YASUMITSU FIRST GENERATION BIZEN - IDENTIFICATION HELP

[NihontoEurope]

Howdy all experts,

 

I have a delicate problem.

 

There is no images/oshigata to find on the web fot this smith. Also, I have borrowed the Hawley 2-volume set and the smith is not represented. Well, not by the right kanji anyway.

 

Ok - Kanji spells like this:

○州長船住右衛門尉康光 - ○ equals unreadable, but "must" be "備" to complete "BIZEN"

○永廿一年二月吉日 - ○ equals unreadable, but "must" be "應" to complete "OEI".

 

So...this is supposedly a YASUMITSU first gen.

 

The sword is also engraved with HOROMINO (TSURUGI) and BI-HI. I will try to upload pictures.

 

I'm greatful for all the help I can get. The one thing I do know is that the signature does not resemble 2nd gen. However, the hamon is equal to what YASUMITSU and MORIMITSU produced at the times.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

/Martin

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hi Martin, perhaps it would be wise to take a step back and begin by figuring out the correct time period for this sword and then pursuing which Yasumitsu might have made it. At least to my eyes the shape of this sword strongly suggests a Shinto Kambun period date of manufacture, which, if correct, cancels out Koto period Yasumitsu. Then this mei (which I leave up to the mei scholars to figure out), might begin to make more sense. "The sword confirms the mei, and not the other way around."

[NihontoEurope]

Ouch. Thanks Franco,

I had obviously it all backwards here.

My hope was to find a collector that might have an Oshigata of Yasumitsu.

 

/Martin

[Jean]

Martin,

 

In the Nihonto section, there is a topic "Santa Claus was late", last page, you wil find pictures of Yasumitsu first generation mei. The sugata does not match. Looks Kanbun.

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

 

Thanks a lot!

 

I'll check it out...on the double.

 

/Martin

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

 

Checked and verified. Not a YASUMITSU SHODAI.

 

Thanks for the support.

 

/Martin

[Grey Doffin]

Hi Martin,

2 pictures from Fujishiro Koto-hen.

Grey

[Jean]

Martin,

 

Your kanji Yasu has a top horizontal stroke which finishes like a arrow head.

 

Never seen this on other Yasu (mitsu) kanji....

 

Your mitsu kanji have the 3 top atari misplaced, on the right of the below right leg. It should be right in the middle of the below horizontal stroke

[NihontoEurope]

Thank you, Franco, Jean and Grey, for quick replies.

 

I'd rather go for MEI identification first and then metal work. Perhaps it is wrong, but it works for me since I'm a rookie.

 

Best of Regards to you all

 

I hope that I can help out in some way in the near future,

 

/Martin

[Ted Tenold]

Perhaps it is wrong, but it works for me since I'm a rookie. /Martin

 

Martin, that's exactly the logic a rookie applies, and exactly why it doesn't work even if you think it works for you. Your show of appreciation for help is courteous, but when folks give rookies sound advice which they then brush aside in favor of their own faulted logic, it's frustrating for those giving it. Just because the mei isn't genuine, doesn't mean it isn't a very good sword, but if you don't have the skill and experience to determine that the "metal work" is excellent and ignore the mei, then you really prove your ignorance and a very good sword may slip away.

 

Looking at the images, I would be hesitant to call it Kanbun Shinto, or anything else for that matter. The images were taking at an oblique angle to the blade that doesn't illustrate it's shape very well for even a cursory judgement. It'd be better to see images shot directly at the sword.

 

Enough has been said about the mei. The quality and true nature of the blade is the more important issue that needs investigation.

[NihontoEurope]

Ted Tenold,

 

Thank you. I am well aware of my faults and as I get better judging swords and perhaps set the MEI aside as to which the the sword is good or not.

 

I am not brushing any advise aside, good or bad, any advise is good. One should not underestimate anyone : )

 

Thank you for your polite response!

 

/Martin

[sanjuro]

Martin.

 

If I might add to what has already been said, may I present you with a bit of logic?

 

Your sword is not really identifiable by the mei, and it is folly for anyone to rely solely upon a signature to accurately make an assessment of a blade. There is in fact a good chance that it is gi mei. If it is gi mei, it may as well have no signature at all and that leaves you only the blade to assess on its own merits. The research you have already undertaken to verify the signature to this point is to a great extent wasted in as much as it is inconclusive. Would it not be better then in the initial stages to treat this sword as if it had no signature and try to ascertain what it is, rather than who made it or who signed it?

[NihontoEurope]

Ok folks.

 

I will send out an excuse now which will cover any new posts to this thread.

 

I am very sorry for taking up your time in this matter, I truly am, and I will take this in consideration the next time I think of asking any question here in the future.

 

Thank you

 

/Martin

[Jean]

Martin,

 

You are forgiven :D It is not important. What is important is that you made efforts to decipher kanji and that you begin to try to judge the quality of a blade. You are too new to make kantei. I even won't do it: I said "it looks Kanbun" but did not say "It is Kanbun" (1661), (Kanbun Shinto swords had small sori and were rather straight).

 

If you want people to try to pin down an era, you must give blade measurements :

 

Nagasa

Motohaba

sakihaba

sori

Motokasane

 

Important pictures to be provided :

Overall picture

Nakago

Kissaki

HAMACHI/MUNEMACHI

Munemachi see from above

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

Thank you.

 

The whole thing with this particular sword is that it is being offered to me with the label "YASUMITSU 1414". That is the reason for the MEI investigation. I collect swords from that group in time and that the form of the metal work is not Bizen work did not pass me unnoticed, but I wanted to give the signature a chance and since I had no records att all of Shodai Yasumitsu, I felt that this was my last shot. Posting a thread here, that is.

 

Hamon is a Oei-Bizen-look-alike, not the sori. The nagako might have been altered during the times, who knows. I have all the measurement data, but since this sword obviously is not the sword it appears to be it is not interesting enough to go any further.

 

I have seen swords being Tadayoshi work to the naked eye, but after an investigation of the MEI it fails being a Tadayoshi. Stating that one should start research/investigation on metalwork before signature or the other way around is a bit odd to me. A hen and the egg issue. There is no right or wrong for me, only a different way of start. It all depends on, for me, what the features of the sword in particilar will show me. If it shows a suspicious MEI, I will work on that. If it shows a bright and clear HAMON, I will work on that. In this case, when the sword is in the shape it is, a MEI investigation was a good start.

 

If there are no options but to ask a panel of experts, I will post a humble request here and so I did. Unfortunately it seemed that I stepped on a toe or two and of course unintentionally.

 

Cheeeeeeeeers : D

[sanjuro]

Martin.

 

I think I can safely say that in fact you didn't step on a toe or two, although it may have appeared so to you. All that happened is that you got some very sound advice that you didnt agree with. The advice given was intended to encourage you, and nothing more or less than that. How you choose to view that advice, its source and the manner in which it was given, is entirely up to you.

 

Good luck with your collecting endeavours.

[Jean]

Martin,

 

I have not seen anything in your mail which could imply you stepped on any toes. Anyway as we are all armour plated, it does not mind.

 

What is the price asked? What is the nagasa: a Yasumitsu full mei is worth between 15K and 25K according to the generation, the paper, the length, the state .....

 

easy to see

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

Thank you for comforting words.

 

Here is the data of the sword:

NAGASA 58.6cm

SORI MEASUREMENT 　0.6cm

KISSAKI MEASUREMENT 　3.5cm

KASANE 　5.9 mm

MOTOHABA 2.74cm

SAKIHABA 　1.79cm

NAKAGO LENGTH 　16cm（from end of HABAKI）

 

/Martin

[Jean]

Martin,

 

IMHO, forget the Oei period and Yasumitsu.

 

Oei Katana: nagasa, generally 70 cm,

Oei Wakizashi: 50 cm.

 

Mine has a sori of 1,8 cm

Motohaba: 2,8cm

Sakihaba: 1,3cm

Nagasa: 70,7cm

 

Even if the sori is small, it could be an Uchigatana sue Bizen. I am not confident at all in the Yasumitsu mei - which could be the second generation - according Hawley

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

Thanks for the effort. I gave up this sword as soon as I saw the oshigata/example MEIs posted way back here. I know what 2nd gen MEI look like, but not the 1st gen. Hence my post here. My last grasp of hope so to say.

 

You wouldn't happen to have an oshigata/mei for SA, Chikuzen? This is a sword I happen to own.

 

/Martin

[Jean]

Martin,

 

Whose one? Sa is a family name....Meaning, there are several smiths with name beginning by Sa:

 

Sa YukIhide, Sa Yukihiro, O Sa.......

[NihontoEurope]

O-Jean,

 

Updating:

 

O-SA of Chikuzen, Kem-mu. Masamune student.

 

More basic questions for which I do not have the answer to:

In Hawley, Japanese Swordsmiths. There is this first column which is populated with the starting Kanji, but also 2 different references which starts with an "S" or a "K" followed with 2 or 3 numbers. What are those "references"?

Also, "addenda" is squeezed in. Haven't seen that addenda yet : )

 

Image attached which should cover it all.

 

/Martin

[Lee Bray]

You're working from the 1966 edition of Hawley's, apparently without the introductory pages of Vol.1 or the complete Vol.2.

K & S represent the Koto or Shinto volumes of the Nihon Toko Jiten, one of Hawley's references.

 

The addenda are extra smiths compiled in Vol.2. In your image, there are four extra smiths for the addenda.

[NihontoEurope]

Lee,

 

( : Yes, I thought that this was the case. References missing.

 

Thank you very much for that quick reply.

 

I will try to procure the missing information somehow.

 

/Martin

[Jean]

O-Jean

In fact Martin, I am larger than taller, due to heavy abuse of wine, alcohol, food .... Gargantua was a kid compare to me

 

Now O Sa :

 

From Fujishiro:

 

"SA CHIKUSHÛ [sHÔHEI 1346 CHIKUZEN] CHÛKOTÔ SAIJÔSAKU

He lived in Chikuzen Okihama, is the son of Nyusai, and was called Saemonzaburô. His Bhuddist name is Keigen. He is one of the ten disciples of Masamune, but the story that he passed from the tip of Kyûshû through the kaji kuni of Bizen, Bitchû, Yamashiro and Yamato, and went to work in Sagami cannot be affirmed from the information of that time. The reason for signing `Sa' is said to be as a single kanji for Saemon. His works include many sakizori tantô, and musori tantô are also seen from his early period. Estimating by looking at the style of these tantô, it is known that they extend from around Kenmu to around Shôhei. Hamon is gonome ko choji or midare ha.

Signatures: SA

CHIKUSHÛ SA

SA, ura CHIKUSHÛ JÛ

Plate II: SA, CHIKUSHÛ JÛ

"SA" is thought to be a single kanji for Saemonzaburô. He is said to have assumed the name of Yasuyoshi, and if this is so, I wonder if the Yasuyoshi who moved to Chôshû was his successor? This is, of course, a simple supposition, but•••,

 

Page 451

Plate I: CHIKUSHÛ JÛ

Plate II: SA

Plate III: SA

This style of the Yoshinochô period has a wider yakiba in comparison to those before Kenmu, and the era is known to be younger just from that. The hitatsura style was also a style of this period, and is in Hasebe Kunishige, Sôshû Hiromitsu, Akihiro nado. The fact that the yakiba of the bôshi is wide is thought to have been due to paying attention to the fact that the tempering of the bôshi was easily lost.

 

 

 

Page 452

Plate I: GONOME MIDARE

Plate II: No Caption

 

 

Sorry for the poor scan, edit to add that mainly remain tanto with a very distinct boshi

[Lee Bray]

I will try to procure the missing information somehow.

 

The addenda from Vol.2.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Sorry for the poor scan, edit to add that mainly remain tanto with a very distinct boshi

 

 

Just one tachi from O-Sa is still extant today.

[NihontoEurope]

Lee,

 

Thx!

 

Jean,

 

Upload soon! Having trouble with camera battery and the sun...

 

/Martin

[NihontoEurope]

Jean,

 

Thanks for the upload. I hope my picture is what you wanted. Give notice and I will upload some more. If you want to share the whole oshigata it is very welcome.

 

IMHO - About the dates. I think we, (well Fujishiro and I) are having a difference of opinion there. 1346 is a bit late. O-Sa started earlier. The dates I have in my mind is 1332-1334.

 

Did a check-up to refresh. See below.

 

Reference: http://www.shibuiswords.com/O-Sa.htm

 

Few dated examples of O-Sa remain today. There are three tanto which are dated Kenmu 5 (1338), Ryakuou 2 (1339) and Ryakuou 3 (1340). Of these the first two showed definite traits of the old Kyushu workmanship and are thought to be his earliest surviving examples.

 

The existence of a National Treasure tanto by his son, Sa Yukihiro, which was made in almost the exact same style as his father helps to answer some of the questions regarding the changing styles of O-Sa. Since this tanto is dated Kanno Gan Nen (1350), it shows that sometime between 1340 and 1350 O-Sa mastered his famous O-Sa style of workmanship.

 

Reference: Hawley

 

1334

 

Reference: http://www.sho-shin.com/sai1.htm

 

O-SA "Great SA" GEN-O 1319 (start of school?)

 

 

/Martin

[Jean]

Martin,

 

Few remarks:

 

- boshi: does not fit at all O Sa, should be like a flame

- Hada: should be Tight itame and mokume. Seems from picture that in yours there is masame

 

Overall picture is needed. Should be scarce fukura.

 

Anyway, each time there is a big Name, shinsa is mandatory