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

[Lewis B]

Some better images

 

IMG_1550.tif

 

IMG_1547.tiff

Edited July 4 by Lewis B

[Lewis B]

IMG_1556.tif IMG_1546.tif

[Lewis B]

IMG_1549.tif IMG_1545.tif

[Lewis B]

IMG_1551.tif

[Schneeds]

You must be very pleased with that polish

[Brian]

Try not use tif. Use Jpg, so they display directly.

[Lewis B]

5 minutes ago, Brian said:

Try not use tif. Use Jpg, so they display directly.

Normally I do, but comparing the two the .tif were noticeably better for showing fine detail in the hada as its a lossless format whilst jpeg uses lossy compression, resulting in a blurring of the image.

[eternal_newbie]

7 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

Normally I do, but comparing the two the .tif were noticeably better for showing fine detail in the hada as its a lossless format whilst jpeg uses lossy compression, resulting in a blurring of the image.

 

It also looks like because TIF is unsupported by the forum software, it didn't automatically resize the images to a smaller/lower-quality.

[Lewis B]

I want to highlight the Shintogo Kunimitsu tanto held by the Atsuta Jingu Temple in Nagoya. This blade represents an important reference not only because it is yet another example of Kunimitsu mei with atypical carving but also its deki, which is a significant departure from what could be termed the classical Shintogo style. It appears to be a very healthy survivor and dated 1308 (although earlier in the Lunar calendar than mine). Nagasa: 28 cm; Sori : 0.2 cm; Motohaba: 2.5 cm.

 

 

The subject of this tanto was raised by Tanobe sensei after he examined my blade. He stated that besides the 1306 Shintogo he was aware of a 2nd blade, namely the 1308 Atsuta Shintogo, with atypical carving. 

 

I looked hard for images of this sword without success, but was recently contacted by a member here who had acquired photos of the tanto whilst on display at the Shrine, as well as photos of the mei and nengo. Its suriage and the carvings are slightly cut off but there is enough remaining to get a good impression of the kanji. 

 

 

 

Interestingly, the style of mitsu is very similar to that posted by @Hoshi on p1. There he suggested that it could be daimei by Kunihiro. Thinly chiseled with an extended vertical radical and a characteristically different north crown element that connects to the vertical strike. I also see similarities in the structure of kuni too. Clearly a notable variation from the archetypal Shintogo Kunimitsu signature and therefore likely by a different hand. 

 

 

The Atsuta tanto not only has this putative Kunihiro-esque signature, signing daimei Kunimitsu, but the deki is reminiscent of his Bunkazai 1324 dated tanto shown below.

 

 

The shape of the Atsuta tanto is also a departure from the norm for Shodai work, presenting a more robust and extended shape more characteristic of blades from the dying days of the Kamakura Bakufu into the Nanbokucho period.

 

I also want to highlight the tight ito-suguha hamon running very close to the Ha, a feature that is evident on my tanto. It would appear this was a forging style being produced in the Shintogo workshop in and around 1306-8.

 

Further evidence in my mind that dated, daimei work by various apprentices, was coming out of the atelier as early as 1306. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 13 by Lewis B

[Lewis B]

This nijimei inscription is on a tachi that was exhibited in the 'Masamune and His Lineage' Exhibition at the Sano Museum in 2002. All the expected elements are present except for the sloping center radical in kuni (unlike the collection of mei examples presented by Okan on p5, which are distinctly straight). A rare departure for Shintogo or yet another daimei inscription chiselled by an apprentice? Its accepted as genuine and therefore compelling corroborative evidence for the tanto signature.

 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

A forensic examination of the mei suggests its carved sakutagane by a lefthanded carver. The position of micro burrs on several strokes show the sharp left side and rough right side expected for someone holding the hammer in the dominant hand (left) and chisel in the right hand. It could also be chiselled gyakutagane by a lefthanded individual but the corrosion is obscuring the chisel marks to be able to make that differentiation.

 

This style of carving is unique amongst the early Soshuden masters and is used to authenticate Norishige's signature (Nihonto Kantei Hikketsu). This lefthandedness can also account for the unique upward sloping angle of shige commonly seen on his swords.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

Better images of the mei after the togishi has finished the restoration work. 

 

The sharp lower left edge of the migi-harai stroke in kuni contrasts quite nicely with the rolled, slightly raised upper right edge even at low magnification. The same can be seen on the upper vertical radical on mitsu. 

 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

I'm curious what people think of this tanto. The mei is very similar to that shown above and attributed possibly to Kunihiro signing daimei. The jitetsu is not very Shintogo Kunimitsu-esque IMHO

 

 

 

[eternal_newbie]

Agreed, it reads to me as somewhat louder and showy than Shintogo's usual. Maybe dai-mei, or another unrecorded Soshu (or Soshu-adjacent) smith who signed as Kunimitsu.

 

Or maybe Shintogo saw the stuff the youngsters were trying out and decided to have a crack at it himself...

[Lewis B]

14 minutes ago, eternal_newbie said:

Agreed, it reads to me as somewhat louder and showy than Shintogo's usual. Maybe dai-mei, or another unrecorded Soshu (or Soshu-adjacent) smith who signed as Kunimitsu.

 

Or maybe Shintogo saw the stuff the youngsters were trying out and decided to have a crack at it himself...

Just noticed this is the tanto associated with mei Hoshi posted on page 1 and referred to above. The tanto was displayed at the Token World Nagoya Museum.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1575190417731602&set=pcb.1575190744398236

[Lewis B]

What is also interesting to see are the apparent punch marks in this mei and on my tanto. They could be the result of natural effect of corrosion but to my eye they appear deliberate and man-made as they precisely bisect the carvings and have a raised burr on the border. The diameters and depths also appear remarkably alike as if made by the same punch.

 

Why would such punch marks be placed there? Possibly to guide the positioning of the mei (but they look to have been struck after the inscription was complete)? Or thinking outside the box, albeit said with some confirmational bias, a mark to differentiate an apprentice work from that made by Shintogo's hand. A similar mark in the same position as on my mei is also illustrated in historical oshigata. What is consistent is that these punch marks only appear on atypical mei. 

 

@Hoshiwhere did you see a reference that this mei on the Touken World tanto might have been carved daimei by Kunihiro?

 

And how about this one. @Gakusee suggesting this looks daimei the more he sees it and lacking the north crown radical (same as the 1306 tanto). Notice this ALSO has the same punch mark as the 'kunihiro'. Could be coincidence but worthy of further study IMO.

 

 

Am I right in thinking the oukaku strike on mitsu are carved in opposite directions? The blunt end starts on opposite sides for each example and ends with a point on the opposing side from which it started (mune side for the 'kunihiro' + example above, and ha side for my blade). 

 

 

[Toki]

 

7 hours ago, Lewis B said:

They could be the result of natural effect of corrosion but to my eye they appear deliberate and man-made as they precisely bisect the carvings and have a raised burr on the border.

I do think that those look intentional and manmade. I checked the signatures posted in this thread again and have to agree with you, in that they only appear in the atypical mei. If it weren´t for that, a possible reason could have been the placement of a possible Mekugi Ana, but why would multiple signatures have that. Also, the placement seems to differ slightly from blade to blade, but it is always on the "box" and from what I can tell with the sometimes not very good picture resolution, is that they all seem to have been added after carving of the Mei.

Maybe it was a way to distinguish a students work from the masters or another smith that did not want to get his blades confused with Shintogo Kunimitsus work, though I can´t find anything online regarding such a practice so this is just what came to my mind first. Because to me it looks like a mark to differentiate two similar names or some kind of stamp to maybe approve a piece? 

Just throwing these ideas out there...

[Lewis B]

15 hours ago, Toki said:

 

I do think that those look intentional and manmade. I checked the signatures posted in this thread again and have to agree with you, in that they only appear in the atypical mei. If it weren´t for that, a possible reason could have been the placement of a possible Mekugi Ana, but why would multiple signatures have that. Also, the placement seems to differ slightly from blade to blade, but it is always on the "box" and from what I can tell with the sometimes not very good picture resolution, is that they all seem to have been added after carving of the Mei.

Maybe it was a way to distinguish a students work from the masters or another smith that did not want to get his blades confused with Shintogo Kunimitsus work, though I can´t find anything online regarding such a practice so this is just what came to my mind first. Because to me it looks like a mark to differentiate two similar names or some kind of stamp to maybe approve a piece? 

Just throwing these ideas out there...

Interesting thoughts Erik. Thanks for weighing in.

Regarding two Kunimitsu smiths wanting to differentiate their mei I would expect the jitetsu to be sufficiently different not to have a Shintogo Kunimitsu attribution. Then I ask myself why would the 2nd Kunimitsu carve the mirrored 'S' and vertical center stroke as these were not the normal way to carve or write 'Kuni'. The examples in this thread including the 2 above are all accepted as Shodei work, sometimes with a qualifying addendum in commentaries to note the slight differences in kanji carving styles.

I do like the idea of them being punch marks for a potential mekugi-ana if they were not so precisely aligned with the strikes.

For me the logical explanation is that these daimei pieces are being effectively marked to differentiate them from Shodei work in a busy workshop with 4+ swordsmiths working alongside one another. The position of the punch mark around the frame of kuni denoting which apprentice did the work.

I would imagine the output would be reasonably prolific. The punch marks being quite small in real life are hardly noticeable but under a macro lens become more visually significant for the casual viewer today.

In the end who knows. I need to scour other mei from contemporary schools who made daimei-daisaku work eg Rai, to see if this was a common practice or unique to Shintogo Kunimitsu's atelier. As you say finding high rez images is extremely challenging though.

 

[Toki]

 

Yeah, I agree the Theory with two smiths does not make much sense now that I think about it.

It would be super interesting if similar patterns can be seen on other daime-daisaku work in other schools. Please let us know what you find!