Hanafusa Bizen No-kami Minamoto Sukekuni. Signed, old kicho paper.

[Karusk]

I think you’ll all agree the hamon is fantastic. 
I was hoping if someone knew whether or not he liked to bend the hamon towards the edge, or if I should consider this a very well done retemper.

Any information about the smith would be greatly appreciated as well. 
 

This one is actively trying to cut me😑. It has fallen straight down out of my hand while i had a firm grip on it. It has also leaped out of my hand towards another katana and i keep them far apart.  Thankfully there was only a small damage to the other ones shirasaya. 
 

Not for sale. No opinions will be used outside of my own learning and showing it off. 

[Jacques D.]

Seems gimei :

 

https://giuseppepiva.com/en/works/katana-shinto-koshirae#&gid=1&pid=1

https://tokka.biz/sword/sukekuni3.html

https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords3/WK327719.htm

https://www.giheiya.com/shouhin_list/japanese_sword/katana/02-1188.html

https://www.touken-sato.com/event/katana/2012/11/K-sukekuni-01.html

[Karusk]

Matching from the bottom they all seem very similar until i get to top character. All of these do not have the hanafusa character to compare. He apparently applied this character to his later works after he moved by this bottom link. 
 

I bid on this for the hamon and the suguta so i honestly wouldn’t be too disappointed if it turned out to be gimei. 
 

Thank you for your effort finding those links.  If you could find a later work with the hanafusa to compare id appreciate it.  

these guys have been discussing about this one since 2016. I think mine matches up alot better. 
 

im here to learn and discuss so I appreciate any back and forth.  

 

 

Edited March 13, 2021 by Karusk
Discussion.

[SteveM]

Blade looks OK for the time. Pictures of the hamon are too far away and indistinct to really see much, but it vaguely looks OK for the smith. For any definitive answer you'd need to send to shinsa. He's not a major name in the sword world, but he's not completely unknown either. You wouldn't expect the more obscure smiths to be forged, but as is often noted on this board, if there's money to be made, people will slap any signature on any random sword just to give the appearance of authenticity. Possible to see better pictures of the hamon and the tip? 

[Karusk]

Ill work on some better pictures. I did note that one Jaques linked with the flashier hamon did go towards the edge like this, while the other suguha ones went into the rust pattern.  I bought this assuming  the hamon to be a retemper. 
 

 I appreciate your input/interest and time. Give me till tomorrow for new photos.

[Karusk]

Better pictures. Think i got a handle on making hamon and hada show. I couldn’t fathom why anyone would put a gimei on something with such a spectacular hamon. I guess some people just want to watch the world burn😑. 
 

I educated myself a little more on the retemper and im starting to believe its not retempered. Apparently they wrap the nakago with wet turnips or  beets while they reheat it and this will leave a difference in the rust patina. Comparing it to others i have it seems natural. At any rate a retemper of this quality would be as much a talking point as anything else about the blade.

Ive seen less flashy gimei go for 4k (a muramasa advertised gimei, and a sadamune  gimei that was a muromachi period inscription)

I just can’t convince myself to be unhappy with it. If its a retemper and gimei its the nicest one ill ever find. 
 

Would i be correct in calling this a hitatsura hamon?
 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Karusk
Didnt want to add another reply.

[dwmc]

Hello Alva,

 

The sword you mentioned in the post # 3 is my Sukekuni sword. Even though the hamon is not the same, I do think there are many similarities. For instance, basic shape (sugata) , yasurime  (tang file marks) Mekugi ana location, etc... Another thing I have noticed with the 1661 Sukekuni smith is the variations in the signatures. I have studied many, many Sukekuni signatures over the past few years, and have taken notice of the close resemblance in Shinto era Sukekuni  sword contruction,  yet the  slight variation in Mei's

 

The signature on your sword is indicative of the 1661 Shinto era Sukekuni smith (need a better photo of your tang please), it appears as your nakago (tang), and mine as well, do not seem to have the patina of a 1661 sword. This has been something which has led me to question my sword as possibly not being Shinto. Now, suddenly along come yours with a more complete signature, out of all the Sukekuni signatures I have found, only yours, mine, and the 1661 smith have contained the (Minamoto) character???

 

The Koto Sukekuni smiths are ruled out, the modern Sukekuni smiths are out, there are a couple of Shin Shinto smiths 1800-1850's, but little or no information, and no (Minamoto) in signature. Without a better photo of your sword signature it will be difficult to determine if Gimei. However, I personally would not think our 1661 smith would warrant being of Gimei status, although I would consider him having many slight variants in his  signature, possibly Dai Mei, etc...

 

Dave M.

 

 

[SteveM]

16 hours ago, Karusk said:

Would i be correct in calling this a hitatsura hamon?

 

Not hitatsura. A flamboyant chōji gunome, or a few other similar appellations. 

For hitatsura you would see a lot more deliberate activity in the shinogi-ji, and overall it would have the appearance of flames all over the sword (from the blade to the ridge). 

 

I agree with Dave about the signature. 

[Karusk]

Super informative dave new nakago photo coming. 
I didn’t actually consider the rust patina that different from other shinto i had looked at. 
 

@SteveM Thank you for the input on hamon. 

[Karusk]

Better mei photo. Assuming its his latest possible  work because of the hanafusa character i think some of the differences may be die to a more refined signature style as he was older. There are some differences (the little circle of the second from bottom I noticed is done in four little ticks rather than a drawn out circle) bit there are alot of similarities as well. 
 

Is it possible he was having someone else sign due to his eyesight/age? I read  that sometimes a smiths later work is more likely mainly done by his apprentices.  He supervises and directs and they do the lifting and and hammering. 

sorry about the delay. 

[Karusk]

At any rate i think its a better match than the thread i posted.

 

Also except for one they all start just under the mekugi-ana, and are all on the same side if the nakago. 

[Karusk]

The old white paper  As far as i can tell its intact and unaltered. The mei is also transcribed where I highlighted.
 

Is the number on the top right mean this was the 67759ty judgement done by the person, or the whole  orginization? Or a specific branch?

[Jacques D.]

I checked my library and found this one below, still gimei. 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think the hamon seems to be quite active. And sword might be quite enjoyable to view.

 

I might be cautiously skeptical of the signature. If you look at signature examples that Jacques provided to this thread, look for example character 守 and how it looks on many of examples, and look at Sukekuni in the end 祐国 and compare it to validated examples. The one that was sold by Giheiya seems to be the only Jūyō sword by this smith.

 

[Karusk]

I honestly can’t convince myself either way. The position seems right, and the strokes all seem similar, though there are some differences. One of those listed has thinner shallower strokes like mine does while others have deep ones like this book listing. 
 

Is it possible were looking at two different smiths , like his son or nephew or adopted apprentice?

 

I bought it for the hamon, which is certainly more activt than some of the higher priced things i have, you’ve seen my masastugu, which is very nice itself. So im happy with it either way. This paper seems to belong to it too i know they arent honored and are considered suspicious, but i think maybe someone else was having the same issue convincing themselves when it was papered before. 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

22 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I think the hamon seems to be quite active. And sword might be quite enjoyable to view.

 

I might be cautiously skeptical of the signature. If you look at signature examples that Jacques provided to this thread, look for example character 守 and how it looks on many of examples, and look at Sukekuni in the end 祐国 and compare it to validated examples. The one that was sold by Giheiya seems to be the only Jūyō sword by this smith.

 

 

 

All kanji are different, more, the tool used to engrave the mei is not the same. 

[Rivkin]

I am sorry to say this, but unfortunately you provide extremely non-informative pictures.

You always need one high resolution photo of the nakago, one of the entire blade shot from above (on the towels on the ground), one macro which includes hamon, in some cases you definitely need boshi (I think here you do). 

Despite the issue with not seeing signatures exactly like that I would be cautiously optimistic. The writing is done in very determined, confident steady hand, the yasurime does not appear to have shinshinto traits, the coloration is brown, there is a lot of variation of how it looks on different photos, but on some the color appears ok. The work is ok for Ishido school. He is a lesser name. He moved around, which can be associated with having different styles of signature. The white paper was issued in good faith. There is a decent chance it will repaper.

[Karusk]

@Rivkin Appreciate the input, i have seen it said 100 times here to look more at the blade than the signature. Any possibility were looking at a relation of the listed signatures? I dont have any resource books yet to study and google isnt that helpful for genealogy. 
 

The seller wanted 4500 and let me have for 3200. He’s also been very honest with me about  gimei and retemper i was looking at in the past. He told me that he didn’t repaper to save money because the paper was honest. I know they are suspicious but i was under the impression they are better off than old tokubetsu paper. I love this blade and honestly if its the one gimei i end up with im happy with it as a study. 
 

Sorry about the pictures ive been practicing and trying to get better at it. I will redo them soon. 

[Rivkin]

For me the issue with old papers is that they are often optimistic or rather blindly based on earlier evaluations, which affects all grades, Juyo included. There are supposedly some papers that were done under Honma which are conservative, I am too lazy to check the date on yours - they are almost non-existent by now. 

This is unfortunately the kind of blade where the judgement will be based on how conservative you are. One needs to cut some slack to chu-jo-saku smith on account some of his signatures possibly not being recorded in reference materials.