TOKEN BIJUTSU NO.617
June Issue
Meito Kansho:
Examination of
Important swords
Classification: Tokubetsu Juyo Token
Blade Type: Wakizashi
Mei: Musashi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro
Kono
Tadahiro Umetada Myoju deshi (“this
Tadahiro is a student of Umetada
Myoju”)
Dimensions:
Nagasa (length): 1 shiyaku 4 bu 3 rin (31.6cm)
Sori (curvature): very slight
Motohaba (width at the machi): 9 bun 4 rin (2.85 cm)
Motokasane (thickness at the machi): 2 bu 6 rin(0.6cm)
Nakago length: 3 sun 7 bu 6 rin (11.4cm)
Nakago sori: none
Description of the blade:
Omote: hirazukuri.
Ura: kiriha-tsukuri,
Mune: Mitsumune (3 sided mune with a wide center),
Mihaba (width): the blade is wide
Kasane: the blade is very thick
Sori: there is a very slight sori, but the sword
appears to have no sori,
i.e. it appears to be musori.
Kitae (steel) appearance: tight ko-itame hada; dense ji-nie;
small chikei; the hada pattern is fine and prominent, and the surface has an
appearance resembling rice powder; the appearance of the steel is clear and
bright.
Hamon: chu-suguha with a very shallow notare, thick nioi;
there are dense and frequent ha-nie which forms a belt inside of the habuchi; there
are many kinsuji and small sunagashi. The nioi guchi is clear and bright. The boshi
is straight and is komaru at the tip with a long kaeri.
Nakago: ubu. The saki (end) is iriyama-kata, the yasurime
are kiri, and there is 1 mekugi ana.
Comment: the blade is a sunnobi wakizashi or a somewhat
large wakizashi.
The shodai
Tadayoshi’s name was Hashimoto Shinzaemon, and he was the Hizen Nabashima
daimyo’s family’s sword smith. On Keicho 1 (1596), in response to an order from
Lord Nabeshima, Tadayoshi and Munenaga, another student at his school, became
students at the
On Genna 10
(1623), Tadayoshi went
The
katakiriha style seen in this wakizashi is same as Tadahiro’s teacher Umetada Myoju.
Some blades in this style are seen among the swords signed Tadayoshi and very
few are signed Tadahiro. In the
work of Tadayoshi (or Tadahiro) the kiriha line from the blade is continued to the
end of the nakago. This blade is the only one where he kiriha line is
discontinued before the end of the nakago: in this sword, the kiriha line ends
at the midpoint of the nakago. However, in most of Myoju’swork, this line
disappears at the top of the nakago where the yasurime starts.
The ji and ha are very well done and there is
no date. However, considering the mei, this blade was likely made around Kanei
2 (1625). Also, the sword’s horimono
is technically very well done and shows Umetada’s charactistic style, but there
is no signature to give credit for the horimono. That means that this could be very
late work by Munenaga, or very early work by Yoshinaga. Umetada’s Fudo-Miyou
horimono are very distinctive: there is a ken in the right hand and the arm is
square; the head is rounded on the left side; the eyes and eyebrows go upward;
and the hip is displaced slightly to the right side. Also the last trailing strokes
of the bonji characters are very narrow and sharp. These details on this sword are
very characteristic of Umetada’s style.
On the
nakago ura, there is a mei written by Umetada stating that Tadahiro is Umetada
Myoju’s student. This is a valuable piece of information because it tells us
that these two smiths were teacher and student. There are a few more swords made
in the same manner as this collaboration. However, most of these collaborative
swords were made late in Myouju’s career when he worked primarily on tsuba
instead of swords. Some people think that this soe (companion) mei’s meaning
and purpose was an effort by Umetada to promote his student Tadayoshi (Tadahiro),
however, not everyone believes this, and more studies on this question are
required.
This article was contributed by Tanobe
Michihiro and the oshigata by Ishii Akira)
Correction and apology:
In the May
issue (No.616) the caption said that there are 17 Tokubetsu Juyo Token among
the Hizen blades. However, there is also a Tokubetsu Juyo Token sword made by
the Shodai Iyo-no-jo Munetsugu. That means that there are 18 Tokubetsu Juyo Token
among the Hizen blades, including the two blades by Iyo-no-jo Munetsugu. We apologize
for this error.
Shijo-Kanteito No.617
Sword Appreciation Quiz No. 617
NOTE: For
Shijo Kanteito No.616 (in the May issue) the answer is a katana by
Higashiyama Yoshihira
Deadline for the submission of answers for the No.
617 issue is July 5th.
Instructions for submitting an answer:
Please submit only one answer for the
maker of this sword, and include your name and address. Send answers to the
NBTKH Shijo-Kantei. You can use the Shijo-Kantei card which is attached in this
issue. We will accept cards with answers for this issue’s kantei which are
postmarked on or before July 5th.
If the suggested
sword smith has a name which appears in more than one school, please write the school
or province your sword smith comes from, and if the sword smith has many
generations, please indicate a specific generation.
Hints
for Quiz No. 617:
Tanto
Dimensions:
Length: slightly
less than 7 sun 2 bu (21.8cm)
Sori: Uchisori
Motohaba: 5
bu 9 rin (1.8cm)
Motokasane:
1bu 7rin (0.5cm)
Nakago
length: 3 sun 4.5 bu ( 10.5cm)
Nakago
sori: 7 rin (0.2cm)
The tanto’s
form is hirazukuri, with a mitsumune.
The mihaba and kasane are in good balance. The blade is a somewhat small sized
tanto, and displays some uchisori towards the tip. This is an unusual and very
elegant shape. The jihada is koitame, and is mixed with mokume and o-hada.
There are small dense jinie, and many small chikei. The blade shows nie and
utsuri. The hamon and boshi are as shown in the picture, and contain a mixture
of small gunome with ko-ashi and yo. Many ko-nie can be seen against the nioi
background. The ji and ha both strong and bright, and there are many kinsuji
and small sungashi. The nakago is ubu, the nakago tip is kurijiri, the yasurime
is katte-sagari, and there is one mekugi ana. On the omote centered under the mekugiana,
there is a very delicate appearing and well formed ni-ji mei (2 kanji mei).
Juyo
components of koshirae
A Kozuka showing three animals: a
Mei: Mon-Yujo
name, Mon-Soujo name, Mon-Jyoshin name, and Mitsutoshi kao
The Goto family
is a very distinguished family in the field of kodogu (Toso-kinko). In mid-Muromachi
times, the shodai Yujo worked for Yoshimasa, the 8th Muromachi Ashikaga shogun,
and subsequently, the family worked for many rulers including the Ashikaga family, Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi
Hideyoshi, and the Tokugawa family. The last Goto craftsman was the 17th
generation Tenjo who worked at the end of the Edo Period. The Goto family worked
in Iebori, which was very highly skilled work, and was a higher ranking family, and different from those who
worked in machibori. The first generation or shodai Yujo, the second generation
or nidai Sojo, and the third generation or sandai Joshin, all of whom who
worked for the Muromachi shogunate, were called the Jo-Sandai (the first three
generations), and their work is very highly valued.
This kozuka
was made by the 10th generation Tsujo Mitsutoshi. Tsujo studied the Jou-Sandai’s
gold animal mon , made by the three earliest family members, and he assembled
these three for use on one kozuka.
Tsujo used a
bake by Yujo on the koguchi end, a shishi by Sojo in the center, and a tora by
Joshin on the kojiri end. Each of these animals displays excellent work, and were made using characteristic hori techniques.
These three
animals produce a well balanced kozuka, which shows excellent design and work
by Tsujo.
This kozuka
displays a Shishi on one end which is the king of animals; a tiger (tora) on
the other end; and a
The kozuka’s
gaku-nanako-uchi and the ura’s kin (gold)-hirumaki style is a style usually
made by Tsujo Mitustoshi, and which exhibits the Genrouku era’s very fresh and exuberant style.
These are the answers concerning the makers of the blades shown in the May meeting. This meeting was held on May 10, 2008 at the NBTHK building, and the lecture was given by Nakamura Yoshikazu.
During these meetings, five swords are displayed for examination. The blades can be examined, but the nakago are covered and cannot be seen (they are left in the shira saya tsuka). After examining the 5 swords, the meeting attendees must decide who they think made the 5 swords available for examination, and submit a paper ballot with these names. The 5 swords seen in the May 10 meeting are described below, and the correct names of the makers are presented, along with an explanation of important details which should lead a person to pick the correct sword smith’s name.
No.1 Tachi
Mei: Nagamitsu
Length: slightly
less than 2 shaku 1 sun
Sori: 7
bu
Construction:
Shinogi-zukuri with an iori-mune
Jihada:
Tight itame-hada, with dense ji-nie. In some places, the jihada exhibits a
mixed pattern. There is clear midare utsuri.
Hamon: Suguha,
with small notare mixed with
ko-gumome in nioi-deki. There is a tight nioi-guchi and the hamon is clear and
bright.
Boshi:
suguha with a slight notare. The tip is komaru with a kaeri.
Horimono:
the omote and ura both have bo-hi with kaku-dome (a square end)
This blade is suriage, and because
of the extent of its shortening, it
is difficult to see any fumbari (the machi has been moved up a long distance,
and because of the high location of the current machi, it is difficult to see
the true fumbari). The blade also has a strong koshizori. Because the blade is
narrow with a small kissaki, some people thought that this was early work of
Nagamitsu.
Because the sori is continues to the tip
of the blade, and does not decrease towards the tip, this sword is thought to be
a narrow tachi from the end of the Kamakura Period. The ji has a clear midare
utsuri, and the yakiba is nioi-deki, so this is a typical Bizen sword. Also, the
ha is in a suguha style, with small notare and small gunome. The boshi is suguha with a shallow notare
and the tip is komaru which is the sansaku boshi style. From these details,
this blade is close to the style of Nagamitsu, Kagemitsu, and Chikakage. The
hamon has many small notare, and we do not see hataraki inside of the ha, and
this produces an impression of quietness when looking at the blade. Also, because
the nioi-guchi is very tight, bright and clear, one should guess the maker
could be Nagamitsu or Sanenaga, During
the voting, most people voted for these two smiths.
Nagamitsu also
has very beautiful swords with midare hamon, from the Shoan and Kagen eras which was his late in his life, and there are
some swords which are narrow, and with suguha which produce a quiet or calm
impression.
This sword
is in such a style, so we could guess that it was made by Nagamitsu late in his
life due to these special features.However, since this sword is very similar to
Sanenaga’s work, Sanenaga is an acceptable attribution.
No.2 Tanto
Mei: Rai
Kunitsugu
Length: slightly
more than 8 sun 4 bu
Construction:
Almost no sori, hirazukuri, with a mitsumune
Jihada:
tight koitame, with dense ji-nie, and many small chikei. Nie utsuri is visible
in the ji
Hamon:
mixed ko-gunome, ko-choji, and ko-notare, with ashi, dense ko-nie, some
yubashiri-kaze, small kinsuji and sunagashi, and a clear nioiguchi.
Boshi:
suguha with shallow notare. The omote has a small round kaeri,and the ura has a
slighty togari (sharp or pointed) shape.
Horimono: on
both the omote and ura, there are smooth renhi (two hi): a bo (straight) hi and
soe (companion) hi.
The blade has a slightly wide mihaba,
and is slightly sunnobi (large), and when compared to typical late
Judging from the sugata, ji, and
ha, this should be Rai school work, Such as Rai-Kunimitsu, and Kunitsugu, and
most people voted for these smiths.
Rai
Kunimitsu and Kunitsugu were working at almost the same time, and it is difficult
to discern differences between these two sword smiths. In the Rai School,
Kunitsugu’s characteristic style is close to Soshu den, and this blade has a
characteristic Soshu style, which is indicated by the slightly wide yakihaba, the
ji and ha with strong nioi, and yubashiri-kaze. Also, a sharp boshi is seen in Kunimitsu
and Kunitsugu swords, and Kunimitsu has blades where the tip is very sharp and
has nie-kuzuri (a shower of nie), and produces a very strong impression. Althought
this blade has a sharp tip, it does not produce a strong impression. When you
judge the smith, this information can help you.
No.3 Katana
Mei:
Nagasone Okisato Kotetsu Nyudo
Banji 4 nen u-zuki (April) 19 nichi
Kinzogan
mei: Yamano Kanjuro Narihisa, with kao, and mitsudo- saidan (cutting test)
Length: slightly
longer than 2 shaku 3 sun 4 bu
Sori: slightly
over 4 bu
Construction:
Shinogi-zukuri with an iori-mune
Jihada:
tight koitame, with dense ji-nie, many small chikei mixed with a little ohada,
and a bright clear hada
Hamon: there
is a straight yakidashi with the hamon composed of mixed gunome, o-gunome,
konotare, and togariaba, with ashi, yo, abundant nie, and some areas have
coarse nie. There are kinsuji and sunagashi, and the nioiguchi is bright and
clear.
Boshi:
shallow notare, and the tip is komaru with a long kaeri in the Jizo style.
Kotetsu
made this sword around Banji 3 to 4. The mihaba is wide, and at the moto and saki
areas, there is a difference, but there is very little fumbari. There is a shallow
sori and chu-kissaki. This is a typical Kambun Shinto style. The well forged
tight ko-itame-hada, and the yakiba composed of mixed gunome, ko-notare, and togariba
has high and low contrasting areas, and this is a typical
Also, the
yakihaba is almost the same from the moto (origin at the machi) to the kissaki
(tip) and appears straight which is another characteristic of his work. The
blade’s hamon forms a long straight line from the moto (machi) to the kissaki, and
the hamon contains big and small gunome mixed together which is called Hyotan-ba.
In some places there are clusters of nie. The angle at the top of the mune is
very sharp. All of these things are very characteristic of Kotetsu’s Hanetora
period. In addition, the boshi is made in the jizo style, and jizo and sanpin
style boshi are also seen during the Hanetora period, but this boshi is different
from the typical Kotetsu boshi. In voting, besides Kotetsu, some people suggested
another name, Yamato-no-kami Yasusada, and his work was similar to Kotetsu’s
Hanetora period work, so that answer is understandable. However, Yasusada’s
blades are longer, the motohaba and sakihaba are different, the sori is
shallower, and the chu-kissaki is short, and these are typical Kanbun Shinto style
details. Yasusada’s yakiba contain a mixture of square notare, and also midare
valleys which have a square shape, and a calm appearing nioi-guchi. These
characteristics are different from Kotetsu’s style.
No.4 Katana
Mei: Tsuda
Omi-no-kami Sukenao,
Genroku 2 sai nigatsu hi
Length: 2
shaku 5.5 bu
Sori: 5.5bu
Construction:
Shinogi-zukuri with ihorimune
Jihada:
tight ko-itame, dense ji-nie, many small chikei.
Hamon: the moto
has a long yakidashi, and the hamon is then formed of large gunome, mixed with
a shallow notare, and is in a toranba style with ashi, dense nioi, frequent nie,
small sunagashi, and a very clear nioiguchi.
Boshi:
dense nioi, which is straight, and the tip is komaru with a kaeri.
Horimono:
Both omote and ura have smooth bo-hi.
The mihaba
is slightly wide, and the moto and saki areas do not differ very much. There is
a somewhat large sori, and the chu-kissaki is slightly long, and this style is
typical of the Jokyo and Genroku eras. This is a well forged blade, with dense
nioi and thick nie, and the yakiba has a very clear nioguchi, is wide and appears
to be exuberant, but is still smooth. There is not much difference between the high
and low areas of the hamon: the low valleys in the hamon are long, and the
hamon forms a wide smooth toran-midare with small sunagashi. This is characteristic
of Sukenao’s style. Also, this was made in the Jokyo and Genroku era style. The
length is about 2 shaku so the blade appears a bit short.
In voting, some people wrote Sukehiro
and Terukane. This was made during Sukehiro’s peak time when his swords had a
deep sori, but usually not this much sori. The motohaba and sakihaba are
different from his usual work, and this kind of sword looks like a Kambun
Shinto. After the
No. 5 Tanto
Mei: Bizen
Osafune Masamitsu
Teiji ?? nen 6 gatsu hi
Length: slightly
more than 8 sun 9 bu
Sori: slightly
less than1bu
Construction:
Hirazukuri with a mitsumune
Jihada: tight
ko-itame, ji-nie, along with top of the yakiba clear utsuri is present
Hamon:
gunome mixed with square gunome and kataochi-gunome. Some small areas appear
disordered. The hamon is made with nioi and contains ashi.
Boshi:
midare-komi. The omote is komaru (a small circle), the ura is omaru (a large
circle) and both have shallow kaeri.
Horimono:
both the omote and the ura have smooth katana-hi
The mihaba
is wide, the kasane is thin, and there is a small sori. This tanto looks short
because of the wide mihaba, and during the Nanboku-cho era this kind of tanto
is seen along with sunnobi (oversize) tanto. We judge that this type of tanto
was made in the Enbun, and Joji eras. Because of the shape, and the straight
clear utsuri in the ji, along with the kataochi gunome, most people thought this
was Kanemitsu school work, and they voted Kanemitsu. This is Masamitsu’s early
work, signed in the Teiji era, and resembles Kanemitsu’s work. So the Kanemitsu
answer is reasonable. But on careful examination, small differences can be seen.
This blade’s kitae-hada is tight, but when compared with Kanemitsu’s well
forged hada, the appearance of
jifutsu and chikei are too infrequent. Also, Kanemitsu’s hamon are
mainly kataochi-gunome which are mixed with square gunome, but this hamon is
mainly round topped gunome mixed with square and kataochi gunome, so there is a
difference to be seen in the hamon. This yakiba is also smaller or narrower
when compared to Kanemitsu’s. These
subtle differences between the two smiths have to be kept in mind.
Masamitsu worked late in the
Nanbokucho era, and was a contemporary of the Kanemitsu school, and many of his
swords were very similar to the Kosori style. This blade shows the Kanemitsu
style and also some features of the Kosori style. With these considerations,
one can judge that this is a Masamitsu blade. However, many of Masamitsu’s
swords were made in the Kosori style which have an itame hada mixed with mokume
and nagare hada, and show rough or uneven forging, and the hamon is ko-midare
mixed with other kinds of hamon. This is a difficult sword for kantei, so if
one votes for the Kanemitsu school, that is an acceptable answer.
Explanation for the Shijo-Kanteito No.615 (April
issue)
Sword Appreciation Quiz No. 615
The answer
for the No.615 Shijo-Kanteito was a sword by Ishido Unju Korekazu
dated Ganji
gan nen ki.
In the late
Bakumatsu Shinshinto period, dynamically shaped swords were very popular, with
a wide mihaba, and with the width at the machi and at the point (motohaba and sakihaba)
almost the same, leaving the sword with almost the same width along its entire
length up to the yokote at the beginning of the o-kissaki. At that time, Unju Korekazu
made many swords in this style which have usually wide mihaba, or a slightly wide
mihaba, with a constant mihaba up to the kissaki.
This sword’s
mihaba is slightly wide and the kissaki is long. but many of Korekazu’s swords show
a normally wide mihaba, with a length of 2 shaku 5 sun, 6 bu, and are thick
(have a large kasane), and have a narrow shinogi-haba (width of the shinogi-ji). His jitetsu show a tight ko-itame hada
which appears to be mu-hada, or mu-hada mixed with nagare-hada, producing an
appearance of a flowing masame type hada, and sometimes chikei are present.
Unju Korekazu worked in the later half of the Tenpo era to the Meiji period. In
the Koka and Kaei eras, in his early work, he used choji-midare which was very similar
to that of Chounsai Tsunatoshi and Koyama Munetsugu. In his choji midare hamon,
the choji are narrow, and the tops of the choji have a round shape and appear a
bit like gumone. The choji also are tightly packed or bound to each other.
There is a tight nioi–guchi, and the hamon is made primarily in nioi. In his
later work, the swords resemble this sword, which means that the hamon is composed
of large choji with round tops, and small gunome shaped choji midare which contain
mixed gunome, togariba, and konotare, with long ashi, dense nioi, thick nie,
and a bright clear blade where kinsuji and sunagashi stand out. People say that these swords exhibit a
Bizen choji style with nie, and this is considered to be one of his best styles
of work, and there are many well made blades like this.
Korekazu’s boshi are midare-komi, and like this
sword, show warekomi, or straight boshi. In most of his work the boshi are
komaru with kaeri. His swords
sometimes have bo-hi, and very few blades have horimono.
Unju Korekazu’s nakogo are mostly
kurijiri (or sometimes iriyamagata), the yasurime in his early work are sujikai
with kesho, and later are osuji-chigai with kesho which are just like those on
this sword. His mei is not always the same, and on the swords without bo-hi, the
omote side has a long mei, and on the ura side on most of them, he signed the date in a somewhat higher
position. Around the Kaei and early Ansei eras, in his early work, there are
some swords where he carved an aoi-mon under the habaki.
In the latter half of the Ansei period,
there are many swords which he signed Fujiwara Korekazu which have 4 kanji, and
under this are the kanji sei kitae, saku kore, or saku.
In voting,
many people voted for Unju Korekazu, and some people voted for Sa Hideyuki.
Hideyuki is
a late Shinshinto sword smith, working in the same period as Korekazu and his
style, jitetsu and nakago are similar to this sword. But many of his hamon are
suguha or shallow notare mixed with gunome, and have dense nioi, frequent nie,
sunagashi, and kinsuji which follows the style of Inoue Shinkai. His notare
hamon mixed with gunome are wider, and in the low notare hamon the gunome are
larger, so his style is different from this choji style hamon. Around the Tempo
and Koka eras, in his early work, there are some Bizen style blades, but the
top of his choji are less round, and small gunome-choji clump together, and with
the tight nioi-guchi these become primarily nioi type swords.
The explanations
concerning these swords were provided by Hibino Dai.