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

[Alex A]

1 hour ago, Gakusee said:

 

Alex, 

 

You asked why I went off on a tangent: because of your repeated pejorative and dismissive tone about people posting, implying that our opinions, views, participation etc are pointless: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"REPEATED", i made one comment, that was it.

 

No matter what you say and how you word it, you know as well as i know that the only opinion that matters is that of the NBTHK, sorry but thats a fact you need to accept.

 

Talk about the blade as much as you want.

 

Good luck Lewis, and i mean that sincerely.

 

Ps, If you find the general section to be irritating, you dont have to go there, it has nothing to do with Nihonto, for the most part. For some of us. we have discussions and hobbies that are of interest.

[Alex A]

13 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

—————————

 There are numerous red flags and areas of concern but at the same time there are indications this could well have been a Koto blade from the wider school of Shintogo. Whether further investigation is worth the monetary investment and emotional commitment is up to the owner. 

 

 

 

Agree about the financial aspect.

[Lewis B]

Lots to unpack here. I didn’t want the thread to devolve into a guessing game as to why the dealer did this or didn’t do that. I can only talk about my motivations and why I decided to take a punt.

 

Call it an academic endeavour to test the knowledge I’ve gained over the past year, as well as an opportunity to possibly advance the current state of study for an important smith/school. I’ve been lucky to have in hand multiple Juyo and TJ blades and this has given me a modicum of confidence to be able to make some educated guesses. In no way do I consider myself an expert and never claimed has such. But I can read, have access to bodies of knowledge (new and old) and the type of work I do has given me a systematic and investigative approach to a problem. I also trust Ray’s knowledge and experience and if he saw enough in the blade to make an offer, that gives me some sense I wasn’t completely off piste.

 

I didn’t jump in blindly. I even posted a thread last October asking about the Mei and included pictures of the blade. At this point I was still on the fence but at least I had confirmation the sugata was typical for the Kamakura era in accordance with examples in Nagayama's book.

 

It was only after reviewing the kantei Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto’s in Sesko’s Kotozen HC that really convinced me to continue the chase. Ignoring the shape of the nakago and obviously the different style for the Mei (form and carving), the 1306 tanto was, from my perspective, the twin of this blade. The length of nagasa, style of nakago, the mune shape, the koshi-bi horimono, the yakikomi, the finely executed suguha hamon, the style of boshi etc. These are all features found on blades from the Shodei's workshop. Way too much of a coincidence not to take it seriously. It was only the post in this thread showing Tanobe sensei’s discussion of the 1306 blade and his statement that the ‘Mitsu’ kanji was atypical that I wasn’t aware of until now.

 

However it's accepted that daimei-daisaku blades for Kunimitsu exist, as is his sons signing Kunimitsu in an atypical style, in later years, when working independently. The Horyu papers also strengthened my conviction that I should proceed. I saw enough in the blade itself to give it another chance. Many examples of Horyu eventually passing on subsequent submissions and blades getting a different attribution, sometimes a better one, after a sympathetic polish. Obviously the stakes are a lot higher with a name like Kunimitsu but the Shinsa committee can only judge whats in front of them and this tanto is still hiding its secrets. They are not infallible. For example I don’t understand why Tanobe says the 1306 Kunimitsu could not have been made by one of his sons due to their young age, because that year Kunihiro would have been 33.

 

All of these question marks and uncertainties make this an even more exciting project. An ubu Kamakura era tanto is a rarity in and of itself. What is clear is that a window must be opened up to expose the jiba. Once that visual piece of the puzzle is available then I should have a good idea where I stand. I might even get it in front of the NTHK and see what they think before resubmitting to the NBTHK. Tanobe will certainly be consulted.

 

Best case scenario it will test the current Zeitgeist for Kunimitsu and body of production from his workshop. If the quality of the jiba is up to Kunimitsu standard I’m hoping it will be accepted as another example of an atelier (daisaku) piece by an apprentice or daimei. This would connect the 1306 and 1308 tanto’s, both with their atypical Mei.

 

If the quality of the forging points in another direction I will reset and decide what to do next. As Alex said the money has been spent but I paid a low enough price (for me), that I’m happy whatever the outcome. The journey will have made it all the more, a worthwhile academic experience.

[Alex A]

Good luck Lewis.

 

No gain without risk, so they say.

[Lexvdjagt]

I think this thread is extremely valuable for research purposes and also learning how the NBTHK works. Following a process like this gains valuable insight into horyu papers and their potential. I encourage you to continue to update us Lewis, I will be reading every post. Thank you.

[Alex A]

Ok, i will come clean about why i may have sounded a little miffed about this thread.

 

In your own words Lewis, you have only been collecting a year so are relatively new to the hobby.

 

I don't like to see anyone in that situation take unnecessary risks. I don't know if you sought advice, if you did then that person should have advised you to buy something else.

 

Its ok people giving opinions here but people here wont be out of pocket should it fail.

 

Obviously, your willing to take risks and i admire you for that, and i hope it works out for you.

 

If i came across a grumpy old git then i apologise and wish you luck.

 

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it is only attaining papers that matters, as that was your intention from the start.

 

Best.

 

 

[Sebuh]

Very interesting and educational thread, will be reading each entry, day by day. Regardless of outcome, thank you all for joining the discussion 👍

[Winchester]

I am happy for you and hopeful it works out. Either way, I would count it as a win for the stated reasons you gave.

[Jacques]

Quote

The Shinsa itself has not reached a definitive conclusion

The shinsa team is on the right track; they want to be able to control the work before turning their attention to the mei. As I always say, if the work doesn't match, don't look at the mei, but if it does, study the mei closely.

As for what the previous owner said, I take it as a selling point, not a true truth.

[reinhard]

Just some additional information:

The mei of the Kunimitsu-blade with the nengo "Kagen  4" (1306) has been seen critical for a long time now.

Dr.Homma Junji noted in 1984 ("Kanto Hibi-Sho") his doubts about the mei.

 

reinhard

[reinhard]

Forgot to tell you find the translation of the above in English Token Bijutsu No.5 page 9.

reinhard

[Lewis B]

2 hours ago, reinhard said:

Just some additional information:

The mei of the Kunimitsu-blade with the nengo "Kagen  4" (1306) has been seen critical for a long time now.

Dr.Homma Junji noted in 1984 ("Kanto Hibi-Sho") his doubts about the mei.

 

reinhard

I'm reading it slightly different. Less critical rather curious. Certainly there is no question regarding the quality of the forging meeting Shintogo Kunimitsu standards. This is the google translation for the opinion piece.

 

The blade is a shallow furisode, slightly polished, with a small ridge, a small rounded manho, and a bell-like hi-katsu-de. The blade has a fine and thick ji-fure. The blade has a thin and straight blade, a strong ko-fure, and a gold-suji-like edge in the middle of the blade, which is connected to the ji-kei. The blade is deeply turned into a small rounded hat tip. The front has a koshi-hi.

 

For some reason, the date has been written in a way that makes it seem like a bottom inscription, but the two characters for Kagen are also written in cursive script. Is Sei a substitute inscription? The inscription written by Gyokou, which has been looked at, is notable for the fact that the characters are not in the so-called Kita-kanmuri style. However, there is no fake smell at all, and it is rather more dried and relaxed than usual, which is pleasing. As mentioned above, there is a two-character inscription and a date, and the workmanship of the blade can be easily attributed to Shintogo, but Kunimitsu's two characters are closer to cursive writing, and according to his memories, there seems to have been a demand for these characters and men. (We appreciate a glimpse of the beloved works of the late collector Tsushima Sohei.)

[Natichu]

The translation that Reinhard mentions:

[Brian]

Guys, you literally have the English Token Bijutsu issues in the download section...for free.

[Natichu]

28 minutes ago, Brian said:

Guys, you literally have the English Token Bijutsu issues in the download section...for free.

My apologies if posting the screenshot is an issue, please do delete if it is! 

[CSM101]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

Guys, you literally have the English Token Bijutsu issues in the download section...for free.

 

...and where to find him...

[Brian]

13 hours ago, Natichu said:

My apologies if posting the screenshot is an issue, please do delete if it is! 

No, nothing wrong with posting it...I just wanted to remind people that they have a wealth of knowledge there available anytime, and not to forget. All good. 

[Lewis B]

Just to update the archive. Here is a Norishige tachi mei showing what appears to me to be the application of a fine chisel with a light chiseling style. Characteristic tilting of the kanji following the contour of the nakago.

 

[Lewis B]

Another interesting data point from the historical records. This time a page from the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen.

On the same page the author shows examples of the archetypical Shintogo Kunimitsu Mei (blue) and hybrid (purple) with a semi-slant to the central line in Kuni. Clearly the author is differentiating between some diverse signature styles or, hard to believe, just sloppy.

The Mei in the red box has a slanting line and atypical mitsu kanji, yet there is full zaimei inscription for Shintogo Kunimitsu. Are either of these nengo (green) 1293, which would be the earliest known dated blade signed by Shintogo?

And then we have the tachi Mei on the right. All very curious. 

 

 

While there is much debate surrounding the dates and attributions to generations of related swordsmiths, the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen is said to be a reliable resource for accurate depictions of blade engravings. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

The blue one is Jūyō Bijutsuhin that is currently owned by Kurokawa Research Institute.

[Lewis B]

That one also appears to be dated Shōwa 2 (1313).

 

Which begs the question why Shintogo would sign with 5+ characters around this time? The Mei for kuni & mitsu are quite atypical taken together. Could Kunihiro have signed with his father's Mei around the time the Master was supposed to have died (1312/13) and him taking control of the atelier? Could there have been a commercial benefit to have signed in such a way? Kunihiro was yet to establish himself as an artisan in his own right in the early 1310's and perhaps doing this might have bought himself some time to develop a reputation in his own right. The earliest  known pieces, signed Kunihiro, date around 1317. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here is the item, I believe the actual date is Shōwa 4 正和二二 judged with current research, the old book just has a small error on the date.

 

 

Unfortunately cannot say anything with real substance about the signatures.

[Lewis B]

Fascinating. Close examination of the Mei shows how close it is to the depiction in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen 

 

The nengo looks pretty worn in comparison to the Mei on the omote side, so not that surprising a mistake occurred. So this appears to be dated 1314. 

 

What intrigues me are the 1 or 2 characters below the Kunimitsu kanji. 'something' 'something' mitsu? Why would there be 2 separate names here? Owner and maker?

[Jussi Ekholm]

I believe the end of mei is Buddist name Kōshin 法名光心

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I believe the end of mei is Buddist name Kōshin 法名光心

Right again. 

 

To go from nijimei to a more complex and comprehensive signing style seems unusual if chiseled by Shintogo himself who appears to have been more of a traditionalist (very few dated blades with archetypical nijimei signatures). This is more in keeping with Kunihiro as in the following example. Full inscription on the omote is Bonji + "Kunihiro Kamakura-jūnin"(Kunihiro Resident of Kamakura).

 

 

 

[Alex A]

For some of us that are "sat on the fence". so to speak, about the mei. I may have missed this Lewis but what about the sword actually ticks boxes so far regarding the sword itself?

 

Open minded regarding the mei, have to be as don't have enough references and always a chance a fake mei is added to a legit blade, which happens.

 

Is it booked in for polish? window?. I assume it will need full polish anyways as cant just be left with a window if you want to resell it should it turn out gimei.

 

Can anything be seen?, sorry if this has already been covered so far, just that there doesn't seem to have been much emphasis.

 

 

[Lewis B]

11 hours ago, Alex A said:

For some of us that are "sat on the fence". so to speak, about the mei. I may have missed this Lewis but what about the sword actually ticks boxes so far regarding the sword itself?

 

Open minded regarding the mei, have to be as don't have enough references and always a chance a fake mei is added to a legit blade, which happens.

 

Is it booked in for polish? window?. I assume it will need full polish anyways as cant just be left with a window if you want to resell it should it turn out gimei.

 

Can anything be seen?, sorry if this has already been covered so far, just that there doesn't seem to have been much emphasis.

 

 

Good questions. Ultimately the blade has to speak for itself irrespective of the mei. Tanobe has seen the blade in its current state and I was relieved this was the first time in his hands. He commented on the current poor condition (not surprised), primarily regarding the hamon. As for the mei, he agreed with the 2018 Shinsa that more research was needed, that the mei has an archaic style and most importantly at this stage, that the mei was not obviously gimei. 

 

Regarding the blade itself, what ticks the boxes for me?:

1) sugata is typical late Kamakura (confirmed by Tanobe)

2) referencing the 1306 tanto also with atypical mitsu kanji. The style and positioning of the boshi relative to the tip and Ha, the length, form and position of the single koshi-bi horimono on the omote side, the sugata and the nagasa. All these aspects closely match the 1306 blade. A reviewer of this blade in the 80's stated the style of mei reminded him of Yukimitsu thus opening the possibility the 1306 tanto might be daimei-daisaku Yukimitsu (its also been argued the Midare-Shintogo tanto is Yukimitsu's work). All this evidence suggests to me both blades originated in the same workshop and around the same time. The coincidence is too strong to ignore.

3) the boshi and deki from what I saw in the dealers photos is typical Shintogo. Flowing bands of chikei, nie-rich kaeru boshi tending to hakikake and thin nie-based suguha hamon. Couldn't see any kinsuji under the poor lighting and through the oxidized surface outer layer. Hopefully the polish will reveal a lot more subtle detail eg ji-nie, for which Shintogo is renowned.

 

A full polish has been requested. I'm just waiting to hear back from the togishi after he has inspected it to know if he will accept the commission. If my first choice is reluctant I will find another top level togishi with experience polishing Soshuden blades. One way or another it will be polished to preserve it going forward. 

 

If the polished blade really does have an air of the Soshu grandmaster it will be submitted for Shinsa together with as much supporting evidence as I can find to give the panel a reason to accept the sword as daimei. My goal is that it passes Hozon, at best TH but that might be expecting too much, however I will have a better idea of its potential after a sympathetic polish. 

[Brian]

Bit far from Japan, and I know that there are some awesome polishers there. But you may even want to have a chat with @Andrew Ickeringill

[Lewis B]

Yes, I had a conversation with Andrew before I decided to purchase the tanto. That option is certainly an avenue to consider, but he is also heavily in demand and for good reason. 

[Alex A]

Nice one Lewis, be good to see it polished, whoever you use.