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

[Jacques]

They don't know how to write kanji, yet they act like experts. This “Kuni” is engraved in the normal way....

[Lewis B]

Consistency of koshi-bi horimono carving's on dated Shintogo tanto

 

1293 tanto (earliest dated blade by a Kamakura blacksmith and reason why Shintogo Kunimitsu is considered the founder of Kamakura blacksmithing). Image from the Sano museum Masamune: the genius of Japanese swords and his lineage exhibition catalogue. Length of koshi-bi is 37.4% of nagasa

 

 

1306 tanto which could be daimei-daisaku work by Yukimitsu 

Length of kochi-bi  is 40.6% of nagasa

 

1308 tanto

Length of koshi-bi is 37.3% of nagasa

 

 

 

[Gakusee]

26 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

 

 

1293 tanto (earliest dated blade by a Kamakura blacksmith and reason why Shintogo Kunimitsu is considered the founder of Kamakura blacksmithing). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Afraid not true. There is a Moriie dated 1280, KoAoe 1190s, Bungo Yukihira 1205 and others. 

[Lewis B]

22 hours ago, Gakusee said:

 Afraid not true. There is a Moriie dated 1280, KoAoe 1190s, Bungo Yukihira 1205 and others. 

You could well be right. I was just going by the descriptions provided in the Sano Museum Catalogue, where they quoted the specifications and some further details about each of the 50 or so blades in the 2002 exhibition. Rather than earliest Kamakura blacksmith, perhaps they should have said the earliest Kamakura blacksmith in the Soshuden style. 

[Gakusee]

22 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

You could well be right. 

Lewis, I would not have quoted specific dates if I were not certain  

[Lewis B]

17 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

Lewis, I would not have quoted specific dates if I were not certain  

I think we are mixing up our Kamakura's. Kamakura era vs Kamakura the geographic location.

Obviously this 1293 Shintogo tanto isn't the earliest signed and dated Kamakura era sword. Its the earliest signed blade with reference to location ie resident of Kamakura, the seat of the Kamakura shogunate. This is what the Sano were trying to convey. 

[nulldevice]

30 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

I think we are mixing up our Kamakura's. Kamakura era vs Kamakura the geographic location.

Obviously this 1293 Shintogo tanto isn't the earliest signed and dated Kamakura era sword. Its the earliest signed blade with reference to location ie resident of Kamakura, the seat of the Kamakura shogunate. This is what the Sano were trying to convey. 

 

Tomato tomato! 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I do think the timeline in Sagami province is bit complicated as there are some signed and dated items that are earlier than Shintōgo Kunimitsu work. However I would not maybe consider them as Sōshū tradition swords as the mainline tradition started after active period of these smiths. But personally I tend to go by provinces instead of traditions.

 

There is 1271 dated tachi by Yukimitsu (行光) (not "the" Yukimitsu but an earlier smith)

https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/242413

 

Also a 1280 dated tachi by Mitsufusa (光房)

https://bunkazai.pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp/bunkazai/detail.asp?mid=70066&pid=bl

 

Unfortunately I have not seen either of these swords in real life.

[sabiji]

It is said that swordsmiths of the Mokusa tradition settled in Musashi, but also in Kamakura, before the Soshu-Den was established.

[Gakusee]

If Sano are talking about Kamakura-area based (ie Sagami) smiths who dated their work, then Jussi is of course right. If it is Kamakura-period smiths, there are many dated examples and others beyond the ones I quoted above  (well, many as in more than 4-5, of course not a plethora). Either way, the Sano statement, if quoted correctly, is strictly speaking a mis-statement. But Haydn, Sano Museum is a source of very good knowledge and they have a great collection. 
I am not too familiar with the Mokusa school and cannot comment on whether there are signed early works, which is what the discussion is about. 
In conclusion, Sano should have said “earliest Soshu-den smith who worked in Sagami/ Kamakura and dated his work”. But we are being pettifogging here. 

[Lewis B]

Another tidbit that could have some interesting connotations. Norishige produced tanto that have mitsu-mune as well as takenokozori-style tanto with iori-mune. This tanto was made in the latter style with slight uchizori curvature. 

 

And as stated by Markus "a takenokozori points to late Kamakura in general and for example to Norishige (則重) in particular."

 

 

Signed Norishige tanto. Sugata: hira-zukuri, takenoko-zori, iori-mune, nagasa 23.8cm, from the Compton Collection

 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

Bringing this over from another thread. Many thanks to @Gakusee for providing better images from the hardcopy 2025 DTI catalogue. This has to be the most atypical Mei with NBTHK TH attribution to Shintogo I've come across to date. There are at least 4 or 5 departures from his normal style of signature, some glaringly different. Next question is which year did it pass TH. 

 

 

 

[CSM101]

From the DTI catalogue

 

 

[Zoglet]

16 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Bringing this over from another thread. Many thanks to @Gakusee for providing better images from the hardcopy 2025 DTI catalogue. This has to be the most atypical Mei with NBTHK TH attribution to Shintogo I've come across to date. There are at least 4 or 5 departures from his normal style of signature, some glaringly different. Next question is which year did it pass TH. 

 

 

 

If I may butt in, the mei on this blade has a remarkable similarity to that of Awataguchi Sahyoe-no-jo Kunimitsu, from the lack of an s-like line in Kuni, to the wider, thinly cut square, and a slightly rounded lower right radical in the "Mitsu" kanji.



Additionally, although the hamon is narrower in the Shintogo listed above, the blade does bear a resemblance to (especially in the jigane) this Awataguchi Kunimitsu signed tanto.

 

 

I hope I'm not treading too far into unfamiliar waters. Just wanted to share some observations I saw looking at the mei and workmanship.

 

Best Regards,

Nicholas

[Lewis B]

Hi Nicholas,

I completely agree. Something is not adding up. My immediate thought was the Kuni Mei was more in the style of Awataguchi school and Rai Kunimitsu than Shintogo. But then I looked at a few examples and thought they were too different eg the curved right element never intersects the vertical strike and he signed with 3 kanji. 

 

Daimei Kunitoshi

 

 

Daimei Awataguchi Rai Kunimitsu 

 

Another option as you pointed out is this could be an earlier generation Awataguchi Kunimitsu. The Setsumei for the tanto you posted states

 

 This piece is tanto that should be judged as being by AWATAGUCHI KUNIMITSU, and has a date of manufacture of 1st Day of the 5th Month of 1288. He (the maker) was a toko that was said to be the son of Norikuni and the younger brother of Kuniyoshi, confirmed examples of work he left behind are rare, and besides this, there are but two Juyo Bunkazai tachi, and a ken which has SABEIJO (SABEJO) above his name, As for the portion of this tanto with the niji-mei KUNIMITSU, commonalities with the Juyo Bunkazai can be seen.

 

I wonder if we are looking at a rare Awataguchi Kunimitsu tanto with Mei that is remarkably similar to the tachi you posted and mentioned in the text above. The suguha hamon is remarkably Shintogo-esque, although the Tachi demonstrate AK was capable of similar control of the hamon. 

 

What would be the preferred attribution? Rare Awataguchi Kunimitsu or Shintogo Kunimitsu? Could the attribution change at Juyo?

[Gakusee]

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

Hi Nicholas,

I completely agree. Something is not adding up. My immediate thought was the Kuni Mei was more in the style of Awataguchi school and Rai Kunimitsu than Shintogo. But then I looked at a few examples and thought they were too different eg the curved right element never intersects the vertical strike and he signed with 3 kanji. 

 

Daimei Kunitoshi

 

 

Daimei Awataguchi Rai Kunimitsu 

 

Another option as you pointed out is this could be an earlier generation Awataguchi Kunimitsu. The Setsumei for the tanto you posted states

 

 This piece is tanto that should be judged as being by AWATAGUCHI KUNIMITSU, and has a date of manufacture of 1st Day of the 5th Month of 1288. He (the maker) was a toko that was said to be the son of Norikuni and the younger brother of Kuniyoshi, confirmed examples of work he left behind are rare, and besides this, there are but two Juyo Bunkazai tachi, and a ken which has SABEIJO (SABEJO) above his name, As for the portion of this tanto with the niji-mei KUNIMITSU, commonalities with the Juyo Bunkazai can be seen.

 

I wonder if we are looking at a rare Awataguchi Kunimitsu tanto with Mei that is remarkably similar to the tachi you posted and mentioned in the text above. The suguha hamon is remarkably Shintogo-esque, although the Tachi demonstrate AK was capable of similar control of the hamon. 

 

What would be the preferred attribution? Rare Awataguchi Kunimitsu or Shintogo Kunimitsu? Could the attribution change at Juyo?

Both are desirable attributions. Given that I personally prefer rarity, I would value the Awataguchi one more. But Shintogo is extremely highly rated and commercially a source of great profits for dealers. So if the TH certificate does not specify anything besides the signature, a dealer could insert their own interpretation that this is “Shintogo”.
 

So, you either have a daimei work here or indeed you are veering towards Awataguchi / Rai.

 

But one needs to explore “Mitsu” too as you have focused entirely on the “Kuni”

above. Look at the direction of the horizontal strokes and the overall crown in “Mitsu”. 

[Lewis B]

The mitsu character is very similar (horizontal crown strikes), although not a perfect copy of the dated Awataguchi Kunimitsu tanto (no upward strike on lower right radical) and also divergent from the exemplar Shintogo signatures. I will ask if the dealer is willing to send a copy of the TH papers. I'd already sent emails regarding a couple of his other offerings but yet to get a reply. 

 

This Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto dated 1315 and part of the Masamune Sano Exhibition also contains many of these anomalous features. Not the usual left-handed kuni character, but more similar to kuni  by Kunitsuna and Kunimune. Absence of Mitsu north crown feature. Suggests daimei by someone connected with the atelier (Kunihiro ?).

 

 

 

[Zoglet]

5 hours ago, Lewis B said:

The mitsu character is very similar (horizontal crown strikes), although not a perfect copy of the dated Awataguchi Kunimitsu tanto (no upward strike on lower right radical) and also divergent from the exemplar Shintogo signatures. I will ask if the dealer is willing to send a copy of the TH papers. I'd already sent emails regarding a couple of his other offerings but yet to get a reply. 

 

This Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto dated 1315 and part of the Masamune Sano Exhibition also contains many of these anomalous features. Not the usual left-handed kuni character, but more similar to kuni  by Kunitsuna and Kunimune. Absence of Mitsu north crown feature. Suggests daimei by someone connected with the atelier (Kunihiro ?).

 

 

 

I agree with a protential daimei being possible in that instance, but to this day I've not seen a Kunihiro sign using anything except the typical left-handed "Kuni" mei. Even looking at this work, the same curve in the lower right radical, alongside the horizontal crown in the "Mitsu" kanji. Looking at handwriting, it almost makes me wonder whether A.Kunimitsu and S.Kunimitsu had a closer relationship than just originating from the Awataguchi School (perhaps made dai-mei for one another). Of course, this could be merely a smith I'm unfamiliar with from the Shintogo/Ko-Soshu atelier, but I can't help but admit this resemblance in writing has me a bit perplexed.

 

Good luck to everyone in determining this blade!

Nicholas

[Zoglet]

6 hours ago, Gakusee said:

Both are desirable attributions. Given that I personally prefer rarity, I would value the Awataguchi one more. But Shintogo is extremely highly rated and commercially a source of great profits for dealers. So if the TH certificate does not specify anything besides the signature, a dealer could insert their own interpretation that this is “Shintogo”.
 

So, you either have a daimei work here or indeed you are veering towards Awataguchi / Rai.

 

But one needs to explore “Mitsu” too as you have focused entirely on the “Kuni”

above. Look at the direction of the horizontal strokes and the overall crown in “Mitsu”. 

I agree that seeing the TH papers for this blade would go a long way into helping us determine the legitimacy of the appraisal, alongside determining whether the "Shintogo" element is official from the NBTHK or added by the dealer. Going into another direction, I don't believe the blade is feasible for Rai. Looking at a color photo I found of the DTI Shintogo tanto, We see a very tight ko-itame hada with what appears to be minimal burls of mokume and primarily what appears to be masame. The appearance is also generally "wet" like Kunimitsu's peers in the Awataguchi School. The koshi-hi on the tanto-ura also screams Awataguchi to me, since we see that style in some tanto by Kuniyoshi and Norikuni (daito too, but in this case, we are discussing tanto). Additionally, the mei is extremely atypical for Rai-mei, as has been discussed above.



I agree with you, Michael, that blades of greater rarity are of more value to me, so this work generally piques my interest, especially as an item that requires more research. Whoever ends up with this work has their work cut out for them.

 

All the best,

 

Nicholas

[Jacques]

Until proven otherwise, Rai Kunimitsu has never signed Kunimitsu.

 

ps In any case, thank you for the moments of big laughter you give me.

[Zoglet]

24 minutes ago, Jacques said:

Until proven otherwise, Rai Kunimitsu has never signed Kunimitsu.

 

ps In any case, thank you for the moments of big laughter you give me.

 

I completely agree. I was just replying to this comment by Michael.

 

7 hours ago, Gakusee said:

So, you either have a daimei work here or indeed you are veering towards Awataguchi / Rai.

Thanks for commenting!

 

Nicholas 

 

[Zoglet]

As an added reference, was also able to locate a mei of a ken signed "Sahyoe no Jo Fujiwara Kunimitsu" and dated to either Showa 1 or Showa 10 (mei is corroded at the date) with the similar features to the atypical Shintogo Kunimitsu mei. Photo is displayed below.

 

[Jacques]

Quote

This Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto dated 1315 and part of the Masamune Sano Exhibition

 

Einin gan-nen = 1293

[Gakusee]

2 hours ago, Jacques said:

Until proven otherwise, Rai Kunimitsu has never signed Kunimitsu.

 

ps In any case, thank you for the moments of big laughter you give me.

Of course we agree on all of that. He has no such blades 

[reinhard]

A once promising thread slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

[Curran]

2 hours ago, reinhard said:

A once promising thread slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell.

 

reinhard

 

 

 

 

 

Once more unto the breach.

Otherwise, we shall flick your ear in this life.

 

 

[Gakusee]

So get back on track…

 

1. Attached is the famous (and sublime) Awataguchi Kunimitsu JuBu. Different chisel strokes and style. 
 

2. The DTI tanto is actually the one in the Fujishiro Koto volume. So, it must have some additional history and probably documented provenance etc but this does not mean it is not daimei by one of the students. The more I look into it the more daimei it seems. 
 

 

[Lewis B]

On 10/19/2025 at 7:17 PM, Jacques said:

 

Einin gan-nen = 1293

I don't think thats correct. This is the date inscription which I interpret as a year in Showa (Showa 2? [1314]). Such a late date certainly raises some concerns. As Nicholas says this 'Kunimitsu' is going to be an interesting study piece.

 

 

If I was a betting man my money would be on daimei daisaku by Shintogo's oldest son, Shintaro Kunishige (tanto on left dated Karyaku 2 [1328]). At least a couple of historical references state both he and Kunihiro signed Kunimitsu. 

 

KUNISHIGE (国重), Karyaku (嘉暦, 1326-1329), Sagami – “Kunishige” (国重), “Hasebe Kunishige” (長谷部国重), “Sagami no Kuni Kamakura-jūnin Hasebe Kunishige” (相模国鎌倉住人長谷部国重), son of Shintōgo Kunimitsu (新藤五国光), he signed in early years also with Kunimitsu (国光), first name Shintarō (新太郎), it is unclear if he was the same smith as Yamashiro Hasebe Kunishige

 

 

The Jubi #198 is interesting. Nakago shape is quite similar to the DTI Kunimitsu

 

 

[Zoglet]

40 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

I don't think thats correct. This is the date inscription which I interpret as Showa 22 (1334). Google translate let me down. Such a late date certainly raises some concerns. As Nicholas says this 'Kunimitsu' is going to be an interesting study piece.

 

 

If I was a betting man my money would be on daimei daisaku by Shintogo Kunishige (tanto on left dated Kareki 2 [1328]). At least a couple of historical references state both he and Kunihiro signed Kunimitsu late in their careers. 

 

 

The Jubi #198 is interesting. Nakago shape is quite similar to the DTI Kunimitsu

 

 

Looking at the oshigata you sent, Kunishige seems a bit promising, especially looking at the "Kuni" character. A lot closer to the standard horizontal three-line radical we see in works from the Awataguchi and Rai Schools. The angle of the diagonal radical also appears correct compared to the angle of the Fujishiro Koto volume tanto (the DTI one), at least to my eye.

Thanks for sharing, Lewis!

Edited Monday at 08:50 PM by Zoglet

[Lewis B]

If you're correct about masame in the DTI blade Nicholas, it could be by Hasebe Kunishige (Markus indicates a connection with Shintaro Kunimitsu, same smith?). The data is inconclusive although the masame points to Yamato influence. The 'wet' appearance of the steel also fits. 

 

KUNISHIGE (国重), 1st gen., Kenmu (建武, 1334-1338), Yamashiro – “Hasebe Kunishige” (長谷部国重), real name Hasebe Chōbei (長谷部長兵衛), it is said that he came originally from Yamato province where his ancestors lived in Nara´s Hatsuse (初瀬), there exists the tradition that the family name Hasebe was, over “Hase,” a modification of the pronunciation of “Hatsuse,” another theory says that he was the son of Senju´in Shigenobu (千手院重信), so it is assumed that his roots were in the Senju´in or in the Taima school, some sources state that he moved to Kamakura to study as late student under Shintōgo Kunimitsu (新藤五国光) before he finally settled in Kyōto/Yamashiro, this is supported by the tradition that Kunimitsu too bore the family name Hasebe, some even assume that Kunishige was the son of Shintōgo Kunimitsu, however, he moved around Kenmu to Inokuma (猪熊) in the Bōmon district (坊門) in the vicinity of Kyōto´s Gojō axis (五条), he is listed as one of the “Ten Students of Masamune,” unfortunately no signed works are extant by the 1st generation Hasebe Kunishige, his most famous work is the meibutsu Heshikiri-Hasebe (圧し切り長谷部) which was once the favourite sword of Oda Nobunaga, this and other ō-suriage-mumei blades have a wide mihaba, a thin kasane, a shallow sori, and an elongated kissaki, the mune is iori or maru, the jigane is a dense ko-itame which tends to masame towards the ha and the mune, the hamon is a notare mixed with gunome with plenty of hataraki within the ha like ashi, yō, sunagashi and kinsuji, towards the upper blade section also tobiyaki appear which can turn into a hitatsura, the bōshi is midare-komi with hakikake and a somewhat pointed kaeri, unsigned blades of the 1st and 2nd gen. are hard to differentiate, the jigane of the 1st gen. looks more “wet” and “sticky” whereas the ha is more bright, jōjō-saku ⦿