Lewis B Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 2 hours ago, atm said: I am not following your logic here. Ko-Hoki smiths were in Hoki province on Honshū, not on Kyūshū. And they were active in the Heian era, so well before Norishige was born. Yes, of course you are correct. Thank you for the correction. Not sure what gave me the idea Hoki was on Kyushu. However there is a suggestion a connection existed between the Ko-Hoki school and the Bungo Yukihira group. The influential Tendai Daisenji Temple located on Hoki Daisen Mountain garrisoned military monks in the late Heian. This temple was apparently in a subsidiary position to Kyoto's Enryakuji Temple. The Ko-Hoki supplied the Tendai with arms, thus creating a connection as part of the Tendai power, which may have extended to Bungo Yukihira who was a Hiko-Yama bushi on Hikosan Mountain, the centre of Tendai influence in Kyushu. The Chouanji Temple (Bungo-Takada) was also known for its connections to the Kamakura Bakufu. If Norishige was aware of Yukihira through the Saeki clan connection with Bungo and the Otomo, it may have led him to Yukimitsu as well as offering an opportunity to see and study Ko-Hoki swords. Quote
Jussi Ekholm Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 Huge thanks for the Sacramento Japanese Sword Club in doing this, and for you Brett to posting it up here. I remember I used to have the Yamanaka books years ago as the red cover variants. I try to avoid the Sōshū timeline as I cannot really figure it out and to me it is not that important. There is just so much contrasting information it is difficult to know what to believe. For example if Kunimitsu died at that time there are still 1315, 1316, 1319, 1320, 1322 and 1324 dated blades. For me it is also very difficult to grasp that Shintōgo Kunimitsu pretty much always signed and sometimes dated blades, yet for Yukimitsu and Masamune it is quite rare and for Sadamune I am not sure if experts accept the extremely few signed and dated swords by him as legitimate. Then Hiromitsu and Akihiro and onwards the blades are pretty much always signed again. The sword in question might be Kotegiri Gō? It is in collection of Kurokawa Research Institute Some info on it can be found here> https://www.tsuruginoya.net/stories/kotegirigou/ Sometimes it is important how things are written out as meaning can be understood in various ways. To my understanding there is a one single Ōhara Sanemori blade that has the character 勝 on it, likewise there is one single signed item by Norishige that has the character. To me drawing connection to these to smiths and two items 150+ years apart would feel like extremely optimistic. Now if the character would appear on the majority of Ōhara Sanemori blades I might feel differently but as it is on a single blade by both smiths I would think it has a different meaning and does not connect the smiths. I do think it is good and interesting that theories are researched and suggested but sometimes it can be difficult to find reference examples to support the theories as this is especially problematic with Sōshū due to lack of signed works by some smiths. 2 1 2 Quote
Lewis B Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 Ahh it's been o-suriage to a wakizashi. Good illustration how great photos can become useful study material. Unfortunately older b&w images like these are lacking. Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 27 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said: Huge thanks for the Sacramento Japanese Sword Club in doing this, and for you Brett to posting it up here. I remember I used to have the Yamanaka books years ago as the red cover variants. I try to avoid the Sōshū timeline as I cannot really figure it out and to me it is not that important. There is just so much contrasting information it is difficult to know what to believe. For example if Kunimitsu died at that time there are still 1315, 1316, 1319, 1320, 1322 and 1324 dated blades. For me it is also very difficult to grasp that Shintōgo Kunimitsu pretty much always signed and sometimes dated blades, yet for Yukimitsu and Masamune it is quite rare and for Sadamune I am not sure if experts accept the extremely few signed and dated swords by him as legitimate. Then Hiromitsu and Akihiro and onwards the blades are pretty much always signed again. The sword in question might be Kotegiri Gō? It is in collection of Kurokawa Research Institute Some info on it can be found here> https://www.tsuruginoya.net/stories/kotegirigou/ Sometimes it is important how things are written out as meaning can be understood in various ways. To my understanding there is a one single Ōhara Sanemori blade that has the character 勝 on it, likewise there is one single signed item by Norishige that has the character. To me drawing connection to these to smiths and two items 150+ years apart would feel like extremely optimistic. Now if the character would appear on the majority of Ōhara Sanemori blades I might feel differently but as it is on a single blade by both smiths I would think it has a different meaning and does not connect the smiths. I do think it is good and interesting that theories are researched and suggested but sometimes it can be difficult to find reference examples to support the theories as this is especially problematic with Sōshū due to lack of signed works by some smiths. I did wonder if it was the Kotegiri-Gō. Here are a few colour pictures of the sword. 2 Quote
Lewis B Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 1 minute ago, MassiveMoonHeh said: I did wonder if it was the Kotegiri-Gō. Here are a few colour pictures of the sword. Those are little better but low rez. If I squint I think I see masame in the shinogi-ji Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 Just now, Lewis B said: Those are little better but low rez. If I squint I think I see masame in the shinogi-ji Yup, this is the pain of our current hobby. Very few photos are of the quality we require to truly study this art form from a distance. This is why we need to create a Catalogue Raisonne for the great smiths. It will make a world of difference not only for the hobby but for academic study. 3 Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted February 9 Author Report Posted February 9 38 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said: Huge thanks for the Sacramento Japanese Sword Club in doing this, and for you Brett to posting it up here. I remember I used to have the Yamanaka books years ago as the red cover variants. I try to avoid the Sōshū timeline as I cannot really figure it out and to me it is not that important. There is just so much contrasting information it is difficult to know what to believe. For example if Kunimitsu died at that time there are still 1315, 1316, 1319, 1320, 1322 and 1324 dated blades. For me it is also very difficult to grasp that Shintōgo Kunimitsu pretty much always signed and sometimes dated blades, yet for Yukimitsu and Masamune it is quite rare and for Sadamune I am not sure if experts accept the extremely few signed and dated swords by him as legitimate. Then Hiromitsu and Akihiro and onwards the blades are pretty much always signed again. The sword in question might be Kotegiri Gō? It is in collection of Kurokawa Research Institute Some info on it can be found here> https://www.tsuruginoya.net/stories/kotegirigou/ Sometimes it is important how things are written out as meaning can be understood in various ways. To my understanding there is a one single Ōhara Sanemori blade that has the character 勝 on it, likewise there is one single signed item by Norishige that has the character. To me drawing connection to these to smiths and two items 150+ years apart would feel like extremely optimistic. Now if the character would appear on the majority of Ōhara Sanemori blades I might feel differently but as it is on a single blade by both smiths I would think it has a different meaning and does not connect the smiths. I do think it is good and interesting that theories are researched and suggested but sometimes it can be difficult to find reference examples to support the theories as this is especially problematic with Sōshū due to lack of signed works by some smiths. Jussi - I have a theory on the lack of signed works by Soshū smiths and it involves the establishment of Rinzai Zen Buddhism another cultural revolution for Japan that was introduced with the introduction of the Kamakura Shogunate that encourage austerity, the abandoning of self and the strict adherence to loyalty within the master/ disciple relationship. I also subscribe to the advise from the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen and Tōken Kantei Hikketsu that both explain why we have blades signed Shintogō Kunimitsu after 1312 and that is because both Hasebe Kunishige (Kunimitsu's eldest son) and Shintogō Kunihiro (Kunimitsu's Fifth son) at various times signed their blades Shintogō Kunimitsu to show lineage after their father's death - of course this also had the enormous commercial benefit of using their father's good name to sell their wares. But agree with you - when it comes to Soshu smiths there is a lot of information missing and a lot of information that contradicts due to lack of documentation at the time and then you have people (like me) relying on documents written 200 years or later to understand what was going on at that moment in time. This is not ideal. 2 Quote
Bugyotsuji Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Slightly off-topic, but a friend has a signed Sadamune which they sent off to the NBTHK for shinsa. It was sent back 'horyu' because allegedly the panel had never seen a legitimate Mei to compare it with, and thus felt unable to authenticate it. Subsequently this friend had the Sadamune Mei erased, and then sent it off again for shinsa. This time it came back attributed to, yes, 'Sadamune'. By now they had found an old meikan entry with a photo of the same blade, with Mei, but as they had by then registered the sword as unsigned, they ended up in some kind of a Catch 22 bind. (Any factual errors in the story above will be from my failing hearing and lack of ability to follow high-speed explantions in Japanese! ) PS I know very little about Soshu and look forward to reading the articles linked by the OP (Brett) above. Thank you. 1 4 Quote
Lukrez Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 (edited) It’s fun following this discussion. I agree with Jussi: some of the theses feel a bit simplified, while others seems romanticized (“Silicon Valley” analogy :)) – though, it could just as easily have been a harsh, Spartan-like environment, separated by hundreds of kilometers of mountains, quite the contrast to the elegance and aesthetic refinement of Kyoto. Some of the counter-theses are also deliberately exaggerated (“whether and which swordsmiths ever even met”), not to make them easier to refute, but to show how the scarcity of reliable sources allows for a huge variety of interpretations – and I think that’s part of the appeal for many of us. These stories feel like little windows into significant folkloric influences, carrying an undeniable charm. Anyway, from this conglomerate, the very pinnacle of the Japanese sword as we know it emerged. I’m especially curious about Gō Yoshihiro. What else is known about him? We seem to know that he tragically died at the young age of 30 – perhaps at the peak of his fame – (which fits the Japanese poetic notion of yo no naka). I’m surprised he’s not better known, given that his life and work seem to embody that quintessential Japanese image of “falling delicate cherry blossoms.” In such a short life, he apparently left some of the finest examples of swordmaking, like the Shinano Gō katana. Do people consider Gō Masamune’s top student because his blades are especially faithful to Masamune’s style? And if he really was a samurai himself, how might that have influenced his standing and recognition as a swordsmith? Historically, samurai were not always considered noble; they were often despised, combative warriors who served the aristocracy for centuries as their "retainers", maintaining order and settling disputes across the provinces and the capital. It’s also fascinating that Gō was younger than Norishige, yet Norishige is said to have studied under him. In a society so focused on ritual, hierarchy, and tradition, that must have seemed pretty unusual. I’d love to hear from anyone who knows more about Gō Yoshihiro – his life, his work, or his influence. I’d be really interested in other perspectives and any sources you can point me to! Edited February 9 by Lukrez 3 Quote
eternal_newbie Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 6 minutes ago, Lukrez said: I’m especially curious about Gō Yoshihiro. What else is known about him? We do know that he tragically died at the young age of 30 – perhaps at the peak of his fame – (which fits the Japanese poetic notion of yo no naka). I’m surprised he’s not better known, given that his life and work seem to embody that quintessential Japanese image of “falling delicate cherry blossoms.” In keeping with your discussion of counter-theses: there is of course a school of thought that believes Go did not actually die young, and that this was essentially a marketing ploy invented by later collectors to make his blades seem even more rare and mysterious. The template of the meteoric artist, a generational talent tragically cut short, is well-known and well-worn and in the swordsmithing world repeats itself centuries later in Kiyomaro, whose works are (along with Masamune, Go and Kotetsu) some of the consistently highest-selling and sought-after blades on the market. 1 Quote
Lewis B Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 Yes, the saying You never see a ghost or a Go, certainly adds to the mythology and exceptionalism surrounding his work. I think part of the problem is that there are no signed works in existance (except maybe one tanto I read about in the Homma's Kantō Hibi Shō). And that at various levels of Shinsa the attribution flip flops at the whim of the panel in charge that year. There is no doubt the blades attributed to him are amongst the best examples of Soshu-den, but there is a certain degree of ambiguity in the attribution, due to the lack of signed reference pieces. To me it really signals a level of quality and that the attribution is secondary. 1 Quote
Brano Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 16 hours ago, Lewis B said: Those are little better but low rez. If I squint I think I see masame in the shinogi-ji The quality of photos in old books is much better than we often think Here is a cutout from the Kurokawa Institute book - the brightness level is increased to better show the steel structure And since NMB has file size restrictions, here you will find HiRes https://eu.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Album/14700507?secret=uQXIq3PO20V89iRtO23e4D59N 3 Quote
Lewis B Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, Brano said: The quality of photos in old books is much better than we often think Here is a cutout from the Kurokawa Institute book - the brightness level is increased to better show the steel structure And since NMB has file size restrictions, here you will find HiRes https://eu.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Album/14700507?secret=uQXIq3PO20V89iRtO23e4D59N Thanks for the link. You're right the resolution and contrast is good enough in those examples to see the fine detail in the hada. 1 Quote
CSM101 Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 This is an example that you need to compare oshigata with photos. And the matching text. https://www.transfernow.net/dl/202602097pJBrlkZ 4 Quote
Brano Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, CSM101 said: This is an example that you need to compare oshigata with photos. And the matching text. https://www.transfernow.net/dl/202602097pJBrlkZ Nice job Uwe In a perfect world we would have all the important blades processed like this Unfortunately for many of them there are very few photos or oshigata available 1 Quote
Jussi Ekholm Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 As I am not connected to art world in any way I am curious how this Catalogue Raisonne works. Is it a free publication open to everyone to view? For the Japanese swords I would dare to think that people and organizations are very protective of their items. I have read many stories how even the best Japanese experts have had difficulties to get to even view some items. One hurdle would also be who would be the ones authenticating the items, as I know there are items for which some of the experts have varying views. Would already designated items get a free pass or would they also require lot of study and some might perhaps even fail at passing modern panel. What Piers wrote sounds like the absolute horror story and it isn't the only one like that I have heard, well of course this is the most extreme one as the smith would be Sadamune and actual proof was discovered too. I just cannot understand why the mei needs to be removed, I am absolutely against a mei removal regardless if it would be even an obvious gimei. Of course people see things differently and there are different opinions. Uwe provided absolutely amazing complilation of information about the National Treasure Uraku Kunimitsu, that is wonderful and shows how important it is to have multiple references. Also the text portions give an insight of the history of the sword and it is understandable how the quality and history combined make this sword a National Treasure. Item like this require very high level of understanding of history and appreciation of quality, unfortunately I am still lacking in both of them. I have seen this sword in 2024 and 2025 at Nagoya Tōken World, to me it was very well made sword of obviously very high quality but my level of appreciation is not enough for an item like this. On their top floor there are always just so many other items that are way more to my personal liking and I appreciate them a lot more even if they would be way below this amazing item in quality and historical value. 1 1 Quote
Bruce Pennington Posted February 20 Report Posted February 20 Hope I'm not duplicating efforts, but this is the latest of his newsletters, JULY, 1971 Volume IV, No. 7. Something I found interesting: "Leon says " On page 9 below the section showing the family tree for the Awataguchi Tadatsuna school, there is a comment saying that a famous sword by Ikkanshi Tadatsuna was used to assassinate the corrupt official Tanuma. Abert says that Tanuma forced the Honami appraisers to write false appraisals or orikami for swords. I had read about the Tanuma corruption before, but had never heard about false or worthless orikami by the Honami."" Albert Yamanaka Swordsmith Article.pdf 2 Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted March 1 Author Report Posted March 1 Update on the Yamanaka Newsletters V4 NL 01-07 - now available. Albert Yamanaka's Nihonto Newsletters Volume 1 Yamanaka V1 NL01 Yamanaka V1 NL02 Yamanaka V1 NL03 Yamanaka V1 NL04 Yamanaka V1 NL05 Yamanaka V1 NL06 Yamanaka V1 NL07 Yamanaka V1 NL08 Yamanaka V1 NL09 Yamanaka V1 NL10 Yamanaka V1 NL11 Yamanaka V1 NL12 Yamanaka V1 NL12 Extras Volume 2 Yamanaka V2 NL01 Yamanaka V2 NL02 Yamanaka V2 NL03 Yamanaka V2 NL04 Yamanaka V2 NL05 Yamanaka V2 NL06 Yamanaka V2 NL07 Yamanaka V2 NL08 Yamanaka V2 NL09 Yamanaka V2 NL10 Yamanaka V2 NL11 Yamanaka V2 NL12 Volume 3 Yamanaka V3 NL01 Yamanaka V3 NL02 Yamanaka V3 NL03 Yamanaka V3 NL04 Yamanaka V3 NL05 Yamanaka V3 NL06 Yamanaka V3 NL07 Yamanaka V3 NL08 Yamanaka V3 NL09 Yamanaka V3 NL10 Yamanaka V3 NL11 & NL12 Volume 4 Yamanaka V4 NL01 Yamanaka V4 NL02 Yamanaka V4 NL03 Yamanaka V4 NL04 Yamanaka V4 NL05 Yamanaka V4 NL06 Yamanaka V4 NL07 5 1 Quote
Bruce Pennington Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 Yamanaka V4 NL08 On another note, can someone please give me the smith name above the kao on this, from the post above? 1 Quote
O koumori Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-%EF%BC%9Amumei-unsigned-den-gonbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/ Quote
eternal_newbie Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 Quote Ghosts must exist too... It was probably easier to see a ghost than a Go in pre-war Japan. To see a Go you'd need to be nobility or the trusted servant of one; to see a ghost you just needed (mis)fortune and working eyeballs. Quote
eternal_newbie Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 To avoid derailing the thread too much - this Den Go was previously discussed in another thread on this board: 2 Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted March 13 Author Report Posted March 13 2 hours ago, Lewis B said: I don't find that Den Go very appealing. There is a reason why no one is touching it even with such incredible provenance. If it is a Gō then perhaps Yoshihiro had a terrible headache when he made this one. Due to it's provenance I suspect we will never see it reattributed but I also cannot see it going much higher which also speaks volumes. Quote
MassiveMoonHeh Posted March 13 Author Report Posted March 13 8 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said: Yamanaka V4 NL08 On another note, can someone please give me the smith name above the kao on this, from the post above? The unmistakeable Kotekiri-Gō. 1 Quote
Bruce Pennington Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 17 hours ago, MassiveMoonHeh said: Kotekiri-Gō. Brett, I don't see him in Sesko. Is he listed under a different name? Quote
Lewis B Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 26 minutes ago, Bruce Pennington said: Brett, I don't see him in Sesko. Is he listed under a different name? Its a named blade by Gō Yoshihiro Quote
Bruce Pennington Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 3 minutes ago, Lewis B said: Its a named blade by Gō Yoshihiro Thanks, HB. I just realized this is a cut tester and his kao. If you don't mind another question. I document all the kao I come across and have one of Matsuyo Yoshihiro, but the kakihan is quite different. I realize there can be multiple generations, but the kao don't usually change this drastically. Quote
Jussi Ekholm Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 Maybe Bruce is referring to this 本阿 (花押) - Hona (Kao). I dont know my Honami lineages too well but I believe one doing the kinzōgan was family member 光温 in 1600's. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.