MORE IMAGES ADD3D. Koto tanto mei Shintogo Kunimitsu….dated Dec 1313….arms fair find.

[CSM101]

Okay, here we have a (Soshu) Akihiro. Looks almost familiar. It is (very) late Edo period. And I think it is the same with your tanto depending on the  photos.

[eternal_newbie]

41 minutes ago, Matsunoki said:

Could it be a pupil ……daisaku daimei?

Not in that style. Dai-mei or dai-saku, a work either made by Shintogo's pupil or signed by Shintogo would have been in his style (silky Awataguchi jigane with chikei, thin suguha hamon rich with activity).

 

Ask yourself why the inside of the strokes are filled with the same lighter coloured rust as some of the surface staining while the rest of the nakago is covered in black patina.

 

Edit: Uwe provides a good example above. The mei there is much more recent than Shintogo's time, being from the Edo period. Yet it has the same dark patina as the rest of the nakago.

[eternal_newbie]

Regarding your other question - fake mei were indeed added quite early on. This would allow you to present your lord with a big-named blade to preserve your honour and raise yourself in his esteem, even if you didn't have the resources or influence to actually acquire one. And the lord, probably having at least one or two good sword appraisers on hand, if not being one himself, would tacitly accept this and exchange this "treasure" with another less prosperous vassal as a reward for some minor deed.

[Lewis B]

51 minutes ago, Matsunoki said:

@Rivkin Many thanks Kiril

 

Anyone……

OK so the mei is fake (probably) but the nakago looks genuinely very old (not messed with) and the mei (and date) looks like it’s been on there an awful long time again without being played around with.

That makes me wonder when it was added. If the tanto is Nanbokucho were they adding fake mei at that time? Doesn’t look like it was added even vaguely recently.

Does the hamon preclude Kamakura from consideration?

Could it be a pupil ……daisaku daimei?…..there seems to be a huge variety of Kunimitsu mei with apparently little certainty regarding exactly who was forging and signing what,

Any opinions anyone?

Both mekugi-ana impinging on both the date and mei kanji is eyebrow raising. 

[Rivkin]

My thinking why its not shinshinto: unless you are dealing with Kiyomaro level, shinshinto cannot do matsukawa-hada or any high contrast jigane without completely tanking the hamon. Its barely visible, either pure nioi or some weird nie which never sparkles. Here we see high contrast jigane but hamon comes up as having also about the same level of contrast. There are exceptions and in hands its possible to say, but also the holes are punched very naturally, with the correct profile and everything.

Kamakura: unless you believe in Masamune who started to do hitatsura level activities in late Kamakura, this style of Soshu work is no earlier than 1330. At least "Sadamune", but if its pre Muromachi ts probably northern (jigane) and later.

I am more inclined to see here Muromachi work. Either Uda, probably earlier, or Shimada and later. In both cases its likely to be quite good. Though unfortunately not greatly valuable financially. 

 

[Matsunoki]

1 hour ago, eternal_newbie said:

Not in that style. Dai-mei or dai-saku, a work either made by Shintogo's pupil or signed by Shintogo would have been in his style (silky Awataguchi jigane with chikei, thin suguha hamon rich with activity).

Thank you Rohan, I understand.

 

1 hour ago, eternal_newbie said:

Ask yourself why the inside of the strokes are filled with the same lighter coloured rust as some of the surface staining while the rest of the nakago is covered in black patina.

 

That is my bad photography with an iPhone. The Mei actually carry the same dark patina

as the rest of the nakago with a bit of more recent shirasaya dust etc…..but mostly they are “black”. Images can really confuse things yes? These ones I just snapped in different light and they are a bit more accurate re colour.

 

1 hour ago, CSM101 said:

Okay, here we have a (Soshu) Akihiro. Looks almost familiar. It is (very) late Edo period. And I think it is the same with your tanto depending on the  photos.

Thanks Uwe…..yes indeed! Very similar. Even more confusing🙂

 

56 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

am more inclined to see here Muromachi work. Either Uda, probably earlier, or Shimada and later. In both cases its likely to be quite good. Though unfortunately not greatly valuable financially. 

Kirill, thanks again. And there was me planning a world cruise! Seriously, I bought it because it was interesting and it did not dent the wallet much! It is still interesting and I thank you for your help and interest.

 

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

Both mekugi-ana impinging on both the date and mei kanji is eyebrow raising. 

Yep, puzzled me as well……but I have seen it before even with  just one original mekugi ana. So we think a fake mei was added when the two ana were already there? That’s a bit of a giveaway. 
 

Thanks to all. Anyone wanna buy a strange little tanto🙂🙂

[Bryce]

G'day Colin,

Sorry mate, I am a little late to this party. Do you still have this tanto? I think it is a pretty good looking thing. I don't have any expertise to bring to the table about dating, but I can offer an opinion on the quality of the horimono. I think they look very good. Having tried to capture good images of horimono myself, I know they are tremendously difficult to photograph. It is very difficult to capture the 3D effects that can be seen with the naked eye. As a comparison, here is your Fudo, beside one done by Gassan Sadakazu. Mine is on a katana, not a tanto, but is contained entirely in the hi. From toes to top of head, it is probably about 3-4cm, which I think is similar to yours. Although yours doesn't have the same level of surrounding detail, the face is done very well. I have seen a lot worse.

Cheers,

Bryce