Opinions on Jūyō Katana by Shikkake Norinaga (1st Gen., Yamato – Late Kamakura)

[Jacques]

Another source, AFU's translation of Nihonto Koza

[Lewis B]

I should make a correction. The Tachi in the KotozenHC is signed. However the style of midareba hamon is atypical for Norinaga in that it is almost entirely ko-gunome except for the centre section. Unlike his Yamato contemporaries, this published example shows his adoption of the up and coming Osafune style of hamon. Typically Norinaga features suguha-cho mixed with ko-gunome as featured in Dennis' blade.

 

 

[Shugyosha]

Hi Dennis,

I think the problem that you could have as a seller of this blade is that neither the juyo paper nor the Tanobe sayagaki (as posted on here) mention shodai Norinaga or a jidai for it's manufacture - so two of the world's foremost authorities couldn't be certain. As a potential buyer I would, therefore, assume the worst and that the blade could be by one of the later generations and that it was made in the Nambokucho jidai or even early Muromachi period if it's the fourth generation smith.

 

It is no doubt a good quality blade as otherwise it wouldn't have received higher papers, but unless you have something authoritative (zufu or setsumei) to back up your assertion that it's the first generation smith then I think that you have to consider that what you have is a "school" attribution rather than to any individual artist and that will, unfortunately, affect the value. 

[Hoshi]

Hello Denis, 

 

We need the Juyo setsumei of your sword to go further. 

 

As a rule:  NBHTK only attributes to the second generation (Shikkake Norinaga II, NOR 238) signed works that are identified by the second generation's signature style (which are nijimei and/or contain "Shikkake"). Everything else, all mumei blades, by default will go to Shikkake Norinaga (NOR 237 and NOR 238), without precision on the generation unless made explicitly in the setsumei. That is to say, there is no explicit differentiation between Shodai and Nidai on mumei blades, unless explicitly stated in the setsumei. 

 

As for your Oshigata, it fits within one of Shikkake Norinaga's known styles. I can say that it is not his archetypical style, which would features rather tight and conspicuous gunome elements repeating at narrow intervals, which is highly distinctive of Norinaga within the broader Yamato movement. 

 

Attached, Juyo Oshigata of a Norinaga I, Denrai to the powerful Matsudaira clan, and zaimei. This blade passed Tokuju on session 9, and is probably the best Tokuju by Norinaga. 

 

Notice the tight gunome forming thin ashi all along the surface of the ha. 

 

 

Here is a blade by Norinaga II and bears his distinctive mei. Also a Tokuju, and denrai of the powerful Kaga Maeda clan. 

 

Notice the more relaxed notare. While there are still gunome elements and ashi, the structure and repetition is different. 

 

 

I hope this helps. 

 

Quote

It is no doubt a good quality blade as otherwise it wouldn't have received higher papers, but unless you have something authoritative (zufu or setsumei) to back up your assertion that it's the first generation smith then I think that you have to consider that what you have is a "school" attribution rather than to any individual artist and that will, unfortunately, affect the value. 

 

This is not a school attribution. If it was a school attribution, it would simply state "Shikkake" - This is a founder attribution, and it points to Norinaga I and Norinaga II as most probable makers.  

 

Both are considered late Kamakura smiths. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi 

[Ray Singer]

It is interesting that the Tanobe-sensei sayagaki attributes the sword to just Shikkake in the lead-in (primary attribution) and then states Norinaga specifically within the body of the sayagaki. This is typically done when Tanobe-sensei writes a sayagaki where he is aligning with the judgement of the shinsa team, and then lower down he goes on to provide more specificity directly to an individual swordsmith. The sayagaki predates juyo. Likely the previous Tokubetsu Hozon kanteisho was also a school attribution to Shikkake, Tanobe-sensei expanded on this with the attribution within the body of the sayagaki, and then at the next level the juyo shinsa team also aligned with the Norinaga judgement. 

 

[Jacques]

4 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

It is interesting that the Tanobe-sensei sayagaki attributes the sword to just Shikkake in the lead-in (primary attribution) and then states Norinaga specifically within the body of the sayagaki. This is typically done when Tanobe-sensei writes a sayagaki where he is aligning with the judgement of the shinsa team, and then lower down he goes on to provide more specificity directly to an individual swordsmith. The sayagaki predates juyo. Likely the previous Tokubetsu Hozon kanteisho was also a school attribution to Shikkake, Tanobe-sensei expanded on this with the attribution within the body of the sayagaki, and then at the next level the juyo shinsa team also aligned with the Norinaga judgement. 

 

Tanobe sensei gets paid for his sayagaki, so he tends to embellish things.

[Shugyosha]

9 minutes ago, Hoshi said:

Hello Denis, 

 

We need the Juyo setsumei of your sword to go further. 

 

As a rule:  NBHTK only attributes to the second generation (Shikkake Norinaga II, NOR 238) signed works that are identified by the second generation's signature style. Everything else, all mumei blades, by default will go to Shikkake Norinaga (NOR 237), without precision on the generation unless made explicitly in the Setsumei. That is to say, there is no explicit differentiation between Shodai and Nidai on mumei blades, unless explicitly stated in the setsumei. 

 

As for your Oshigata, it fits within one of Shikkake Norinaga's known styles. I can say that it is not his archetypical style, which would features rather tight and conspicuous gunome elements repeating at narrow intervals, which is highly distinctive of Norinaga within the broader Yamato movement. 

 

Attached, Juyo Oshigata of a Norinaga I, Denrai to the powerful Matsudaira clan, and zaimei. This blade passed Tokuju on session 9, and is probably the best Tokuju by Norinaga. 

 

Notice the tight gunome forming thin ashi all along the surface of the ha. 

 

 

Here is a blade by Norinaga II. Also a Tokuju, and denrai of the Kaga Maeda clan. 

 

Notice the more relaxed notare. While there are still gunome elements and ashi, the structure and repetition is different. 

 

 

I hope this helps. 

 

 

This is not a school attribution. If it was a school attribution, it would simply state "Shikkake" - This is a founder attribution, and it points to Norinaga I and Norinaga II as most probable makers.  

 

Both are considered late Kamakura smiths. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi 

 

@Hoshi - yes if the attribution were simply "Shikkake" it would encompass the broader school rather than the Norinaga lineage. They are being specific about the lineage but not the generation, I used the word school in inverted commas for that reason. 

[Jacques]

Quote

the Juyo Token (Important Sword) designation involves a competitive element where only a limited number of blades can pass each year, meaning a superior sword might be passed over for a better example from the same smith or school. 

A clear misunderstanding of the process. Some swords from the same smith will never get juyo because they don't reach the required level. A quality criterion is in no way “competitive”, this isn't a forging contest. 

[DENihontocollector]

2 hours ago, sabiji said:

Passing a 2023 Juyo session for a 64 cm Mumei O-Suriage Shikkake seems to speak for its importance. What does the Setsumei explicitly say? Unfortunately, the PDF for the Sayagaki is no longer available, and Tanobe-Sensei doesn't seem to have written much either. Is there any information available about Tanobe-Sensei's comments in connection with the creation of the Sayagaki? That can sometimes be very interesting and insightful.

 

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful questions – they really address the key points about understanding and contextualizing this blade.

To answer some of them properly, I will share all available documents again here in this thread as attachments, including:

• The full Setsumei from the Juyo Zufu (with detailed technical description)

• The Sayagaki by Tanobe-sensei (including my translation)

This should make it easier to evaluate how the attribution to Shikkake Norinaga (Shodai) was reached and how it compares to other works of the school.

I also appreciate your point about market context and significance among the Yamato schools – this is exactly why I value input from experienced members here, as I’m still exploring how my piece fits within the broader corpus of Shikkake works.

[DENihontocollector]

And here again a better Scan of the Oshigata:
 

[Rivkin]

Positive: it has chikei, which usually points to an upper grade item. Chikei, yubashiri are not especially common in Shikkake, so it can be a stronger nie work overall with well controlled, bright jigane. Also nioguchi reference is something expected of Juyo but again not always accented in Yamato, since Tegai for example is not known for great nioiguchi execution.

 

Negative:

Sayagaki makes no assertion of quality, does not particularly praise the sword, it is also a rather short text. Setsumei is also scarce on wording, but this is often the case.

[Ray Singer]

The setsumei is missing a translation of the explanation. I believe this gives the general idea.

 

Explanation 

The Shikkake School is one of the five major traditions within Yamato-den, and it prospered with Norinaga as its founder. There are extant tantō signed by Norinaga bearing the dates Bunpō 3 (1319) and Ryakuō 3 (1340) along with his age at the time. These indicate he was born in Bun'ei 9 (1272). Successors bearing the same name are known, and works attributed to later generations of Norinaga during the Muromachi period also survive, indicating a tradition of name inheritance within the school. The general style of this school features: a high shinogi, broad mihaba, flowing itame-hada, a suguha-based hamon as is typical of Yamato-den. However, one characteristic feature of Shikkake Norinaga's work is the inclusion of small gunome in the hamon, and in some cases, purely suguha-based tempering can also be found.
 

This blade shows a somewhat broad mihaba, with minimal taper, a moderately deep sori, and a chū-kissaki that suggests it a late Kamakura period tachi.

The hada flows visibly in parts and stands up well; the steel is tightly forged with fine ji-nie. The hamon is primarily suguha, but includes gunome, with yubashiri, nijūba, kin-suji, sunagashi, and nie-suji seen throughout. Notably, there are places where the gunome form continuous groupings, a typical feature of Norinaga’s work within the Shikkake school. Though the hamon contains dynamic activity, the overall composition is coherent, refined, and elegant. The bright nioiguchi and soft temper line give the sword an elegant appearance, making it a highly commendable and valuable piece.

[Hoshi]

And here is the key sentence: Notably, there are places where the gunome form continuous groupings, a typical feature of Norinaga’s work within the Shikkake school. 

 

The important praise is this: The bright nioiguchi and soft temper line. 

 

Bright and soft nioiguchi is rare in Yamato work, and indicative of top tier (i.e Juyo worthy) work for Yamato. 

 

As I explained previously, the NBHTK does not make a call on Norinaga I or Norinaga II. It simply states that this is Kamakura period tachi attributed to Norinaga, which can mean either Norinaga I or Norinaga II. 

 

 

[DENihontocollector]

Hi everyone,

I wanted to share an additional insight that might help clarify the question about whether this blade should be considered Norinaga Shodai or Nidai.

I recently spoke with the previous owner of the sword, who originally acquired it in Japan. He mentioned that this exact question – Shodai vs. Nidai – was discussed there as well, and the consensus among experts was that if neither the Sayagaki nor the NBTHK papers explicitly specify a later generation, the attribution is understood to refer to the first generation by default.

In addition, we compared my Oshigata with the examples Hoshi kindly posted earlier. The similarities in the hamon structure, nioiguchi quality, and hada characteristics align much more closely with known Shodai features than with Nidai examples. This comparison further strengthens the case for a first-generation attribution.

I thought this might help add some context to the ongoing discussion and explain why I am leaning strongly toward Shodai attribution at this point.

Thanks again for all the valuable input so far – this has been an incredibly enlightening discussion.

Best regards,
Dennis

 

[sabiji]

That's good! The translations of Setsumei and Tanobe-Sensei Oshigata make things a lot clearer.

 

Incidentally, Tanobe-Sensei does not embellish anything, and I think this Sayagaki makes that clear. As Ray already wrote, the Sayagaki was written considerably before the Juyo Shinsa. The Sayagaki is rather discreet and contains a cautious recommendation to examine the blade more closely so that one will find characteristics of Norinaga in particular.

 

This could be seen as a very diplomatic hint to potential Juyo judges.

 

Writing a sayagaki full of praise (to put it exaggeratedly) makes more sense after passing the Juyo session. Before that, it could be rather counterproductive.

 

As for the setsumei, I agree with Hoshi's comments.

 

You seem to have a very good sword. Study and enjoy it!

[DENihontocollector]

2 hours ago, Hoshi said:

As a rule:  NBHTK only attributes to the second generation (Shikkake Norinaga II, NOR 238) signed works that are identified by the second generation's signature style (which are nijimei and/or contain "Shikkake"). Everything else, all mumei blades, by default will go to Shikkake Norinaga (NOR 237 and NOR 238), without precision on the generation unless made explicitly in the setsumei. That is to say, there is no explicit differentiation between Shodai and Nidai on mumei blades, unless explicitly stated in the setsumei. 

 

As for your Oshigata, it fits within one of Shikkake Norinaga's known styles. I can say that it is not his archetypical style, which would features rather tight and conspicuous gunome elements repeating at narrow intervals, which is highly distinctive of Norinaga within the broader Yamato movement. 

Hi Hoshi,

thank you very much for sharing your insights and for attaching the Tokuju example – that comparison is incredibly helpful.

Regarding the generational attribution: from what I’ve learned so far (and also confirmed in Japan at the time this sword was acquired), when neither the Jūyō setsumei nor Tanobe-sensei’s sayagaki specifies “second generation,” the attribution is by default understood to be Norinaga Shodai. This aligns with what you also described – only signed blades with specific nijimei or “Shikkake” features are attributed to Norinaga II.

Additionally, when comparing the oshigata of my blade with the examples you posted, I see strong similarities to the first generation – especially in the gunome groupings and the overall balance of the nioiguchi. This was also pointed out during earlier evaluations.

I’d be very interested in your view: could these stylistic variations (compared to the archetypal tight gunome) indicate an early or late phase within Shodai’s career? Or do you think they simply reflect a broader stylistic spectrum within his work?

Thanks again for taking the time to contribute such valuable information.

Best regards,
Dennis

[DENihontocollector]

5 minutes ago, sabiji said:

You seem to have a very good sword. Study and enjoy it!

Thank you very much for this clarification – that makes a lot of sense.
I also found it interesting to learn that Tanobe-sensei’s sayagaki predates the Jūyō shinsa and is therefore more reserved. Your explanation about why such inscriptions are often cautious beforehand (and sometimes more elaborate afterwards) really helps to put things into perspective.

I appreciate the confirmation regarding the setsumei as well. I will definitely continue studying the blade in detail – and I’m already enjoying the process a lot.

Thanks again for your kind words and for sharing your knowledge.

[Gakusee]

2 hours ago, Jacques said:

Tanobe sensei gets paid for his sayagaki, so he tends to embellish things.

 

Jacques has previously made this disparaging comment about Tanobe sensei and I shall repeat the retort I made back then:

 

“And the NBTHK Shinsa also gets paid for its appraisals, rejections and papers. All experts get paid, if their opinion is viewed by the public to be worth something. “ I think in the past I mentioned surgeons and private healthcare etc but the examples are numerous of when we pay to receive an expert opinion, specialist education, extra service etc. 
 

Moreover, I shall add: to Tanobe sensei his reputation and legacy are worth much more than a sayagaki written for a gaijin. I conjecture that Jacques probably has not factored that into his mental model. 
 

In fact, in my presence Tanobe sensei has examined various sayagaki under a magnifying glass to confirm whether they are his or not. So far, there have not been fakes that I am aware of but he occasionally reexamines his early sayagaki for some handwriting and other traits and might say “ah, this is one of my earliest sayagaki” etc. 

That clearly demonstrates that he cares about his sayagaki circulating around and he does not view them lightly. Also the language he uses is smartly worded, apart from giving insights or praise. 

[DENihontocollector]

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

Positive: it has chikei, which usually points to an upper grade item. Chikei, yubashiri are not especially common in Shikkake, so it can be a stronger nie work overall with well controlled, bright jigane. Also nioguchi reference is something expected of Juyo but again not always accented in Yamato, since Tegai for example is not known for great nioiguchi execution.

 

Negative:

Sayagaki makes no assertion of quality, does not particularly praise the sword, it is also a rather short text. Setsumei is also scarce on wording, but this is often the case.

Hi Rivkin,

thank you for pointing this out – I completely agree with your observations regarding the chikei and the bright jigane. It’s encouraging to hear that these elements are seen as indicators of higher quality, especially since they’re not particularly common in Shikkake work.

I also share your sentiment about the brevity of both the setsumei and the sayagaki. It’s a bit unfortunate that neither goes into much descriptive detail or praise. As mentioned earlier in the thread, the sayagaki was written some time before the Jūyō shinsa, which probably explains its rather cautious tone.

Thanks again for taking the time to analyze these aspects – it really helps me see my blade from new perspectives.

Best regards,
Dennis

[sabiji]

31 minutes ago, DENihontocollector said:

 

I’d be very interested in your view: could these stylistic variations (compared to the archetypal tight gunome) indicate an early or late phase within Shodai’s career? Or do you think they simply reflect a broader stylistic spectrum within his work?

 

I'm not Hoshi, but consider this your homework assignment. Of course, everything depends on the availability of signed and dated works for comparison. And since these are often scarce, it is sometimes impossible and remains in the realm of theory and speculation.

Collect all Norinaga Setsumei and Oshigata from past Juyo sessions for study purposes. In the future, take every opportunity that arises to study Norinaga's signed or attributed works with your own eyes.

 

Then, over time, you will go from being someone who asks questions to someone who is asked questions.

[DENihontocollector]

Hey all,

Given the NBTHK’s attribution dating this blade to the late Kamakura period, it effectively rules out Nidai Norinaga, as his active period begins several decades later in the early Muromachi period (around 1360–1380).

 

The NBTHK generally does not specify “Shodai” or “Nidai” for mumei works unless signatures make this distinction possible. However, in this case, the period alone is decisive: a late Kamakura dating can only correspond to Shodai Norinaga (ca. 1272–1340).

 

The stylistic features described — groupings of gunome, bright nioiguchi, chikei — align with high-level Shikkake work known from Shodai examples.

 

So while neither the sayagaki nor the Jūyō papers explicitly state “Shodai,” the chronological and stylistic evidence strongly supports this attribution.

[Lewis B]

To my mind 1360-1380 for the Nidai (who is supposedly the son of the Shodei) active period seems a little late. 

According to Nihonto Club NOR238 the start era for 2nd generation Norinaga was right around end of Kamakura. Anyone know when the 1340 signed Norinaga was discovered?

 

 

[DENihontocollector]

Building on my earlier post, I want to clarify something regarding the attribution to Norinaga:

 

The NBTHK dates this blade to the late Kamakura period. While this strongly points toward Shodai Norinaga (active ca. 1272–1340), it is worth noting that modern scholarship — including sources like Nihonto Club and Markus Sesko — shows a certain overlap with the early activity of Nidai Norinaga, who is recorded around 1329–1340.

 

The NBTHK typically does not specify “Shodai” or “Nidai” on mumei blades unless signature styles make the distinction possible. In this case, the absence of such specification in both the Jūyō papers and the sayagaki is consistent with this policy.

 

That said, the stylistic traits of this blade — bright nioiguchi, grouped gunome, presence of chikei — align more closely with known Shodai examples. Combined with the late Kamakura dating, I personally view a Shodai attribution as the stronger probability.

 

For reference:

 

• Nihonto Club entry for Shodai Norinaga (NOR237)

• Nihonto Club entry for Nidai Norinaga (NOR238)

 

 

I would be very interested to hear if others see similar stylistic correlations or have oshigata examples that might confirm or challenge this view.

[Lewis B]

Some interesting thoughts to add to the discussion from the NBTHK in 2015 regarding the relationship between 1st and 2nd gen Norinaga smiths. Clearly its been difficult to arrive at a consensus.

 

There are some important existing reference materials: one tanto in the Boston museum is signed on the omote “ Yamato Shikkake Norinaga 48 saku kore” (he was apparently 48 years old at that time) and the ura side is signed “ Bunpo 3 (1319) Mi Sangatsu to-ka (March 10th)”. Another tanto is signed on the omote “Ya ?? kake ju Norinaga saku”, and on the ura is a date of “Ryakuo 3 (1340) 6 gatsu bi 69“ (he was apparently 69 years old at that time). From these, we can definitely place his active period and his birth date as Bunei 9 (1272). But there are two opinions about these two tanto from experts. One opinion is that these are early works, and the other opinion reflects an old historical opinion that these are the Nidai’s work. If these are the Nidai’s work, the Shodai’s accepted active period is too early, and from the signatures and the styles, it is difficult to see clear defferences from the Shodai’s work. Thus the opinion that these are the Nidai’s work may need to be reconsidered. Concerning the opinion that these are daimei by the Nidai (works by the shodai which were t signed by the nidai), it would be necessary to find and study more new material to address this idea.

[Hoshi]

Dear Denise,

 

Yes, they are both Kamakura smiths.

 

There is no explicit information on either the Sayagaki or the Setsumei that tilts towards one or the other.  

 

Now, let me explain something more important: 

 

I would not fret too much over Nidai or Shodai - as in, who made it, in the end. 

 

The scientific reason is that we cannot know, we do not have a time machine. 

 

We do not even know if NOR238 was really a different person from NOR237. Their period of activity is close, and the old paradigm of attributing stylistic and mei changes to subsequent generation is slowly being replaced a paradigm more consistent with Occam's razor: smith simply changes their styles and mei over time, especially those that have long period of activity and have intermediary pieces in terms of deki that allow for a continuity in interpretation to emerge from their corpus. This could very well be revised in the future. 

 

In your specific case, it would make no difference from a market perspective to me, having a blade signed in the NOR237 or NOR238 mei style, given an equally compelling deki. Both smiths are Tokuju capable, both smiths have Juyo Bunkazai blades with similar degrees of preservation in terms of mei. In terms of rarity, blades by NOR238 are even rarer than those by NOR237. And last but not least, to me at least, they are likely to be one and the same smith. 

 

I would be 100% focused on the deki when assessing the value of the object. Specifically, where it stands within the corpus of NOR237/NOR238, within the broader Yamato tradition, and in relation to other school founders. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

This might be a bit long post with lot of personal opinion. First of all I must say you have a nice sword with nice koshirae. It might be crazy but I personally might like the koshirae more than the sword itself.

 

Now I must admit that I am not personally a huge fan of Shikkake Norinaga. I will post 3 items that I have personally seen in museums in Japan but to be honest none of them did evoke much feelings in me. This is just my personal preference as there are items that immidiately make me react strongly.

 

This first one is a Jūyō Bunkazai tachi and it is in the collection of Tokyo National Museum. I saw this at TNM in 2023, now when I look my diary and the other swords that were displayed in the same room, this one got little attention from me as I felt others were so much more interesting.

 

 

This second one is a Tokubetsu Jūyō suriage katana that has kinzōgan-mei. I saw this at NBTHK in 2024 and the sword has been donated to NBTHK and is in their collection. Unfortunately the same thing as with the above tachi, I felt there were so many more interesting swords at display at that time.

 

 

Here is a Jūyō naginata-naoshi with partial mei that is in the collection of Nagoya Tōken World. I am personally a huge fan of naginata but unfortunately this particular one was not that impressive to me. Now the item has a partial mei and attributed to Norinaga, there is a "paradox" in that which I will try to go into later. You can find this particular sword here: https://www.touken-world.jp/search/44080/

 

 

The complicated stuff might start here. Norinaga is pretty famous but can anyone name other Shikkake smith and present signed work by them? I checked and currently I have 35 signed blades by Norinaga (various generations as few are Muromachi work) but perhaps 0 signed blades by other Shikkake smiths. There is possibility of error that I have accidentally thrown a Shikkake smith to Senjuin but in general this shows my idea that pretty much only Norinaga is known from the school. Hence the only logical route for the partial mei naoshi above would be attribute it Norinaga as it bears Shikkake in mei, I mean who other would it be attributed to? I know Japanese experts are the foremost authority and I fully respect their knowledge. However I feel that Shikkake in general is slightly a bucket attribution, and as it lacks any other well known smiths than Norinaga how are they attributing stuff to this school (yes there are typical things that might make people go for Shikkake in attributions but it is complicated as there are no signed references). For example a lot of naoshi with Yamato traits get attributed as Shikkake.

 

The 5 Jūyō Bunkazai blades by Shikkake Norinaga are all signed tachi. There are 6 Tokubetsu Jūyō blades by him 3 of them are signed tachi, 1 Kinzōgan, 1 that has Shusho (even though TJ has it mumei) and 1 mumei. There are dated items for 1319, 1338, 1340 and 1340.

 

I cannot comment on Jūyō shinsa as I have never gotten into the process or asked about it, I just study the results. However I would challenge the AI result of limited passes, there are no specific percentage or number of items that will pass. It is up to NBTHK to decide and there will be fluctuation by numbers & passing percentage that is probably depending on the items sent in and how the shinsa team felt about the items in that particular session. There can be lot of variation in results. 

[Rawa]

Excellent sword. If it would be longer it would be in crazy price.

[Markus]

I would like to quote from Tanobe Sensei's latest book on the Yamato tradition, where he elaborates a bit more on the Boston tantō that has bee mentioned:

 

 

There was more than one generation Norinaga, and descendants of the first master continued to use this name until the Muromachi period. Period sword texts state that short signatures of the type “Yamato Norinaga saku” (大和則長作, “made by Norinaga from Yamato”) go back to the hand of the first generation, and such with longer signatures, containing the character Kunias in “Yamato no Kuni” (大和国, Yamato province) and prefixes like “Shikkake” and/or the honorary title Sakon no Jō (左近允) go back to the second generation, or possibly to later generations as well.

The collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, contains a tantō (picture 1) that is depicted in the Kubikiri Asa’emon Tōken Oshigata (首斬り浅右衛門刀剣押形) and that is signed and dated: “Yamato Shikkake Norinaga yonjūhachi saku – Bunpō sannen tsuchinoto-hitsuji sangatsu tōka” (大和尻懸則長四十八作・文保三年己未三月十日) – “Made by Shikkake Norinaga from Yamato, age 48, on the tenth day of the third month Bunpō three (1319), year of the sheep.” In addition, there exists a tantō dated Ryakuō three (暦応, 1340), which is inscribed with the information that it was made when the smith was 69 years old. Accordingly, we can calculate Norinaga’s year of birth as Bun’ei nine (文永, 1272). When we follow the aforementioned period sources in terms of signature syntax, both tantō would be works of the second generation, meaning that the active period of the first generation obviously must be placed earlier than the two dates in question. When we examine the workmanship of a Jūyō-Bunkazai tachi signed “Yamato no Kuni Shikkake-jū Norinaga saku” (大和国尻懸住則長作, “Made by Norinaga resident of Shikkake in Yamato province”) (picture 2), and a tachi ranked Tokubetsu-Jūyō Tōken signed “Yamato Sakon no Jō Norinaga saku” (大和左近允則長作, “Made by Sakon no Jō Norinaga from Yamato”) (picture 3), and compare that to blades signed briefly “Yamato Norinaga saku,” the former do not date any later then the latter. In addition, the signature of both groups of works is fairly close, whereupon I tend to think that the period sources should be revised.

[Brian]

Gentlemen, this is a superb example of an educational and very scholarly discussion. Thank you all who are participating, and we even have a minimum of bickering. 

[Mushin]

Dennis,

 

I agree with those telling you not to get caught up in obsessing over generational differences. I often need to heed my own advice, but, as Hoshi has pointed out, it’s pointless to stress about such things. With mumei blades it’s easy to worry about the strength of the attribution or the subtle differences with signed pieces. And with zaimei works you can easily get lost wondering about which generation forged it. Case in point: Pictures below are of a zaimei Shikkake Norinaga tanto I recently purchased. It has Hozon papers, which in and of itself doesn’t necessarily mean much, and it was listed as Kodai Norinaga. Tanobe’s sayagaki gives the time of manufacture from the end of the Nanbokucho to Oei. Once upon a time it might have been attributed to the work of the Nidai or the Sandai. Indeed, the dealer who originally listed the sword said it was the work of the Nidai. But as recent scholarship started questioning the generations’ work periods, Tanobe and the NBTHK started assigning blades to likely time of manufacture, rather than generations of smiths. This is especially true when it’s not a slam dunk for a particular generation. You see this in Nobukuni and Hasebe attributions as well these days. I bought this piece is for serval reasons, including:

1) I am a tanto collector and zaimei Yamato tanto are not common, even Norinaga, which according to Jussi’s research, has 14 zaimei tanto (more than most Yamato smiths but still not many,) seven of which are Juyo from different era.
2) The sugata is lovely to my eye and the length at 29.2cm is sweet.

3) While there are some coarse areas on the ji from many polishes, the activity in the hamon is still wonderful and better than most Kodai blades I have seen, on a par with many of the Juyo examples. 

4) It was relatively inexpensive with koshirae, always a nice extra.

The key to all of this is that I liked the work. It’s better than most I have seen for sale over the years, and the price was right. And I got to study a new smith and school from a fascinating period of Japanese history. That is ultimately why most of us are in the hobby. The market does what the market does, and smiths fall in and out of favor. All that matters is that you like it. I think yours fits within the work of the Shodai, but even it is by another hand, it’s still lovely.