Lewis B

Thanks. I'm trying to figure out if the last 2 kanji on my tanto could correspond to 吉日. I clearly see the 日, but the 吉 is less obvious. Could what can be seen be interpreted as part of the kanji that denotes 1308 or is all that information represented in the early characters? I see the 徳治 higher up for the era. I'm not sure what the 3 parallel lines denote and if an extra character is needed to complete the date. Not having a clearer image isn't helping.

Which kanji translate to lucky day? Kanji in red or yellow box?

Norishige certainly changed chisel size, preferring large Mei using a fine chisel early on (see his 1314 blade and signed ko-Hoki inspired work), switching to a thicker one later in his career. 1319 dated Tanto using a thin (?) chisel and what I assume appears to be a regular way to carve the date kanji. Application of a thick chisel and reference to his signature, later matsukawa hada forging style, are often referred to in the same text eg https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/tobi_translation/794_NBTHK_March_2023.pdf Extract from Soshuden Museum essay on Norishige's periods of activity and associations in the early part of his career: "It is possible to determine Norishige’s exact period of creativity because nowadays we have quite a lot of works with his authentic signature and date of manufacture. The period when the master actively worked can be established as the interval between the Enkyō era (延慶, 1308–1311) and the Kareki era (嘉暦, 1326–1329). In accordance with his dated works and information about his life, it is possible to conclude that only the earliest works Norishige created in his youth can be attributed to the Enkyō era. These dates are of great importance when we determine Norishige’s teacher or teachers. The Kiami-bon Mei-zukushi manuscript (喜阿弥本銘尽, 1381) records that Norishige was Shintōgo Kōshin’s disciple (新藤五光心). We should recall that Kōshin was the Buddhist name of Shintōgo Kunimitsu. Consequently, it is most likely that Norishige began to learn smithing from this grand master. Modern researchers are unanimous on this matter and consider him the middle one in age among Shintōgo’s three disciples: Yukimitsu, Norishige, and Masamune. As an additional argument, it is often noted that Norishige’s tantō sugata is very close to Shintōgo’s. Moreover, Norishige’s tantō sugata did not undergo any serious changes with time. Therefore, we can conclude that Shintōgo immensely influenced Norishige’s smithing style. Nevertheless, we must remember that Shintōgo was likely to have passed away in 1312. At that time, Norishige apparently was still at a young age. He still needed both mentors and new ideas to develop his skills. Thus, the Kotō Meizukushi Taizen contains very important information that Norishige - Was Yukimitsu’s disciple during the Ōchō era (応長, 1311–1312) and the Shōwa era (正和, 1312–1317); - Studied under Gō Yoshihiro, beginning in the Gen’ō era (元応, 1319–1321), continuing through to Genkyō (元亨, 1321–1324); and - Was Masamune’s disciple during the Shōchū era (正中, 1324–1326)."

Date comparisons

1306 1308 2nd 1308 tanto. 1309 Juyo (1970) Juyo Bunkazai Juyo (2009) Different hands carved these 3 Mei IMO, based on the style of 'mitsu' Mei. The 1306 and 2nd 1308 tanto have the stylised date carving as noted by Tanobe. The 1309 could be a 4th hand or perhaps the same author who carved the 2nd 1308 tanto mei.

Thanks to Jussi's comprehensive list I now know the sister Kunimitsu tanto dated 1306, discussed by Tanobe in the Token Bijutsu #29 and exhibited at the NBTHK last year, passed Juyo #19 in 1970 (private collection).

It's unfortunate Darcy was not so forward thinking or his heirs so generous. A whole canon of invaluable research and some of the best images of nihonto have been lost to the community, both now and for future generations. But it's fantastic that @Rivkin @Hoshiand now @Jussi Ekholm are so generous with their time and knowledge, by publishing their Treaties and accumulated data. And not forgetting @Rayhan for the Token Bijutsu as well as other reference materials. Truly commendable. Special shoutout to @Brano for his generosity in sharing his amazing collection with the lucky few in May. It's only by having these unique opportunities to observe and study exceptional blades in hand can we further our knowledge and understanding beyond what is read and seen in photos. A humbling experience especially for someone so new to nihonto.

Looks like it's had a hard life. Hardly any hamachi remaining. I would agree with Kirill, looks like late Muromachi Bizen to me too and a worthy first sword if priced accordingly.

Fantastic resource. Even my pdf reader was impressed Puts in perspective how prolific some smiths were. Thanks for all the effort putting this reference together.

I wonder if the NBTHK have responded yet.

This is internet gold....golden eel.

Another Norishige signed tanto with large, finely chiselled Mei, characteristic of his early work and exagerated slant to the 2nd shige kanji. From the Compton collection. Kunihiro, when he signed Kunimitsu, has a different style 'mitsu' than his father, again with a slight tilt. And Kunihiro signing as an independent smith in his own name with sloping kuni stroke.

Thanks for compiling that Jussi. The middle one, 3rd row is a real outlier. Both the kuni and mitsu kanji are atypical. Get well soon.

Sorry RR, but John is absolutely correct. The spelling mistakes and assertions on the "Certificate" are laughable.

For NBTHK members about $1700 (pass) and $160 (fail)

Thanks Hoshi. This was always going to be a pre-requisite for it to pass Shinsa. But I think I can see enough of the jihada with its characteristic Shintogo school chikei to move forward. The blade really needs some experienced eyes on it after a window has been opened. There's only so much photos can tell you.

The red kanji on the report says "There is room for research in the inscription". In other words come back when you can convince us in a way that makes sense why the Mei is atypical. I think I am progressing in the right direction. Is it possible no one thought daimai-daisaku was a plausible explanation, especially given the date? This is why I was looking at old threads for 2018/19 Shinsa results to see if the panel were particularly cautious those years. I believe I'm correct in saying that when Tanobe sensei left, the NBTHK lost a bit of its mojo. I'm pretty sure a Horyu result can have a variety of different recommendations.

For posterity here are the very rarely seen Horyu papers issued by the NBTHK

Hello Hoshi. I appreciate the encouragement. Certainly much to learn and exciting to be the custodian of this blade which appears to have so much potential. It made me work for it, haunting me for months and that is part of the satisfaction and a desire for a better understanding for this period ie the dawn of Soshuden. Here are the images you requested of the omote and ubu sides

Norishige signing daimei seems like the strongest candidate so far. Many examples of large, lightly chiseled Mei and he even tilts the 2nd character as in this example from a tanto, to follow the shape of the nakago, something Yukimitsu didn't do. And the date of 1308 puts him working as an apprentice under Shintogo Kunimitsu at this time, when he was 18.

It's good that certain egregious activities are being discussed. Removing Mei just to pass Shinsa is a crime against history. https://markussesko.com/2016/06/26/the-pitfalls-of-removing-signatures/

Ah nice one. I was wondering if the videographer was a member here. Yes, please post. Its much easier to see the mitsu Mei style variation mentioned by Tanobe in the photos.

The dates for signed Norishige certainly seem to fall into place, corresponding to the death of Shintogo, Kunihiro taking over the atelier and senior figures like Norishige taking off and doing their own thing. This is a dated piece from 1314. And an interesting discussion by Darcy for one of his Norishige pieces " The Kiami-bon is a transcription of an earlier work that was written in the Kamakura period, and is the first recording of Norishige as a student of Shintogo Kunimitsu. The two works we have today with the Saeki signature are both tanto, and have dates but one is eroded away. The other though places him at 1319 and there is one other existing dated blade with a date of 1314. When we add in old oshigata that look reasonable we expand his work period from 1308 to 1328. All of this is the correct time period for working under Shintogo, so we have both tangible evidence today which confirms the old books and changes the commonly held perception since Edo times that he was a disciple of Masamune. There also exists old oshigata of him writing that he was a resident of Soshu and of Kamakura as well. When we look at the style of the early dated tanto they do not depart very far from Shintogo Kunimitsu, all of this combines to indicate that he was one of the disciples of Shintogo learning Soshu craftsmanship in Kamakura and is a little bit older than Masamune, though they would be working side by side." I think based on 2 extant signed Yukimitsu tantos, he can be excluded as a potential candidate due to the style of 'mitsu'. This one is from 1322.

I haven't see either of those tantō dated 1308 (2nd blade) and 1309 before. The Mei appears atypical for Shintōgo, being more lightly struck although the styling is similar. Adding to the notion that several people were signing for the Master this late in his career.

Thanks for that Uwe. Tanobe mentions some discrepancies in the 2nd character 'mitsu' kanji (I hadn't noticed this in the images or video), as well as the stylised date and he suggests that this may be a daimei-daisaku piece as a consequence. Maybe Yukimitsu, Norishige or Masamune's work, as too early for his sons, although 1307/8 might be within that window for Kunihiro, thus explaining the change in Mei style??? Personally so far, on balance, I think my blade is daimei, forged by the Shodai, due to the yakikomi, but once it's polished it might be clearer to see who made it. I need to check their known early signature to see if there is a common chiselling style. From memory Norishige is possibly similar. It's certainly within the realms of possibility that atelier pieces were being produced at this time, in accordance with Ray's theory. However, I don't think the same hand carved both Mei. These are exactly the avenues for research I need. ,