Nidai Muramasa

[MKS-13]

Okay, so I'm not much of a "post on forums" kind of person, but I felt compelled to post here.

 

I understand the OP's questions and attempt to bring category and science to his studies. I have struggled with this desire for several years and I find that I frustrate myself and put the study materials away for another day.

 

The first thing I noticed from the OP is this equation [higher $ = better]. I don't believe that to be true across the board. I want to preface this by saying that I know VERY LITTLE about swords, and less about their "market value".

 

Once I learned or accepted that swords are art then I began to be able to asses them as art. So if you take everything that Trent said and applied it to paintings / prints (generic wall art), the same holds true. Is it torn or faded? Is it signed? Are the brush strokes consistent with the signed artist's name? Is it old or new? Did someone certify it as original? Was that certification Christie's Auction House or Bubba's art papers emporium? Who is selling it Christie's or John Doe's auction house? See where I'm going with this. So while the technical details about flaws and such are very important, it is the non technical stuff that is hard to quantify that makes one desire a sword or not.

 

The interesting thing about art is that there really is no "correct" answer. Many people love Andy Whorhol or Salvador Dali, I don't. If you gave me one of their "certified original" works of art, I would probably sell it for my kids school tuition. It does not interest me and I have no desire to learn about or enjoy or look at their art. The Arnolfini Portrait by Jan van Eyck on the other hand is my most favorite (many would think I'm crazy)... I digress.

 

So, I think it is the same with swords some people love certain schools, certain makers, or specific types e.g. katana, waki, tanto, yari, etc. Also characteristics of swords may attract someone to it. very wavy temper lines, very straight tempers, length, weight. I will attach pics of one tanto that I inherited. I immediately loved it, despite it's flaws, and I will not part with it. A somewhat similar one I also inherited I did not like so much, so that one is on the market. It is a very personal venture for collectors of anything in what they like. Also, for everything there is a collector. Some people may have the desire to collect mumei works and strive to discern as much about it. Other's like "fixer up-ers" buy a rough blade, polish it and get papers for it. It is the feeling of bringing it back that makes them happy. For anything out there, there is someone who collects it.

 

The ultimate price of an item is what someone is willing to pay for it. If I really like something I would pay what I could to own it. If I didn't like it too much I would not buy it.

 

Just my 2 cents, here are the photos of the tanto I LOVE!

[bobtail44]

Did you just buy that off ebay recently? it looks identical to one that I just saw sell. I think it was mumei.

 

Trent S

[MKS-13]

Trent, I didn't purchase this on ebay, I inherited it in about 8 years ago.

 

I seem to think my Father acquired it in the 1980's.

[bobtail44]

Trent, I didn't purchase this on ebay, I inherited it in about 8 years ago.

 

I seem to think my Father acquired it in the 1980's.

 

I saw one very very similar sell on ebay but I missed the chance to bid on it because I was away. It is one of my favourite styles that I have seen. I'm jealous

 

Nice blade

 

Trent S

[b.hennick]

The blade looks to be a good one. Reminds me of Soshu Hasebe, Akihiro etc. Someone thought enough of it to give it a high quality shirasaya.

[MKS-13]

Thank you, I'm pleased to hear that it looks good to you all as well. Makes me more comfortable with my instincts.

The temper gives me the feeling of ocean waves.

 

It has papers and I just learned yesterday that the papers indicate the smith to be Nidai Muramasa.

[Stephen]

Lucky guy. Lovely Tanto. IMHO this should be in its own thread. Not in pointing out problems.

[Gunome]

Hello

Nice blade, in perfect polish !

could you show us the paper ? does it is a NBTHK one ?

[MKS-13]

Stephen is correct.

 

I'd be happy to post a photo of the papers, but I have to figure out how to start this in a new thread first.

 

Give me a day or so.

 

Thanks,

[Stephen]

maybe a Mod will sp-lit it for you.

[John A Stuart]

Split from the original thread as requested. John

[SwordGuyJoe]

Now that is lovely!

[Curran]

Agree with Barry that I would have gone with late Soshu, maybe to someone like later generation Hiromasa.

 

Surprised by nidai Muramasa attribution and would like to see the papers.

There was an excellent Muramasa thread here on the board years ago. I recall it being informative enough that I think I recorded it down to file somewhere.

I remember Barry had a nice one? I regret not buying that Muramasa yari Darcy had up long ago. I wanted it as much for the koshirae as the blade and smith name, but it went to a Canadian collector.

[MKS-13]

John - Thanks for splitting the post. I appreciate it.

 

photos of paper will be posted shortly.

[cabowen]

Agree with Barry that I would have gone with late Soshu, maybe to someone like later generation Hiromasa.

 

Surprised by nidai Muramasa attribution and would like to see the papers.

There was an excellent Muramasa thread here on the board years ago. I recall it being informative enough that I think I recorded it down to file somewhere.

I remember Barry had a nice one? I regret not buying that Muramasa yari Darcy had up long ago. I wanted it as much for the koshirae as the blade and smith name, but it went to a Canadian collector.

 

It looks more like Shimada work to me....

[MKS-13]

As promised here are the papers that I found for it.

Apologies it is not my best photography work

 

Thanks,

[MKS-13]

Note. I THINK picture 3 goes with this item.

[cabowen]

To be clear, neither of these attribute the sword to nidai Muramasa. Fujishiro attributes it to Sengo group, Yoshkawa NTHK to Sengo Muramasa group.

[MKS-13]

Apologies, I may have posted the wrong papers. I'll double check the reference # in my records.

[MKS-13]

Admittedly I do not read Japanese, Hiragana, Katakana or Kanji.

 

These are the papers I have linked to this tanto.

 

With that said, I can see Sengo, I think. If I am totally wrong thus far please let me know.

 

I would love an education on the how the paper reads. Would members be willing to advise me?? Please?

 

Thanks to all.

[cabowen]

It reads "Den Sengo Muramasa" which means "of the Muramasa, from Sengo, school"...

[leo]

On the NTHK paper it says about the era: Tenbun goro (1532)

Maybe somebody drew the conclusion then, it should be the nidai. But little is known about the Muramasa generations and less is confirmed.

 

Best, Martin

[Jean]

Considering the meaning of "Den" before a smith name, Tanobe sensei states that it means that the blade shows all the characteristics of the smith plus or minus one. In fact, only a direct student could gather the characteristics of the Master (after first generation, the characteristics of the forge are altered). All main students of a given master are listed and their characteristics well known. So having a Den smith attribution means that it is either a piece of the smith showing some unknown addition or lacking some or an utsushi of one of his top students.

[Darcy]

Den X with the NBTHK has meant an attribution to X, plus or minus some details. The original article seems gone now but it has been referenced multiple times on the board before.

 

The writer in this case (I) is Bob Benson. The response is from Tanobe sensei at the time head researcher at the NBTHK.

 

It is an ongoing bit of confusion.

 

"I asked, “ What does Den mean in the use of Den Rai Kunitmitsu, etc?” He said, “The Den means that that sword is almost a Rai Kunimitsu.” He said, “We use it meaning almost”. I said, “ You mean the sword is lacking so it is almost a Rai Kunimitsu” He smiled and said “No. That is where the misconception by collectors comes in. In some ways the sword might not have all the traits produced by that smith, but most of them, so we say Den. In this case it may be lacking somewhat, on the other hand it might have all the traits of a Rai Kunimitsu but in addition, it has work that is better or could be considered his best work. In this case it displays greater ability and qualities not normally seen in the smith so here again we use Den."

 

The example being referred to is a Niji Kunitoshi which received Den.

 

X Den has a different implication, it is a school attribution.

 

I cannot speak to NTHK practice. But they said Den Sengo Muramasa which I interpret similarly to the above.

 

The Fujishiro paper says 千子一門,　which is deliberately a school attribution I think.

[cabowen]

Considering the meaning of "Den" before a smith name, Tanobe sensei states that it means that the blade shows all the characteristics of the smith plus or minus one. In fact, only a direct student could gather the characteristics of the Master (after first generation, the characteristics of the forge are altered). All main students of a given master are listed and their characteristics well known. So having a Den smith attribution means that it is either a piece of the smith showing some unknown addition or lacking some or an utsushi of one of his top students.

 

Jean- in this case, if we apply this meaning, knowing there are several generations of Muramasa, which one is being referred to? If it indeed means "the smith", a specific Muramasa, shouldn't it say, for example "Den Sengo nidai Muramasa"? O are we to infer in the case "den Sengo Muramasa", "the smith" is the shodai?

[Jean]

Generally Chris, in the detailed Kanteisho, NTHK gives an era (Eisho/Tenbun....), the considered generation should not be difficult to find.

Unlike NBTHK which seldom indicates the era, the period, NTHK is quite precised. I love NBTHK kanteisho when they issue a Kanteisho with just the smith name, knowing there were several generation...

 

In fact, the option in this case is : this is the smith or we could say it is almost this smith. Once again in case of a master smith, who could be this almost master smith? Who could be this smith able to match his sai-jo or jo-jo master?

 

I have not the answer but in Japanese, Den before the name has not the same meaning than Den after the name.

[cabowen]

Thanks for your answer Jean...

 

I think it is rather impossible to pin down most mumei blades to an exact nengo. I think it is fair to assume in the case of most mumei blades that are not attributed specifically to a smith that the nengo given is a rough estimate. For example, in the case of this sword, "den Sengo Muramasa" with the nengo, I would take it to mean that the sword exhibits workmanship consistent with the Muramasa group working around that period. If they thought it was the work of the nidai, they would have said so....Because it isn't thought to be clearly the work of a particular smith, but is consistent with most or many of the traits of that smith's group, they use den in this fashion. Also, often times the traits are consistent with a certain smith, but the workmanship isn't quite at the level of the master; these often get a "den" attribution as well.

[Jean]

Chris,

 

That is why I think there is a misconception of the meaning of "den xxx", because it seems to cover different meanings which can be controversial and even opposite.

 

There are Den Tokuju smiths blades, who forge them? The smith or a xxx student who was able to reach the level of a Tokuju blade. In this case even the Den cannot imply that with such a kanteisho the sword is inferior in quality to a master piece by the smith.

 

That's really a question which should be address to shinsa judges of the different organisations to get their opinion. I think, taking into consideration the number of Den blades having reached the level of Juyo or above, that implying that the said blade is inferior in quality because of the Den prefix to one forge by the smith is a misconception.

[cabowen]

Chris,

 

That is why I think there is a misconception of the meaning of "den xxx", because it seems to cover different meanings which can be controversial and even opposite.

 

There are Den Tokuju smiths blades, who forge them? The smith or a xxx student who was able to reach the level of a Tokuju blade. In this case even the Den cannot imply that with such a kanteisho the sword is inferior in quality to a master piece by the smith.

 

That's really a question which should be address to shinsa judges of the different organisations to get their opinion. I think, taking into consideration the number of Den blades having reached the level of Juyo or above, that implying that the said blade is inferior in quality because of the Den prefix to one forge by the smith is a misconception.

 

 

I don't think the "den" attribution is automatically always a statement of quality- it can reflect uncertainty or difference and can also be used as I said when perhaps the blade isn't quite up to the level one might expect from the master. I also think that sometimes a student work or work by a related smith can indeed reach the level of the master. Not every blade by a well known smith is a masterpiece and not every blade by a relatively unknown smith is second rate. In any case, I think it's usage indicates, in broad terms, that something about the blade differs from the master and thus the shinsa team is not prepared to call it the work of the master and hedges.

 

I agree that each shinsa organization would be wise to clarify their usage. I will be discussing this with the NTHK-NPO.

[Jean]

I also think that sometimes a student work or work by a related smith can indeed reach the level of the master. Not every blade by a well known smith is a masterpiece and not every blade by a relatively unknown smith is second rate. In any case, I think it's usage indicates, in broad terms, that something about the blade differs from the master and thus the shinsa team is not prepared to call it the work of the master and hedges.

 

Agreed at 100% Chris.