An alternative to the Den Tametsugu blade

[Brano]

I recently received a new piece in my collection. The blade is a mumei with the attribute Den Tametsugu
I know that the "Den" attribute is not unusual, it usually means that the blade also contains properties that are not usual for Swordsmith to whom the blade is assigned
Therefore, I would like to hear your opinion
If we didn't know Shinsa result who would you think of as a swordsmith ?
For capacity reasons, there are only a few pictures
If anyone wants to see the full gallery, they can find it here

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Album/7069496

 

 

[Rivkin]

I saw this blade before and will be just repeating my thoughts that for me Hasebe attribution would be a strong alternative here. Early works by Tametsugu have a distinct similarity to both Go and Norishige, in terms of both hamon and jigane. Here the jigane is bright, well forged itame, something definitely more often seen in Kamakura branch of Soshu. The attribution to Tametsugu would involve pointing towards his later period, when he was moving from Echizen to Mino; however, if I remember correctly no extant blades with Echizen signatures exist, and such reference thus relies heavily on Edo period publications. No guarantees some of those are not gimei.

There is however undeniable similarity of his works to those of other Echizen smiths, Echizen Yoshizane and Nagayoshi, and quite a few others, many of which are dozen to Tametsugu attributions. But they still tend to have strong Etchu-like feel to them. Matsukawa hada is common, nie tends to form long, broad lines, which are in Go style "vibrate" and thin out as they go into ji.

 

None of which is obvious here. There are couple of segments where the nie forms "belts", but they are not a dominant feature, they don't really couple well with hada in the ji, and one could argue that things like this are occasionally seen in other Soshu works. Overall tobiyaki and tight itame are not very characteristic of Echizen Soshu. Go is famous for tight itame masterpieces, but those also betray strong similarity to Kamakura's forging and are given strong consideration to be attributed to Kamakura's Masamune. This is something I would argue is far less common in later Etchu and Echizen pieces.

These three images:

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258726106

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258725328

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258726106

to me have a much more Hasebe look than anything out of Echizen or Etchu. Truly, Hasebe tends to be rougher in hada, and with strong o-mokume in the center with nagare towards ha and ji, while here mokume appears only in couple of places. However, Hasebe did forge in tight itame. Actually, there are not that many valid alternative attributions for this blade. It does not have a lot of sunagashi/kinsuji, which many of later (1360+) Soshu lineages would exhibit plenty of. Hamon has more "nie cloud" rather than gunome or togari-based appearance, which more of less definitely excludes another set of Soshu branches. It does not have strong nioi-tint to it, especially close to the ha, so we can't blame the unusual on Sa's influence.

I would argue that here:

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258727154

https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/259051137

The blade does look like Echizen Soshu, but that's one very small segment.

I am sure I am missing something, but can't figure out what it is.

[DanielLee]

Sanekage has a similar style too.

[Valric]

Tametsugu is one of the high variability Soshu attributions. "Den Tametsugu" broadens up the possibilities even further. In context this can be understood as some smiths working in the Nanbokucho period up in the northern parts (Echizen, Etchu, etc...). What we know for sure is that this is Soshu Nanbokucho. If we go a little further, it's very likely to be Soshu Nanbokucho from a smith working in the Northern parts in this tradition. 

 

And I agree with both comments above, the blade shares characteristics with both Sanekage and Hasebe. 

 

 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

I'm wondering why you want to discuss what the NBTHK experts have said. There are no experts on NMB. 

[Gakusee]

4 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

I'm wondering why you want to discuss what the NBTHK experts have said. There are no experts on NMB. 

For fun, Jacques, for fun..... sometimes we take things too seriously.... or we are bored.... or we try to understand “ why den? Why not Tametsugu without ‘den’ and what could the alternative be? “

[Brano]

On 3/15/2021 at 4:56 PM, Jacques D. said:

I'm wondering why you want to discuss what the NBTHK experts have said. There are no experts on NMB. 

Because I don't have many alternatives Jacques
I do not question Shinsa judgment
I'm just wondering what alternatives can be found for "Den"
I'm still at the beginning of learning and I will be for a long time
In my neighborhood (and even in the surrounding countries) I do not know anyone I might meet from time to time and he will be willing to share with me his knowledge and experience

[Valric]

I almost forgoet, Den Tametsugu can also mean "almost Go yoshihiro" 

 

I think there was a blade no too long ago with its Sayagaki alluding to Go on a Tametsugu...

[Brano]

I don't think that will be the case :-)
I only saw a few blades attributed to Go ( all just pics ... hmmm )  and it was a slightly different level

[Jean]

Den Tametsugu means just under Norishige, rather than Go Yoshihiro. I had a Juyo one and no doubt, the blade was close to Norishige but with subdued nioiguchi and less violent hada.

Go died too young to have Tametsugu trained by him.

 

 

[Jacques D.]

6 hours ago, Brano said:

I'm just wondering what alternatives can be found for "Den"
 

 

 

There is no alternative, Den means that the sword is made by the named smith but it don't have all features usually seen or can be a better work than usual. Den never change the attribution. 

[Rivkin]

Ogh.

Very personal and erroneous opinion.

Etchu Tametsugu, Echizen Tametsugu and Mino Tametsugu are somewhat different styles. They have slightly different Dozen names. Etchu Tametsugu is reminscent of both Go and Norishige. The difficulty in distinguishing lies in both Norishige and Go (supposedly in this case, as no signed blades) working each in two styles. Tametsugu is easily discernible from either style of Norishige on a number of points, mostly related to the hamon. The only papers confusing the two are from Edo period, where Tametsugu works were regularly passed for Norishige.

It is more difficult with Go since there is some overlap. In general Go judgement suggests much more aggressive use of nie which exists as well separated particles, possibly including ara nie and also Go attributions include earlier and very high quality pieces. Some Go blades are the absolute best in nihonto.

The early works by Tametsugu often tend towards proper Matsukawa hada.

At the end around 1365-1380 (Echizen/Mino) we are however ending with the style which is itame based with some nagare and mokume, heavily relies on gunome with sunagashi, which can have even decisively Mino appearance. There is somewhat diminished connection to either Go or Norishige and more similarity to other Soshu smiths.

One can notice that very few books give the beginning date for Tametsugu's work. It feels that the reason is that those are not dated yet exhibit conservative sugata, which can be consistent with dates as early as 1335-1340. This can be consistent with Norishige dying and Tametsugu lunching on his own, but then  the problem is that normally having such difference in style and long work period could argue for two generations, but Tametsugu is granted exception. Old genealogies do not mention the second generation, however signatures known are generally oshigata based, and even they do not cover the entire assumed length of activity.

[Valric]

Sanekage and Tametsugu can overlap with Norishige and Go. You'll find blades re-attributed at Tokuju to either. 

 

Some work of Tametsugu may evoke Go. In this example here, the Sayagaki mentions that in the Monouchi area, the blade is reminiscent of Go Yoshihiro. 

 

This is not the case with the blade above though, which would be later work in my opinion. 

 

[Jacques D.]

It is perhaps interesting to note that Tametsugu is only jo-saku while Norishige is sai-jo. Fujishiro does not note Go Yoshihiro because he does not believe that there is a blade of him. 

[Gakusee]

5 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

It is perhaps interesting to note that Tametsugu is only jo-saku while Norishige is sai-jo. Fujishiro does not note Go Yoshihiro because he does not believe that there is a blade of him. 

Jacques, Fujishiro does mention Go Yoshihiro (Koto volume page 129, page 199) but does not show any nakago as there are no signed Go, while his book is a book of nakago and mei. 
 

The reality is that shinsa judgment is broadly an assessment of school + period first and then after that, quality determines whether they assign it to a grandmaster (like Go or Norishige) or not (like Sanekage or Tametsugu) and which smith precisely (given some more prevalent features 

[Jacques D.]

55 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

Jacques, Fujishiro does mention Go Yoshihiro (Koto volume page 129, page 199) but does not show any nakago as there are no signed Go, while his book is a book of nakago and mei. 
 

 

 

Yes Go yoshihiro is mentionned but not ranked :

 

Translation :

Page 177
YOSHIHIRO GÔ [KENMU 1334 ETCHÛ]
He is called Matsukura Gô Umasuke, and is said to be one of the ten disciples of Masamune. At the
beginning he was Yoshihiro or Yoshihiro, but he later revised it to Yoshihiro, and Gô is also said to be Gô, [TN:
Note the different kanji used in these names. They are choices between kanji that can be pronounced the same.]
This Yoshihiro was number one among the pupils of Masamune, but in contrast to this, there was a popular saying
that said "I've never seen a ghost or a Gô". [TN: This is an obtuse way of saying there was no such person as Gô.]
There are many gold inlaid Gô without a signature, but since these are gaudy objects with sunanagashi majiri, they
are not believed to be genuinely from the Sôshû Den, and of course, not a single one has been seen with a signature.
I do not believe that any Gô swords exist.
Signatures: MATSUKURA GÔ JÛ YOSHIHIRO, YOSHIHIRO.

 

It says in the Kotô Meijin Daizen, "The reason that both Masamune and Gô did not inscribe their names was
because there was nothing else that compared to their works". The more signed works there are by a swordsmith, the
more comparisons can be made, and the more accurately the judging of a mumei sword can be done. For a mumei
sword for which there is not a single signed standard, a high value is naturally applied, and this is probably an
intention to justify this. Up until the beginning of the Edo period, there were many excellent works that were judged
as being Gô. These were of sound construction with a wide yakiba and deep ko-nie, and were similar in formality,

but from the nature of the jiba, I do not think that they were works by the same swordsmith.

 

 

Quote

The reality ihinsa judgment is broadly an assessment of school + period first and then after that, quality determines whether they assign it to a grandmaster (like Go or Norishige) or not (like Sanekage or Tametsugu) and which smith s that sprecisely (given some more prevalent features

 

I don't think so, it's more elaborated and more subtil, but, we will never reach the level of knowledge necessary to understand it.

 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

This is also interesting,  particularly the translation of the Jûyô Tôken zufu description: 

 

Excerpt : Explanation: Tametsugu is said to be the son of Gô Yoshihiro (郷義弘), and later the student of Norishige (則重); however, based on the period of his activity, these explanations are unreasonable, which is an area for further study.

 

https://www.nihonto.com/echizen-no-kami-fujiwara-tametsugu-and-the-early-soshu-school-越前国藤原為継/

[Gakusee]

I completely agree that is a bit more subtle and complicated than what I described. However what I mentioned was a shortcut to summarise that: quality in the blade leads the shinsa, alongside some specific smith quirks or signature characteristics, to a specific smith out of several possibilities when a blade is mumei and belongs to a particular group/school/ period. Time and again I have heard how Tanobe san has said this blade could be this smith or that smith (working in a particular style or during a certain period) and needs to study it to figure out why precisely a particular smith , or how a blade was 20% Go and 80% Sadamune (or something along these lines).  So, when the obvious conclusion is that a blade is top Soshu, then one really needs to then delve into what is going on as unfortunately some of the work there is interchangeable (top Yukimitsu if a bit wilder could be confused with Masamune, or Shizu with average Masamune etc). 

 

There was a fad in the mid 20th century into the 1970s-1980s to question the existence of Masamune and I suppose other top Soshu. That does not surprise me. I am not a blinded and mesmerised Soshu aficionado, who proclaims Soshu is the best thing under the sun and everything else is blasphemy; even though in fairness the top pieces I have held (some Masamune, some Chogi and even a Go or two) have been breathtaking. So I do not buy the theory this guy and that guy did not exist. The saying about Go and the ghost was simply because for the commoner it was completely out of the question to see a Go, since they were / are relatively rare. 

Fujishiro is entitled to his own views and opinions, and they were informed by the blades he had seen and /or polished. Things have moved on since then and they keep moving. That is why it is important to keep studying, keep reading, talking to experts (such as Tanobe sensei, the NBTHK when Japan reopens to foreigners, to some of the knowledgeable dealers in Japan who are also collectors, to other collectors and advanced students etc). If we rely only on Fujishiro or Hawley or Afu’s translation of the Koza, we will get far but not progress beyond a given level. 

[Jwrussell]

Can I just pop in to say the blade is beautiful? Sorry, wish I had something more meaningful to contribute. Carry on!

[Jacques D.]

8 hours ago, Gakusee said:

Time and again I have heard 

 

I have heard that earth is flat...

 

Pay attention at what says Fujishiro (translation above) maybe you will understand how shinza team works : 

 

Quote

The more signed works there are by a swordsmith, the more comparisons can be made, and the more accurately the judging of a mumei sword can be done.

 

 

Quote

 

There was a fad in the mid 20th century into the 1970s-1980s to question the existence of Masamune and I suppose other top Soshu.

 

 

 

The one who discuted the existence of Masamune was Imamura Choga (1837-1910). It doesn't date back to the 70's/80's

 

[Gakusee]

Jacques

Thanks for the corrections and reminding us of the name of the progenitor of the doubts about Masamune, That is useful. I do remember  there was a subsequent resurgence in 20th century of that vein of thought/belief, after Imamura Choga but I would need to dig it out.

 

Why do you, however, have to be argumentative? You are not achieving anything by this but alienating people. I respect and look for thoughtful discourse rather than dismissive insults. You have knowledge and experience to bring to the forum but sometimes pettifoggingly cling on to a particular word or sentence. Please take it positively and not as an attempt by me to antagonise. 

 

I do pay attention, especially when I talk to Tanobe sensei, the NBTHK lecturers or people with extensive knowledge and collections.  It is easy to be a desktop warrior, waging verbal campaigns. It is also easy to refer to 2-3 books, accepting them as canon, but it takes a broader minded person to question, interrogate, juxtapose texts with differing opinions. Every authority has something to teach us: Fujishiro, Kanzan, Kunzan, Tanzan, Nakahara, Nagayama, Yamanaka, etc etc.

Of course, it is easier to understand that basing (inferring) mumei work via signed precedents is the strongest foundation for analysis. But nowadays the shinsa and others also place reliance on old (Honami usually, but also other) documented examples of the the masters - be they Masamune, or one of the students, even if these are not signed currently (or were never signed), or non-Soshu works. In other words, reliance is placed on preceding authorities who might have seen such signed examples before they were suriage, or compare to blades which have been preserved over the centuries in the various daimyo families. That is why we still have and refer to the Tsuchiya oshigata, Kozan oshigata, Imamura oshigata, Koon oshigata, Kyoho Meibutsucho, etc or in more modern times - indeed Fujishiro volumes, but also Kunzan’s Kanto Hibisho or Tanzan’s Go-ka-den No Tabi, etc. 

 

I could append documents talking about the existence of Go. And with all due respect to Fujishiro, they will be by arguably ‘greater’ experts than Fujishiro, having seen more than him and not just photocopied pictures of the mei of  Kokuho, JuBi and JuBu swords available at the time. At least this how I view Honma Junji, Kunzan sensei, who in Nihon-koto-shi posits:”I conclude that Gō Yoshihiro is the most skilful smith amongst the students of Masamune and is equal to Sadamune in skill.”

 

Anyway, this is a pointless argument and unwelcome digression from the topic at hand. 

 

The sword is beautiful and has been judged indeed by experts as Tametsugu. Understanding why the judgement has been conferred, and what the alternatives could be, shows eagerness and interest to learn. 

[Jacques D.]

Michael, 

 

i just try to be rational, as i'm trained in science i always apply this principe => thesis, antithesis, synthesis and use cross references, i never believe the last one who speaks. 

 

For a mumei blade and in absence of zaimei, attribution will always be questionable. It's a question of burden of proof If one says something he must proove it (remember Galileo history). 

 

 

[Valric]

How eloquently put Michael. I can only wholeheartedly agree. 

 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

5 hours ago, Gakusee said:

At least this how I view Honma Junji, Kunzan sensei, who in Nihon-koto-shi posits:”I conclude that Gō Yoshihiro is the most skilful smith amongst the students of Masamune and is equal to Sadamune in skill.”

 

 

 

 

 

it's Honma opinion like those of Fujishiro nothing else. In my opinion the existence of Go Yohishiro is an open question and i doubt we never know the result unless a zaimei blade is discovered.

 

Quote

The sword is beautiful and has been judged indeed by experts as Tametsugu. 

 

Yes but zaimei swords are extant. 

 

 

[Jamie]

this is a nice blade with a lot to enjoy. 
 

I have seen only one of each , Go, and Tametsugu. The Go was (I believe) the very best sword I’ve yet studied. The Tametsugu was also very good. However they were definitely different leagues and I don’t think they were “close”.  

[Rivkin]

I am a simple person living life by personal and highly erroneous experience.

Which tells me I am yet to see some other name repapering to Norishige or Norishige repapering to someone else, unless the original papers are pre war. Possibly something like this happened, but must be very rare.

There are no green paper Norishige quite likely for this reason, unlike virtually every other major Soshu name. He is very distinctive. The wise book, which no one is expert enough to argue against, says that Norishige, Yukimitsu and Masamune are the very same thing, but there is surprisingly little evidence of that. You don't find Yukimitsu who became Norishige and vice versa.

Go can unfortunately repaper, and fortunately one can repaper to Go. You need something with lots of nie, which gradually varies in size, high quality hada and from a very specific period. Its not very common to find such an item. 95% of things papering Tametsugu are from 1355+, they can't repaper to Go.

When it comes to 1350-1380, there is unfortunately clear evidence that all Soshu smiths by this time already had pretty good understanding of each other's work and could from time to time emulate their peers. Daito attribution from this period has "sort of" two default judgements - Hasebe (especially if its from 1350s) and Shizu if it has togari and heavier on masame. Tametsugu is frankly speaking another big blob of judgements, which covers things that demonstrate some well defined Etchu elements. Its a big blob, as it includes those that have a lot of Etchu flavor, and those that have relatively little. There is Etchu/Kaga Sanekage, but this attribution usually means the blade shows good Etchu quality in couple of areas, but is otherwise inferior.

Soshu daito which do not get Shizu or Hasebe or Tametsugu attributions tend to have something very specific which puts them into another, more specific group. Sa often tends to have almost Bizen like quality to it. Lots of nioi. Can have utsuri. Can have choji. But still clearly Soshu. Soden Bizen is even further away. Mino Kanenobu will have somewhat later sugata, with lots of sunagashi but somewhat nioi heavy hamon. He often repapers Sue Sa or Hirado Sa, and vice versa. Similar situation with Naotsuna, Kinju and a few others.

 

For an ignorant bumpkin like myself, Tametsugu is not a judgement based on there is being a sword with features such and such, signed Tametsugu and everything similar is thus judged as Tametsugu. You can't produce this kind of certainty on the basis of second rate oshigatas.

Its a name to use when one sees Etchu features on later blades, plus possibly some other Soshu lineage's features.

Again personal experience - Tametsugu thus repaper to other names with about half the frequency of Naoe/Kaneuji Shizu. The latter group is such humongous attribution blob, it can, with small probability, but can repaper to almost any contemporary Soshu name. The only thing which has more uncertain outcome is Masamune with pre war papers.

There are about two dozen known Kaga, Echizen, Etchu and Echigo contemporary smiths who frankly all worked in related styles. There was very likely the second generation Norishige. Do you often see mumei blades papered to him by NBTHK? But yes, there are signed Norishige from 1360s which are accepted as genuine second generation. Where do unsigned go? Was Tametsugu some great workaholic, but save for inferior Sanekage everyone else who ever signed their work in these four northern provinces had a major drinking problem? No, its a typical Japanese treatment of Koto blades - take a school with 20 known smiths, but attribute 95% of mumei blades to only 2-3 of them, based on features/quality/ or maybe even something else.

So the question "what would this Tametsugu repaper to in 30 years/by NTHK/by someone else" to me is both interesting and realistic.

I would share my personal practical experiences in the matters of repaper arts, but there is a tiny problem being I am not sure the pieces I since sold today still retain the entire set of papers. The global warming produces winds which sweep away all kinds of things, and I don't want to endanger my dear buyer's sword values simply based on some false sense of either honesty or community.

So I'll just pontificate - I was always taught that vocalizing once's perception of art pieces is one of the main learning methods, and the more one vocalizes personal perception rather than something read out from a book, the more one could learn. Especially so when such perceptions are debunked as wrong!

[Valric]

I regard Tametsugu somewhat similarly in width as Sue-Sa. It's almost more of a school/regional attribution than it is a specific call to a singular smith. So much gets baked into it and the variability is pretty staggering.

 

Concerning this first/second generation of Norishige, at the end when a blade gets "Norishige" as a mumei piece, it means the workmanship is up there with the grandmaster, but for all we know there may be a significant proportion of masterworks of lesser or forgotten smiths baked in as well. While the NBHTK never re-attributed to Norishige at Tokuju, it has re-attributed a Sanekage to Go.