What do you see?

[reinhard]

This is not a proper kantei, for I won't give you the exact measurements of the blade.

Just an exercise to sharpen your view.

The blade is a rather short wakizashi made in hira-zukuri shape.

Any idea when and where it was made or even who the maker was?

 

reinhard

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

Interesting, possibly my ignorance, but the way the hada is so course, and the "hamon" is just a visual continuation - makes it look artificial to my eyes.

 

I'm probably completely wrong, but is it a recent "Damascus-inspired" blade with an acid hamon? 

 

Otherwise I don't understand the run off and lack of activity?

[David Flynn]

Muramachi Mino, Kanetsune.

[lonely panet]

Hankei

[Jussi Ekholm]

With just seeing that one picture without any other info I would guess Hankei (繁慶) and Early Edo period. However as I am not that skilled in technical details it would be very hard for me to describe the features that are actually seen in the picture.

[DKR]

Meito zukan  , Fujishiro Okisato 

[Nicholas]

Hankei would be my guess also. Looks very similar to this sword.

 

https://www.sho-shin.com/hankei.htm

[Hokke]

13 hours ago, reinhard said:

Any idea when and where it was made or even who the maker was?

Is there anything with contrast editing that was done the picture? To me, it’s similar to Hankei in the O mokume, but that activity in the hamon seems quite different. There are places where the hamon would extend father into the ji, but wasn’t for sake of uniformity. 

[Hoshi]

Hello, 

 

The intent is late Norishige-inspired Matsukawa hada. 

 

However, the result is lacking. 

 

Aesthetically, it lacks two key qualities: unaffectedness and profoundness. 

 

First, the matsukawa is contrived: the contrast is too pronounced, the structure of the hada lacks the natural feeling we see in the works of Norishige, and of the Ko-Hoki predecessors. In other words, it gives the impression of trying hard, and as a result feels contrived. The chickei is entirely driven by the mixture of steels.

 

It is useful to remember that there exists two forms of chickei: that which forms in the steel as crystalized martensitic formations, and that which is purely the fruit of the mixture of steel. The former is the chickei that is so respected and appreciated. 

 

Hence, the work appears flat. It lacks apparent jinie, and the 'seams' of the matsukawa lack the tiny grains of nie in the ji. As for the hamon, the structure of the hada carries all martensitic formations. There are no formations that appear juxtaposed over the flow of the grain, which again contributes to a lack of depth and reveal that this is not a work of the Golden Age. 

 

Hankei is an understandable answer. However, the this particular work is far inferior to Hankei's execution of Matsukawa, which is is rich in nie activities that imparts a sense of profoundness to his work, although the unaffectedness is inferior to Norishige - as there is a certain trace of trying that can be felt in his oeuvre. Finally, the curvature of the piece in question is inappropriate in my opinion for a Ko-Wakizashi by Hankei, where I have come to expect musori.  

 

The nie appears too weak for Sanekage. Uda? Possibly, but  the hada overall lacks an antique quality, and the hamon is inappropriate anyway.  

 

My preferred idea is that it is a much more recent blade, 19th century, perhaps Ikkansai Yoshihiro or one of his students: 

 

 

As a disclaimer, there are perils with photos. It is difficult for me to abstract away the photographic style as I am not accustomed to it. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

Edited Wednesday at 03:02 PM by Hoshi

[Nicholas]

@Hoshi Ikkansai Yoshihiro school was my second guess. It reminded me of a mumei sword I have that I believe is made by Yoshihiro or one of his students.

[Matsunoki]

Enryushi Kunihide in style of Ikkansai Yoshihiro

[Ian B3HR2UH]

I like Hoshi's theory . One of my blades is by Kunihide and whilst it has bold sunagashi it is far more subtle and finer than the piece that  Reinhardt has shown . His piece reminds me of the showa pieces that are produced by the likes of Amahide where the work is much coarser and even more artificial looking. So I will stick my neck out and say it is more recent than shinshinto .

[Mikaveli]

8 hours ago, Nicholas said:

@Hoshi Ikkansai Yoshihiro school was my second guess. It reminded me of a mumei sword I have that I believe is made by Yoshihiro or one of his students.

 

This (Yoshihiro?) to me looks 100 times better executed than the pic in the OP.

 

Norishige, unsurprisingly, I've never held in hand - so I'm reliant on pictures (of attributions) on the internet, but unless there's some photography issues - looks worlds away, to my eyes. A level above again.

 

 

 

[reinhard]

Thank you for joining me during this casual intermezzo.

Basic inspiration is, of course, Etchu Norishige.

Next in line is Ono Hankei.

But the maker here is Jiro Taro Naokatsu, master-student of Taikei Naotane.

 

reinhard

[PNSSHOGUN]

Generally the presence of Uchinoke would steer one toward smiths with Yamato roots. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Thanks for posting this Reinhard. 

[reinhard]

There are no pros and cons comparing Etchu Norishige and Jiro Taro Naokatsu.

They lived 500 years apart and both of them did extremely well.

Norishige has the bonus of being the inventor, being the original one.

Naokatsu on the other hand mastered the task of reproducing Norishige's work in a most stunning way.

He cleared the super-wild and most-exaggerated style of Norishige and brought it into a more dignified form.

And he accomplished this task on a very high level.

 

Whatever you like better personally; it's not an absolute competition.

Both smiths deserve our highest respect and are worth a very close look at.

 

reinhard