making sense of the nagamitsus

[Cola]

I recently noticed a Ichiryushi Nagamitsu for sale on aoi, with hozon token:

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana：nagamitsuorigami-estimation-paper/

I thought it was interesting, with the smith working in a WW2 prison, and of course very curious how the conversation went: Let's think of an activity for prisoners.. Maybe they would like to step up their shank making game?

 

Then I found this topic:

Which talks about the mei, with three strokes in the naga character, which the above mentioned blade does not have. 

So maybe another nagamitsu?

 

Then to my surprise aoi added another nagamitsu:

https://www.aoijapan.com/katananagamitsu/

this one does have the two stroke naga character.

 

The descriptions allude to the same smith though. 

 

How does one make sense of this? Do you trust the papers in this case?

 

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

First a little detour, because just 30 minutes ago I studied quite a number of authentic signed Ko-Gassan for an unpapered one, apparently there is even a signed Nagamitsu from Ko-Gassan school (and it's a Juyo, too).

 

It was mentioned in "Swords' Talk with Kunzan/薫山刀話", then I saw its Oshigata in "Random Thoughts of Nihonto/日本刀随感" by Kataoka Sensei.

 

Besides the one great swordsmith we all know and love that brought great fame and honour to it, Nagamitsu/長光 is just a very auspicious name for swordsmiths, meaning "to shine for a long time (長く光る)",

 

so no wonder many smiths happen to choose it for their name, in different times and places.

 

Edited:

 

Now that I had a few minutes to look at the first sword on Aoi san, I would say that's a very typical Prison Nagamitsu, and almost every traits of it point to this same conclusion.

 

It is unfortunate that I cannot develop my statement without detailing how the many less-than-ideal characteristics of this sword lead to this result and being rude to it.

 

Although this reminds me of what Fukami san of Choshuya said, (paraphrasing) "make sure the signature is the last thing you look at when telling where, when, and by whom a sword is made.",

 

suggesting we put Sugata, Ha, Ji and other attributes, i.e., what the sword really is, in front of the mere signature when appraising a sword. 

 

Anyway, just some random thought. Not nearly as good as Kataoka Sensei's though. Why, what a great book "Random Thoughts of Nihonto" is!

[SteveM]

@Cola It's the same smith for both of the swords you linked to. But there is a lot of variation in the inscribing of the mei. Possibly this is due to several people making swords under Nagamitsu's supervision. Brian and Chandler both talk about this in the other thread.

 

If the papers are important to you (and, they usually are important for most people, especially if you are ever contemplating selling your sword - or you would like to make it easy for your heirs to sell your sword), then save yourself some trouble and buy the sword that is already papered. That sword also comes with a paper receipt for the sword, dated 1978 and signed by Tsukamoto Sozan, who was an ex-military man who went on to do various activities after the war, including managing a sword museum in Chiba prefecture. So, considering it has not only an NBTHK paper, but also a little bit of provenance.  

 

I have no reason to doubt the other sword is also an authentic Nagamitsu sword, but ultimately it comes down to a question of how much friction will there be when the sword eventually gets resold. Having the NBTHK paper eliminates a lot of friction. Without the paper, the sword will eventually end up back at a site like this with the owner (or potential owner) asking, is this a real Nagamitsu?