Study/Kantei: Sōshū-den Wakizashi (Hiromitsu / Akihiro circle?)

[SwordStudent703]

Hi everyone,

 

I wanted to share a fascinating piece I recently acquired and open it up to the board for discussion, and insights regarding potential attribution.

The blade appears to be a classic mid-14th-century Nanbokucho tachi that has been shortened to wakizashi. It carries some prominent, active characteristics of Sōshū-den workmanship. I am preparing the blade for a full appraisal route and hope to eventually submit it for Shinsa – any information posted will not be used for commercial purposes. I would deeply appreciate your views on the smith/circle before taking the next steps.

 

Key Blade Dimensions & Characteristics:

• Total length: 635 mm. Nagasa: 493 mm. Nakago: 142 mm.
• Yasurime: katte sagari.
• Sori: 15.4 mm, Torii-zori.
• Motokasane: 5.4 mm. Sakikasane: 5 mm.
• Motohaba: 28.3 mm. Sakihaba: 17.7 mm.
• Kissaki length: 28.5 mm, chu-kissaki with rounded fukura.
• Mune: Iori-mune, gentle oroshi.
• Hamon: Suguha-notare mix with nie-deki (ara-nie).
• Hataraki: sunagashi, kinsuji, jinie, chikei, uchino-ke.
• Hitatsura: The hitatsura and tobiyaki clouds blanket the shinogi-ji. (Looking at Kōkan Nagayama’s criteria in The Connoisseur’s Book, this steers me away from branch like Hasebe and locks the focus onto mainline Sōshū masters.)
• Hada: itame & mokume mix with nie-fushimi.
• Boshi: komaru.
• Hamon/Hitatsura: Deepl full-body hitatsura. In the middle sections of the nagasa, the temper tracks in a wave. However, as it approaches the kisaki, it becomes tobiyaki clouds. The boshi displays o-kaeri that engulfs the tip.

 

The blade was shortened, but the top portion of a long-form signature remains. The location marker is cleanly legible and reads: Sagami Koku Junin... Directly below the Nin character under raking light, we can see the cler remnants of the subsequent character's initial chisel paths. I have taken specific close-ups of this area. To my eye, they do not form a flat, rectangular top cap. Instead, there are two deep, diagonal troughs slanting from right to left. This looks consistent with the left-sweeping "roof" radical of Hiro, pointing toward Hiromitsu. Alternatively, given the ō-kaeri loop of the bōshi, I am also considering the left-hand "grain" radical of Akihiro. I am uploading photos of the flowing grain above the habaki, the wave-to-cloud hitatsura, a kitae-ware lamination opening in the ji, and close-ups of the nakago chisel marks. I would love to get your thoughts. Do you see this as a viable Hiromitsu/Akihiro, or is there another contender I should be cross-referencing? Thank you all in advance for your time, your scholarship, and your insights!

 

Best regards,

 

SwordStudent703

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:00 AM by SwordStudent703
photos

[Rivkin]

Zoom out a bit + overall view.

[SwordStudent703]

Photos of the Hitatsura:

 

Edited yesterday at 08:10 AM by SwordStudent703

[SwordStudent703]

Photos of the Mei:

[SwordStudent703]

Sorry here's some photos of it overall:

[Bugyotsuji]

相模国住人久義

Have you considered?

(Totally off the wall but simply looking at those strokes…)

[SwordStudent703]

8 minutes ago, Bugyotsuji said:

相模国住人久義

Have you considered?

Hisayoshi is an ingenious suggestion! Thanks Bugyotsuji. My thoughts are that the blade came from a Nanbokucho tachi, I am reading that two Soshu-den Hisayoshi’s worked in the Muromachi, and later Shinto eras. So, chronologically it might not fit, unless I’m wrong about the Nanbokucho tachi. Hence my focus is on Nanbokucho smiths. Thank you very much for taking the time to share your thoughts though

[Jussi Ekholm]

I am currently on train so I cannot write too long post. However as the sword seems to be 49 cm in current form and would seem to have long portion of the mei intact, I would guess it would have been under 60 cm blade originally.

[Rivkin]

Yeap, that's Edo period. Don't want to judge whether this is the listed Soshu Hisayoshi, but it can be shinshinto soshu. 

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

This sword has its Mei on the Sashiomote side (usually seen on Uchigatana and Wakizashi, with many, many exceptions), and Hachou (length of the blade part) being undoubtedly under 60cm originally, makes this very likely a Katateuchi (if this is Muromachi) or a Wakizashi, not in any way a Tachi, unfortunately. (Kodachi's Hachou are usually originally under 60cm, but again have their Mei on the Hakiomote, though there are exceptions, too, like this Norifusa.)

 

 

Being very ignorant in Kantei Kanshou to begin with, my two cents are this is more Muromachi, if that, than Nanbokuchou. Ookissaki alone may not be enough.

[SwordStudent703]

That’s a great point Jussi. However, Hiromitsu and Akihiro signed high up on the nakago, almost near the handle collar. Also, when the blade was shortened the shoulders were moved further up. The size of the kissaki, and the overall shape and dimensions leans to it being a cut down tachi, rather than a ko-wakizashi. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts while on the train 😝 

[tosogu_eu]

8 hours ago, SwordStudent703 said:

That’s a great point Jussi. However, Hiromitsu and Akihiro signed high up on the nakago, almost near the handle collar. Also, when the blade was shortened the shoulders were moved further up. The size of the kissaki, and the overall shape and dimensions leans to it being a cut down tachi, rather than a ko-wakizashi. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts while on the train 😝 

 

Still, a tachi from Nambokucho would've been significantly longer.

 

The sugata of that time was mostly impressive in size. Tachi were regularly exceeding 90cm.

 

Even if a tachi was on the very lower end of 70cm nagase: you Waki has 63.5 cm total length now. You have to deduct I guess 5 or 6 cm for mei, another 3 or 4 cm for the habaki. So there is no chance that even in theory, your sword ever was a tachi or katana. 

 

Well, only if the smith signed his work as horimono, way before the munemachi. Just kidding.

 

So if you want to learn about swords; you maybe want to change your direction on this particular piece a little bit.

 

And I agree, it's a beautiful and interesting piece.

 

Best, Alex

[SwordStudent703]

Thank you all for the excellent points and the compliments on the piece! I think a sashikomi polish will beautifully bring out the full-body hitatsura that blankets the shinogi-ji!

 

I really appreciate all your perspectives but if you allow, I will push back a little, in the interest of a good scholarly debate!

 

While you are completely right about standard sword metrics, the 14th-century soshu masters are known exceptions to these rules:

 

First, regarding the current size and the math of a shortened tachi: the 49 cm measurement is strictly the nagasa. As defined in Kokan Nagayama’s ‘The Connoisseur’s Book of Japanese Swords’, the habaki area and the nakago are entirely separate dimensions and are not deducted from the nagasa line itself.

Furthermore, while 90 cm o-dachi were very popular during the Nanbokucho period, Fujishiro’s ‘Nihon Toko Jiten’ records that Hiromitsu and Akihiro forged shorter long swords, including ko-tachi, at around 65 to 70 cm. Taking a 69 cm ko-tachi and executing an o-suriage alteration to meet later regulations leaves you with exactly a 49 cm wakizashi.

 

This shortening also  explains the remaining length of the mei and its side placement. According to Fujishiro, when these masters made rare long swords, they signed exceptionally high up on the tang near the collar. As for the mei sitting on the sashi-omote side, Nagayama notes (p. 202) that Nanbokucho soshu masters signed on the sashi-omote side, regardless of the blade's length. While a sashi-omote signature normally indicates a later Muromachi katateuchi, that timeline is inconsistent with this blade's volcanic 14th-century o-itame grain and substantial o-kissaki.

 

Given the physical presence of the machi-okuri, the deep sori, and the classic Nanbokucho geometry, a cut-down tachi remains, to me, the most logical explanation.

 

Thanks again to everyone for sharing their astute insights 😊

 

Edited 17 hours ago by SwordStudent703

[YourBabyBjornBorg]

I'm very confused by a couple of things.

 

First is that I don't think there are any words about Hiromitsu or Akihiro making Kodachi in the entire 3 pages about them in Fujishiro Sensei's Nihon Tōkō Jiten, 1938 edition. 

 

 

 

Another point is that Kodachi (in this context) means Tachi that is around 60cm (say 50~65cm) in Hachou, so a 65~70cm one is just a full-size regular Tachi. This is just 101 for Nihonto learning.

 

I also failed to find the Soshu Masters' Mei on the Sashiomote side part in The Connoisseur’s Book p. 202, or any talk about this topic in the whole book of its Japanese version 刀剣鑑定読本.

 

(English version using https://openlibrary.org/works/OL12592939W/The_connoisseur's_book_of_Japanese_swords)

 

On this issue, I don't think Soshu masters even are exceptions.

 

Usually we say that in the Koto times, part of Aoe and Motoshige (who is considered under Aoe influence) are the exceptions, signing on the Sashiomote.

 

Soshu works are mostly Mumei, but here are a few examples.

 

 

(Juyo Bijutsuhin Hasebe from Nanbokuchou, Mei on Hakiomote)

 

 

(Juyo Bunkazai Akihiro, specifically labeled as Kodachi at 63cm, Mei on its Hakiomote)

 

 

(Many, many signed Soshu master Shizu Kaneuji's Tachi from Nanbokuchou, Juyo Bijutsuhin and Bunkazai, the go-to when praising a later-time Soshu style work, "Wow! this sword reminds people of Shizu!")

 

Actually, I would love to see enough exceptions from the Soshu masters where their Mei on Sashiomote and being labeled as Tachi or Kodachi by the officials.

 

So......May I ask where are you getting your information...? On an unrelated note, LLMs are extremely unreliable with Kantei Kanshou stuff, lack even the most basic resources, knowledge, and often hallucinate.

 

Lastly, I'm going out on a limb here, asking, is there a little confusion about how the Suriage process works...?

 

Because a sword like this could never reach 69cm in its original size. Suriage is a one-directional process, cutting a sword's Nakago and turning the bottom blade part to new Nakago part.

 

 

(In this case, like this.)

 

Many people would get this wrong, but one can not Suriage a Kissaki (unless an unlikely scenario of an Ichimai Boshi), they are shortened mostly due to damage.

 

Because Boshi, like Hamon, are fixed, and a sword loses most of its value when the last of the hardened are on Kissaki is lost.

 

(in extreme cases, a Boshi-less sword became what we call Satsuma-Age.)

 

 

(And the Kissaki of your sword seems fine, I think. Perhaps 1 or at most 2cm lost?)

 

So you can't "gain" extra original length from the Kissaki part, just the bottom,

 

which is very limited because of the remaining Mei part, giving no more than 10cm of room in the most ideal circumstances,

 

making your sword no longer than 60cm originally, like other has pointed out.

[Lexvdjagt]

I want to add that the overall signature style does not seem to coincide with known signatures of Hiromitsu, take this signed Juyo Wakizashi below: 

 

(It is signed Sagamikuni Jyunin Hiromitsu not Sagami Koku Junin, but you can clearly see the differing execution and position of Mei.)

 

source: https://iidakoendo.com/4225/
 

My two cents are that this Wakizashi was never a Tachi or Katana. But simply a Wakizashi. In my opinion a Keicho period work, or around that period. 
 

Greetings,

Lex

[tosogu_eu]

1 hour ago, Lexvdjagt said:

My two cents are that this Wakizashi was never a Tachi or Katana. But simply a Wakizashi. In my opinion a Keicho period work, or around that period. 
 

Greetings,

Lex

 

Exactly. And this isn't really about any expertise or studying nihonto. 

 

A tachi would need 60 cm Nagasa, kissaki to hamachi.

 

This is purely about logic and numbers.

 

Your numbers: 63.5 total length - 5 cm current cut down mei - 3 cm habaki = 55.5 cm nagase at MAX.

 

so even if the mei startet right under the habaki. Which is 99.9% not the case: that thing never was a long enough. 

 

 

[SwordStudent703]

Thank you everyone for taking the time to share your expertise, references, and insights on this piece.

 

I really appreciate the thorough analysis of the dimensions, signature styles, and the historical context. You've given me a great deal of genuine knowledge to consider.

 

Thank you again for your time and for a very educational discussion!

[Bugyotsuji]

Great attitude Hengu, vital for true learners, but so hard for most people to handle.