967_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-49039200-1461184973_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-76921800-1461185011_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-41905400-1461185035_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-94175300-1461186318_thumb.jpg

post-3658-0-54081500-1461186400_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alec,

 

A number of bizen munenaga nanbokucho and muromachi, just google the name and google docs show up of Sesko's book which then gives some details of the blade characteristics for the smith or the teacher who you can look up separately. The wide mihaba and big kissaki sort of remind me of nanbokucho style. The nakago looks really old in pictures. Also, you say mint but eBay photos do show a deal of polishing has been done. If this is really 7.5mm at hamachi, then it must have been over 8 when made. A beast like the nanbokucho blades. Why the new thread I wonder? Seems like quite a signature in the hamon, so you should look up munenaga and try and match the blade characteristics. The koshirae fittings are not great though, and likely not have been original (I mean the first this blade has worn) if the blade is koto, or even Shinto probably. The fuchi and kashira are mino work copies, and not too good ones. Don't get me wrong please, not saying you got a lemon or anything (in fact the ensemble appears quite nice to me) just want you to know what absolutely wonderful fittings are out there to be enjoyed! Also, Japanese lacquer work can be breathtakingly amazing, you will find.

 

You are going to have to do some digging by your lonesome, I wager, to get close to pinning this down, and then you may begin to think gimei and maybe it's shinshinto, who knows? AT least the blade itself is nice, and that means infinitely more than the signature (thanks Jean for the continued schooling me, You da man!) experts with material on hand to verify Shoshin/gimei are probably too busy to spend hours trying to help out a noob like you and I who aren't even willing to buy from a respectable dealer. Just guessing though. Maybe you will get lucky though. Buena suerte!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alec.

 

At the risk of repeating myself forget Nanbokucho for this sword.  Shinogi zukuri wakizashi blades are not a feature of this period.  Those shinogi zukuri blades you find called wakizashi from this period are shortened from longer swords and yours is ubu, perhaps machi okuri but not by much, and signed so it's not a shortened sword.  Given the o kissaki one would then look at Keicho shinto or shinshinto.  Given what we can see of the hada my inclination would be Keicho shinto but that is far from certain.  There were quite a number of smiths using this mei, as it is only a two character mei your chances of being able to pin this one down are almost zero unless you want to submit it to shinsa.  Take note of the yakidashi and the midare komi boshi in your search.  

 

I don't think you overpaid for this nice wakizashi in koshirae and there is much to learn as you examine the blade.  

 

Have fun!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I created a new thread about this interesting sword and its features in the nihonto discussion as it deserves, the other thread was just about the auction. I looked up Munenaga on google and in googles photos of Sesko's book it shows there were 8 or more smiths apparently named Munenaga. I knew the koshirae was obviousIy not this swords first as it was made in the late Edo period and the sword is supposedly early Edo but this koshirae is not a recent put together but koshirae that was made for this sword and mounted on it in the late Edo period according to the seller at least. I know koshirae is not perfect, the sageo is missing, saya was restored and repainted and there are nicer looking sayas but the tsuba, fuchi, kashira and habaki look to be of a decent quality. The tsuba looks quite expensive and complex, I have seen similar tsubas alone sell for $300-600 on ebay. The habaki is original edo and I see a lot of nihontos with repro modern made replacement habaki for some reason. I doubt this nihonto is shinshinto as the nakago looks too old.

Alec,

A number of bizen munenaga nanbokucho and muromachi, just google the name and google docs show up of Sesko's book which then gives some details of the blade characteristics for the smith or the teacher who you can look up separately. The wide mihaba and big kissaki sort of remind me of nanbokucho style. The nakago looks really old in pictures. Also, you say mint but eBay photos do show a deal of polishing has been done. If this is really 7.5mm at hamachi, then it must have been over 8 when made. A beast like the nanbokucho blades. Why the new thread I wonder? Seems like quite a signature in the hamon, so you should look up munenaga and try and match the blade characteristics. The koshirae fittings are not great though, and likely not have been original (I mean the first this blade has worn) if the blade is koto, or even Shinto probably. The fuchi and kashira are mino work copies, and not too good ones. Don't get me wrong please, not saying you got a lemon or anything (in fact the ensemble appears quite nice to me) just want you to know what absolutely wonderful fittings are out there to be enjoyed! Also, Japanese lacquer work can be breathtakingly amazing, you will find.

You are going to have to do some digging by your lonesome, I wager, to get close to pinning this down, and then you may begin to think gimei and maybe it's shinshinto, who knows? AT least the blade itself is nice, and that means infinitely more than the signature (thanks Jean for the continued schooling me, You da man!) experts with material on hand to verify Shoshin/gimei are probably too busy to spend hours trying to help out a noob like you and I who aren't even willing to buy from a respectable dealer. Just guessing though. Maybe you will get lucky though. Buena suerte!

I

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alec,

 

I'm assuming that these two entries in Markus Sesko's book are for the same guy, but it's a Munenaga, working around Kanbun in Mino province:

 

MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino – “Jumyō Munenaga” (寿命宗永), “Noshū Shimizu-jū Jumyō Munenaga” (濃州清水住寿命宗長), he signed his name also with the characters (宗永), Jumyō school

 

MUNENAGA (宗永), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-73), Mino → MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alec,

 

I'm assuming that these two entries in Markus Sesko's book are for the same guy, but it's a Munenaga, working around Kanbun in Mino province:

 

MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino – “Jumyō Munenaga” (寿命宗永), “Noshū Shimizu-jū Jumyō Munenaga” (濃州清水住寿命宗長), he signed his name also with the characters (宗永), Jumyō school

 

MUNENAGA (宗永), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-73), Mino → MUNENAGA (宗長), Kanbun (寛文, 1661-1673), Mino

The mei on my nakago looks like MUNENAGA (宗長) so can it be determined if my sword was made by this Jumyō Munenaga or if its gimei based on picture of my mei?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Alec,

 

The way to determine definitively (or as definitively as anyone can) is to send the sword to shinsa.

 

It's not likely that the blade is gimei as this isn't a particularly well known or important smith so there would be no point in faking the signature as it wouldn't add anything to the value of the blade.

 

You've bought a nice blade at a good price and I don't think that there is anything to suggest that the blade is anything other than how it was described by the seller. It's time now to enjoy it and put in some study time so that you understand how it fits that description; or maybe after some study you will find that it doesn't, but at least you will have an informed view.

 

Best,

John

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You haven't done badly.

You have a nice sword to study and research and when you're done you can send to one of the shinsas that happens in the us. This won't be cost prohibitive and will probably add a small value to the blade, so long as it isn't gimei. Enjoy and study the ham on closely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold statement: Here it comes> This MUNENAGA is more famous for his HORIMONO carving on 1st Gen Tadayoshi blades.

 

This surely would be one of his latest blades(if not his LAST)...as you know he was famous for HORIMONO carving on 1st gen Tadayoshi's blades... and as you can see in the evidence provided (a detail from the Tadayoshi School timeline) he returned to do some mekugi-ana hole drilling (appearing on 3rd Gen Mutsu Tadayoshi and his father 2nd Gen Omi Tadhiro blades) specific for only a 2 year period...maybe not even that long. Venerable... old... pro... a genius.

 

Munenaga outlived his son Yoshinaga who died in 1638 (ref Marcus Sesko...letter by Munenaga)

 

At this period Yukihiro was teaching 2nd Gen Masahiro (a blade shows this - one that Sotheby's said was 1st Gen Mas and 1st Gen Yuki - but it aint brothers it's an Uncle and Nephew sword)

...and 1st Gen Tadakuni was helping the 2nd Gen Masahiro make blades for the Omi with the Mutsu.

That's the period. 

 

1661 is only 1-2 years out so it was labelled correctly on Ebay.

 

I'd just added your blade to the timeline (an overview of the whole century in the Tadayoshi School) and was surprised to see it as a current thread on here. "Yes the signature looks slightly different as it looks like the MUTSU wrote it for him.

*MUNENAGA writes down the middle of the blade (so Mekugi-ana would be within the characters) 

 

 

post-2842-0-86789700-1462014851_thumb.jpg

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...