Sayagaki Rai … Kuni

[JAL]

Dear all,

 

this is a sayagaki of Dr Sato on the shirasaya of a mumei tanto. I can read most but the attribution puzzles me. Anyone who can read the second kanji?

 

thanks in advance

 

John Lapre

[Jussi Ekholm]

I would see it as 来倫国 Rai Tomokuni

[JAL]

Thanks Jussi. The tanto got Hozon to Kawachi Daijo Masahiro

[JAL]

Here is the tanto.

[JAL]

Hi all,

 

By the way, I considerably doubt the attribution on the Hozon paper. Blade does not feel Shinto  Hizen, hada is more itame/mokume eith much ji-nie and chikei.. Nakago is also not in line. There is quite some hints of Soshu-den also in the ha.

 

best regards 

 

John

[Jussi Ekholm]

Thanks for posting the item. It does look to be a nice sword. I would think it could be much older than Shintō Hizen by just looking at the 2 overall shape pics. Of course the shinsa team has seen it in hand and they know much more than me.

 

I remember few mumei swords that I looked some time ago in dealer inventory, and to me they looked like nice wide Nanbokuchō ō-suriage blades but had been attributed to Hizen Tadayoshi.

[JAL]

I am not a good photographer but here is s closeup of the jihada and chikei.

[reinhard]

Tricky to tell from a few pixels, but:

The imozuru ("potatoe runners") in the ji are pointing towards later Satsuma work.

 

reinhard

[JAL]

Thank you, different though from my Motohira. Sorry for the bad picture.

 

John

[Geraint]

Dear All.

 

I am certainly not knowledgable enough to offer an attribution on this tanto which we all agree is rather lovely.  However here are some thoughts to ponder, or not, of course.  Some years ago now the Token Society of Great Britain managed to secure a loan of the exhibition, "The Beauty of Shinsakuto" and bring it to London.  It was a knockout!  Members were priviledged to have both a hands on viewing and a later meeting with Sumitani Masamine who brought along an utsushi of the famous Nipongo su yari which was awesome.  The relevance to this topic is this, swordsmiths have often challenged themselves to understand the methods and working practices of great masters by producing utsushi mono.  The examples in this exhibition were not copies of the sugata married to an ubu nakago, if the subject sword was o-suriage and had multiple mekugi ana then so would the copy.  The smith made every attempt to produce an exact copy, not as a means of deception but as a path to understanding what had been achieved.  In this context if a Hizen smith had set out to follow this practice then one would certainly not expect him to use typical Hizen hada, using that as a kantei point here is not useful.  As far as the chikei formation goes then I have always associated imozura rather more with a feature inside or associated with the hamon than purely in the ji, but as I say I know very little.

 

If you find the idea of smiths generating forgeries unpalatable then reflect on the culture of the time when daimyo were certainly not afraid to have a sword shortened and then attributed to a famous smith so that it could become a gift worthy of the recipient.  Everyone knew what was happening but went along with it.  Of course it is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that the nakago of this tanto was altered by an unscrupulous dealer after it had left the hands of the smith.

 

I am aware that none of these reflections are in any way going to resolve the problem of the dual attribution but I hope they give some food for thought.

 

All the best.

Edited 11 hours ago by Geraint

[JAL]

27 minutes ago, Geraint said:

Dear All.

 

I am certainly not knowledgable enough to offer an attribution on this tanto which we all agree is rather lovely.  However here are some thoughts to ponder, or not, of course.  Some years ago now the Token Society of Great Britain managed to secure a loan of the exhibition, "The Beauty of Shinsakuto" and bring it to London.  It was a knockout!  Members were priviledged to have both a hands on viewing and a later meeting with Sumitani Masamine who brought along an utsushi of the famous Nipongo su yari which was awesome.  The relevance to this topic is this, swordsmiths have often challenged themselves to understand the methods and working practices of great masters by producing utsushi mono.  The examples in this exhibition were not copies of the sugata married to an ubu nakago, if the subject sword was o-suriage and hab multiple mekugi ana then so would the copy.  The smith made every attempt to produce an exact copy, not as a means of deception but as a path to understanding what had been achieved.  In this context if a Hizen smith had set out to follow this practice then one would certainly not expect him to use typical Hizen hada, using that as a kantei point here is not useful.  As far as the chikei formation goes then I have always associated imozura rather more with a feature inside or associated with the hamon than purely in the ji, but as I say I know very little.

 

If you find the idea of smiths generating forgeries unpalatable then reflect on the culture of the time when daimyo were certainly not afraid to have a sword shortened and then attributed to a famous smith so that it could becoome a gift worthy of the recipient.  Everyone knew what was happening but went along with it.  Of course it is also not beyond the bounds of possibility that the nakago of this tanto was altered by an unscrupulous dealer after it had left the hands of the smith.

 

I am aware that none of these reflections are in any way going to resolve the problem of the dual attribution but I hope they give some food for thought.

 

All the best.

Hi,

 

yes, I agree and having this perspective makes our hobby so interesting.

 

Best regards

 

John

[Bugyotsuji]

What’s Dr Sato’s brushwork just below right of the Mei?
(Something ＋無 銘?)
 

*Hard to tell from the photos, but is it possible that some of the brush characters have been altered?

[Nobody]

52 minutes ago, Bugyotsuji said:

What’s Dr Sato’s brushwork just below right of the Mei?
(Something ＋無 銘?)
 

*Hard to tell from the photos, but is it possible that some of the brush characters have been altered?

但無銘也 - However, it is unsigned.