Jump to content

Tadahiro-mei & date


GARY WORTHAM

Recommended Posts

This is a challenging school; lots of info, books, collectors, and dialog. Over the years, this one came to me as a signed & dated, Tadahiro August 1631. Really good looking 63.5cm katana, 1.7cm sori, konuka jihada, with ko maru boshi. The unique hamon, appears as a suguha with choji midare portrayed with a twined gunome choji effect, where the yakigashira is squares. Attached are both sides of the tang; for thoughts, advice, and comments. Gary Wortham

 

[ tang date is shown an open attachment for tang signature ]

post-1554-14196764770944_thumb.jpg

post-1554-14196764775333_thumb.jpg

post-1554-14196764779128_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

First early morning reaction without reference to books is that I think this is gimei. The Fujiwara, and Tada kanji of 1st and second generations Tadahiro are very distinctive and as far as I can see this does not match them.

I will look in more detail alter today and come back with more information.

regards

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jacques & Paul; Well gi-mei and it's surrounding dialog; is one of my most favorite and intriguing conversations. If all of the signatures are signed by the master himself, dai-mei, comparative appearances are very straight forward from resource examples. But, when the master has his students sign for him, dai-saku-mei, it goes into the ozone. Who really knows how many students were permitted to sign; maybe examples on file, or maybe new examples yet to be discovered or not even in our files. Or, the right field direction of gassaku-mei, a jointly made signature by who; master & student, or student & student, or ???. Or, there's more, the signature changes as the years pass. A life of learning and few true experts.

 

And her lies the Hizen Tadayoshi headache. Tough calls. I have a rule of thumb; if I like the blade and it's quality of workmanship, then it has worth. The addition of coming in great koshirae, further enhances the ownership. Usually, one would not dress an ugly, low quality blade in fancy, expensive fittings; and I feels give the blade a better chance, not to be gi-mei. Which is how this blade was fitted, when it came to me. Anyway, great subject for the exercise of the nihonto mind. Gary Wortham

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary,

I am not sure I fully understand the point you are making. While I agree that if someone has valued a blade sufficiently to put good quality fittings on it then the chances are it is a good quality blade ( or it may have some signicance to them). There is of course the less savoury possibility that some one has "tarted it up" with reasonable fittings to try and enhance what might otherwise be a mediocre piece.

I am not saying your blade is bad, I haven't seen it, and I can believe it is as you say an attractive piece. However I also don't think it is a daimei either. If you go into many of the books they show examples of swords made by students who have then been allowed to sign with the masters name. They invariably follow the style of the master they are copying for, with one or two minor "signature" stroke variations. For example the direction of the bottom strokes in the hiro character are in a different direction for the Nidai, Sandai and Masahiro.

The main problems I have with the mei on your sword are:

1. The second character in Fujiwara in the work of the shodai, Nidai and daimei of their work have a roundness in the box section whereas yours looks square.

2. The Tada character in both Shodai and Nidai work has a square-cut angular look to the lower horizontal stroke. Yours is curved and more indicative of the form seen when the shodai and sandai are signing Tadayoshi rather than Tadahiro.

 

As said above I am not saying th blade is bad, I am not even saying definitively it is gimei I haven't seen the sword and even if I did I am not happy making such a call. There are far too many good copies in the field. The only way to be confident is to submit it for shinsa.

However based on what I can see in the mei I do not believe it to be gimei and not daimei or daisaku. What I haven't checked is how the mei compares to later generations but if it matches one of those the date would not fit.

 

BTW I do agree 100% with your point that first and foremost you like the sword. great enjoy it. If it turns out to be shoshin then that is fantastic if not the blade hasnt changed so you can continue to enjoy it for what it is, a well made sword.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most excellent points, Paul !!! I appreciate all points & ideas; made by anyone; positive and negative; and all in between. If the knowledge and identification were already done, easy to do, and no variations of thought; what would be the challenge and sport, to the madness of nihonto study, we pursue.

 

Thanks to Jacques, for the representative examples provided. If we only knew how many others there are; we don't know or have; and will never know. That's another reason why we are here and what we do. Gary Wortham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen

Please forgive me if I am wasting time and space and writing what you already know. It is difficult to asses a blade with just nakago and mei but if I may be permitted to make a couple of more general points.

The date shown is Kanei 8th year which is 1631 and immediately prior to the death of the shodai Musashi Daijo Tadahiro and if my calculations are correct, the nidai Tadahiro was 18 years of age at that time. It is well known that the shodai had been very ill and that both dai-mei and dai-saku works were made. At the same time, dai-mei were made for the young nidai Tadahiro and the chief "student" substituting for both of them at the same time, was shodai Masahiro (Kawachi Daijo). The importance of Masahiro, bound by Hashimoto family and clan obligations, in keeping the Hizen-to business together at this time, cannot be over-estimated. Strangely enough, the nidai Masahiro performed exactly the same function many years later with nidai Tadahiro and sandai Tadayoshi (Mutsu-no-kami).

As for the sword under discussion, the mei is certainly not that of Musashi Daijo and I think that there is a strong possibility that it is dai-mei and maybe dai-saku by shodai Masahiro.

On the other hand............................

Clive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Clive,

thank you for pointing out the significance of the date. its something I should have picked up on and didn't (I think my brain is becoming increasingly mushed these days) Do I understand that you think this could be a Masahiro daimei ? The reason I ask is that of the examples I have seen of swords attributed as daimei by Masahiro all have the squarer looking Tada character more commonly seen in the Tadahiro mei of Shodai and Nidai rather than the curved example on this piece.

Can you throw more light on this?

thanks

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gentlemen

Please forgive me if I am wasting time and space and writing what you already know....

Clive,

Please permit me to speak for everyone when I say that will never happen. You will never waste our time, and I think we all understand your time constraints and how difficult it is for you to comment frequently and therefore they are even more appreciated. And you are certainly not writing what we already know, as most of us are here to learn and are still novices. This thread is proving highly educational.

Please do continue to "waste our time and space" as much as you like and very often :lol:

 

Regards,

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, to that Brain; This is why I can back to this web-exchange, from the past, and hopefully, a wee bit smarter than before, with more to contribute; to this collection of diverse minds, at all stages of growth, in nihonto study. I am always grateful, when one of such experience and study, such as Clive, listens and chips in his wisdom. If we were without the challenges, to our own current level of knowledge, we would still think the world is flat, and earth is the center of our solar system.

Gary Wortham

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Paul et al

What I had intended saying before rambling on about Masahiro was that the nidai Tadahiro did not have that name until Kanei 9th year and this sword is dated the previous year. Therefore this sword must be purporting to be by the shodai but I am certain that it is not his genuine mei. It is, therefore, either gimei or I think it is quite possibly dai-mei (poss also dai-saku) Several students fulfilled this function during shodai's later years (when he was Musashi Daijo.) including Masahiro but on reflection, it does not seem to have been cut with a wide chisel such as used by Masahiro.

Incidendally, thin nakago on nidai Tadahiro's swords are usually dai-mei and dai-saku by either shodai or on later works by nidai Masahiro, whilst the wide ones are by Yukihiro. If there is plentiful nie and nioi, it may be the work of sandai Tadayoshi (Mutsu-no-kami) substituting for his father, although he died before his father.

Brian and Gary, thanks for your kind words

Clive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

post-5074-14196907098164_thumb.jpg

 

Here is a sword with 2.3cm Sorri and high waves hamon... that is signed 'Musashi Daijo Fujiwara'

The signed & dated, Tadahiro August 1631 has exactly the same handwriting that is on Colin's sword.

 

Clive says "As for the sword under discussion, the mei is certainly not that of Musashi Daijo"

Funnily enough that is what is written on Colin's sword... plus "Fujiwara" of course. :-) [Nod to Clive]

 

My theory is: It was an honour to sign swords.

 

And I have found the same hand has signed multiple generations of swords at the Tadayoshi School

 

Tadayoshi's/Tadahiro and on Masahiro's etc

 

THE SUSPECTS ARE:

1st Gen Tadayoshi himself... when not making swords had the honour of signing them

 

Yoshinobu (Master of the Tadayoshi School) the one married to Tadayoshi's daughter.

...also known as the ghost swordmaker for Tadayoshi... who also signed swords...like a BRAND...

 

...low waved/low sorri were attributed/signed to/as Tadayoshi)

...high wave/low-high sorri were attributed/signed to/as/ his son)

...add to this that Yoshinobu also signed swords for himself for a while.

 

The same hand is signing multiple swords at the Tadayoshi school.

Who-ever signed the 1631 blade also signed Colin's sword.

 

The mei is by someone at the Tadayoshi School ... the person who signs their Brand (so to speak) someone with power/honour to sign...

 

...in a similar fashion that 'Nagahisa' is to 'sharpness tests' for the Nabeshima Daimyo family.

 

Even though 1st Gen Tadayoshi became ill... ...here is a comment that proves that it is genuinely possible for him to have signed the blade... In the last 20 years of his life "he did not lift a hammer very often but retained the rights to perform Yaki ire (tempering and annealing) & Mei kiri (engraving or chiseling the makers name on the blade) until just before his death in 1982" - The wife of the famous WW2 Swordsmith Ishido Teruhide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting thread. May I ask about the length?

I have only had two or three Hizen blades in hand, one by Tadahiro. From this experience only, may I say that to me, 63 cm for a shinto Kan'ei period (1624-1644) katana of Hizen Tadayoshi seems a bit short.

I know we must never say never, but isn't the blade of this era "usually" about 69-74 cm?

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding to what is said above.... The two relative suspects... that could have signed your sword for Tadahiro (1st Gen Tadayoshi) are...

 

Jo Munetsugu who was (Priest & Swordmaker) and worked up until 1632/3 and looked after 1st Gen Tadayoshi at the age of 13 (when he became an orphan)...and Tadakuni 1604-1691 (1st Gen Tadayoshi's cousin)

 

BOTH signed the "WARA" part of "FUJI-WARA" with two horizontal lines in the box. Call me SHERLOCK!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

OK ! I may have actually solved this... my prime suspect is Hiroshige (who was ALSO a student of the great 1st Gen Tadayoshi) and was hiimself actually from Musashi... which makes a lot of difference as to how the Province is written and how it is written on the sword.

 

I have noticed that swordmakers from Musashi sign their home province Musashi differently from those who are NOT from Musashi. 

 

My research spanned the later sword cutting tests of the 17th century where most 'if not all' of the swords of the 1st Gen Tadayoshi progeny were tested by the testers for the Nabeshima Daimyo (Sword testers such as 'Yamano Kanjiro Hiseteru'.)

 

One GREAT piece of evidence that I found on Colin's sword... is... the very secretive 'Mizukage' (the Mark Of Water) ... which is attributed to1st Gen Tadayoshi. [and his Master - Umetada Myoju - was still alive too - also in his final year... so don't out rule his hand either.]

 

Here is a link to a Hiroshige sword with an uncannily similar writing to Colin's... (chisel direction/size/overall feel)

http://new.uniquejapan.com/a-hiroshige-katana/

 

And here is a link to the sword cutting tester... which includes the Water-Mark location.

http://www.samuraisword.com/nihontodisplay/CUTTING_TEST/gold_inlay/Tadayoshi/

 

Food for thought x

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Dear GARY WORTHAM

 

In the light of NEW evidence... 

 

I was dipping into how unique the YEAR character is written on everyone's sword - a quite 'unique identifier' (as is 'HIZEN') in regards to the maker of swords with another's name on them.  (Of course this is juggled in conjunction with ALL other available evidence... as and when it arises... or is rediscovered/made public.) 

 

I found myself revisiting your sword... and this may bring a smile...

 

My good friend (no sarcasm, this is a compliment) Roger (Omi)... may like the fact that the 'Fuji' character has 3 lines in it (which is a nod to him being correct with his Masahiro signing for Tadahiro theory) ... and I like his theory... as the 'Hiro' is a comma/moon...

 

...and not the circle/diamond Sotherby's signed Munenaga/Umetada Jusai TADAHIRO's (but that's another thread).  Shhh I'll shut myself up.

 

Take a look...

post-2842-0-05755500-1447674331_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gary ,

the placement of the date looks wrong to me. I quickly checked some of my books and in all of the mei by 1st gen Tadahiro that I looked at the date inscription starts above the mekugi ana . In yours it starts below the mekugi ana which makes me very sceptical about its authenticity.

 

Karl is seeing things if he thinks that he can see mizukage in those photos. In reality mizukage is hard to see. It runs at a 45% angle to the machi and appears mostly in early works by the first generation . It just doesn't appear in the photos of your sword.

 

I would also be troubled that as it purports to be a first generation piece the top stroke of the Hiro character is not the usual diamond shape Others will no doubt dissect each of the characters but to me the Tada also looks way off for a Tadahiro made circa 1630

 

Ian Brooks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gary , I looked at a couple more books last night and saw that on page 281 of the Shinto volume of Nihonto Koza there is a Tadahiro dated Kanei six where the date inscription starts below the mekugi ana . I guess this shows once again that there are always exceptions to the norm . I think though that if you take the unusual placement of the date , the absence of the diamond and the odd Tada into account ,then it is highly likely that the mei is not right.

Ian Brooks

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...