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.