Jump to content

Help with research on my sword.


Babu

Recommended Posts

Could I please request help on a sword that I have mentioned before but perhaps gone around in the wrong way.(Sorry for repeating myself)
 

IMG_20200826_194845198.thumb.jpg.c6f437a7a65fad3ee2ba9cf08e3dcfe7.jpg


I have a sword that is Tachi mei that's been preserved.

I'm struggling with the limited resources available to me to find any examples of mei for it.

On a plus side it's a very old mei .

I understand that there would be three contenders for the sword 

1st to 3rd gen that signed in these six Kanji.

I'm reasonably confident it's not the first gen or second but the third I don't have a clue as I cannot find anything on him.

All others after the 3rdbexhibit extended mei.

Can anyone perhaps help by looking through their oshigata books and find mei by this Smith?

I hope you can help because I've drawn a near blank.

Thank you
 

IMG_20200826_194845198~2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

No oshigata of this smith even in the Osafune taikan, that it's normal as he is not a representative smith  

.

Thanks Jacques

What does it mean ”he is not a representative Smith” . Are we saying he's an obscure Smith of little or no importance?

Not of the same lineage as the more abundant smiths of this name?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Jacques thank you. 

The work looks like Yoshioka Ichimonji but looking at his works (munemitsu) that passed Juyo it seems like he copied this style. He is a good smith. I didn't try to verify the mei but the work looks good and I

don't think it's faked offhand.

The Daiei 5 oshigata is equivalent to the time when Munemitsu was 87 years of age, and his works extended over a period of 55 years. In his twilight years, his nephew Katsumitsu inscribed Munemitsu's signature in the senior position to show his respect for the long lived Munemitsu.

So I think it's worth a shot at shinsa. 

Who do we think the best polisher for a sword of this period? Thank you so much Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Babu said:

OK Jacques thank you. 

The work looks like Yoshioka Ichimonji but looking at his works (munemitsu) that passed Juyo it seems like he copied this style. He is a good smith. I didn't try to verify the mei but the work looks good and I

don't think it's faked offhand.

The Daiei 5 oshigata is equivalent to the time when Munemitsu was 87 years of age, and his works extended over a period of 55 years. In his twilight years, his nephew Katsumitsu inscribed Munemitsu's signature in the senior position to show his respect for the long lived Munemitsu.

 

 

 

No  it's not this smith

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Jacques producing oshigata of one Munemitsu when there were literally dozens won't help me I'm afraid.

I have singled it down to the first three generations because of the mei length and way of signing. If we assume that all Munemitsu might have signed six Kanji then we open up the field considerably.

I've seen mei of first gen when young and I don't think it's him or certainly not his hand, but his nephew in his later years (he lived to 87) signed for him so we need to see those mei examples as well.

The second I think had a heavy hand

The third I have no oshigata on.

I have a respected gentleman just like yourself who stated . :work looks like Yoshioka Ichimonji but looking at his works (munemitsu) that passed Juyo it seems like he copied this style. He is a good smith.

I have seen the works of Yoshoika Ichimonji and I have to admit to significant similarities including the boshi that is steering everyone to kantei Shinto for some reason. So if you look to Ichimonji and the Kamakura period and what some are claiming indicates Shinto, they may be right but perhaps also they may be a little off base.

I think I'll send it to Japan get a professional polish and submit it for shinsa. I do need Tanobe Sensei to give me his opinion first though as the driver here is investment not preservation. It's in a fairly good state already.

Who's the best polisher of koto in the business??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacque those Oshigata are of the Munemitsu from the Bunmei era - so approx 5th gen

Does the Osafune Taikan have any zaimei from earlier generations - not sure any exist?

According to my books 1st Gen - Showa, 2nd Gen Joji, 3rd Gen Oei, 4th Gen Bun'an

 

For what its worth here are some later generation mei from Toko Taikan (6th gen and later)

 

 

IMG_20200901_191938.jpg

IMG_20200901_192114.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Markus Sesko's book 

 

Munemitsu (宗光), 1st gen., Shōwa (正和, 1312-1317), Bizen – „Bizen no Kuni Osafune-jū Munemitsu“ (備前国長船住宗光), first name
„Genzō“ (源三), according to transmission a student of Nagamitsu (長光), other see him as younger brother of the latter, suguha mixed with
ko-ashi, kataochi-gunome
Munemitsu (宗光), 2nd gen., Jōji (貞治, 1362-1368), Bizen – „Bishū Osafune Munemitsu“ (備州長船宗光), hardly any blades are extant
by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th gen. Osafune Munemitsu

Munemitsu (宗光), 3rd gen., Ōei (応永, 1394-1428), Bizen – „Bishū Osafune Munemitsu“ (備州長船宗光)
Munemitsu (宗光), 4th gen., Bun´an (文安, 1444-1449), Bizen – „Bishū Osafune Munemitsu“ (備州長船宗光)
Munemitsu (宗光), 5th gen., Bunmei (文明, 1469-1487), Bizen – „Bizen no Kuni-jū Osafune Sakyō no Shin Munemitsu“ (備前国住長船
左京進宗光), „Bizen no Kuni Yukie-gun-jū Osafune Sakyō no Shin Munemitsu“ (備前国靭負郡住長船左京進宗光), „Bizen no Kuni
Osafune Katsumitsu Munemitsu Bitchū Kusakabe ni oite saku“ (備前国長船勝光宗光備中於草壁作, „made by Bizen Osafune Katsumitsu
and Munemitsu in Bitchū´s Kusakabe“), second son of Rokurōzaemon Sukemitsu (六郎左衛門祐光), „Sakyō no Shin“ (左京進), younger
brother of Ukyō no Suke Katsumitsu (右京亮勝光), he was born in the ninth year of Eikyō (永享, 1437), there exist joint works with
Katsumitsu and after the death of the latter also with his son Jirōzaemon Katsumitsu, we know date signature from the first year of Bunmei
(1469) to the third year of Kyōroku (享禄, 1530) which shows us that he must had become more than 90 years, he supported the Sengokudaimyō
Akamatsu Masanori (赤松政則, 1455-1496) – who gained temporarily control over the provinces Harima, Bizen and Mimasaka – in
forging swords and accompanied him also to Harima province, there exist also works which were made in Kyōto and in a field camp in Ōmi
province, mostly katateuchi with much niku, less tapering, and a short nakago are extant, tantō are also rather compact, have uchizori and a
thick kasane, the jigane is a dense ko-mokume with ji-nie or a somewhat standing-out itame, the hamon is a gunome-chōji or suguha in nioideki
mixed with ashi and yō and ko-nie, the jiba of the 5th gen. is more nie-loaden and does not show utsuri, he was also renowned as
excellent horimono carver, ryō-wazamono, jōjō-saku
Munemitsu (宗光), 6th gen., Tenbun (天文, 1532-1555), Bizen – „Bishū Osafune Munemitsu“ (備州長船宗光), „Bizen no Kuni-jū Osafune
Sakyō no Shin Munemitsu tsukuru“ (備前国住長船左京進宗光造), blades with date signatures of the Tenbun era are attributed to a second
generation Sakyō no Shin Munemitsus
Munemitsu (宗光), 7th gen., Eiroku (永禄, 1558-1570), Bizen – „Bishū Osafune Sakon Munemitsu“ (備州長船左近宗光), „Bishū Osafune
Tahei no Jō Munemitsu“ (備州長船太兵衛尉宗光), first name „Tahei“ (太兵衛), gunome-chōji, suguha, wazamono
Munemitsu (宗光), 8th gen., Tenshō (天正, 1573-1592), Bizen – „Bishū no jū Osafune Saemonshichirō Fujiwara Munemitsu saku“ (備州之
住長船左衛門七郎藤原宗光作), first name „Saemonshichirō“ (左衛門七郎)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this opens up the fourth and a sixth generation as possibilities based on Signing  ”Bishu Osafune Munemitsu”

I'm leaning towards earlier rather than later but only because of the "lightness" of the mei.

I appreciate many signed with a strong hand.

So logically at some point there must have been a point when Munemitsu if it is the correct Smith, had difficulty in signing strongly so that katsumitsu offered to sign for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ones that pop up with Google searches are not made by 1st generation Munemitsu. They are (at least on my searches) actually mid-late Muromachi period pieces.

 

As I mentioned earlier this is so far the only surviving tachi by 1st gen Munemitsu from Kamakura period that I am aware of and it is by attribution as the mei has partially eroded. Signature on this is 備前国□□住 (Fumei) and it has been attributed to Munemitsu who was of Nagamitsu school.

IMG_20200901_164636.thumb.jpg.bc249c0112e2380c64200a390dd13f96.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Babu said:

A simple Google search Jussi.

If it's papered it should come up.

I think two were on Aoi Art (as usual)

Very strong carved mei.

This is softer less deep and more delicate.

The two on Aoi are 5th Gen

One is dated Meio the other Bunmei

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacques that oshigata you shared is fifth generation and much later.

If anything this is either 1st to 3rd.

The style is very much a copy of Yoshoika Ichimonji.

It's pretty close if you look at existing works like the ones in Darcy's website.

So why would a Smith replicate an old masters work just to shove a Gimei signature on it from a totally different Smith and style ?

If anything he would likely put the ichi stroke .

So I must assume that the signiture is correct for one of the three.

There are no records of the 3rd generation work so there's a gap in our knowledge.

To be honest none of this makes sense which is why it's off to Japan for mukansa polish and submission to shinsa . If it goes through hozon I'll move it to the next level then the next until it fails. I will be guided by the mukansa togoshi.

Thank you all for your time and effort and help. You have been great.

 

Matt your right,and I guess that's my point, all the examples are generations later. It's the early smiths we are looking at from my understanding.

 

Edited by Babu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Jussi and Jacques have demonstrated from various sources there are few extant blades existing from the first 4 generations, let alone ones that have mei still intact.

 

You should put yours to shinsa ofc but I would not be putting my hopes on yours being Kamakura/Nanbokucho Munemitsu. Much more likely late Muromachi or Shinto.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit to feeling really stupid, which I guess is not novel. 

As hard it is and arrogant it is to kantei by pitch dark photos, I just keep hitting the same questions which apparently bother only myself and thus something is being missed. Apparently for a number of polishers, sensei and other experts those are not worthy addresing:

a. If its Kamakura, why no utsuri? Why very tight itame with no sign of being tired? Why hamon so broad without approaching the edge at any point? Why its so bland aside from its general contours?

b. If Muromachi why transitioning so quickly to perfect suguha in the boshi? Why no coarse hada? Why no large feature hada? Why it goes for wide choji, the least favorite Ichimonji feature for Muromachi Bizen smiths? Why no evidence of clear cut Muromachi features? Why no utsuri?

Nambokucho Bizen is no better fit.

 

By the same token I don't know what comparing to signatures achieves here. Say its a decent match for the 4th generation. Does it mean it can't be third? Does it mean the mei comes from this blade? Say its not a good match for the 4th and 3rd - it still does not resolve anything. The mei is not horribly wrong, its a decent example of probably Muromachi period Bizen script.

 

Kirill R.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the last 5 years I owned four swords with makers not listed in Meikan. 2 were from shinshinto, 2 from Oei to Onin period. Previously my experience was sort of the same - these two periods are ripe with unlisted work. Out of the four only one was very much provincial, the other 3 were actually major works of major schools.

I would take "no extant swords" with scepticism when talking about Oei to Onin generations. In many cases it means no known nenki to the author at the time the list was compiled,  simply because very few swords were produced post Oei till Onin, so the work which in theory might be from this time's generation by default is assumed to be from Tenbun or Oei. 

 

Kirill R.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...