Unrecorded Swordsmiths and Shinsa

[Ed Harbulak]

Can a flawlessly made nihonto made and signed by an unrecorded smith be sent through shinsa and receive kanteisho? If it can, what would be the point since being by an unrecorded smith there's little to no chance it can be gimei and with no recorded oshigata there wouldn't be any way to check the validity of the mei. I suppose shinsa could attest to the quality of the blade, but if it's in polish the quality would be self evident to anyone who knows what they are looking at. Have any of the members had any experience with putting a blade by an unrecorded smith through shinsa?

 

Ed Harbulak

[cabowen]

Valid points Ed but for some they need that kanteisho to give them peace of mind. One important aspect of papering an unrecorded smith is to put them on the record!

 

There have been a few at the 3 NTHK-NPO shinsa I was involved with. "Meikan more" is not in itself a reason for disqualification from receiving kantei sho.

[Markus]

Can a flawlessly made nihonto made and signed by an unrecorded smith be sent through shinsa and receive kanteisho?

 

I would say yes, as I have seen several hozon-level papers for signed blades with supplements like kuni fumei (国不明, province unclear) but with at least vague datings like "late Muromachi period". So I interpret such papers as for unrecorded smiths (meikan-more, 銘鑑洩れ). Please take a look at the papers to these blades for example.

 

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2011/1110_3012syousai.htm

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2013/1310_3027syousai.htm

 

But I´ve never seen and tokubetsu hozon paper of this kind. Would be interesting to be proven wrong. Also I would be eager to see an example of a paper which actually says "meikan-more".

[Mark]

Here is a info sheet from a NTHK-NPO paper and the smith seems unlisted. Blade received 74 points and is not in polish.

[Jean]

Depends on the organization. Had a Mino tachi signed "Kaneyoshi" which papering was postponed till further study (NBTHK), unknown swordsmith.

[Darcy]

There are a few different instances where this can happen.

 

The item can be exceedingly old with a seemingly valid mei and either the smith is not recorded and there is no other work, but no reason to question the mei. It also can be very old and by a known name but no clear indication of an individual. Names like Masatsune were used by several smiths in Aoe and Bizen for a long period of time. So you could end up with a zaimei Masatsune that is accepted as appropriate without it being say, plugged-in to a particular known guy.

 

These are just a couple I am aware of and there can be more.

[kusunokimasahige]

Have the several Sword organizations ever published their records of attested smiths ?

 

KM

[cabowen]

Have the several Sword organizations ever published their records of attested smiths ?

 

KM

 

NBTHK has published Tokubetsu Juyo and Juyo results. NTHK has published Yushu results.

[Pete Klein]

Chris brought up a VERY important point earlier in the thread;

One important aspect of papering an unrecorded smith is to put them on the record!

Many do not understand that one of the most important aspects of shinsa is the collection of data for future use. The papering organizations keep all pertinent records from shinsa and utilize them in future shinsa's and for scholastic reference. IOW's, if we do not submit, then they do not have for future reference.

[Ed Harbulak]

The reason I asked the question was because I have a shinshinto tanto signed Iwamura Minamoto Kiyotaka who I can't find any record of. I did find two other shinshinto smiths who also signed Kiyotaka, one was Iwabe Kiyotaka and another who signed Suo (no) Ju Minamoto Kiyotaka. I found an oshigata for Suo Kiyotaka and the kanji in his mei is totally different than the mei on my blade so they are obviously two different people based on their writing style. Since these three Kiyotaka smiths are all from the shinshinto period, I wonder if perhaps Iwamaura Minamoto Kiyotaka worked at the very end of the shinshinto period just before wearing swords was forbidden and thus never made enough blades to get noticed and included in the literature. In any case, my original question about shinsa results for unrecorded smiths seems to have been answered. Thanks.

[cabowen]

Can you post pictures of it? I think I might have a shinshinto tanto signed Kiyotaka as well....

[Ed Harbulak]

I wrote an article about it in the JSS/US Newsletter back in late 2010 or early 2011, but can't find my copy right now. There's an oshigata in the article which is the best I can do at this point as I don't have a good digital camera.

[cabowen]

Ok, thanks anyway...

[Bugyotsuji]

I have a tanto made/signed by the 7th Lord of Uwajima, Date Munetada.

 

There should be no previous record of him as a smith, but the blade came back some years ago with Hozon paperwork from NBTHK.

[Kanenaga]

FWIW, I have a shinshinto meikan more katana signed Chikuzen Sa Yasuyoshi (different "yoshi") which has a kanteisho from NTHK, tokubetsu hozon from NBTHK, and Tanobe sayagaki. It's a nice sword. I was told that both Yoshikawa Kentaro sensei and Tanobe sensei were unable to find any reference to this fellow in their libraries. So it is apparently possible.

[BIG]

Hi Les, can you post some pics, esp. nakago pics to ident the smith. And congrats to your sword.

 

Best

[george trotter]

I have three 'unknowns' I would like to take to shinsa, One is a mumei utsushi which I would like confirmed to what I think (or not) and the other two are signed but unknown in any references.  Even if it means a sheet saying 'Meikan More' it is at least an acknowledgement of the smith's existence.

Any NTHK - NPO or NBTHK shinsa scheduled for an Australian city in the next few years?

 

Regards,

[Ron STL]

This topic brought to mind a very fine daito here, signed niji mei, Yoshichika. Years ago when purchased, I was puzzled by its rather straight shape since it appeared quite old, but...so straight? I recall Cary Condell liking it and pushed it quite early, as did Dean Hartley. I finally sent it to NBTHK and it went Tokubetsu Hozon. The origami noted: unlisted smith, Nambokucho. Mr. Tanobe later explained it was made by an unlisted country (inaba) smith in Yamato fashion, which may explain the puzzle about shape, at least to me. Another occasion later on, asked about submitting a beautiful sword by Shinto shodai Chikuzen. The nakago carried his "rare form" of signature as mentioned in Sword and Same' and other places. Tanobe advised that they (NBTHK) would not paper this because they have no confirmed examples of this form of mei. Years later, I submitted it through the NTHK(NPO) and they did issue an origami as shodai Yoshimasa. As for the NBTHK, I believe the age -- one being Nambokucho, the other Shinto -- had something to do with their decision on both swords. All interesting experiences when collecting swords. 

Ron STL