Need help dating a rare blade and mountings | Niō Kiyotsuna

[GarnerWall]

Hey!

The only information I could find on Kiyotsuna was a thread from this forum in December of 2015. I'm wondering if there's anyone here that could help me.

What I know:
The sword is signed by Kiyotsuna 清綱
Registered in Japan in the 6th year of Emperor Showa [1931] (my translation might be off, I'm not very good at Japanese)
Purchased in 2012 and imported to Canada (purchased by me last month and imported to America).
Originally a Tachi or Kodachi (mei is on the edge down side)
Has 3 mekugi pin holes
Seems very thin which leads me to believe it was damaged in battle that was shortened to be a Wakizashi during the 1500s

The weird:
Mountings are in a Tachi style.
Saya is longer than the blade.
The saya has two end pieces that look like they're glued or at least scored all the way around.
The mei has 3 kanji but the sword is only accredited with 2 kanji.
 

Blade Length - 48.2cm or 19" 

Hamon - Straight (Visible)

Habaki - Copper

Tsuba - Iron with flower design. Tsuba is lose 

Tsuka Length - 23cm or 9". 

Overall Length of Sword -  73.6cm or 29.25" 

Menuki - Looks like rats

Saya - Mottled Black and brown

That's all I can think of right now. All around this is a weird one for me. I've never seen mountings like this for a Kodachi or Wakizashi. 

Based on reasonable assumptions the blade is 1202-1338 assuming it's from the actual Niō school. Most likely it was resized during the edo period and worn as a wakizashi. I've found another tachi and a tanto from the Niō school and they look similar to the blade I have.

Let me know your thoughts, thank you!

[Nihonto student]

Dear Garner,

 

first of all for evaluation better photos of the nakago, sugata, and detail of hada, hamon and boshi are needed, it would be useful also to have the kasane measurements.

 

In any case:

the registration is not a certification of the authenticity of the signature, if this blade had originally been a tachi from the kamakura period considering the average nagasa with what we have today the signature would have been cut, therefore if this blade was shortened (Not sure for me at the moment) the signature was added after the shortening which would most likely mean Gimei (false signature).

I also doubt that it could be Kodachi, statistically finding a kamakura blade today without a valid certification is a rare event in itself... in any case post more accurate photos so we can have more details to analyze.

 

Best Regards,

 

Giordy

[Nobody]

I do not think that the registration paper belongs to your blade.

- The length of the blade written on the paper is 1-shaku 6-sun 4-bu (= 49.7 cm), whereas the length of your blade is 48.2 cm.

- The pater says that there is a 清綱 mei on the omote-side, whereas there are three characters on the ura-side on your blade.

 

Although I cannot decipher the three characters on your blade except the first 清, the inscription does not look like Kiyotsuna (清綱) to me.

BTW, the registration paper was issued on July 10, 1951 (昭和廿六年七月拾日).

[GarnerWall]

12 hours ago, Nihonto student said:

Dear Garner,

 

first of all for evaluation better photos of the nakago, sugata, and detail of hada, hamon and boshi are needed, it would be useful also to have the kasane measurements.

 

In any case:

the registration is not a certification of the authenticity of the signature, if this blade had originally been a tachi from the kamakura period considering the average nagasa with what we have today the signature would have been cut, therefore if this blade was shortened (Not sure for me at the moment) the signature was added after the shortening which would most likely mean Gimei (false signature).

I also doubt that it could be Kodachi, statistically finding a kamakura blade today without a valid certification is a rare event in itself... in any case post more accurate photos so we can have more details to analyze.

 

Best Regards,

 

Giordy

Additional lore:
The previous Japanese owner was of former Shizoku status and his family were former retainers of the Hōjō Clan during the Kamakura period. There is no information on when the Suō domain fell to the Ashikaga Shogunate but based on Kiyotsuna Kenmu dying in 1338 it could be assumed that this lined up with the Hōjō clan losing their status in the region. The previous owner is well into his 100s now and doesn't remember much about the sword or his families complete lineage, and I'm sure he doesn't want some American barging into his life asking anymore questions hah. He did carry a Wakizashi into battle during the war but couldn't remember if it was this one or another, both Wakizashi and a Katana were hidden under their home from '45 until sometime in the 90s.

Blade Length 52.75cm
Sori 0.95cm
Hamachi 2.86cm
Kissiki 2.22cm
Kasane 0.79cm

[GarnerWall]

49 minutes ago, Nobody said:

I do not think that the registration paper belongs to your blade.

- The length of the blade written on the paper is 1-shaku 6-sun 4-bu (= 49.7 cm), whereas the length of your blade is 48.2 cm.

- The pater says that there is a 清綱 mei on the omote-side, whereas there are three characters on the ura-side on your blade.

 

Although I cannot decipher the three characters on your blade except the first 清, the inscription does not look like Kiyotsuna (清綱) to me.

BTW, the registration paper was issued on July 10, 1951 (昭和廿六年七月拾日).

Updated information now. I went ahead and did my own research and measurements instead of relying on the information of the previous owner in Canada.

[Lexvdjagt]

Hello Garner,

 

Welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing this blade with us.

 

Some additional images would be great, particularly showing the overall shape of the blade, and some close ups of the hamachi would be great as well.

 

I am overall quite skeptical of any story that is associated with a blade that currently has no paperwork to back the story up. I would not assume anything based on the story you were told about the blade. These types of stories are often included as a type of sales talk to sell a blade for more than it is worth in Japan. I do not think this blade is from the Kamakura period based on the images I have seen. I do get the indication that the blade could be gimei (based on the weakness of the signature combined with the mismatched registration papers). The blade was either shortened and had this mei added later, or is ubu/close to ubu with this signature. The koshirae seems to be a simple case of having this blade fitted to an already existing koshirae in modern times. This is done extremely often to sell blades to foreigners. I cannot speak to the age or type of fittings, as I do not believe I have the experience in that field. I believe you have a wakizashi from the Mid-late muromachi period based on the images I have seen. Which school or smith is very hard to judge based on the images.

 

This is still an authentic Nihonto, and deserved the same attention. So take good care of it. And enjoy it!

 

Greetings,

Lex

 

 

[GarnerWall]

3 hours ago, Lexvdjagt said:

Hello Garner,

 

Welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing this blade with us.

 

Some additional images would be great, particularly showing the overall shape of the blade, and some close ups of the hamachi would be great as well.

 

I am overall quite skeptical of any story that is associated with a blade that currently has no paperwork to back the story up. I would not assume anything based on the story you were told about the blade. These types of stories are often included as a type of sales talk to sell a blade for more than it is worth in Japan. I do not think this blade is from the Kamakura period based on the images I have seen. I do get the indication that the blade could be gimei (based on the weakness of the signature combined with the mismatched registration papers). The blade was either shortened and had this mei added later, or is ubu/close to ubu with this signature. The koshirae seems to be a simple case of having this blade fitted to an already existing koshirae in modern times. This is done extremely often to sell blades to foreigners. I cannot speak to the age or type of fittings, as I do not believe I have the experience in that field. I believe you have a wakizashi from the Mid-late muromachi period based on the images I have seen. Which school or smith is very hard to judge based on the images.

 

This is still an authentic Nihonto, and deserved the same attention. So take good care of it. And enjoy it!

 

Greetings,

Lex

 

 

I mainly purchased this blade as I hadn't seen anything like it before. I have a collection of many other swords but they're all Hozon verified so I've never had to do any "digging", this seemed like a fun side project. I connected with a family member of the person who sold the sword in the 90s and had the honor of speaking with him. The story regarding them being retainers during the 1300s is all correct and whomever owns that sword has something really special. The sword I have isn't their family sword, there was obviously some sort of paperwork mess up over the last 30 years that got me papers that have nothing to do with the sword I purchased.

I've so far translated the Mei to 清 作, at the moment I have not been able to translate the middle Kanji. My assumption is close to yours, most likely mid Muromachi.

Regarding photos, what way should I be taking them to get the desired effect? 

[Jacques]

If the measurements are correct, the kasane linked to the nagasa is a huge red flag for a supposed suriage blade...

[GarnerWall]

9 hours ago, Jacques said:

If the measurements are correct, the kasane linked to the nagasa is a huge red flag for a supposed suriage blade...

So it's your conclusion this isn't a suriage?

[GarnerWall]

Some additional confusion I'm having is that in 2012 when this sword was exported Nagano Prefecture gave a Certificate of Export Examination with photos that has this sword but also verifies it as Kiyosuna. Perhaps someone got lazy and just followed what was on the registration papers?

I haven't provided those papers due to privacy concerns but I can black out any info if someone could help me with an explanation.

[Jacques]

9 minutes ago, GarnerWall said:

So it's your conclusion this isn't a suriage?

Frankly, I think this sword is a sucker's catch.

[GarnerWall]

7 hours ago, Jacques said:

Frankly, I think this sword is a sucker's catch.

At the end of the day I paid less than what the sword was worth even if it's a gimei from the mid-muromachi period.

It was quite an honor tracking down and talking to the old owner in Japan (even if my sword isn't the same one he owned), the WW2 generation is dying off quite fast and it's hard to talk to Japanese WW2 vets due to the stigma surrounding the war.

I combed through over 2,000 Kanji and 5,000 Muromachi era swords and narrowed down the Kanji to 清江作 (Kiyoe Saku). There's no smith with that name at least in any record I could find. So either the sword is Gimei, or there was a Kiyoe and all of his works have been destroyed, or the Kanji is misread. With over 10 swords in my collection this has by far been the most fun I've ever had in the hobby, I'll eventually figure out more information. Hoping some people on this forum can help me do so.

[Jacques]

The wear and tear of the various kanji is another red flag. In my opinion (and I mean in my opinion) it's artificial.

[Lewis B]

I would also add the distance between the kanji is highly unusual if signed by the maker. 

[GarnerWall]

6 hours ago, Jacques said:

The wear and tear of the various kanji is another red flag. In my opinion (and I mean in my opinion) it's artificial.

 

6 hours ago, Lewis B said:

I would also add the distance between the kanji is highly unusual if signed by the maker. 

There's a strong chance 清 is original but since 江作 aren't as deep and there's a large separation I would agree it's most likely Gimei. I wouldn't be surprised if 清 is Gimei as well though.

[Rivkin]

Unfortunately for things like this I would start with what it looks like rather than how it is signed. Which requires good photography - overall view, activities etc.

These are very basic pictures which don't tell much. The basic theory I would consider is Muromachi wakizashi. Pre Muromachi kodachi is something quite rare, especially from Nio (?) school.

[lonely panet]

Hey lets look at what sold the sword. Nice koshirae. The rest of the story about the family and past owners.  Seems abit far fetched