Nanboku-cho Tachi

[b.hennick]

I personally would take Tanobe San's opinion over some groups offering their opinion at shinsa in the U.S.A.

[Jean]

Kanteisho are only written opinion, a sayagaki by Tanobe sensei (who is considered in Japan as the greatest living expert of Japanese swords) can be worth any kanteisho issued by any organization.

 

 

[Valric]

Tanobe Sayagaki > NBHTK > …..> the rest…

 

Pretty clear hierarchy to me. 
 

the gold standard is of course to have both. 
 

if Tanobe does not think the NBHTK’s attribution is good, he will not do the sayagaki. So having both is a great cross-panel validation. 

 

 

[Gakusee]

Jacques, what you are saying can be reversed and be equally valid: the opinion of the Shinsa panel is just that, an opinion and an estimate (the most logical and risk-weighted assessment out of several possibilities but still an opinion). In fact, I prefer the opinion of Tanobe sensei over the opinions of younger, less experienced members, even if there are 10 of them.
Also we all know what herd mentality is and how people behave. That applies to an even greater degree in consensus-driven Japan. It takes guts, knowledge, conviction and scholarship to reach a conclusion that others eschew out of conservatism. So sometimes Tanobe sensei in a sayagaki will put a sword to a particular smith while the Shinsa panel only pronounces the the school and period. 

[Tom Darling]

Hi Gary,  to date your two blades,  check the utsuri.      I can't make oue hada, my eyes are little tire for my age . Good luck.

1. in shinogi  - Ko-Bizen

2.next to shinogi -Ichimonji

3.straight next to hamon-Oei

Should have predominately nioi crystals, found up to end of Kamakura period

Hada- mokume, Bizen     Hada-very fine itame, Yamashiro influence.

Your ko-kissaki  has Sashikomi  keishi polish

The cho kissaki has keisho polish

The bo-hi  usually should go beyond the yokote, determining early period.   

 

[Tom Darling]

1 hour ago, Valric said:

Tanobe Sayagaki > NBHTK > …..> the rest…

 

Pretty clear hierarchy to me. 
 

the gold standard is of course to have both. 
 

if Tanobe does not think the NBHTK’s attribution is good, he will not do the sayagaki. So having both is a great cross-panel validation

 

 

He may go along with the NBTHK  even if it's incorrect.   Tom D.   

 

 

 

[Tengu1957]

I did say this has meaning to me. When the previous head of the NBTHK takes the time to take a good look at the sword ( often over a few days ) and then form an opinion and write everything he believes to be relevant to the sword on the saya it is important to me. In a shinsa they will often look at 100's of swords and are pressed for time so it's no guarantee of increased accuracy. I value Mr. Tanobe's opinion more than a Shinsa but that's just me. Even in sayagaki they often state there is a disagreement and the attribution given is a result of that and it's open to further study. 

[Jacques D.]

16 hours ago, b.hennick said:

I personally would take Tanobe San's opinion over some groups offering their opinion at shinsa in the U.S.A.

 

Barry; 

 

It is obvious that I am referring to the NBTHK panel, I have no confidence in the shinsa held outside Japan. That said, 5 opinions are better than one (they are all true experts) and especially limit the risk of error, we have a bit the same thing in science with the peer-review system.

 

 

[b.hennick]

I have seen sayagaki by Tanobe san where he attributes a blade to a specific smith whereas the papers say Den (smith). Many shinsa panels seem to not want to attribute to someone specific. Many tsuba papers just say Higo. They seem to not want to commit to a smith.

[Jacques D.]

5 minutes ago, b.hennick said:

I have seen sayagaki by Tanobe san where he attributes a blade to a specific smith whereas the papers say Den (smith). Many shinsa panels seem to not want to attribute to someone specific. Many tsuba papers just say Higo. They seem to not want to commit to a smith.

 

 

Barry, 

 

Den smith or a specific smith are the same thing. 

[Alex A]

On 6/17/2021 at 8:32 PM, paulb said:

Gentlemen,

The reality is you are debating a 30 year time window i.e. 1360 to 1392 from 700 years ago. Allowing for fluctuation in style and changes in form overtime are you not being a little optimistic trying to be so precise?

 

 

This should be framed.

[Jacques D.]

52 minutes ago, Alex A said:

 

This should be framed.

 

 

The Nanbokucho period was very short but really important from a sword point of view.
Note that it does not exist in the history of Japan (it is part of the Muromachi period). 

 

And it's framed 

[Alex A]

Hi Jacques, 

 

Im no expert either, just have a few humble thoughts now and again.

 

Seen and owned swords, papered swords by the way that dont quite fit the typical range for a given timeline (call it what you want).

 

So i just accept there are always exceptions to the [  ] we like to fit stuff in to.

 

Once had a chat with a dealer in Japan about this, kind of got the impression he was thinking i was being  a little pedantic (at the time) 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think it is fun to have a friendly debate on minor things. There must be a reason why NBTHK made the call as Morishige out of the possibilities.

[Jean]

For fun: Kantei is easy by the late Jim Kurrasch

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20011209152910/http://members.home.net/token-kai/kantei.htm

[Toryu2020]

Jim Kurrasch - grumpy as always...

[b.hennick]

I miss Jim. He would teach me something about "old swords" at every San Francisco sword show. He introduced me to a man who wanted someone to take care of his treasure. After meeting, and writing to each other for a few years he decided that I  could become the swords next custodian. That blade is still my longest and oldest blade - a one hole ubu tachi. 

[Winchester]

As a new collector, I am amazed by the fact there are nihonto from the 1300's that are in this amazing of condition. Thank you for sharing and posting; it is appreciated.

 

The quality, craftsmanship, history, and discourse here is just amazing to this new collector. Thank you, Brian

[Rivkin]

On 6/15/2021 at 4:52 PM, Tengu1957 said:

Tachi and Tachi mounts 

NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon

Papered to 1st generation Omiya Morishige

O suriage 75.7 cm Hi , 9mm thick at mune .  Very healthy with lots of activity 

 

 

I am sorry to be overly critical - this photograph is both confusing and unhelpful. Boshi is not seen. Sugata is distorted. By itself this can create a false perception. It would be difficult to estimate sword's position in Nanbokucho without knowing sugata, and there is no photograph here showing it. I have no idea where did the discussion regarding whether its a stretch or not to precisely date this sword came from. From this photograph - there is no way to know, but it does not have Oei traits. This being said, with Bizen one needs/can be very specific, since different groups (Kanemitsu's students, Kozori, Omiya, Soden, three Mitsu) all had specific period-dependent shape preferences. To me this looks like 1360 or so for Omiya, but again - without clear image of the sugata its a guess.

From other photographs, it appears a classic high grade Omiya blade. Lots of sunagashi, the shape of hamon is the one they liked. There is even utsuri, which Omiya sometimes misses, but when they have it tends to be wide with poorly defined upper bound. One can say that antai is seen, utsuri is subdued, but I am not good with this terminology.

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I was researching some other things while I made a curious find when looking at Jūyō 19 items. Due to this I might have to rethink my earlier Ōmiya listing I posted earlier in this thread. It also shows the importance of reading the entry in the Jūyō book instead of just going by one line that identifies the maker. At first I was going to make a post about that on totally different thing.

 

The item in Jūyō 19 is the only mumei Jūyō item so far put towards Ōmiya Morishige, [伝大宮盛重]. Now I was wrongly thinking along the way of my earlier thinking posted above about mumei Morishige. However this item has this line at the end. この刀は鎌倉末期がら南北朝初期にかけての作である。So NBTHK clearly state that this ō-suriage (not mentioned in that phrase but item is ō-suriage katana) katana in their opinion dates from late Kamakura to early Nanbokuchō period. So they see this as work by Morishige who predates the 1st gen. Morishige.

 

While not exactly related to the particular swords in this thread, I feel it kinda shows that there is much behind just the attribution. Therefore I feel something like Tanobe's sayagaki or NBTHK Jūyō explanation is very valuable for collectors.

[Jwrussell]

I feel like Markus or Darcy (or both?) have articles that say the very same thing. There can be much beyond the simple attribution. And I truly wish all attributions (Hozon and up) had at least a short explanation. It would help tremendously, especially for us neophytes.