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

[Mushin]

Very exciting indeed. It’s like watching a movie on the edge of our seat, waiting to see how it’s going to turn out. 🤞🏻

[Lewis B]

Returning to the tachi mei in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen.

 

The 2 characters in the purple box don't represent Shintogo's buddhist name. Could this be an affirmation or confirmation that the blade was made by this person ie Shintogo Kunimitsu? The upper character translates to 'law' but the lower kanji makes no sense. 

 

Does the date refer to 3rd year of Enkyō (延慶) or 1310?

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

My best guess might be 法師 hōshi - priest.

[Lewis B]

All very curious.

 

One might think that these later period, embellished Shintogo Kunimitsu Mei examples were created by a third party, especially with all the differences in the kuni 国 and mitsu 光 kanji, which are a clear departure from the Masters earlier signing style. Looking closer I would even say the 2nd character in the Kunimitsu Mei in the blue box is atypical. Looks like the same Mei as on the 1306 tanto. 

 

Checking Jussi's reference database the 1315 Kurokawa Research Institute tanto (# 3631) has Juyo Bijutsuhin papers so this was passed as authentic?

 

Another blade with partial Mei 鎌倉住人 (Resident of Kamakura) dated 1312 passed Juyo 34, although which Shintogo is not specified. 

 

Certainly seems like a pattern is emerging, many dated blades exist between 1306-1315 (besides the Kurokawa, none of the other blades pictured in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen are recorded in Jussi's list). Another trend is that the later dated extended Mei examples tend to be longer, a feature that is more characteristic of Kunihiro's output. Shintogo Kunimitsu's tanto were mostly shorter in comparison. 

 

[Okan]

Dear Lewis,

 

Here is the one with the Koshin mei that Jussi already shared with us. 

 

鎌倉住新藤五国光 法名光心 - Shintōgo Kunimitsu, residing in Kamakura, Buddhist name Kōshin

正和四年 口月十日 - 10th day of [unknown month], Shōwa 4 (1315)

 

Honma's note is important:

 

“The signature of Shintōgo Kunimitsu usually has the character for ‘kuni’ (国) written in the so-called ‘left-hand character’ style. However, as seen in this tantō, there are rare cases where the mei is not in that form, and yet they are genuine. (Comment by Honma)”

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

Nice detective work Okan. So much for the notion that Shintogo Kunimitsu always signed in an identifiably consistent manner. Unless of course these later inscriptions are daimei or the blades themselves are daimei-daisaku. I do find it odd he would add the buddhist name himself. All these discrepancies occurring late in his career raises question marks too. Just because the blade is dated 1315 does not necessarily mean it was forged then. 

 

Are there any other examples of smiths inscribing their atelier name AND a buddhist name on the nakago? Masamune was also a priest so this may have not have been an uncommon situation in the 13th and 14th centuries. If not, perhaps it was a sign of reverence and respect by whomever signed the blade.

[Lewis B]

To my eye this looks like a deliberate strike of the chisel. Why would this be here in the tachi mei above but no other examples I can see..... except the 1308 tanto? Both also have the horizontal strike (shallow but present) above the mirrored 'S' which is absent in most mei. 

 

 

[Lewis B]

I've been checking other entries in the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen and found a Norishige tachi mei with some similarities to the kuni kanji on the 1308 tanto.

The upward sloping angle of the upper box element appears to be quite similiar. Furthermore the left side vertical and horizontal line placement is quite different to the regular Shodai and 'Yukimitsu' daimei examples posted earlier in the thread, where they connect the lines. Norishige leaves a gap top and bottom.

But I don't know enough about Japanese calligraphy to know how individualistic, as a writing style, this could be.

The kanji, from my understanding, is closer to the normal character for 'kuni' 国.

Is it possible the handedness can be determined from the archaic mei examples and that this might factor in the stylistic anomalies?

 

 

The tachi mei dates from the Karyaku 嘉暦 period (1328)

 

 

 

[Okan]

Dear Lewis,

 

This is a research study by Nobuo Ogasawara, conducted for and published in the Tokyo National Museum magazine in 1981. Although I made some small corrections, the translation(AI assisted) still contains some errors, but it should give you the general idea.

 

"" 

 

The inscriptions of Shintōgo Kunimitsu, as can be seen from the rubbings presented here, each display individual differences. Broadly speaking, example 1 can be regarded as a representative inscription of the hidari-ji hokan style. Examples 2, 3, and 4 are similar to this, with example 4 bearing the latest date of Gen’ō, and is sometimes regarded as the work of a second generation.

 

What is common among these four pieces is that the forging exhibits a well-developed ko-itame grain pattern, the ji-nie is present, and the blade shows clear ji-kage, resulting in a bright and lively jitetsu. The hamon is a straight temper line (suguha) with well-developed ko-nie, and it features pronounced kin-suji, demonstrating lively activity and excellent workmanship.

 

In contrast, examples 5 and 6, dated to the Kagen and Tokuchi eras, show inscriptions that are finer and weaker in appearance. Despite being early in date, they convey the impression of late-period inscriptions.

 

In terms of inscription style, they are clearly different from examples 1 through 4.

 

Furthermore, the forging shows a pronounced masa-gokoro (straight-grain tendency), and compared to the previous four blades, the nioi-guchi of the hamon is tighter, there is less activity within the ha, and the fukura (blade curvature near the edge) tends to sink. Stylistically, examples 12 and 13 are similar, though their engraving chisels (tagane) are finer and the inscription style differs slightly.

 

Examples 7 and 8, as well as those bearing the Buddhist posthumous name Kōshin, do not use the hidari-ji style, and example 7 also lacks the hokan (north-crown) character. These are considered a different type from examples 1 through 6, though stylistically they resemble 5 and 6.

 

Examples 9 and 10 have overall solid inscriptions, with the third stroke of the ko in Mitsu rendered as a plain “tsu” rather than the variant “フ”. Example 9 features a midareba (irregular hamon) with pronounced kin-suji, and the forging shows a raised texture. Example 10 has an ordinary straight suguha.

 

Example 11 differs greatly in inscription style; although it uses the hidari-ji hokan style, it shows unique characteristics not shared with the others.

 

If anything, opinions have shifted toward a broader view that the pieces in question may date from after the inscription bearing the Buddhist posthumous name Kōshin in Shōwa 4. In that case, the works of Bunpō, Gen’ō, and Genkō would be considered second-generation. However, when it comes to pieces with only the two-character inscription, such as the famous Aizu Shintōgo Kunimitsu, it becomes difficult to determine whether they belong to the first or second generation.

 

A detailed examination of Shintō Gokunikimitsu inscriptions shows that each character varies slightly, making it virtually impossible to estimate the production date based solely on a two-character inscription. Nonetheless, in addition to the common inscription style featuring the “left-character” with a north-crown (hidari-ji hokkan), there are several distinct variants:

 

1. Those executed with a fine chisel (hoso-zan), where the inscription appears somewhat larger (though in reality almost the same). Examples include works dated to Kagen 4 and Tokuchi 3 (Important Cultural Properties), and, although tachi, the famous Mutsu Shintōgo is included in this group.

 

2. Those not using the left-character north-crown, such as pieces in the Tokyo National Museum or those bearing the Buddhist posthumous name Kōshin.

 

3. Those where the “kuni” character is a left-character but the “mitsu” character does not have a north-crown, or where the third stroke of “mitsu” is unusually firm, as seen in the famous Ran Shintōgo.

 

4. Those with large inscriptions and a firm, rigid style, such as the famous Kojiri Gokunimitsu and the tachi passed down from the Tokugawa family.

 

The four types described above differ from the typical left-character north-crown (hidari-ji hokkan) inscriptions. Based on these differences, it can reasonably be concluded that the inscriptions were not cut by a single hand. Rather than strictly distinguishing first and second generations, it is more plausible to view the head smith Kunimitsu as a single master while Shintō Kunimitsu operated as a collective workshop consisting of multiple smiths.

 

Naturally, certain stages of sword-making required a lead smith, and there may have been several lead smiths working simultaneously, making the finished products the result of collaborative effort. On a larger scale, tasks such as forging, finishing, hardening, and polishing were likely divided among specialists. Although it is difficult to determine the precise scale of the Shintogo Kunimitsu workshop in Kamakura, it is reasonable to assume that multiple smiths inscribed the Kunimitsu  signature during the lifetime of the head master.

 

""

 

 

[Lewis B]

I enjoyed reading that treatise Okan.

Certainly provides more food for thought and some hypotheses regarding the organization of the Kunimitsu atelier. I thought what was especially interesting was the use of a thin chisel between 1306 and 1308, and the differences in forging style with pronounced masa-gokoro during this period. It will be interesting to see if this forge welding pattern is present in my 1308 tanto after polish.

Another useful datapoint is that the Buddhist koshin inscription was posthumous. Given this fact, did Shintogo Kunimitsu die in 1310 or earlier (the 2nd character for the tachi nengo is a little unclear)?

 

I like the idea of a collaborative/cooperative working environment. This would fit many of the theories that connect the different smiths, both directly as apprentices and possibly later as a partnership with 2+, more or less independent groups, working in the same atelier. Headed by the master Shintogo Kunimitsu with his own apprentices, Kunihiro, Kunishige, Norishige and Kuniyasu (Daishinbo), whilst on the other side there's Yukimitsu and his son by birth or adoption, Masamune. 

[Okan]

I believe the use of “posthumous” was just a simple translation error. I’ve checked the original text again, and it does not say anything about “after death.” Other sources suggest that Kunimitsu likely took Buddhist vows while still alive, and the work dated 1315 may have been made by him personally, maybe his last one. Some sources also suggest that the blade is a work from his advanced age. There are no clear records of the date of his passing, and the blades bearing dates later than this (1319, 1321, 1329, etc.) are attributable to Kunimitsu II. Overall, I believe all of these attributions are best guesses based on the available evidence, so it’s best to wait for the sword to be polished, which may reveal more definitive information..

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

A couple more examples of Norishige mei with the kuni kanji showing some consistencies and inconsistencies in the style of chiseling. This time one with a sloping centre line and the other like the example above with a vertical line ala Shintogo Kunimitsu. What is consistent in all 3 is the sloping horizontal of the 2nd strike and the gaps between the 1st to 2nd and 3rd to 1st strikes. 

 

     

[Lewis B]

Another piece of circumstantial evidence. Norishige's mei chiselling style has some characteristic nuances. One feature mentioned in the Soshuden Museum notes on the smith state " The second upper and lower lines of the 重 character were made thick and deep, so that they look like a frame for the inside of the kanji." His verticals are not that precise either.

From what I can see in this image of the nakago the horizontal line in the 2nd kanji 'mitsu' is noticeably deeper. Compare this to the strikes on the 1306 tanto that is possibly Yukimitsu signing daimei Shintogo. The strikes on this blade are of a consistent depth.

 

Obviously nothing definitive but a feature worthy of consideration. 

 

[Lewis B]

On 8/29/2025 at 4:47 AM, Alex A said:

 

 

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

 

 

A top Soshuden togishi has seen the blade and thinks without the Mei it can get Mumei Shintogo at Shinsa. The hada is typical Shintogo. The nioiguchi from bottom to middle has been worn away but he says he can polish it in a manner that balances the appearance. 

 

But don't worry the Mei is not going anywhere. 

[Alex A]

That's brilliant news Lewis, the mei was at the back of the queue for me.

[Alex A]

21 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

 

 

But don't worry the Mei is not going anywhere. 

 

Do you mean you want the shinsa team again to see it all in polish and get their view?

[Lewis B]

It was always going to come down the forging style of the hada and structure of the hamon/boshi that would make or break the attribution. I'm very happy to hear someone with that much experience has confirmed what I thought I was seeing in the photos. Together with Tanobe-sensei's appraisal I feel pretty confident it is what it purports to be. I look forward to seeing how it looks after polish. 

The icing on the cake will be if it has masa-gokoro forging style that has been observed for some blades from the Kagen (1303) and Tokuji (interesting tidbit, this era started on my birthday in 1307) eras in which 1308 falls.

 

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Alex A said:

 

Do you mean you want the shinsa team again to see it all in polish and get their view?

Correct. In polish along with a dossier of supporting evidence for a daimei-daisaku attribution by an apprentice (with Norishige being the clear favourite). The 2018 Horyu papers recommended more research and so far none of the experts have dismissed the Mei as gimei. I hope the documentation from extant blades and oshigata will sway the panel. Whatever the outcome, its academic. Having the blade assessed as Shintogo, in hand, by a leading expert is all I really needed to hear. Anything above and beyond that is gravy.

[Alex A]

Im very hopeful and optimistic for you.

 

 

[When Necessary]

17 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Correct. In polish along with a dossier of supporting evidence for a daimei-daisaku attribution by an apprentice (with Norishige being the clear favourite). The 2018 Horyu papers recommended more research and so far none of the experts have dismissed the Mei as gimei. I hope the documentation from extant blades and oshigata will sway the panel. Whatever the outcome, its academic. Having the blade assessed as Shintogo, in hand, by a leading expert is all I really needed to hear. Anything above and beyond that is gravy.

I truly wish you good fortune in this endeavour, Lewis - it's very exciting!

 

One question if I may? Will you be allowed to submit a supporting dossier along with the blade? Personally, I have only ever put a blade through Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon, where you are not allowed to submit anything beyond the blade or to talk to a shinsa member until you retrieve your sword. Is Juyo submission different in that regard?

[Lewis B]

6 hours ago, When Necessary said:

 

 

One question if I may? Will you be allowed to submit a supporting dossier along with the blade? Personally, I have only ever put a blade through Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon, where you are not allowed to submit anything beyond the blade or to talk to a shinsa member until you retrieve your sword. Is Juyo submission different in that regard?

Thanks Dee.

 

Juyo is a different story as the Mei must be shohin to get to this level. We are only considering Hozon submission in this instance.

 

As for the accompanying documentation. Under normal circumstances this is true, however this tanto is being resubmitted after receiving Horyu paper. The Shinsa panel are effectively inviting additional information to support the Mei. Precisely what they need to make an informed decision for shohin is up for conjecture. All I can do is gather enough data, which can only be circumstantial, to make a convincing argument that the blade came from the Shintogo atelier, at a time when daimei-daisaku were being produced by apprentices and that the style of Mei suggests one of two possible candidates, although this is probably less relevant from the perspective of their adjudication.

 

Based on current knowledge it is accepted that Norishige and Kunihiro were working as apprentices directly under Shintogo in 1308. Of these two my gut feeling, by comparing known examples by the smiths, is that the carving style is more suggestive of the younger Norishige than his older fellow student, Kunihiro. Hoshi's suggestion that Norishige might have been illiterate or at best of limited ability, at this period in his life, given his provincial origins, was especially compelling. Kunihiro and his siblings were more likely to have had some formal education and literacy ability due to their backgrounds. In fact the 3rd son Kuniyasu (Daishinbo) was a buddhist priest and they were almost always literate in the 14th century. 

[Lewis B]

My preferred choice for togishi has accepted the commission and already started work. First step, removal of the corrosion under the habaki so that the shirasaya can be constructed. 

[Jacques]

Quote

Juyo is a different story as the Mei must be shohin to get to this level. We are only considering Hozon submission in this instance

Juyo or simple hozon, the mei must be soshin...

[Lewis B]

33 minutes ago, Jacques said:

Simple hozon, the mei must be soshin...

To pass but not to submit. Anyone can submit anything for Hozon. However to pass at this level confirms the mei, if signed, is legit in the opinion of the Shinsa panel. 

[Jacques]

OMG