Shintōgo Kunimitsu Tantō....diamond in the rough?

[Lewis B]

Last October I posted a thread about a Kamakura era tantō I found in Japan, signed Kunimitsu and dated 1308. The deal fell through at that time but in the interim months I kept thinking about it. Spurred on by the dealer stating he planned to have the Mei removed and blade polished before resubmitting to the NBTHK, I decided to redouble my efforts to acquire it. I just couldn’t let that fate befall it, especially as the NBTHK issued Horyu papers in 2018, so I found a way to complete the transaction and it's now in the possession of an intermediate. Fortunately the dealer hadn’t started the work.

 

It was thanks to an investment in Markus’ Kotozen-HC that really spurred on my attention on this blade. I have no idea how this project will pan out but I think I’ve done enough groundwork to at least give it a chance. Here’s my story and a request for assistance.

 

 

 

The Hunt

Years ago while I was scouring the websites of Japanese retailers I came across a fairly obscure dealer. He has quite a large inventory but mostly lower to mid quality pieces often in poor state of preservation. Buried deep in tantō section was a blade that caught my attention. I made a mental note to revisit the listing later but forgot about it after a redundancy in 2021 and relocation to a different Continent. Then back in October last year I stumbled on the retailers webpage again and to my surprise the tantō was still listed. I should add this was also a consignment piece which the owner had inherited from his deceased father. The son was not a collector nor familiar with the swordsmith. 

 

In 2018 the dealer submitted the blade to the NBTHK but they couldn't come to a consensus and returned it with Horyu papers, and a request that further work was needed to authenticate the Mei. 2018/2019 Juyo Shinsa were a couple of those strange years at the NBTHK and I wonder if this contributed to the result for this blade. The dealer was unable to find the evidence that would advance its progress through Shinsa, so the blade remained in the shops inventory almost forgotten, and pushed further down the page. 

 

Horyu papers are quite unusual as the NBTHK gets no monetary return when these are issued. The good news though is that getting Horyu is not terminal, in that the Shinsa committee is not saying its gimei, just that there are differences to the usual Kunimitsu nijimei, to warrant additional research. Kunimitsu’s style of Mei is very unique and from what I can tell, consistent throughout his career. 

 

The Inconsistency

The main 'problem' is the Kuni kanji. Instead of a vertical central line it's curved left to right although the reversal of the mirrored S and 3 parallel lines is consistent. How can this be explained? Fortunately this blade is dated 1308. At this stage the historical texts say Kunimitsu was at the end of his career and is believed to have died around 1312/13. His successor was his 2nd son Kunihiro. It was common practice for smiths of the period, at this stage of their careers, to focus on forging and give the honour of carving of horimono and signing the nakago (daimei) to the best apprentice, or in this case, the defacto successor, Kunihiro. As an aside Yukimitsu was likely the best candidate to take over the forge but he was not blood related and therefore ineligible. 

Markus states in his Swordsmiths list that all Kunimitsu's sons signed Kunimitsu after his death and that examples of daisaku exist. 

 

I have scoured the web looking for examples of Kunihiro's style when signing Kunimitsu and indeed have found several that slant in the normal way. There is no chronology for these signatures so his signing style around 1308 is unconfirmed. Kunihiro as well as Kunishige signed Kunimitsu in a couple of different ways, from 1317 on. 

 

Daimei-daisaku was not uncommon during this time and Darcy wrote an excellent essay comparing the 6 styles of signature for the early Rai school smiths. 

https://onihonto.com/archived-nihonto-ca-yuhindo-com-rai-kunitoshi/

 

There is a suggestion that the Midare-Kunimitsu, his only extant blade in the Soshu style, was in fact forged by Yukimitsu

 

One of the main points I get from the article is that when an apprentice signed daimei the aim was not to precisely emulate the masters signature style, but to introduce slight variances to differentiate the author of the Mei. In this case Kunihiro added a normal slanted centre line in contrast to the master’s atypical vertical line, but maintained the unusual style of the mirrored S to the left and used a more standard style on the mitsu kanji, without the turn back stroke. 

 

The dealmaker

If this was all I had to gone on I might have passed on the blade, but I fortuitously invested in Markus' kotozen publication and on pages 456-458 is what is best described as a dead ringer for my blade. The nagasa is almost identical, as is the motohaba, the style and positioning of the boshi is likewise similar. Shape of the nakago is the biggest difference but is consistent with other blades like the Aizu Kunimitsu. Another interesting feature is the characteristic Kunimitsu single sided Koshi-bi. Both blades have an almost identical Koshi-bi on the omote. I have measured the carvings using the munemachi as a reference point and they are almost identical in length.

 

Fortunately the tantō in the book is also signed and dated by the Master himself, but 2 years earlier in 1306. Dated Kunimitsu blades are extremely rare and I only know of 4 including the one I found. It's conceivable that Kunihiro was designated heir-apparent within those 2 intervening years. A couple of blades are dated to the early 1320’s so likely Kunihiro signed Kunimitsu Mei as head of the workshop. One in particular has similar Shintogo jiba, is a shorter length so more characteristic of the father and shows yakikomi (perhaps a carryover blade from before Shintogo died?)

 

What little of the hada that can be seen through the layers of oxidation look promising and that by itself makes it worth going through the various steps. It also has another kantei feature for Kunimitsu namely Yakikomi (absent in the 1306 blade and sometime only on one side) and is considered a sign of superior heat treatment executed by a Mastersmith, with the hardening extending into the nakago. This is something that Shintōgo Kunimitsu excelled at. It also has mitsumune another feature of early Soshuden and seemingly omnipresent on Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō.

 

Some style of Kuni kanji carved by Kunimitsu's apprentices/heirs

 

 

A little more digging and I found a short video of the tantō from 1306, taken during an exhibition at the NBTHK last year:

 

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/416844547828291

 

Whats next and a request

First thing I want to do is have Tanobe take a look at get his impressions, probably after a window has been opened. Then with a fresh, sympathetic polish I will have the blade resubmitted to the NBTHK. I have exhausted my references and online searches of styles of Kunimitsu Mei, but would be better to find more examples of daimei, daisaku Kunimitsu as mentioned by Markus. If anyone has examples shown in other references that would add support for a daimei attribution I would love to see them. All this information will be passed along for the Shinsa Committee to review to help them come to an informed conclusion.

 

Is there any other supporting evidence I may have overlooked that would bolster the resubmission? Ultimately I think the quality of the jiba has to meet Shintogo Kunimitsu standard for it to be accepted. Did the 1306 blade appear after 2018? Any idea when it passed Shinsa and what papers it got?

 

Goal

I’m realistic that the tantō is not in the best shape having been subjected to many polishes over the years. But I will choose the most appropriate togishi to preserve what is left. My main goal is to have the blade attributed to Kunimitsu with daimei signature. If confirmed then this blade has important historical significance. 

 

It needs a tsuka, shirasaya and Tanobe sayagaki. There is also a page from an old book stuck to the saya which I would like to have translated. It mentions Masamune, Norishige and Kunimitsu but I’m unsure if there is a specific reference to this particular blade.

 

 

The sun/moon habaki seems quite unusual too

 

 

I'm looking forward to seeing where this leads and hope my gut feeling about this blade is justified. If anyone can provide any additional references I would be very grateful. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Very exciting stuff! 😊

 

Unfortunately I lack the skill to know the subtle differences in signatures but fortunately I have so many references. I checked and I should have 68 signed Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō and 12 dated ones between 1294 to 1324. I can try to find time some day next week to post some good reference items. 👍

[CSM101]

For comparison: Aizu Shintogo, Token Bijutsu 436. You can find the blade in english Token Bijutsu Nr. 29.

[Shugyosha]

Good luck with this Lewis, I hope you get a positive outcome. 

[Ray Singer]

Hi Lewis, good luck with the process. I am looking forward to hearing the result of your submission either way. Transparently, I was in touch with the dealer regarding this sword as well. My gut feeling was that it was a legitimate Shintogo atelier piece, made as a daisaku daimei by one of his students. I have acquired two Shintogo in the rough in similar condition, both of which went on to pass shinsa and Tanobe-sensei evaluation (with sayagaki). The sugata on this one felt very right to me, but I could not come to an agreement with the seller and decided to let it go. I wish you the best in the process moving forward. Please keep us updated.

 

Addendum: if you feel confident in the authenticity, the polisher Saito-san is the one I would recommend.   

 

 

[Lewis B]

2 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Very exciting stuff! 😊

 

Unfortunately I lack the skill to know the subtle differences in signatures but fortunately I have so many references. I checked and I should have 68 signed Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō and 12 dated ones between 1294 to 1324. I can try to find time some day next week to post some good reference items. 👍

Thats great Jussi. Hopefully you can find the papers for the 1306 Kunimitsu which is the closest in sugata and dated only 2 years earlier. The forging of these 2 blades should be very similar and might have been produced even closer in time. Tanobe states that Kunimitsu was in his prime from between the years 1303-1308. This is what he wrote for one sayagaki. I would expect the polished blade to show some evidence for this....

 

“Work of the smith from around Kagen (嘉元, 1303–1306) and Tokuji (徳治, 1306–1308). It shows the typical hoso-suguha of that time, it is fine and excellently forged, and the jiba is in nie-deki, which results in a very attractive and fascinating blade. Both the deki and its condition are excellent. It is a great and very precious masterwork."

[Lewis B]

14 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

Hi Lewis, good luck with the process. I would like to hear the result of your submission either way. Transparently, I was in touch with the dealer regarding this sword as well. My gut feeling was that it was a legitimate Shintogo atelier piece, made as a daisaku daimei by one of his students. I have acquired two Shintogo in the rough in similar condition, both of which went on to pass shinsa and Tanobe-sensei evaluation (with sayagaki). The sugata on this one felt very right to me, but I could not come to an agreement with seller and decided to let it go. I wish you the best in the process moving forward. Please keep us updated.

 

Addendum: if you feel confident in the authenticity, the polisher Saito-san is the one I would recommend.   

 

 

That's interesting. I guess you figured out why my negotiations failed then. I don't think the consigner wanted to sell to a non Japanese unless it was for a ridiculous price, given the current state and status. I had to employ a local to negotiate on my behalf.

 

Taken in the round the price was good enough to have a punt. I doubt I'll come across another affordable Kunimitsu tanto so decided to roll the dice and take a chance. The old romantic in me sees this sword in 1308 possibly being in the same vicinity as some of the greatest sword makers of all time, namely Norishige, Yukimitsu and Masamune. They may even have handled it 

The next couple of years will be fascinating. And who doesn't love a project.

[Matsunoki]

I love stories like this. The thrill of the chase. Good luck Lewis, hope it comes good. 

[Lewis B]

12 minutes ago, Matsunoki said:

I love stories like this. The thrill of the chase. Good luck Lewis, hope it comes good. 

Thanks. Considering the first time I even held a Japanese sword was only a year ago I feel blessed and whatever the outcome, I'll have enjoyed the journey. 

[CSM101]

The dated Kunimitsu is in the english Token Bijutsu 29. You can download it here. I have no access to my library at the moment. I'm in  France.

 

The best I could find is a dated tanto by Kunihiro from Showa 2. At least the Kuni could match (DTI 2012). All the other Kunimitsu I could find are not dated.

[Lewis B]

2 hours ago, CSM101 said:

The dated Kunimitsu is in the english Token Bijutsu 29. You can download it here. I have no access to my library at the moment. I'm in  France.

 

The best I could find is a dated tanto by Kunihiro from Showa 2. At least the Kuni could match (DTI 2012). All the other Kunimitsu I could find are not dated.

Thanks for that Uwe. Tanobe mentions some discrepancies in the 2nd character 'mitsu' kanji (I hadn't noticed this in the images or video), as well as the stylised date and he suggests that this may be a daimei-daisaku piece as a consequence. Maybe Yukimitsu, Norishige or Masamune's work, as too early for his sons, although 1307/8 might be within that window for Kunihiro, thus explaining the change in Mei style??? Personally so far, on balance, I think my blade is daimei, forged by the Shodai, due to the yakikomi, but once it's polished it might be clearer to see who made it. I need to check their known early signature to see if there is a common chiselling style. From memory Norishige is possibly similar. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that atelier pieces were being produced at this time, in accordance with Ray's theory. However, I don't think the same hand carved both Mei. These are exactly the avenues for research I need. 

 

,

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here are 3 closest dated ones I am currently aware of in my references.

 

First is the 1306 dated one that is Jūyō 19, as I looked my files I realized I have actually seen this one 2024 at NBTHK. Didn't even remember it so I guess it didn't make a big impact on me (I like stuff outside of the general appreciation realm so very common I don't remember some fine items as I focus on items that I personally like).

 

 

Second is 1308 dated Jūyō Bunkazai of Atsuta Jingū

 

 

Third is 1309 dated one from Jūyō 55.

 

[Lewis B]

I haven't see either of those tantō dated 1308 (2nd blade) and 1309 before. The Mei appears atypical for Shintōgo, being more lightly struck although the styling is similar. Adding to the notion that several people were signing for the Master this late in his career. 

[Lewis B]

The dates for signed Norishige certainly seem to fall into place, corresponding to the death of Shintogo, Kunihiro taking over the atelier and senior figures like Norishige taking off and doing their own thing. This is a dated piece from 1314.

 

 

And an interesting discussion by Darcy for one of his Norishige pieces

 

"

Norishige’s given name is Gorojiro and [he is] a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu of Kamakura. His personal title is Shingoro. He is an expert of jigane forging and his jihada consists of varied grains with numerous hataraki.喜阿弥本銘尽, Kiami-bon Mei Zukushi (around 1381 AD)

The Kiami-bon is a transcription of an earlier work that was written in the Kamakura period, and is the first recording of Norishige as a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. The two works we have today with the Saeki signature are both tanto, and have dates but one is eroded away. The other though places him at 1319 and there is one other existing dated blade with a date of 1314. When we add in old oshigata that look reasonable we expand his work period from 1308 to 1328. All of this is the correct time period for working under Shintogo, so we have both tangible evidence today which confirms the old books and changes the commonly held perception since Edo times that he was a disciple of Masamune. There also exists old oshigata of him writing that he was a resident of Soshu and of Kamakura as well.

The Okinsho Kokon Meizukushi (a historic book) includes a list called kokin-kajimei hayamidashi (old and new sword smith names), which shows Norishige as Sagami-no-kuni junin Norishige [note I corrected ‘Norimune’ from the translation to be ‘Norishige’]NBTHK Token Bijutsu

When we look at the style of the early dated tanto they do not depart very far from Shintogo Kunimitsu, all of this combines to indicate that he was one of the disciples of Shintogo learning Soshu craftsmanship in Kamakura and is a little bit older than Masamune, though they would be working side by side."

 

I think based on 2 extant signed Yukimitsu tantos, he can be excluded as a potential candidate due to the style of 'mitsu'. This one is from 1322.

 

[Katsujinken]

Hello Lewis! Wonderful post, thank you for sharing it and best of luck!
 

The video of the Kunimitsu you shared is mine, so I am happy to say I have additional photos, attached here and in subsequent messages. 

[Lewis B]

Ah nice one. I was wondering if the videographer was a member here. Yes, please post. Its much easier to see the mitsu Mei style variation mentioned by Tanobe in the photos.

[Katsujinken]

[Katsujinken]

新藤五国光 (Shintōgo Kunimitsu) was, in effect, the founder of the Sōshū tradition; three celebrated smiths—Yukimitsu, Masamune, and Norishige—trained under him.

At first glance his workmanship recalls the Yamashiro Awataguchi school, yet the prominent chikei (dark steel lines) and kinsuji (bright “golden” lines) that appear in the steel surface are hallmarks of his blades.
Kunimitsu favored straight hamon (suguha) of varying widths and, as a master of tantō, is considered a peer of Fujishirō Yoshimitsu.

 

This tantō is forged from well-refined steel showing delicate chikei and is tempered in a neat, narrow suguhahamon.

With a slight inward curve (uchizori), the harmonious balance of its steel texture and hamon gives the piece an appearance of dignity and refinement.

[Sebuh]

wishing you the best result Lewis, eager to see this one play out over the years! 

[sabiji]

The connection between Shintogo Kunimitsu and the Awataguchi school is one theory.

 

The other theory is Kunimitsu's descent from the Taema school. I have to admit that I like the latter better.

 

When I had the honor of holding a Kantei of THE Yukimitsu (Tokubetsu Juyo) in my hands in Berlin in May, Taema inevitably came to mind. However, the blade was a chikei monster, covered all over with needle-sharp chikei, which in turn brought the blade in the direction of soshu.

 

I found it interesting in retrospect that in Junji Homma-sensei's remarks in 1970 about this very blade, Taema also came to mind, at least as far as Sugata and Hamon were concerned.

 

 

[Lewis B]

It's good that certain egregious activities are being discussed. Removing Mei just to pass Shinsa is a crime against history.

 

https://markussesko.com/2016/06/26/the-pitfalls-of-removing-signatures/

[Lewis B]

Norishige signing daimei seems like the strongest candidate so far. Many examples of large, lightly chiseled Mei and he even tilts the 2nd character as in this example from a tanto, to follow the shape of the nakago, something Yukimitsu didn't do. And the date of 1308 puts him working as an apprentice under Shintogo Kunimitsu at this time, when he was 18.

 

 

[Hoshi]

Dear Lewis, 

 

Wonderful project, this is the prime way to learn, and after just one year I have to say that it is impressive and bodes well for the future. 

 

My congratulations for researching and taking the jump with "skin in the game" - whatever the outcome, it will be a positive learning experience. 

 

Could you post a better photo of the Nakago? I need a close up on the Kuni, and from there, I can help you investigate. 

 

Given what little we have here, I tend to agree with @Ray Singer that the most likely scenario is Atelier work. With better material, we could narrow it down. I've spoken to Tanobe sensei in the past about Kunimitsu signature styles, and so I'd say I have journeyman's understanding of the topic. 

 

This is a very interesting thread, thank you for posting and sharing your adventure. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

 

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Hoshi said:

Dear Lewis, 

 

Wonderful project, this is the prime way to learn, and after just one year I have to say that it is impressive and bodes well for the future. 

 

My congratulations for researching and taking the jump with "skin in the game" - whatever the outcome, it will be a positive learning experience. 

 

Could you post a better photo of the Nakago? I need a close up on the Kuni, and from there, I can help you investigate. 

 

Given what little we have here, I tend to agree with @Ray Singer that the most likely scenario is Atelier work. With better material, we could narrow it down. I've spoken to Tanobe sensei in the past about Kunimitsu signature styles, and so I'd say I have journeyman's understanding of the topic. 

 

This is a very interesting thread, thank you for posting and sharing your adventure. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

 

Hello Hoshi. I appreciate the encouragement. Certainly much to learn and exciting to be the custodian of this blade which appears to have so much potential. It made me work for it, haunting me for months and that is part of the satisfaction and a desire for a better understanding for this period ie the dawn of Soshuden. 

 

Here are the images you requested of the omote and ubu sides

 

 

[nulldevice]

I'm excited to see this when you get it in hand and after a fresh polish in Japan! 

[Lewis B]

For posterity here are the very rarely seen Horyu papers issued by the NBTHK

 

 

 

 

 

[nulldevice]

48 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

For posterity here are the very rarely seen Horyu papers issued by the NBTHK

 

 

 

 

 

After looking up a few threads on Horyu papers and meanings. What is the difference between a Horyu result and a To mei ga aru result?

 

To mei ga aru at least papers so is it: "we're not 100% sure so we leave a footnote but will still paper the blade" and horyu is "we can't come to a conclusion at all?"

[Lewis B]

The red kanji on the report says "There is room for research in the inscription". In other words come back when you can convince us in a way that makes sense why the Mei is atypical. I think I am progressing in the right direction. Is it possible no one thought daimai-daisaku was a plausible explanation, especially given the date? This is why I was looking at old threads for 2018/19 Shinsa results to see if the panel were particularly cautious those years. I believe I'm correct in saying that when Tanobe sensei left, the NBTHK lost a bit of its mojo. 

I'm pretty sure a Horyu result can have a variety of different recommendations.

[Hoshi]

Here is a signature from the DTI catalogue a few years back. Tokuju Shintogo, although most likely a daimei work with the Kuni and Mitsu characters being those of students, probably Kunihiro.  
 

Of note, there are only a small handful of Shintogo Tanto in the NBHTK’s records where daimei can be ruled out, if you take the latest opinion on the master’s authentic signature. 

 

Approving a new Shintogo is a big decision. The NBHTK will not validate it unless the workmanship is up to par, and this means it must be in a decent level of polish beforehand. 
 

As you can see with the image I posted, the mei is rather close. Note the radical stroke direction on the Mitsu, and the shape of the various elements on the Kuni. Keep in mind that the inclined mid-line on your Kuni is the biggest question mark element, although there is some very rare precedent for it but only in the old Kozan Oshigata (and the mei therein are approximations...) as you can see in the attachment. 

If the quality and features are aligned with Kunihiro, and with this type of mei material as supporting evidence, you have decent-good odds of it being accepted. However, if the quality and the features of work, once revealed by the polish, are not up to par or leave areas for doubt, it is unlikely that they will expand the canon on acceptable signature variation. 

 

As next step, I recommend to take a pen and replicate the mei while marking the stroke direction on every character, then compare with a corpus of Shintogo mei that you assemble in the course of your research.   
 

Good luck on your quest. 
 

 

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Hoshi said:

 

 

Approving a new Shintogo is a big decision. The NBHTK will not validate it unless the worksmanship is up to par, and this means it must be in a decent level of polish beforehand. 
 

 

 

Thanks Hoshi. This was always going to be a pre-requisite for it to pass Shinsa. But I think I can see enough of the jihada with its characteristic Shintogo school chikei to move forward. The blade really needs some experienced eyes on it after a window has been opened. There's only so much photos can tell you.