Nobukuni generation mystery

[Katsujinken]

Hi folks,

 

I've been puzzling over this tanto this week: https://www.aoijapan.com/tantonobukuni-ouei-era/

 

I wanted to find out if there is any chance it’s actually by the shodai Nobukuni, because I had my doubts given the source and the simple addition of “Oei” on the TH paper. I would have expected more annotation if the NBTHK wanted to state or even imply it was shodai work. So I opened Fujishiro and looked at signatures and commentary on pages 282-285. He writes that the shodai could have worked into Oei, and indeed the signatures on page 283 look close to my (admittedly poor) eye:

 

Quote

"The "Kuni" kanji is a little bit different and the vertical line in the center becomes straight. This was used from Shitoku till around the beginning of Ôei, and is viewed as the latter period of Jôji Nobukuni or the early period of Saemonnojô."

 

But when looking at Markus's commentary and mei comparison it seems to me that the example on Aoi’s site might actually be the third generation, Gyôbu no Jô Nobukuni. 

 

Then again, the deki is very "classical"... What do you think? I'm stumped.

[Rivkin]

Its an old problem due to who is to be considered shodai Nobukuni. Part of it is if he was Ryokai's student and there is also Echizen genealogy which was considered canonical for a long time, both placing the shodai into 1320s. The earliest blades are all 1370-ish, though it has been argued some might be earlier. Current "sort of" understanding is when people say shodai they mean 1370-1390 works in Yamashiro style, when they say "nidai" they mean the same period but Soshu style, when they say sandai they mean Oei. This one is Oei papered so in a modern language can't be shodai.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Markus has done great research in the article. Haven't got really anything to add to it.

 

I do think the Jūyō Bunkazai tachi by Nobukuni is thought to be Nanbokuchō Nobukuni work, most recently it was featured in the Swords of Kyoto exhibition by Kyoto National Museum in 2018, and it is described as Nanbokuchō. Likewise the Agency for Cultural Affairs lists it as Nanbokuchō work. I have only seen Honma Junji list is as work of Shikibu in his Nihon Koto Shi in 1963.

 

I believe the Shodai Nobukuni was working in c. mid-Nanbokuchō, I have found only the same 3 dated ones that Markus has in his article. Then it gets quite difficult at least for me know the differences when you get into late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi as there were several Nobukuni working. I think NBTHK is just pointing out the approximate age when they put Ōei in brackets and not choosing any specific Nobukuni. There are items signed just Nobukuni for which NBTHK specifies Shodai or Saemon or Shikibu in brackets as they feel confident it is work of the specific Nobukuni. Then on the other hand there are some signed Nobukuni which have in brackets, late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi, so they give very broad answer.

[Toryu2020]

This author suggests that Shikibu and Genzaemon would be classified as "Oei Nobukuni"

-t

 

THE NOBUKUNI KEI 信国派 | NIHONTO

[Rivkin]

Nobody today will paper anything to shodai Nobukuni. Coming to think about it, its more than a bit of an arrogant statement and I should have checked the papers first, but... I papered quite a few to Nambokucho Nobukuni and the generation was not there. Verbally it was always coming down more to a specific era rather than the exact generation. Shodai is a name that people use, but it no longer has any definitive meaning. For a very long time it was shodai is pure Ryokai except for his very last works and his activity is circa 1320-1360 and then its all nidai, but there is just not that much that can even theoretically go into the shodai pile under this definition.

There are tons of Nambokucho suguha works signed Nobukuni, most are of frankly speaking low quality. Suggests its a school rather than one person.

Soshu works on the contrary all tend to be rather good. Datewise both styles nearly completely intersect each other. I should have been more careful to remember what are the earliest signed pieces, but in reality you'll have a pile of circa 1370-1380 suguha tanto signed Nobukuni and a smaller pile of those in Soshu style also signed Nobukuni.

Yes, the Soshu style is more conservative than Hasebe and leans towards Sadamune, but many works have very prominent and high contrast mokume which reminds one of Hasebe or even Norishige school. Yamamura Masanobu has almost identical beginning period to Nobukuni, almost identical separation into Ryokai and Soshu styles, but some of his Soshu works are so "belted" in nie they are very reminscent of Norishige-Tametsugu and he was part of Echizen genealogy by tradition. But then in Nobukuni you see similar manner of tobiyaki, they are just not formed into really long masame-like "belts". 

 

Its a huge workshop until it collapsed down to but a few people with personal names in Oei era.

[Katsujinken]

Great insights, thanks guys. 
 

What do you think of this particular blade? It’s quiet and elegant, but perhaps a bit tired (at that price and for Oei)…

[Rivkin]

5 minutes ago, Katsujinken said:

Great insights, thanks guys. 
 

What do you think of this particular blade? It’s quiet and elegant, but perhaps a bit tired (at that price and for Oei)…

 

You can see a lot of quality in the hamon, but hada towards the mune is just tired. I actually think Oei works in suguha can easily be better than Nambokucho's. With Soshu its more of the opposite.