Jump to content

Nobuyoshi blade


Janrudolph

Recommended Posts

Good day, all. I have had the privilege of presenting my nihonto items on these boards (Nihonto, Nihonto-related and Tosogo), but have kept discussion of the actual blade of my katana to a bare minimum. My idea even then was to present it in a separate thread, as I do now. I thought it justifiable, as the blade of a Japanese sword is the most important part of the whole, even more so than the signature. Please see the sword with its scabbard. When a similar pic was previously posted, a forumite said he was "glad to see it is an old blade". Another said the blade is not in a good state of polish. Grain is closed, so hada can't be seen. Hamon activities don't show. The hamon is not pure suguha. But it is a "nice old Japanese sword".

The signature reads: Shinano no Kami Fujiwara rai Nobuyoshi. The date interprets as 1680 (eighth year of Empo). I have been given the advice (rightly so, probably) to just enjoy the blade for what it is, and not try to read too much into it. BUT I really do want to interpret what I AM able to see, with your kind help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my own wrap on the koshirae, based on what I've been advised by you, so it need not be discussed in this thread, unless someone has an important contribution to add, perhaps correcting me or concurring. The saya is so immaculate that it was thought to be recent, like in "yesterday". The ito is a recent re-wrap (I have the original leather ito that was taken off). The blingy kojiri and kashira are new, some kind of alloy, perhaps containing silver. The fuchi and koiguchi are hallmarked 925 sterling silver. The tsuba is iron, a design made by the Kinai School of Echizen all through the Edo period 1603-1868. Someone unfortunately silvered it, thinking to make it cool - I believe it might (in its original state) have been original to the blade. The two menuki I don't know anything about - they look silver. The habaki is immaculate, as someone said: "not older than 100 years". Concerning the bamboo tsuka and same, I believe those to be original to the blade.

My idea is now to post some pics of the BLADE (as best I can) and request you guys to please give your take on the blade. I view this information that I might get, as very important for my own understanding. Please help, friends. Johan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I see (granted, with grossly inexperienced eyes) is a relatively sharp straight suguha. I understand such a hamon was more common through history. I understand also there are many sub-genres, and I was wondering if you can tell anything about this sub-genre. Then concerning jigane: I have seen pics of ayasugi-hada, mokume-hada, itame-hada and masame-hada, but the pattern I see here looks totally different, more like irregular islands stretched out lengthwise along the ji. The section of the blade I show here is on the left side when I point the sword away from me, starting at 60 mm from the habaki and running for 105 mm. Those black dots I believe to be pitting, which tells me that the blade has seen better days, also that it has been restored (in SA?) to its present condition. I await feedback with trepidation. Johan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Johan,

 

Shinano no Kami Fujiwara Rai Nobuyoshi is a "big name", so we really do need to see good photos of the full tang both sides.  On the blade photo above, to me, I opine that this blade is not a genuine work of Rai Nobuyoshi.

 

Best regards,

BaZZa

aka Barry Thomas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barry & Michael, I must agree, however, my understanding is still muddled although I have done a lot of searching. The Shinano no Kami Minamoto Nobuyoshi was used by 3 generations of Shinto smiths starting from around 1643 and were considered part of the Mishina School. This includes "my" Nobuyoshi as it is said that he later changed his signature from Fujiwara to Minamoto. The 3rd generation signed Echizen Rai instead of Shinano no kami. I did not find that "my" Nobuyoshi had signed swords including "rai" in the mei, althought the indication is that if he did, it would have occurred later in his productive life. Rai Nobuyoshi (it is said) was by far the best of the Takai-family. He was active from about 1655 to 1703. On earlier works before 1670 the 16-petal chrysanthemum was chiseled in, while later it was engraved. The name "Rai" was not added before 1673. "My" Nobuyoshi could have been 2nd generation. He also used the chrysanthemum.

I feel I'm puttering around inside complicated Japanese history. I'll post the nakago both sides like you requested. Johan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacques, thank you. When this blade was briefly shown in an earlier thread, there were others who indicated gimei like you have. I have subsequently read up quite a lot about gimei. Forumites must please NOT think that I am not in feeling with the general norm of "assuming gimei". Yet, when Brian (I think it was Brian) understandably suggested I should just enjoy my blade for what is and not brood too much about it, I felt a bit cheated (in an amicable way). I would rather research my blade as much as I can and learn from that, as much. So the questions that come up to me are: On what grounds should I assume gimei? Is it the style of the kanji on the signature? Is the "handwriting" poorer than what could be expected of the "real" Nobuyoshi? Are the characters poorly formed/engraved/chiselled? There must be something about the signature that one could lay your finger on and say "That's the problem!"

And the date: If the signature is suspect, is the date suspect as well? Friends, these questions arise because of my enthusiasm and not because I want to be difficult or a nuisance! Johan     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacques, you are right, of course, that Echizen Nobuyoshi was one of the younger brothers of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. In your last post you mentioned Rai Nobuyoshi. I have to assume you are referring to the older brother of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. Then you have no doubt also hit the nail on the head when you say Rai Nobuyoshi never received the title of Shinano no kami. However, I don't see what bearing "my" Nobuyoshi has on Rai Nobuyoshi.

Michael & Barry, have you had time to look at the nakago (post #9)? I apologize for the incorrect orientation of the pics. I tried hard to get them vertical, and saved them as such, but no luck! Sorry! Johan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Janrudolph said:

Jacques, you are right, of course, that Echizen Nobuyoshi was one of the younger brothers of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. In your last post you mentioned Rai Nobuyoshi. I have to assume you are referring to the older brother of the 1st gen Nobuyoshi. Then you have no doubt also hit the nail on the head when you say Rai Nobuyoshi never received the title of Shinano no kami. However, I don't see what bearing "my" Nobuyoshi has on Rai Nobuyoshi.

Michael & Barry, have you had time to look at the nakago (post #9)? I apologize for the incorrect orientation of the pics. I tried hard to get them vertical, and saved them as such, but no luck! Sorry! Johan. 

 

 

You don't understand that "your" Nobuyoshi never existed, your sword is gimei, nothing else (and the faker badly documented).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only mei I could find till now which is the same as mine, is in the pic below. I've put the images next to one another and they seem very close indeed.  

It is a papered Katana: Translation of papers:

     Kantei-sho (鑑定書) No 147115 katana, mei: [kiku-mon] Shinano no Kami Fujiwara Rai Nobuyoshi (信濃守藤原来信吉)

     Nagasa 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu Migi wa tô-kyôkai ni oite shinsa no kekka, tokubetsu-hozon-tôken to kantei-shi kore o shô-suru.

 (右は當協會に於て審査の結果特別保存刀剣と鑑定しこれを証する)

Heisei jûyonen nigatsu jûyokka (平成十四年二月十四日)

zaidan-hôjin (財團法人): Nihon Bijutsu Tôken Hozon Kyôkai (日本美術刀劍保存協會)

 Appraisal: katana, signed: [chrysanthemum crest] Shinano no Kami Fujiwara Rai Nobuyoshi.

Nagasa ~ 70.6 cm According to the result of the shinsa committee of our society we judged this work as authentic and designate it as tokubetsu-hozon-tôken. February 14th 2002 [Foundation] NBTHK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacques, at least you are participating in this thread, for which I am thankful. But I am frustrated at the fact that I am putting much reasoning into the discussion, while you are putting nothing at all convincing on the table? And being more knowledgeable than I (I am sure), I would have thought you should be able to counter my arguments easily if you wanted to. Johan 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stunning, especially since this blacksmith is not mentioned in the literature whether it is the nihonto meikan, Fujishiro or the Shinto taikan. In my opinion i would ask the NBTHK if this paper is legit. 

 

 

I think it's this one :

https://nihontoantiques.com/project/katana-sword-fss-706/

 

The mei inscribed in the sayagaki is not the same than the one on paper

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Jacques and SteveM. You realize of course, that I don't have recourse to Nihonto Meikan, Shinto Taikan, Fujishiro Taikan or any other Japanese sword reference book. I can do no more than access the internet and that with extreme caution for reasons you will be aware of. Then I have my reasoning powers (probably much addled after extensive use!) to make sense out of little info. As an active numismatist since 1979, I have learnt that you don't try to identify counterfeit coins by studying them; you study the genuine article and then you will know to identify counterfeits. That's why I'm so happy to now have three mei signatures on papered swords with identical kanjis as mine. I've gone to the trouble of enlarging them and putting them next to mine, and scrutinizing the shapes. Being free-hand chiselled, all four differ, but minutely.   In fact, it is one of the papered sword's mei which stands out as having the greatest variation! What can I make of this comparison? Do I acknowledge that my mei COULD be gimei? Of course I do. Am I convinced it IS gimei? Not on your nellie. So where do I go from here? Easy: I have to study the blade as to authenticity. That is why I ask you to please do me the kindness of looking back to my posts #4 and #5 and commenting, if you will. I would really be very glad. Of course I will need to post more pics afterwards. Johan 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As important as the mei is, it's just one of many things that must be considered when determining if the blade was made by the signature alleged to be that of the maker. Since you now have examples of three verified signatures, you should also compare the shape of the end of the nakago or tang, the slant or angle of the file marks on the tang, the location of the signature with respect to the peg hole and whether the general shape of the tang of the genuine and your tang match. Ultimately, the workmanship of the blade should be similar to what that particular sword smith's characteristics are. Things like the hamon or his forging style, masame, itame, mokume, etc. In general, an examination of the characteristics of the blade should verify the authenticity of the signature, not the other way around. In my very early days collecting Japanese sword, I acquired an excellent blade by a rather famous maker. The signature on the tang matched perfectly with examples of verified signatures in the literature. I submitted the sword to shinsa where it was judged gimei or false. I asked why it was gimei since the signature was a perfect match for a genuine signature. The shinsa team pointed out that the shape of the end of the tang did not match that of the genuine smith's style. The lesson learned was that there are excellent forgers out there who can make excellent copies of signatures. Don't depend only on the signature on your sword, everything else must match the work style of the supposed sword smith.  When you are satisfied that you have considered everything else besides the signature and you think it's correct, then it's time to submit the blade to shinsa to verify your own study and conclusions. I hope this helps you  to appreciate the complexity of sword collecting. Enjoy the "ride", it's often a very long one and you will learn a lot along the way.

Edited by Ed Harbulak
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been interesting thread. I was under the impression like Jacques that there would not be Shinano no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi mei, as previously I have only seen Echizen no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi. So I thought that Shinano no Kami Nobuyoshi did not use Rai in their signatures. However now there are at least 3 verified mei by NBTHK. I was looking at the example at Tōken Sakata and I believe their description points it to 2nd generation, and there is also mention that he first signed with Fujiwara (藤原) and later with Minamoto (源).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have much appreciated the last couple of posts coming through. Barry & Michael, you have both agreed, earlier in this thread, that my blade seems not to the a genuine work the mei signature suggests. Tom Darling has just now voted "nay" as well. I cannot agree more that the three of you are basing your opinion on firm grounds. That is the only norm I now need to investigate for my own sake, to arrive at a final conclusion, whether it be favourable or otherwise. Steve & Ian, you have helped me gather some more papered examples, for which I thank you!

Ed, thanks especially to you also, you can be sure I'll look at those nakago features you mentioned, and report back after I've done so. Jussi, good to hear from you; I've seen your face in many threads!

So, what kind of blade do I have? This is where my ignorance is going to come out glaringly. I have a very nice hamon, straight, which I only know to classify as suguha.

1)       Looking at my post #4, is anyone able to specify a sub-genre that can be attached to this suguha?

2)      The temper line is interrupted for about 10 mm at a distance of 80 mm from the very point of the blade. On the one side it is like a clean break in the line. On the other side, also 80 mm from the point, the line just wobbles for 10 mm. Is this a kizu? How serious?

Johan.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're describing a "nioi-gire": please check the definition on this page. This is considered a fatal flaw because it introduces a structural weakness in the sword, especially in the mono-uchi area (the first third of the sword used for slashing).

 

From Sesko's Encyclopedia of Japanese Swords:

 

Quote

nioigire (匂切れ) Part of a hamon that is missing, s if it had been left out. This is caused by faulty tempering or by damage by fire. The term nioigire is also used for hamon in nie-deki.

 

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...
×
×
  • Create New...