Gakusee

Dear CH Thank you for the very extensive and carefully researched treatise, a fruit of long hours of labour. You have not only valuably collated and summarised some of the pre-eminent existing research on the topic, but also combined it with your own research and personal study of several impressive Mitsutada blades in hand (very few are blessed to have done so, as blades by MItsutada are so very rare and precious) and have thus synthesised some interesting hypotheses and conclusions. A lot of this hitherto not so accessible material on the topic has been in Japanese but you have offered a glimpse into several of these sources with detailed explanations and interpretations. People need to evaluate in its appropriateness the thoroughness of the approach, the study material and also that actually this shared knowledge has been so generously shared rather than protected and preserved by the custodians of the said blades. So very often subject blades like these are inaccessible in private collections and yet here you offer a window into this very special realm of blades. So thank you very much for creating this - people actually need to re-read it several times to fully grasp the depth and scope and appreciate it. Very well done and I can discern the partially scientific approach (you just can't help your background:) you have taken to this but also the love and appreciation for the subject!

Alex, I deem it uncontestable that we shall never be equal in knowledge and information access to the Shinsa team, so we concur on that point. The Shinsa itself has not reached a definitive conclusion, so if they can debate this blade, why should/could we not? Yes, that could be done out of intellectual curiosity, pursuit of knowledge and one’s one betterment (ie learning from something others have posted). Furthermore, I do not believe we have been raising Lewis’/HB’s expectations or hopes. On the opposite, the community here has been offering insights or access to their databases of images or books, trying to help him reach his own conclusions. Some people have been more sceptical than others, and rightly so. This is a big name and a big bet, in an autochthonous environment which is astute and commercial and likely discounted the blade already, but Lewis has made an informed bet having deliberated about it for a while, not on the spur of the moment. You asked why I went off on a tangent: because of your repeated pejorative and dismissive tone about people posting, implying that our opinions, views, participation etc are pointless: “If NBTHK couldn't come to a decision, then what chance have you guys got here?” ”So you guys think you are above NBTHK now, that have seen it in hand?, incredible.” ”Guys here from images with the emphasis on the mei.” And what I was trying to explain is that someone could post for the sake of participating in a discussion, to feel part of the community, add value / thought/ knowledge, etc; not necessarily to opine on whether a blade will pass this or that Shinsa. Lastly, I do stand by my assertion that this is one of the better topics in a dedicated Nihonto forum. It is arguable whether the term “intellectual” was pertinent, but this topic does require a degree of knowledge and access to understanding beyond the beginner level. No intention on my part of undermining other topics as less worthy but similarly to other I also have the right to express a view on “good vs bad” and my gratitude to Lewis for starting a thread I deem “good”. ————————— Back on topic. There are numerous red flags and areas of concern but at the same time there are indications this could well have been a Koto blade from the wider school of Shintogo. Whether further investigation is worth the monetary investment and emotional commitment is up to the owner.

Alex Nothing to do with “will it paper, will it not….” This is about an intellectual debate, curiosity and an interesting topic. I am not at all fixated on whether it will paper. It is much more interesting to exchange advanced opinions about the mei, the shape of the nakago, the workmanship, the yasurime and so on, coming from different contributors such as Jacques, Chris, Jussi, Reinhard, Kiril etc. This is one of the more intellectual threads which are right “on topic” of this forum, the type of which we are craving, as opposed to political bickering in the izakaya or whether the world is going to its end due to fossil fuels and overconsumption or whether we should be sad or happy…. I personally feel that either because of ennui or dearth of captivating sword/ tosogu mainstay topics like this one, a lot of us are spending time wrangling on other “life” topics, which are actually probably best left to their own…. So, I am grateful to Lewis or HB (not sure about best way to address him) for bringing this challenge here. Lots of question marks and uncertainties and that is what makes it interesting.

Let me quote from Markus Sesko’s book on Masamune: “When it comes to dated works by Kunimitsu we are talking about a time from the first year of Einin (永仁, 1293) to the fourth year of Genkō (元享, 1324). The Kotō Mei Zukushi Taizen (古刀銘尽大全) quotes Kunimitsu´s year of birth as Kenchō two (建長, 1250) and his year of death as Shōwa one (正和, 1312), which does not match with his known dated signatures. Well, the information from the Kotō Mei Zukushi Taizen, especially the dates, must be taken with a grain of salt because it gives for each and every smith his year of birth and death. Such a comprehensive data was not known in earlier times and it is odd that the creator of this work suddenly “knew” all this at the time the publication was published for the first time, in the fourth year of Kansei (寛政, 1792).” I think it eloquently describes why the veracity of that source is dubious. And when it comes to Stan’s database, I do not think he has updated it recently. I believe that knowledge and understanding have moved substantially in the last 10-15 years since the database was put together. That is completely normal, as new blades emerge (well at least new / unknown to us) and the NBTHK keeps documenting new examples.

Attached from my own records the Juyo 69 tanto. Please excuse the horrible photo, which was taken in haste

My pleasure. Jussi is outstanding in data collation. He is incredibly studious and industrious when it comes to that and indeed his very useful database shows the aforementioned tanto as the one that has the latest date (1324). It must be a curious example to study frankly. I do not think it has been elevated to TokuJu, at least as far as my limited understanding stretches, and I do not have any photos of it to try to assess some of the workmanship from partial photos (always fraught with risk, as Jacques will undoubtedly say). But also that nakago seems so punctured that even kanji assessment is unreliable. Jussi’s database also mentions the Juyo-69 tanto dated 1322. I need to do further digging and get hold of the Juyo Zufu when available / possible so that we can read what is said of it. However, I can attest that I have seen it exhibited in the Juyo exhibition and in fact was owned/managed by a friend. A very nice and stout, healthy blade.

So, to chime in on the death of Shintogo and his working period. I attach an extract from the Token Bijutsu magazine describing a famous JuBu, ex count Kanroji denrai and dated 1320. In the narrative, Tanobe sensei clearly demonstrates that he thinks this is by the master himself as he talks of this being one of his last works and bearing the typical (Shintogo’s) mei. Next, I also attach a blade dated 1324 in an interesting manner with unusual kanji for 4 (twice 2). The blade passed Juyo in the 1970s and therefore there is not too much detail in the Zufu apart from some generic text about Shintogo being the Soshu founder but having a more powerful expression than Awataguchi and also that the carving might have been made by Daishinbo. It seems to direct the reader to the master himself as opposed to students, etc. That latter tanto is a curious case. But at least the former one is not and indicates a later date of death than mentioned in this thread so far.

Dear Jussi, you are a blessing to this hobby. Thank you for the humble and extremely generous contributions and selfless pursuit of the improvement of Nihonto knowledge. We are grateful.

I remember rather well that Kokuho Norishige tanto. It was displayed side by side with the Masamune in the Eisei Bunko museum and completely put the Masamune to shame. That day was great for me as in a tiny space I could see these two above plus the gorgeous Ikoma Mitsutada and an incredible JuBi Hatakeda Moriie (perhaps his best or one of the best). Anyway, some images from the booklet I brought home since the guardians watched over me like hawks and photography was not permitted.

Very different…. Not just the Mitsu but also Kuni…Chisel thickness is also rather different. And smiths tended to prefer one type of chisel even if their handwriting changed over their long careers.

Have you done a side by side comparison of the mei? Please attach here as I am curious. As discussed before, there are a lot of school daisuke/daimei and one needs to find the right match.

Tom, Thank you so much for the numerous and detailed photos. It looks like you had a lot of fun!

Gents - I think this is documented somewhere - come on, do some homework , where is the fun in discovery? I think it started in Muromachi in Shimane but eventually in the Tokugawa controlled Edo period it became even more centralised. …. and yes of course the more you purify and the more you hammer eventually the jihada becomes finer but the colour, inclusions and chatacteristics of the jigane still depend on the iron composition.

Jussi Two things about old swords: 1) As Jacques points out above, centralised and more consistent / purified Tatara iron leads to fewer impurities on average, less character (ie fewer inclusions in the steel), and loss of regional variances due to local sand etc. Steel becomes more homogeneous and methods of forging more uniform 2) What you see from the old swords is their diminished, polished-down self, often exhibiting core steel or steel which if not quite classified 'core', would have been hidden by 1-1.5mm of top layer (which might have been more refined or more consistent) So, it is of course understandable why Shinto and later look they way they do.

No. Wrong