Gō Yoshihiro Signed Tanto? Dr Honma certainly thought so...

[MassiveMoonHeh]

Ok, so I have just purchased the newly translated series of books entitled The Honma Diaries (Kanto Hibi Sho) by Markus Sesko. It is an incredible body of work that gives us incredible insight into Dr Honma Junji's appraisals in English in a series of 10 volumes capturing ever one of his appraisals that he wrote in his diaries from 1969 to 1987.

 

For a study of Dr Honma's thoughts I cannot think of a better resource and is up there certainly with the best money can buy. (So go buy the set today... )

 

As soon as the set arrived I decided to jump in and focus on my current pet project and immediately started scanning through the books for Gō Yoshihiro blades to read their appraisals - for your reference there are 7 officially appraised Gō blades and then I came across his appraisal 1848 on July 1, 1978 that kind of stopped me in my tracks.

 

Here we have a Tanto that is signed Yoshihiro but the collective wisdom tells us there are no signed Gō Yoshihiro blades and even though the quality of the blade is far superior to Senju'in Yoshihiro the NBTHK decided that it could not be a Gō Yoshihiro blade because of that signature and as such papered it as Senju'in Yoshihiro - although that is not what was said on the paper.

 

When Dr Honma Junji had a look at it however he noted that the blade is more "dignified" and in his considered opinion he thought it may have been attributed to Gō Yoshihiro but when it came time to write the Sayagaki he notes in his diary that he "tentatively" attributed it as Senju'in Yoshihiro. 

 

For comparison, I have attached the not so great resolution of the signature from the Oshigata that appears in the book together with signatures Gō Yoshihiro attributed to Gō from:

 

1. Tōken Kantei Hikketsu, Hon’ami Yasaburō, 1905, Volume 3, p. 129

2. Ōseki Shō, reprint 1978, p. 92

3. Kokon Wakan Banpō Zensho, Volume 12 (3), p. 114

 

His final thoughts were: "this work is superior in terms of overall quality, hence we have here a very important reference."

 

It is interesting to note this is the final appraisal Dr Honma Junji ever made for a blade he considered to have been made by Gō Yoshihiro.

 

In 1978 (almost 50 years ago) this "Tanto 1848" was owned by Seiwa Kai member Suzuki Yoshio [鈴木義雄].

 

So what are your thoughts? 

[Lewis B]

10 hours ago, MassiveMoonHeh said:

(So go buy the set today... )

 

 

I did, 4 months ago and I have to agree. The depth of knowledge, insight and access to information on well over 3000 blades is unparalleled. The included oshigata is a great resource when studying the blades contained in the volumes. I particularly like the pdf format as it's possible to trawl the content using key words. Great if you're looking for specific smiths or blade characteristics. 

 

The Yoshihiro tanto was a standout for me too. As was the Kai-no-kuni Go with the Yamato and Soshuden features (that I referenced in another thread discussing early Go blades with Yamato influence). It's clearly saiha, with monouchi mune-yaki that was introduced by the unsympathetic rehardening.   But the overall kitae and extensive provenance demands our attention and possibly points to Go's early sword making influences and origins, if we subscribe to the notion that Go's origins lie in the Yamatoden. However given the tendency to elevate superior works to higher level smiths, could this also be an exceptional example of Senjuin Yoshihiro's workmanship? Like the highest Taima masterpieces going to Soshuden. 

[eternal_newbie]

1 hour ago, Lewis B said:

However given the tendency to elevate superior works to higher level smiths, could this also be an exceptional example of Senjuin Yoshihiro's workmanship? Like the highest Taima masterpieces going to Soshuden. 

 

If so, that would only strengthen the evidence in favour of Go being a student or direct descendant of the Senjuin Yoshihiro lineage, a theory that already has quite a few ardent supporters.

[Lewis B]

6 minutes ago, eternal_newbie said:

 

If so, that would only strengthen the evidence in favour of Go being a student or direct descendant of the Senjuin Yoshihiro lineage, a theory that already has quite a few ardent supporters.

The active dates for Senjuin Yoshihiro, based on signed and dated works, would support that hypothesis. DOB around 1280, and 20 years old when Go was born. Certainly within the realms of possibility.