My first purchase.. What do you think?

[Soten_Fan]

Gentlemen,

 

A few months ago I managed to purchase my first nihonto. It is a nice study piece that was purchased from a reputable London dealer for just under a thousand pounds. I hope I did fairly well, and that it is a decent first purchase for someone with such a limited spending power that shouldn’t be collecting nihonto in the first place. What I would like from you fine gentlemen, is your honest opinion and input on this piece. Firstly, I would like to thank you because about a year ago, you averted me from buying some rather expensive and rusty examples.

 

OK, here is the piece in question. It is the wakizashi in the bottom. It is displayed under a Paul Chen practice katana which is probably a bit sacrilegious..

 

 

It has a rather agreeable koshirae which is probably quite later than the blade, but it looks like a matching set (apart from the utility knife)

 

 

 

 

What attracted me to this blade was that it was signed, and that it had horimono on both sides that was well executed but a bit polished down. No major flaws, just some kitae-ware and that the current polish is starting to get a bit tired. As I said, the goma-hashi horimono has lost some of its depth because of many consecutive polishes; however the blade still has a fairly healthy shape, which means that it must have been a pretty beefy blade when it was constructed.

 

 

It seems to have a chu-kissaki, itame hada, momoyama period curvature, and a hamon that looks like suguha-midare? Actually I wonder what kind of hamon it really is because it has a very “misty” look.

 

 

And now the signature.. The dealer said that it looked like “Naganori” and that it was probably made around the 1630s but he wasn’t very sure. What can you guys tell me from the nakago and the mei?

 

 

I am looking forward to your opinion. Do you reckon I did fairly well on my first purchase? I also bought a tanto that I recently had polished which I will post later.

[george trotter]

The mei says (I think): Unshu Ju Naganori....which means Naganori of Izumo province.

This is not a common name and if genuine Naganori mei from Izumo it would be placed in the koto period around 1390-1450....it looks quite reasonable to me, but hopefully one of the knowledgeable members can advise you if the sword fits the style and workmanship of Oei period Izumo work.

[Gunome]

hi,

 

very nice blade and nice koshirea too :D

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

It would be nice to see pictures in greater resolution and without habaki. From what i can see, it seems that there is a straight yakidashi which, if it is the case, leads to a shinto blade.

[Soten_Fan]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the rapid response!

 

The notion that it could be a koto blade, excites me a bit. I wonder how many smiths by the name Naganori were out there. When I looked at the nakago, the rust struck me as being quite dark and old and the mei was pretty much embedded deep inside in it. Also the mei strocks looked pretty smooth and confident which gave me no reason to question its authenticity.

 

The other thing was that whoever went into the trouble of curving horimono in both sides of the blade, regarded it highly, and it wasn't a blade that was produced in a rush during a period of conflict. All these details made me decide that it was worth purchasing as a first study piece that cost just a thousand quid.

 

At the moment, I am a few miles apart from the blade, so habaki-less pics will have to wait a few weeks. These are the pics I have stored in my travel laptop. I will post a couple more, not of great quality, but maybe helpful in dechiphering the blade.

 

 

The first one is of the other horimono. Any ideas what it is, and if it can help to pinpoint the era and province of the blade? Also, you can see evidence that this blade may have been used in action. There is quite deep cut in the back of the mune, which I believe is a typical defence wound. The other is a pic of the mei with some chalk applied on it.

 

 

Thanks to all for your very useful input!

[cabowen]

Here is my take:

 

There is no mention in the Meikan of any smith signing Naganori (永則) working in Unshu in any period. However, there are two listed in the later koto period in Izumo (located in Unshu) who signed Naganori (長則). I would venture that this smith is either the later of these, who worked in Eisho, and changed the kanji used for Naga (this was done on occasion) or a student in this line who was not recorded.

 

I do not see a proper yakidashi here. Based on what is visible, I would tend to think sue Koto. Better photos would help confirm or deny this.....

[k morita]

Hi Chris,

Please see Honma's meikan(3rd ed) on page 668.

永則　listed on it.

[cabowen]

Ah! Missed those two on the far left! Thank you for pointing that out...

 

In any case, my opinion that this is a late koto work stands.....

[george trotter]

Hi Chris, I didn't go to a lot of trouble, I just looked up Hawleys 1981...he lists this Naganori mei as

NAG 87 Izumo 1394 20 pts

NAG 88 Izumo 1429-57 50 pts (son of Unjo)

NAG 89 Izumo/Bizen 1469 20 pts

so this is three, all good smiths, but we all know that Hawleys occasionally "doubles up", so there might only be two, or one! Anyway, the blade looks promising to me and (from the pics) looks koto to me, so, worth following up in the Japanese sources.

[Brian]

A wise collector once told me "rather a good Shinto than a bad Koto"

Now I don't know what this one is..but all I am pointing out is that we shouldn't get too wrapped up in the whole "Yay..it's a Koto!" syndrome. Quoting the OP earlier: "The notion that it could be a koto blade, excites me a bit..."

The blade quality speaks for itself in most cases. Being a Koto doesn't guarantee that it is more desirable than if it is a Shinto..and we aren't collecting based on age either. There are a lot of bad Koto out there....so you should only hope that it is a decent blade, and not that it falls into any particular age bracket.

Just something to ponder...

 

Brian

[george trotter]

Hi Brian,

Yes I agree, better a good anything than a bad anything...its the quality that comes first.

I say the blade looks "promising" , not because it may be koto, but because it seems in good condition, unaltered, free from flaws, is signed and has the potential to be who it says it is. As for being koto, well that just happens to be the era it is pointing to...not a goal in itself IMHO.

For my own taste, I prefer a good gendaito that was made for war, used in combat and made by an identifiable and researchable smith over anything in the "just another average Japanese sword with no definable history and no chance of finding out much about the maker"...whether koto, shinto or whatever ...however, I always appreciate a "good" sword, no matter what the era. (hope I don't offend anyone...just my feeling).

[sanjuro]

Hi All.

 

Just an endorsement of what Brian and George are saying about shinto and Koto blades. Strangely I have a blade which appears very similar in style to this one. I have included it below for comparison and interests sake. It is a tachi blade of a similar appearance, even to the goma bashi hi, and appears to be from its sugata to be a koto type. It has a masame hada and tries very hard to be kotoesque. It is however unashamedly shinto, being dated 1825 by a Masahide trained smith. It is despite my preference for koto blades, a fine sword in very good condition and one which I am currently avidly studying in furtherance of my own nihonto education.

 

My point here being that even if the wakizashi which is the subject of this thread is not a koto blade, it remains a good acquisition and is in a condition that encourages further study by its owner.

 

 

 

Just for Jacques interest, this tachi does not have a straight yakidashi despite being a shinto blade. (The 'rule' does not always apply). Dont you love it when these exceptions come along? :D

[kusunokimasahige]

Very much like the deep curvature of your blade Keith !

 

KM

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Just for Jacques interest, this tachi does not have a straight yakidashi despite being a shinto blade. (The 'rule' does not always apply). Dont you love it when these exceptions come along?

 

Yakidashi is a specific feature of Shinto (and Shinshinto) swords nevertheless you can see many Shinto blades without yakidashi (same with kesho yasuri).

[sanjuro]

Thanks Henke Jan.

 

It was however the rather close resemblance to Dimitri's blade in style that prompted me to post it for comparison. I had not actually set my mind on which school or tradition that the maker of my blade was trying to convey, so the comments of other members concerning the tradition of Dimitri's blade may have relevance to my blade also.

 

Jacques.

Yes I know..... I was just teasing you. :D I do however rather like these little exceptions to the rules which makes you take that much more notice and stops us falling into the 'formula' way of looking at blades.

[Soten_Fan]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for your replies, this forum is certainly most reliable!

 

So, a likely candidate for the maker of my wakizashi is Kishin Naganori (木神長則) who was active between 1394 and 1428.. If this is the case, then it is most welcome news. Not because a koto sword is necessary better than a shinto sword (as it was already mentioned), but because it is a piece of very old history that most people get to experience in museums. Also, the level of responsibility increases.. This blade survived for about 600 years, it would be ill-mannered of me to screw it up... :?

 

Change of subject, as I mentioned I had bought another blade the same month I got the wakizashi. It is a tanto, possibly late edo, and I was attracted to it by its lovely saya. Good price I believe as it cost me 950 quid including the polish. Can't tell much about it, had a couple of knowledgeable people have a look at it, but no conclusions were drawn.

 

If any of you gentlemen can provide any more info/suggestions, it would be most welcome. Here are the pics

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jamie]

Dimitri,

Are you sure this isn't a wakazashi? What is the Nagasa?

 

Dimensions will help folks also. I unfortuneately may be the least experience to help other than to suggest also posting the measurements.

[Soten_Fan]

It is a tanto, but a rather long one. Or maybe it wasn't always a tanto, but I don't see any evidence of shortening. I don't have a measuring tape handy, but it should be approximately 30 cm.

[george trotter]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for your replies, this forum is certainly most reliable!

 

So, a likely candidate for the maker of my wakizashi is Kishin Naganori (木神長則) who was active between 1394 and 1428..

 

Hi Dimitri,

I don't think you have a correct understanding....the mei indicates it is "Unshu ju Naganori" (different Naga), one of Naganori smiths of Izumo. This man/province is where you should focus your search IMHO.

How many smiths signed as yours is signed is uncertain, it could be Hawley NAG 87 (1394), NAG 88 (1429-57) and NAG 89 (also Bizen, 1469). I haven't looked these up in Japanese sources so don't know if there really are 3, or 2, or 1 Naganori of Izumo (Hawley sometimes "doubles up the names")...fun for you to research though, but unless a member here tells you this is definitely an alternate mei for "your" Kishin Naganori, I recommend you search under the name/province actually written on the tang.

Hope this helps.

[pcfarrar]

It is a tanto, but a rather long one. Or maybe it wasn't always a tanto, but I don't see any evidence of shortening. I don't have a measuring tape handy, but it should be approximately 30 cm.

 

I think its more likely to be a ko-wakizashi.

[sanjuro]

Or an O Tanto even...... What difference does it make? Those differentiations are only collector jargon and not worth quibbling over. It is what it is.. A late Edo period blade. From the photographs it looks to be in reasonable healthy condition apart from the notch near the ha machi. What is that anyway? it looks like its crumbled away at that point, or is it just the picture?

[Soten_Fan]

Regarding the Naganori mei, I discovered the other day the following website http://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=All&mei_op=contains&mei=naganori, and since that NAG399 is the only one listed as working in Izumo, I assumed that this must be my smith. I now realise that it is not as simple as that and that the maker of my wakizashi may be any of these guys listed on that page.

 

I need to research this further, but since I don't speak Japanese, I don't quite know where to start.. Can anyone point me to the right direction?

 

As for the tanto, yes this is a man-made notch on the ha-machi, that was presumably done so the habaki can fit properly. Regarding this blade, anyone has any ideas? School or region maybe?

 

Thanks for all your replies!

[kazarena]

Soten_Fan,

 

I've added few more signatures of Naganori 永則 into Nihonto Club database to resolve your doubts.

 

See the posts above. It's more likely to be NAG87-NAG89. It is also mentioned in Fujishiro (Koto Volume, p.243) that Naganori of Yoshii (Bizen) later moved to Izumo. There seemed to be 2-3 generations of Naganori but it may have been, as mentioned by George earlier, just one generation.

 

It would be interesting to dig more into it!

 

Regards,

Stan N.

[pcfarrar]

As for the tanto, yes this is a man-made notch on the ha-machi, that was presumably done so the habaki can fit properly. Regarding this blade, anyone has any ideas? School or region maybe?

 

Please post measurements and we will need better photos.

[truelotus]

looking at Keith's blade ... my first guess is the piece is surely koto ...

after reading the explanation ... I am amazed :D

 

nice piece, Keith ...

 

and as for the wakizashi ... hmmm ... wondering what will come up after more pics appeared :D