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

[lonely panet]

Whats the fees for a juyo paper? 10k ??

[Lewis B]

For NBTHK members about $1700 (pass) and $160 (fail)

[lonely panet]

WOW  that low.  worth the long shot

[Benjamin]

Lewis you impress me! A newly discovered Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto would be a great news. I wish you and this Tanto to succes.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I admit that Japanese experts have incredible skill in determing authencity and details. However I must say that sometimes I prefer neutrality against extremely specific while still theoretical opinions. I know foremost experts put non dated items (sometimes even mumei items) to a specific point in smiths career based on some tiny details on worksmanship or tiny variations in mei etc. I tend to favor more neutral uncertainity. Of course that is not nearly as exciting.

 

Sōshū is not really my thing. I start to like them only from Sadamune attributed items onwards and I think Hiromitsu might be my favorite Sōshū smith. This year in Japan I saw Aizu Shintōgo (National Treasure), TJ Kunimitsu tantō, and a Jūyō Kunimitsu tantō. Granted these were all in museums through the glass but all I remember is the very fine worksmanship, as these items do not interest me that much.

 

However one thing I have come to realize when travelling in various places in Japan is that memory is a fickle thing. And to be honest I have always thought I have decent memory especially when it comes to swords. This brings me to another point, how long has passed between the evaluation of the swords by the expert. I am not trying to put down experts in any case, they do have incredible knowledge and pretty much all our current information is based on several generations of Japanese experts. Still I think even the Japanese experts will rarely get to study the most important items side by side as they are owned by various, Museums, Shrines, Individuals etc. I saw some absolutely incredible stuff in various places in Japan this summer but I realized it is way too difficult for me to accurately judge swords against each other if I saw them in different museums on different days, not even considering about comparing to items I saw last year for example.

 

Even if an item would be bit out of norm, if after polish it would exhibit very fine worksmanhip after the polish, then I would think there is a great chance it would be seen as a legitimate item.

 

As I am at home in a fever, I did this just for fun. Here are the Kunimitsu kanji for 11 dated Shintōgo Kunimitsu tantō. And I did scramble the mei so they are not in any ascending or descending dates. 

 

[Lewis B]

Thanks for compiling that Jussi. The middle one, 3rd row is a real outlier. Both the kuni and mitsu kanji are atypical. 

Get well soon.

[Lewis B]

Another Norishige signed tanto with large, finely chiselled Mei, characteristic of his early work and exagerated slant to the 2nd shige kanji. From the Compton collection.

 

 

 

Kunihiro, when he signed Kunimitsu, has a different style 'mitsu' than his father, again with a slight tilt.

 

  

 

And Kunihiro signing as an independent smith in his own name with sloping kuni stroke.

[Lewis B]

Thanks to Jussi's comprehensive list I now know the sister Kunimitsu tanto dated 1306, discussed by Tanobe in the Token Bijutsu #29 and exhibited at the NBTHK last year, passed Juyo #19 in 1970 (private collection). 

[Gakusee]

42 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

Thanks to Jussi's comprehensive list I now know the sister Kunimitsu tanto dated 1306, discussed by Tanobe in the Token Bijutsu #29 and exhibited at the NBTHK last year, passed Juyo #19 in 1970 (private collection). 

 

 

Have you done a side by side comparison of the mei? Please attach here as I am curious.  As discussed before, there are a lot of school daisuke/daimei and one needs to find the right match.

[Lewis B]

  

                  1306                                                                                      1308                                       2nd 1308 tanto.                             1309

            Juyo (1970)                                                                                                                                Juyo Bunkazai                       Juyo (2009)

 

Different hands carved these 3 Mei IMO, based on the style of 'mitsu' Mei. The 1306 and 2nd 1308 tanto have the stylised date carving as noted by Tanobe.  The 1309 could be a 4th hand or perhaps the same author who carved the 2nd 1308 tanto mei.                 

 

[Gakusee]

42 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

  

                  1306                                                                                      1308                                       2nd 1308 tanto.                             1309

            Juyo (1970)                                                                                                                                Juyo Bunkazai                       Juyo (2009)

 

Different hands carved these 3 Mei IMO, based on the style of 'mitsu' Mei. The 1306 and 2nd 1308 tanto have the stylised date carving as noted by Tanobe.  The 1309 could be a 4th hand or perhaps the same author who carved the 2nd 1308 tanto mei.                 

 

Very different…. Not just the Mitsu but also Kuni…Chisel thickness is also rather different. And smiths tended to prefer one type of chisel even if their handwriting changed over their long careers. 

[Lewis B]

Date comparisons

 

[Lewis B]

4 hours ago, Gakusee said:

Very different…. Not just the Mitsu but also Kuni…Chisel thickness is also rather different. And smiths tended to prefer one type of chisel even if their handwriting changed over their long careers. 

Norishige certainly changed chisel size, preferring large Mei using a fine chisel early on (see his 1314 blade and signed ko-Hoki inspired work), switching to a thicker one later in his career. 

 

1319 dated Tanto using a thin (?) chisel and what I assume appears to be a regular way to carve the date kanji.

 

 

Application of a thick chisel and reference to his signature, later matsukawa hada forging style, are often referred to in the same text eg

https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/tobi_translation/794_NBTHK_March_2023.pdf

 

 

Extract from Soshuden Museum essay on Norishige's periods of activity and associations in the early part of his career:

"It is possible to determine Norishige’s exact period of creativity because nowadays we have quite a lot of works with his authentic signature and date of manufacture. The period when the master actively worked can be established as the interval between the Enkyō era (延慶, 1308–1311) and the Kareki era (嘉暦, 1326–1329). In accordance with his dated works and information about his life, it is possible to conclude that only the earliest works Norishige created in his youth can be attributed to the Enkyō era.

These dates are of great importance when we determine Norishige’s teacher or teachers. The Kiami-bon Mei-zukushi manuscript (喜阿弥本銘尽, 1381) records that Norishige was Shintōgo Kōshin’s disciple (新藤五光心). We should recall that Kōshin was the Buddhist name of Shintōgo Kunimitsu. Consequently, it is most likely that Norishige began to learn smithing from this grand master. Modern researchers are unanimous on this matter and consider him the middle one in age among Shintōgo’s three disciples: Yukimitsu, Norishige, and Masamune. As an additional argument, it is often noted that Norishige’s tantō sugata is very close to Shintōgo’s. Moreover, Norishige’s tantō sugata did not undergo any serious changes with time. Therefore, we can conclude that Shintōgo immensely influenced Norishige’s smithing style.

Nevertheless, we must remember that Shintōgo was likely to have passed away in 1312. At that time, Norishige apparently was still at a young age. He still needed both mentors and new ideas to develop his skills. Thus, the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen contains very important information that Norishige

- Was Yukimitsu’s disciple during the Ōchō era (応長, 1311–1312) and the Shōwa era (正和, 1312–1317);

- Studied under Gō Yoshihiro, beginning in the Gen’ō era (元応, 1319–1321), continuing through to Genkyō (元亨, 1321–1324); and

- Was Masamune’s disciple during the Shōchū era (正中, 1324–1326)."

[Lewis B]

Which kanji translate to lucky day? Kanji in red or yellow box?

 

 

[Jacques]

5 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Norishige certainly changed chisel size, preferring large Mei using a fine chisel early on (see his 1314 blade and signed ko-Hoki inspired work), switching to a thicker one later in his career. 

 

1319 dated Tanto using a thin (?) chisel and what I assume appears to be a regular way to carve the date kanji.

 

 

Application of a thick chisel and reference to his signature, later matsukawa hada forging style, are often referred to in the same text eg

https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/tobi_translation/794_NBTHK_March_2023.pdf

 

 

Extract from Soshuden Museum essay on Norishige's periods of activity and associations in the early part of his career:

 

"It is possible to determine Norishige’s exact period of creativity because nowadays we have quite a lot of works with his authentic signature and date of manufacture. The period when the master actively worked can be established as the interval between the Enkyō era (延慶, 1308–1311) and the Kareki era (嘉暦, 1326–1329). In accordance with his dated works and information about his life, it is possible to conclude that only the earliest works Norishige created in his youth can be attributed to the Enkyō era.

These dates are of great importance when we determine Norishige’s teacher or teachers. The Kiami-bon Mei-zukushi manuscript (喜阿弥本銘尽, 1381) records that Norishige was Shintōgo Kōshin’s disciple (新藤五光心). We should recall that Kōshin was the Buddhist name of Shintōgo Kunimitsu. Consequently, it is most likely that Norishige began to learn smithing from this grand master. Modern researchers are unanimous on this matter and consider him the middle one in age among Shintōgo’s three disciples: Yukimitsu, Norishige, and Masamune. As an additional argument, it is often noted that Norishige’s tantō sugata is very close to Shintōgo’s. Moreover, Norishige’s tantō sugata did not undergo any serious changes with time. Therefore, we can conclude that Shintōgo immensely influenced Norishige’s smithing style.

Nevertheless, we must remember that Shintōgo was likely to have passed away in 1312. At that time, Norishige apparently was still at a young age. He still needed both mentors and new ideas to develop his skills. Thus, the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen contains very important information that Norishige

- Was Yukimitsu’s disciple during the Ōchō era (応長, 1311–1312) and the Shōwa era (正和, 1312–1317);

- Studied under Gō Yoshihiro, beginning in the Gen’ō era (元応, 1319–1321), continuing through to Genkyō (元亨, 1321–1324); and

- Was Masamune’s disciple during the Shōchū era (正中, 1324–1326)."

Quote

This is a shinogi zukuri tanto with an ihorimune

Big mistake...

[Bugyotsuji]

吉日 it’s formulaic but 吉 = lucky/auspicious + 日= day

[Lewis B]

11 hours ago, Bugyotsuji said:

吉日 it’s formulaic but 吉 = lucky/auspicious + 日= day

Thanks. I'm trying to figure out if the last 2 kanji on my tanto could correspond to 吉日 or if the penultimate character could be for something else.

 

I don't see the any reference to a month. I clearly see the 日, but the 吉 is less obvious.

 

What I can decipher is 徳治 (Tokuji) and  三 (san) for 1308 (Tokuji 3).

 

The penultimate character is a mystery and doesn't seem to be related to the preceding 三 but connected to the 日.

 

Why is this important? Norishige dated his blades in an unusual way for the period eg “on a lucky day of the 11th month of 1319”as translated from the tanto I posted above. 

 

If not lucky, what other descriptors could match the character and used in a similar way to 'lucky day'?

 

The closest I can get that makes sense is "sē" and "bì" せ日meaning date, or on a day of Tokuji 3.......

[Lewis B]

So to summarise. As Ray suggested this appears to be an apprentice blade made daimei or more likely daimei-daisaku. The more I learn the more this makes sense. I would argue the smith is Norishige at the age of 18 working as an apprentice under Shintogo Kunimitsu. What evidence do I have to support this hypothesis?

 

1) Its universally accepted now that Norishige initially apprenticed under Shintogo Kunimitsu.

 

2) He had a long career starting 1308 (exactly the date this blade was made) and in this year he would have been 18.

 

3) His early Mei was large using a thin chisel, with the 2nd kanji slightly at an oblique angle. And from what I can tell it's quite an angular style too. 

 

4) He dated many of his blades which was unusual for the time. Those that exist from up to 2 years either side of 1308 and also dated were carved by different hands that used a stylised writing style for the date, suggesting he was one of several apprentices in the Shintogo workshop. 

 

5) The fact that the 1306 and 1308 blades are almost identical in sugata, length, identical koshi-bi etc would make sense if a Shintogo wanted to evaluate his students capabilities, by minimising the variables. Apprentice pieces follow this practice even today. 

 

6) If it is an apprentice piece it likely took a lot more time to make thus explaining why there is no reference to a specific month in the date.

 

7) Norishige continued the Shintogo tradition of carving usual features into his Mei (like the horizontal half-moon on 'shige') throughout his career with only small changes in style.

 

8. The format of the date is consistent for Norishige who uses phrases like "on this lucky day...."

 

9) Daimei and Daimei-Daisaku is accepted for Shintogo Kunimitsu towards the end of his life. And in 1308 he only had 4 more years to live.

 

10) Norishige continued to make tanto in this archetypical Shintogo style for many years after his Master's death. 

 

11) Unlikely to be Yukimitsu or Masamune as their Mei is too different. Kunihiro is a certainly a realistic possibility, but was he old enough if Tanobe says the sons were too young in the preceding Kagen era ( 1303-5) and Shintogo's oldest son Kunishige died in 1303. Here is an example of a dated (1324?) Juyo Bunkazai Kunihiro tanto, but without the adjective kanji Norishige uses. Just "on the 1st month, 3rd day......"

 

 

Does anyone take exception to any or all of this hypothesising? 

[Jacques]

Quote

Why is this important? Norishige dated his blades in an unusual way for the period eg “on a lucky day of the 11th month of 1319”as translated from the tanto I posted above. 

 

Sorry, I can't help myself.

  

 

But I'm holding back for the rest...

[Lewis B]

Another worthy contribution by the forum troll. You're on a roll......keep it up.

[Jacques]

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

Another worthy contribution by the forum troll. You're on a roll......keep it up.

Ok.  It's nothing more than the normal way of translating the nengo, and I'm surprised that an "expert" like you doesn't know it.

[PNSSHOGUN]

At the very least it gives a very comprehensive resource of Kunimitsu Mei for future research. Perhaps it's the photos but your example just doesn't feel good in its overall execution, so we all await the verdict from Tanobe Sensei and hope for good news. 

[Lewis B]

6 minutes ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

At the very least it gives a very comprehensive resource of Kunimitsu Mei for future research. Perhaps it's the photos but your example just doesn't feel good in its overall execution, so we all await the verdict from Tanobe Sensei and hope for good news. 

Yet it has Horyu papers, instead of just calling it gimei and collecting the fees. I guess it will need to be judged on its jiba after a polish. I'm also curious what Tanobe says about it. 

[Gakusee]

20 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Norishige certainly changed chisel size, preferring large Mei using a fine chisel early on (see his 1314 blade and signed ko-Hoki inspired work), switching to a thicker one later in his career. 

 

1319 dated Tanto using a thin (?) chisel and what I assume appears to be a regular way to carve the date kanji.

 

 

Application of a thick chisel and reference to his signature, later matsukawa hada forging style, are often referred to in the same text eg

https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/tobi_translation/794_NBTHK_March_2023.pdf

 

 

Extract from Soshuden Museum essay on Norishige's periods of activity and associations in the early part of his career:

 

"It is possible to determine Norishige’s exact period of creativity because nowadays we have quite a lot of works with his authentic signature and date of manufacture. The period when the master actively worked can be established as the interval between the Enkyō era (延慶, 1308–1311) and the Kareki era (嘉暦, 1326–1329). In accordance with his dated works and information about his life, it is possible to conclude that only the earliest works Norishige created in his youth can be attributed to the Enkyō era.

These dates are of great importance when we determine Norishige’s teacher or teachers. The Kiami-bon Mei-zukushi manuscript (喜阿弥本銘尽, 1381) records that Norishige was Shintōgo Kōshin’s disciple (新藤五光心). We should recall that Kōshin was the Buddhist name of Shintōgo Kunimitsu. Consequently, it is most likely that Norishige began to learn smithing from this grand master. Modern researchers are unanimous on this matter and consider him the middle one in age among Shintōgo’s three disciples: Yukimitsu, Norishige, and Masamune. As an additional argument, it is often noted that Norishige’s tantō sugata is very close to Shintōgo’s. Moreover, Norishige’s tantō sugata did not undergo any serious changes with time. Therefore, we can conclude that Shintōgo immensely influenced Norishige’s smithing style.

Nevertheless, we must remember that Shintōgo was likely to have passed away in 1312. At that time, Norishige apparently was still at a young age. He still needed both mentors and new ideas to develop his skills. Thus, the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen contains very important information that Norishige

- Was Yukimitsu’s disciple during the Ōchō era (応長, 1311–1312) and the Shōwa era (正和, 1312–1317);

- Studied under Gō Yoshihiro, beginning in the Gen’ō era (元応, 1319–1321), continuing through to Genkyō (元亨, 1321–1324); and

- Was Masamune’s disciple during the Shōchū era (正中, 1324–1326)."

 

I remember rather well that Kokuho Norishige tanto. It was displayed side by side with the Masamune in the Eisei Bunko museum and completely put the Masamune to shame. 
 

That day was great for me as in a tiny space I could see these two above plus the gorgeous Ikoma Mitsutada and an incredible JuBi Hatakeda Moriie (perhaps his best or one of the best). 
 

Anyway, some images from the booklet I brought home since the guardians watched over me like hawks and photography was not permitted.