Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori

[J-Dubb627]

I own this beautiful katana from the early Edo period signed by Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori (appraised as Tokobetsu Hozon).  I can’t, however, find much information about him as a swordsmith.  I know he forged for the Matsudaira clan but I would like to know more about him.  Does anyone have any information or references?  Thank you!

[Geraint]

Dear Josh.

 

Welcome to NMB.  Have a look here, particularly the PDF linked in the last post by Markus.

 

 

All the best.

[J-Dubb627]

1 hour ago, Geraint said:

Dear Josh.

 

Welcome to NMB.  Have a look here, particularly the PDF linked in the last post by Markus.

 

 

All the best.

Thanks for sharing this.  It’s hard to find good info about this particular smith, but I’m so intrigued to learn more about him.  I have learned her exclusively forged for the Matsudaira specifically Matsudaira Tadanao.  Wish there was more info about him!

[Ben-W]

Hi, I'm surely one of the least experienced person on this forum in relation to Nihonto. The good news is, recently while travelling in Japan I became a first time custodian of two Nihonto, one of which was signed Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori. Also appraised as Tokobetsu Hozon.

I've spent the past few weeks researching Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori.

I can share my findings.

There were two smiths who signed Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori in Echizen province 1600's.

The first generation Masanori. (referred to as shodai)

And the second generation Masanori. (Second generation referred to Nidai)

In the book named, Japanese Sword Smith directory, Japanese edition (which is in English) by Mishina Kenji, I've found the following information (photos attached. Reference: Ma - 121 rank C)

 

You can also investigate the province Shodai Masanori worked in to find who was the Daimyo of Fukui domain during this period. This timeline is very close to the battle of Sekigahara which marks the beginning of the Tokugawa Shogunate.

Daimyo of Fukui domain in Echizen province 1601/1607 - Yūki Hideyasu
(Seond son of the first Tokugawa Shogun, Tokugawa Ieyasu)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yūki_Hideyasu

Succeeding Yūki Hideyasu was his eldest son, Matsudaira Tadanao.
Daimyo of Fukui domain in Echizen province 1607 - 1622

https://en.m.wikiped...i/Matsudaira_Tadanao


As referenced, Tadanao was banished and replaced by his younger brother and second son of Yūki Hideyasu;

Matsudaira Tadamasa 
Daimyo of Fukui domain in Echizen province 1623 - 1645

https://en.m.wikiped.../Matsudaira_Tadamasa


If your katana is first generation Masanori, The probabilities are it was forged during the reign of one of the above Daimyo.

What historical battles may have Shodai Masanori katana possibly seen?

If it was forged early enough, The siege of Osaka 1614 to 1615.

https://en.m.wikiped.../wiki/Siege_of_Osaka

Samurai of Fukui, Echizen province were sent to Siege of Osaka under the Daimyo Matsudaira Tadanao.

Some additional research can begin from other names referenced in the photos such as;

Sanjo Yoshinori, which Masanori  is referenced as being a descendant (I lack further information for now)

The smith he apprenticed under; Kanenori. I'm guessing, of Fukui, Echizen Domain early 1600s

And other references Ive read saying he was the son of a Norimitsu (again, lack further information)
 

This is all I've found so far. When you come across further information, I would also love to hear.

Cheers,
Ben

[Baba Yaga]

I'm kind of confused, but what else is new.  You both have TH papers on the same smith but the papers vague on the generation of Masanori?

[J-Dubb627]

@Ben-W Thanks for all of the information you shared!  Here is some information (matches alot of what you said) that I have on him.  My blade is from the first generation Masanori and I, too, have wondered if it had any involvement in the Siege of Osaka Castle.   

 

 

This blade was forged by Yamato Daijyo Fijiwara Masanori(大和大掾藤原正則), who was born in Miyatsu city, Tango koku (northern Koyoto prefecture). Based on his remaining work, he was active during the early Edo period (the 13th year of Keisho-the fourth year of Keian:1608-1651).  Masanori is famous for having forged extremely sharp blades and was popular among high-class Samurai. 

 It is said that he was a descendant of Yamashiro koku Sanjyo Yoshinori(山城国三条吉則), one of the most famous swordsmiths during the Muromachi period（Prior to Edo period).After learning the sword-forging technique from his father, Norimitsu(則光) in Miyatsu city, Norimitsu, he moved to Kyoto city. 

 Masanori eventually was noticed and supported by Matsudaira Hideyasu, the third son of Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of the Edo government. Hideysu was the feudal lord of Echizen province during the early Edo period. He then moved to Echizen province to serve the Matsudaira clan. He became an Okakaekaji for Matsudaira Tadanao(松平忠直), who was the first son of Matsudaira Hideyasu. An Okakaekaji means those who exclusively forged swords for specific Samurai or clan. It was honorable for any makers to serve this position back then. He also received an official title of Yamato Daijyo from the emperor for his excellent craftsmanship.

[J-Dubb627]

On 10/28/2023 at 9:17 AM, Baba Yaga said:

I'm kind of confused, but what else is new.  You both have TH papers on the same smith but the papers vague on the generation of Masanori?

No, mine is first gen Masanori

[Ben-W]

On 10/29/2023 at 1:17 AM, Baba Yaga said:

I'm kind of confused, but what else is new.  You both have TH papers on the same smith but the papers vague on the generation of Masanori?

 

 

Hi,

The Masanori I took ownership of was still in transit when you first posted, I was awaiting arrival before replying. I would say my certificate is a bit vague but, then again, I'm new.

 

The shop in Japan I purchased from stated it was first gen Masanori.

http://sanmei.com/co...nts/en-us/p2392.html

I myself am unable to read Japanese, and all I have received is the NBTHK certificate, no further documentation. (Although it did have the original papers from 1960.)

Using Google to translate the Tokubetsu Hozon certificate, It appears to restate what is signed on the nakago and no further information. I will post a photo.

 

 

 

When it comes to the NBTHK providing certificates for blades from known smiths which do have signatures but, have multiple generations of smiths signing the same name, does the NBTHK usually assign to which generation it belongs?

 

Many thanks,

Ben 

[Shugyosha]

Hi Ben,

The NBTHK does sometimes assign a blade to a particular generation of smith but often not, and not on the paper above. As you say, it just confirms the smith's signature and so it's a case of looking at the work and signatures of each generation to try to attribute it to one or the other. There's some information below on the two generations of smith with examples of the signatures of both (in the link of the final post).

 

For me, the overall shape of your blade looks more like that prevalent in the Kanbun (straightish, chu kissaki) era rather than the Keicho era (extended chu kissaki), so 2nd generation, though the citation from Markus Sesko's book suggests that the signatures of both are similarly "spiderish" and different to that on the papered 2nd generation blade pictured by the OP. That said, my opinion isn't worth that much and you may get better ones shortly.

 

 

 

[J-Dubb627]

@Ben-W the picture of the sword you posted looks beautiful.  While no two swords are exactly alike, yours does appear to look slightly different than mine. Just based on the photo, it looks like your blade width is wider and the curvature to your blade is straighter than mine, although that does not rule out that our swords were made by the same Smith.  The place in Tokyo where I purchased my sword said that the certificates don’t always state what generation when there are Smiths with the same name. They did, however, say that if it is a later generation then the certificate sometimes would be marked with Kodai (meaning late generation).

[Ben-W]

Thanks Shugyosha and Geraint for supplying reference to Markus's book.

I also appreciate you clarifying my question about the certificates.

Analyzing the reference provided from Markus, I've noticed similarities between the blade in question and the 2nd Gen Masanori.

(1)
2nd Gen Masanori: Markus reference
Nagasa: 61.5cm
Sori: 0.9cm

This Masanori
Nagasa: 61.5cm
Sori: 1.0cm

(2)
In relation to the signature, with characters 1# Yama,  3# Dai
The top stroke runs much higher on the 1st gen compared to the 2nd gen.

 

(1st Gen Masanori: Markus Reference below)


The kanji in location 1# and 3# on this blade looks uniquely similar to the 2nd Gen.

(2nd Gen Masanori: Markus Reference below)

(This Masanori below)

 

(3)
For this blade, the end of the nakago has a very sharp angle, it's almost a point. This also appears more prominently on the 2nd gen referenced by Markus.

In relation to characteristics of forging and the hamon, that's still beyond my ability to comment.

In addition Shugyosha, you noted by the shape it's more likely from the kanbun period 1661-1673, which I believe aligns closer with the window of 2nd Gen Masanori.

Based on those observations I would more lean towards this blade being 2nd generation if I was making an estimate.

Welcoming any further input

 

 

 

[Ben-W]

On 11/11/2023 at 2:17 AM, J-Dubb627 said:

@Ben-W the picture of the sword you posted looks beautiful.  While no two swords are exactly alike, yours does appear to look slightly different than mine. Just based on the photo, it looks like your blade width is wider and the curvature to your blade is straighter than mine, although that does not rule out that our swords were made by the same Smith.  The place in Tokyo where I purchased my sword said that the certificates don’t always state what generation when there are Smiths with the same name. They did, however, say that if it is a later generation then the certificate sometimes would be marked with Kodai (meaning late generation).

Thanks Josh, I have a few more screenshots I can share about 1st Gen Masanori from an older document. I'll get those up for you soon.

[Shoebedo808]

Greetings all,

 

I also have a beautiful sword forged by Yamato Daijo Fujiwara Masanori.  I will post some pictures tomorrow.  I believe mine to be early generation. It has multiple symbols (both sides) on the blade. I’m trying to find out what they mean. I’ve been told they look like Buddhist symbols. 
 

Forrest

[Shoebedo808]

[Shoebedo808]

Here are the various symbols on the blade I would love to have interpreted:

 

[Shoebedo808]

[Shoebedo808]

Any help is greatly appreciated!

[Lewis B]

They are called Bonji and usually have a Buddhist religious significance. The script is Sanskrit.

[Shugyosha]

Hi Forrest,

The one in the last photograph is a rendai: a representation of the lotus-shaped platform or seat on which images of Buddha are shown. The others are, as Lewis says, bonji and there is a list here and it's a case of matching the ones on your sword up with those in the chart:

 

 

[Naomasa1584]

Just letting everyone know, since I've noticed on these sites ppl always try and find reasons for a nihonto in question to be the less desired nihonto smith or era(assuming 2nd gen is less desired). A blade being straight isn't the end all be all, automatically Edo Kanbun. That seems to be a go to. There are blades with almost no sori before even 1600. Hasebe Heshikiri being almost completely straight and legendary. I'll admit, it's an exception, not a rule. Also it is difficult no matter how much you read to be able to date a blade on appearance alone. For me seeking an answer often leads to 10 new questions once found.

   I just wanted to say my piece. People seem eager almost to say someone's new prize is lesser then what they think. Also I used to get tons of requests for more photos, which I would promptly do, and never hear back from the alleged experts, 

 

                       Andy

[eternal_newbie]

2 hours ago, Naomasa1584 said:

 I just wanted to say my piece. People seem eager almost to say someone's new prize is lesser then what they think.

 

Because generally, it's more likely to be true – and as someone offering your expertise on someone else's gamble, it's better to be conservative and wrong (nice surprise for them) than optimistic and wrong (that's when the knives come out). Even the NBTHK will sometimes give conservative attributions to blades that look a little "iffy" or ambiguous between schools, and only go out on a limb when a blade gets to the upper echelons of recognition (TokuJu, Kokuho).

[Scogg]

“Straight = Kanbun” isn’t a hard rule, and nobody knowledgeable treats it as one. Sori is just one factor among many: proportions, kissaki, nakago, hamon, jigane, etc. Kantei has always been about the overall picture, not one isolated feature.

 

The existence of pre-1600 blades with shallow sori also doesn’t invalidate broader sugata trends across periods. Outliers don’t erase patterns, and those exceptions are hardly new revelations to people who study swords seriously.

 

Honestly, most people saying “probably later Edo” aren’t trying to diminish someone’s sword. They’re usually making the best call they can from limited photos. There are a lot of Edo blades out there. Nihontō kantei is difficult enough in hand, and often nearly impossible from photographs alone. There’s nothing inherently wrong with Kanbun era work or nidai smiths unless someone has already decided there is. Not every painting needs to be the Mona Lisa to have value.

 

I’m also not sure who you mean by “alleged experts”. If forum opinions aren’t satisfying, the obvious solution is to submit the sword for papers. 

-Sam

[nulldevice]

7 hours ago, Naomasa1584 said:

Hasebe Heshikiri being almost completely straight and legendary.

The Hasebe Heshigiri has been o-suriage and still maintains ~1cm of sori. Shallow yes, but I wouldn't call that "almost completely straight". Apples to orange comparison. There are a myriad of nanbokucho o-suriage katana out there with around 1cm sori. One other important point of the Heshigiri is you'll see the hi falls off of the nakago mune showing that sori has been deliberately removed in the o-suriage process. 

 

Looking at more ubu examples of nanbokucho blades and we start to see a different shape emerge. Here is the Karakashiwa. Made by Hasebe Kuninobu. If you cut off the bottom 16cm of this sword (essentially the entire nakago) and moved it up, you now have another quite shallow blade. 

[Naomasa1584]

That's a good point Eternal_Newbie. bc it probably would be far worst to overshoot and them be disappointed. I should've realized fr personal experience. I have this small sword that even my Iai Sensei gave me the worse attribution of all, in his opinion, which was that it was gunto. But the more I trained with him bc it was a personal trainer he seemed to start changing his mind about it. Maybe he thought bc I was a beginner to Iai at that time I couldn't possibly have an Iai of any consequence. But Ray, whose opinion I trust very much, said based on all the attributes, it was definitely Koto, he said probably earlier then 1500s which was way more then I could've hoped. I think some ppl have it in their head that if a katana isn't covered in rust or other signs of wear, it must be new. I wonder if European swords look that way bc of the mindset of not touching antiques at all. Like that polishing a sword would be unheard of, like with antique furniture. Thanx for input

[Naomasa1584]

Nulldevice-my bad, I wrote this not realizing you posted a different sword bc my wife's talking at same time, so I'm gonna blame her lol. I'm new to this forum, please be patient with me. I'm talking about the katana that became Kuroda Yoshitaka's, it has a bizzare saya where half is red or brown, and the bottom looks gold and spikey. I found the one I mean, but not the koshirae. If I didn't know it's provenance, I might think this was Shinshinto as they tried to find and restore lost techniques, so I find it at times really difficult to accurately access Nihonto, but especially with pictures alone. I'm glad their are groups like this. I wish I sought out advice online a decades ago, when I could've probably afforded a few decent Mumei Nihonto's for a the money I spent on Hanwei swords. Not that I don't still love some of them.

Edited yesterday at 10:06 PM by Naomasa1584

[nulldevice]

6 hours ago, Naomasa1584 said:

Nulldevice-my bad, I wrote this not realizing you posted a different sword bc my wife's talking at same time, so I'm gonna blame her lol. I'm new to this forum, please be patient with me. I'm talking about the katana that became Kuroda Yoshitaka's, it has a bizzare saya where half is red or brown, and the bottom looks gold and spikey. I found the one I mean, but not the koshirae. If I didn't know it's provenance, I might think this was Shinshinto as they tried to find and restore lost techniques, so I find it at times really difficult to accurately access Nihonto, but especially with pictures alone. I'm glad their are groups like this. I wish I sought out advice online a decades ago, when I could've probably afforded a few decent Mumei Nihonto's for a the money I spent on Hanwei swords. Not that I don't still love some of them.

 

I think that is a Juyo Bunkazai sword and not the Heshigiri. The Heshigiri Hasebe with the koshirae as described looks like this:

 

The blade you showed is a JuBun Kunishige owned by the Kurokawa institute with ties back to Tokugawa Yorinobu. Both are relatively "straight" but one retains 0.9cm of sori and the other 1.0cm. Not a lot but again both are greatly shortened with mekugi ana present near the nakago-jiri on both examples. Adding a good 15-20cm to the nagasa of each of these would no doubt bring out a bit more sori. I think you'd find quite a few shinshinto smiths who tried to emulate these blades but only the famous 2 or 3 most likely who could approach them in quality. I'm not a big shinshinto guy so I don't know if any of them tried to emulate hitatsura utsushi mono of Hasebe school Kokuho and JuBun blades. A place for more study for me as I need to spend more time in shinshinto. 

[eternal_newbie]

12 hours ago, Naomasa1584 said:

I wonder if European swords look that way bc of the mindset of not touching antiques at all. Like that polishing a sword would be unheard of, like with antique furniture.

 

Perhaps it wouldn't surprise you to learn that some in the Nihonto world (mostly in the West) feel that way too; I've seen folks on here back in the day arguing that polishing an old blade is taking away part of its history.

[Lewis B]

3 hours ago, eternal_newbie said:

 

Perhaps it wouldn't surprise you to learn that some in the Nihonto world (mostly in the West) feel that way too; I've seen folks on here back in the day arguing that polishing an old blade is taking away part of its history.

Funny you say that. I debated long and hard whether to restore this habaki. I found the 'patina' not unattractive and felt restoring it would diminish some of that 'history' to which you are referring. In the end I decided on restoration since the blade was getting a fresh polish and it fit a little loose on the blade.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Lewis B

[Mark S.]

15 hours ago, Naomasa1584 said:

I have this small sword that even my Iai Sensei gave me the worse attribution of all, in his opinion, which was that it was gunto… Maybe he thought bc I was a beginner to Iai at that time I couldn't possibly have an Iai of any consequence. 

I don’t understand an attribution based on WHO OWNS a blade?  Doesn’t make any sense to me.  You evaluate the blade, not the person.  And there is a huge difference in attribution between Koto and Gunto.  Not sure how that happened.  Gunto is not a “worse attribution” if that is what it honestly is… unless of course you wanted him to say Masamune.  An attribution is what it is.  Our expectation is what makes it ‘good or bad’ in our minds.  And there is always the possibility that in some cases a really good Gunto is better than a really poor Koto depending on who is collecting what.  

 

[eternal_newbie]

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

I debated long and hard whether to restore this habaki. I found the 'patina' not unattractive and felt restoring it would diminish some of that 'history' to which you are referring.

 

It's rarely an easy choice - aside from the costs, there's also the risks of a restoration going bad, getting stuck in an expanding queue, going lost in transition, major or even fatal flaws being uncovered in the process etc. In the end all we can do is use our best judgement in deciding the best way to curate and preserve these items so that future generations may enjoy them as well.