need expertise shinsa

[French nihonto]

Hello everyone. 
The Ko-uda and Shinsa specialists will surely be able to help me. I have several blades to send to NBTHK shinsa. In addition to these blades I hesitate to send a ko-uda Kunifusa to pass tokubetsu hozon, a very seine and ubu blade. Most Kunifusa I've seen are at least tokubetsu. The big question is, does it have a chance of passing the next level, and is it worth the risk? As I'm not at home for the vacations, I don't have many pictures, so I'll post some more soon if you'd like. 
Sincerely
Max
Nagasa: 65cm
Sori: 2cm
Motogasane: 6,8mm
 

[Grey Doffin]

I wouldn't bother trying for the next paper. The Hozon paper verifies the signature and that is enough.

Grey

[French nihonto]

Thank you grey for your reply.

You're probably right, I was thinking the same thing, seeing that the other works of this blacksmith are often quite well ranked, I tell myself that it will be an added value to the blade, not financial but recognition. (provided it's almost guaranteed to pass)  but that's not an absolute certainty.

Max.

[NewB]

I agree with Mr. Doffin. The TokuHo brings guarantees for insurance purposes and extra confidence in the non experienced buyer. Usually, on such blades I always opt out for TokuHo for many reasons

 

Looks fantastic 

 

Y.

[French nihonto]

Il y a 14 heures, NewB a déclaré :

Je suis d'accord avec M. Doffin. Le TokuHo apporte des garanties à des fins d'assurance et une confiance supplémentaire à l'acheteur non expérimenté. Habituellement, sur de telles lames, je me retire toujours de TokuHo pour de nombreuses raisons

 

Ça a l'air fantastique

 

Y.

Good to know !
yes a nice example ko-uda

[DoTanuki yokai]

Actually as Ko-Uda I think TokuHo would be no problem in my opinion but your attribution says end of Nanbokucho to Oei period I think. (?)

Just from what I have seen it is seldom that the Ko Uda get an attribution to a certain smith. 

 

With this attribution I don’t know what would happen 

In my Opinion all blades from Nanbokucho and older should have TokuHo or I would start looking for reasons why not (flaws). 

 

[French nihonto]

4 hours ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

Actually as Ko-Uda I think TokuHo would be no problem in my opinion but your attribution says end of Nanbokucho to Oei period I think. (?)

Just from what I have seen it is seldom that the Ko Uda get an attribution to a certain smith. 

 

With this attribution I don’t know what would happen 

In my Opinion all blades from Nanbokucho and older should have TokuHo or I would start looking for reasons why not (flaws). 

 

Thank you for your message Christian. To explain my train of thought, all the Kunifusa Ko-uda I came across were minimum TokuHo. 
I examined the blade at length several times, and no default. And especially no fatal default. So why is it only Hozon? A choice made by its owner at the time? 
A higher-than-average session? 
Something I didn't detect?    
Especially since the blade is ubu with a nice nakago, not rare, but not so negligible either when you see the large number of Kunifusa suriage. An extra session would have put an end to my curiosity. 
Max

[jsv]

Nagasa 65cm and a bit short nakago dont you think it might be a sword from Sengoku era?

[French nihonto]

Il y a 1 heure, Ynot a dit :

Nagasa 65 cm et nakago un peu court, ne pensez-vous pas que ce pourrait être une épée de l'ère Sengoku ?

I'm not against the idea, maybe I'm wrong but I read somewhere that the first generation ko-uda had short Nagako. So I'm not against the idea, but does that mean the nbthk is wrong? 

[jsv]

Can you highlight on the paper where NBTHK mention Ko Uda. I can only read the mei part not the bit under it.

If someone is wrong its me.

[Soshin]

41 minutes ago, Ynot said:

Can you highlight on the paper where NBTHK mention Ko Uda. I can only read the mei part not the bit under it.

If someone is wrong its me.

 

The papered says in brackets below no signature (mumei 無銘): Uda Kunifusa (宇多國房) it does not say Ko-Uda (古宇多). The sentence afterwards talks about the end of the Nanbochokô Period: (Jidai 時代) Nanbochukô-makki 南北朝末期), (naishi 乃至) (means "to about") the (Ôei 応永) era. The sentences in brackets are offering who they think made the sword and the approximate time period it was made. I hope this is helpful.

 

I like Uda and Ko-Uda swords. If it were my sword, I would plan to keep it and try for the Tokubetsu Hozon paper from the NBTHK.     

Edited July 30, 2023 by Soshin
Added additional information and my opinion about what he should do.

[French nihonto]

21 hours ago, Soshin said:

 

The papered says in brackets below no signature (mumei 無銘): Uda Kunifusa (宇多國房) it does not say Ko-Uda (古宇多). The sentence afterwards talks about the end of the Nanbochokô Period: (Jidai 時代) Nanbochukô-makki 南北朝末期), (naishi 乃至) (means "to about") the (Ôei 応永) era. The sentences in brackets are offering who they think made the sword and the approximate time period it was made. I hope this is helpful.

 

I like Uda and Ko-Uda swords. If it were my sword, I would plan to keep it and try for the Tokubetsu Hozon paper from the NBTHK.     

 It's the eternal problem of dating the era of a blade when a blacksmith's production straddles two eras. 
 

[Soshin]

5 hours ago, French nihonto said:

 It's the eternal problem of dating the era of a blade when a blacksmith's production straddles two eras. 
 

This was fairly common. Sword smith's working period would extend across historical eras sometimes even when there were functional changes to the swords because the style of warfare had changed.       

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think it is bit complicated subject and varying views can be objective. For me the question is how much value you think it would add to you personally to have a Tokubetsu Hozon for the sword? Uda Kunifusa is a premier attribution as far as Uda smiths go, as he is seen among the top of the school. Whole another subject would be the quite common Ko-Uda attribution vs. the actual small number of known Ko-Uda smiths in comparison. However I think we have discussed about how to approach some common attributions, I know Darcy wrote some good posts on that subject.

 

Based on the few pictures I would think your sword looks quite nice and should pass Tokubetsu Hozon. I personally thought it as suriage mumei sword. I would not send it for higher paper due to relatively high cost on sending an item from Europe to Japan for shinsa (Just to note I have never sent an item to a shinsa so I might not be the best source of advice in that). I know my views on some things might be slightly radical but I see the value of the sword being about the same Hozon vs. Tokubetsu Hozon. I wouldn't stress too much on paper level, unless aiming for Jūyō as then Tokubetsu Hozon is mandatory. I briefly discussed papers with Japanese dealer this summer, and the gap from Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon is actually quite small, and then the jump to Jūyō is actually very large. There have also been several blades at dealer sites in Japan that dealers have upgraded from Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon with 0 change in asking price. I think valuation is very tricky process... I bought a Jūyō 67 book this summer and mumei Uda Kunifusa katana passed in that session that I didn't think too highly when it was for sale online with Tokubetsu Hozon for relatively ok price. Now at Jūyō it's value would be drastically higher even though most likely nothing changed with the sword...

 

I do think Uda Kunifusa makes fine work, this summer I saw the Jūyō Bijutsuhin (dated 1405 )tanto by him at museum in Japan, and previously I have seen in hand a very nice signed tanto in Europe. I think his style is finer and more refined than what is "common" Uda style.

 

There is one signed Uda Kunifusa katana that is from Jūyō 22, it is 67,1 cm with ubu nakago that is machi-okuri. However as I read the text I believe that katana would be possibly Muromachi work.

 

For tachi by Uda Kunifusa that are from Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi, I have so far recorded 11 tachi, 9 of which are signed. The 2 mumei tachi are ubu and 78,6 cm and 79,4 cm in length. Out of the signed tachi only 70,5 cm Jūbi and 88,3 cm one are ubu.

[French nihonto]

20 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

For tachi by Uda Kunifusa that are from Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi, I have so far recorded 11 tachi, 9 of which are signed. The 2 mumei tachi are ubu and 78,6 cm and 79,4 cm in length. Out of the signed tachi only 70,5 cm Jūbi and 88,3 cm one are ubu.

Thank you for your very informative answer
So in the end, if I've understood correctly, it's not really worth looking for the tokubetsu hozon. Unless it's to try and get the Jūyō. But clearly the blade doesn't have the level, nagasa too short, numei. Suriage or ubu? Or in a few years when the treasure stock has run out and the level has dropped a bit? Which paper really deserves the blade? It's always the same question, but there's never an absolute answer until you try.

[Alex A]

Seems to be a lot of average blades around these days with TH

 

TH don't feel as special as it did 10 years ago.