Who Cares About Kanteisho Level?

[Jean]

https://yuhindo.com/awataguchi-norikuni-tachi/

 

This the sword of a life

[Gakusee]

Yes, I also checked it out. Very atypical for Awataguchi and completely the opposite of a Norikuni I have seen in hand. This one is flamboyant with some obvious hada versus the textbook tight hada and tight suguha. Even the better preserved omote here shows ohada. So I am curious what Paul will say as he is very focused on that school.

 

It is a real pity that the ura side it has been so savagely shaved down but the rarity of a Norikuni signature cannot be overstated. Plus the nie is great, remarkable. I also think it will pass Juyo even if one only allowed for the rarity of the signature.

[Vermithrax16]

Great history and by the name itself and remaining signature, it's going to go Juyo. 

[Valric]

This is a great example of a blade as a historical data point. The fact that it is signed AND atypical means a few things:

• If it were mumei, it would not get this attribution because it deviates from the smith's known work
• it's a very valuable datapoint to understand the range of the smith, and by extension his school and how it connects to later Soshu

[paulb]

I haven't had the chance to read Darcy's write up in detail but am very much looking forward to doing so and to studying the images in more detail. However in response to Michael's request my intial thoughts are listed below:

Firslty I think this is a beautiful and fascinating sword which offers a great deal to study. As Michael and Chris say it is atypical (at least in my limted expereince) of Norikuni's typical style. In my brief read through of Darcy's notes I read that Tanobe Sensie also said it was not typical of this smith.

Awataguchi workmanship tends to fall in to broadly two categories, the first and most common is the ultra conservative extremely tight nashiji hada combined with suguha hamon. The second combines the nashiji with nagare and a more standout O-hada and includes a very active midare or ko-midare hamon. A good expample of this can be found in Markus Sesko's koto kantei volume and the NBTHK journal no. 641 which illustrates a blade attributed to Kuniyasu. Kuniyasu was the youngest of the 6 brothers of the first generation and Norikuni's uncle ( other texts offer alternative relationship but they were pretty much contemporary).

Most of the Awataguchi I have seen in hand , which are still very few, fall in to the first group and the Norikuni swords I have studied and written about, including the national treasure blade in the national museum are of this type. This blade appears to have more in common with the second group and also shows more common features with Norikuni's son and grandsons work. I have seen a Kuniyoshi long sword and Yoshimitsu tanto incorporating this type of o-hada and nagare.

My first reaction when seeing this is that it may be slightly later than the national treasure blade and the other one I have studied (although I am only talking about 10 or 15 years) and starts to show the transition in to the next generations style.

If it were not signed I am also inclined to think it would have papered to Awataguchi or possibly Kuniyasu. The fact that it is signed and by so rare and important smith as Norikuni makes it an extremely important reference work.

One final thing I noted was that Darcy mentions this blade showing core steel. Up until now I had believed, based on what I had seen before, that Awataguchi blades, certainly the early ones were, like Sanjo Munechika's work made in single piece construction. This proves that theory either wrong or again shows a transition to the incorporation of soft core for whatever reason. This subject has been debated at length recently but may confirm some of the ideas regarding scarcity of material mentioned there.

[Prewar70]

Why does a sword of this age, which has been greatly shortened (now 24.5 in), still retain a signature?

[Jean]

James because at the beginning it was a ko dachi and not a tachi

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think it was an average length tachi as Darcy suggests it was c. 72-74 cm originally. That is very common length in Awataguchi tachi. I have measurements for the signed Kokuhō and both Bunkazai tachi by Norikuni. One of the Bunkazai is 72,8 cm and has not been shortened. The shortened Kokuhō and other ubu Bunkazai are/were longer originally. There are multiple remaining signed Awataguchi tachi that are over or very close to 80 cm, however there are still surviving tachi in original length that are around 70 cm and even few below that.

 

I think Darcy has made excellent write ups lately on this Norikuni and Nagamitsu. The only downside about them for me is that they are too comprehensive, they have pretty much all the needed info so I don't have to dig any info by myself which I love to do.

 

I think this is perfect example of rarity that I tried to bring up on the unpopular schools thread. As there are only 8 known signed works by Norikuni.

 

[paulb]

I had a run through of Darcy's write up and looked at the images in more detail. I also did a comparison with the information I had on the blade I had previously written about. At first sight they look totally different. As Darcy says the blade on his site appears to be looking back to the earlier Yamashiro style of Sanjo Munechika. I also think foretells the development of Soshu, but thats another discussion.

When looking at very close detail in the two blades there is a lot in common. While nowhere near as clearly visible the nie activity within the hamon of the mumei blade I studied in terms of sunagashi, kinsuji etc is very similar in shape and style. It isn't as prominent but that could be a result of a different style of polish. The hada on the  mumei blade is nowhere near as prominent but again when you examine it very closely there are indications of nagare and o-hada within the incredibly tight nashiji.

In terms of dimensions the signed work is a lot shorter, it started life that way. The mumei blade is O-suriage with nothing of the original nakago left and is 68.4 cm long. The signed blade has is about 3mm wider at the Hamachi. The remaining dimensions are similar and in scale with the differences in original length.

The Mumei blade is, I think, made of a single piece as can be seen in other Awataguchi blades, especially tanto that have been polished down to within an inch of their life but still show beautiful hada without a hint of core steel.

The two blades are very different the signed blade unusual, perhaps celebrating an earlier style, the mumei blade more text book Awataguchi. But when you start to look in much more detail you can see common features, albeit on a different scale and level of clarity, which would indicate they were made by the same hand