A Sword I Am Looking At Right Now... (Take 2 - Sword In Hand)...

[Johnno]

Hi all,

 

Now that my ''Hizen Tadahiro'' has arrived - has been here for a few weeks now actually - I thought some of you may enjoy a few pics...

 

Apologies in advance for the poor photography - I'm posting just some of the pics - the ones that I feel probably do her justice...

 

What can I say? 77cm nagasa, beautiful steel, wonderful hamon and hataraki and hada, lovely sugata...

 

I am far from an expert but for me at least she is right up there in quality with my tokubetsu hozon papered Yoshitake I owned years ago...

 

I hope the pictures are good enough to give an idea of what she looks like ''in hand''...

 

John.

[Johnno]

PS - once again, apologies for the photography - I only have a mobile phone camera and nowhere that is not at least a bit ''busy'' - so if there distracting bits and pieces in the background my apologies again

[Ruben]

Dear John,

 

I like it very much, great sugata, exactly my taste!

Congratulations!

 

ruben

[Johnno]

Thanks Ruben

 

I am very pleased - she is a magnificent blade I think

 

John.

 

Dear John,

 

I like it very much, great sugata, exactly my taste!

Congratulations!

 

ruben

[Johnno]

(Of course - I'll *have* to be pleased for a while now - until I have more money - this one sword *is* my collection - for the moment at least - until I get a bit more money...)

[paulb]

John

the most important thing is you are happy with what you have bought. Congratulations it is a very decent looking work

Enjoy your time studying it and learning all you can from it

Best Regards

Paul

[Johnno]

Thanks Paul

 

I have a feeling I will not get bored with her very quickly

 

If you take her out in the sunlight its amazing the amount of activity that is there to be seen in the hamon - sunagashi, kinsuji, the works...

 

Wonderful stuff - and most of all, I *have* a sword again Once you have the bug you have it for life I'm afraid... lol There is no going back

 

John.

 

John

the most important thing is you are happy with what you have bought. Congratulations it is a very decent looking work

Enjoy your time studying it and learning all you can from it

Best Regards

Paul

[Greg F]

Hi Johno,

Congratulations its a very nice blade. Im sure youve had an enjoyable 3 weeks getting to know it. Thank you for sharing with us. All the best.

 

Greg

[Johnno]

Thanks Greg

 

I managed to get a few more interesting pics yesterday - might try to post a few of them...

 

Hi Johno,
Congratulations its a very nice blade. Im sure youve had an enjoyable 3 weeks getting to know it. Thank you for sharing with us. All the best.

Greg

[Johnno]

A few more pics - for me still looking at ''Yamashiro-den'' I believe - looking at the work what do you guys think ?

 

In particular - the boshi on one side - is it just me or is THAT looking more Shinto Osaka School (?)

 

THIS is where I am really at a loss - I do not have all my sword reference books I used to have - I am limited to only being able to compare with stuff online and materials that are available online

 

 

[Johnno]

And some more (I seemed to do okay with the mobile phone camera and natural daylight - well - okay for an amateur I mean )

[Darcy]

The other thread was like an acid trip.

 

The boshi is not like any Shodai Tadayoshi. He didn't make o-maru. 

 

There are some Mutsu no Kami Tadayoshi that have a similar boshi but I think you are correct in having it lead away from the school.

 

The jigane doesn't look much like any of the early Tadayoshi smiths. 

 

The signature (looked back at the old thread) is a pattern made by Shodai Tadayoshi when he was in the end of his days and means it's a custom order for the Nabeshima daimyo. It's called kenjo-mei because he left out the Mutsu no Kami in this. The implication is that he is showing some humility in recognizing that this title is honorary only and that the blade is intended to go to someone who is a real lord of a real province.

 

But the Tada is not correct for Shodai Tadayoshi. Omi Daijo made them with this signature but the Tada is pretty far off from him where it should be very squarish.

 

I think the mistake here is that the horizontal stroke in the TADA character doesn't exist for either first or second generation. It should be two strokes going in opposite directions and sometimes they got placed close to each other. If copying from an oshigata in this case it could appear to be one stroke which is how it was interpreted here. Overall the hand looks a bit shaky and inconsistent to me. Kuni is not correct either for the Shodai.

 

Nakago-jiri is not right for Omi Daijo either.

 

Anyway it's a mishmash of things and when you get a red flag on one thing you should be suspicious and when you get a red flag on multiple things the sword is telling you what it is. "But it could be an edge case" is always true but its a matter of probabilities and most likely outcome. You can give a sword a pass on one thing being slightly off but when multiple things are off you should adjust your stance. A Tadayoshi that has departures in the signature from the textbook and the boshi is unusual and the jigane is unusual and the nakago-jiri is unusual adds up to a most likely outcome of "not Tadayoshi."

 

Roger Robertshaw's book is very extensive and precise and is something that anyone who buys a Tadayoshi or who is going to buy a Tadayoshi should buy first, and read end to end, and then use his information to attack the signature or alternatively learn what the signature is telling you. For instance a sword is up for sale that looks like an inexpensive Mutsu no Kami Tadayoshi, one can use this book to have a look at the signature and come to the conclusion that the smith is not close to his prime nor is his skill close to his prime so expecting the blade to have the same price as one at his prime would be unreasonable. 

 

You can also find the edge cases where the smith did make departures from what is considered to be normal. Sometimes those cases do exist and if you just examine a handful of examples then go back and use them to rule something out you can be wrong. Fujishiro for instance if you use his book and go by 3-4 examples in there, they are not representative of the hundreds of times that a smith may have signed. Hasebe Kunishige in the Juyo zufu uses an alternate KUNI character in a handful of cases. If you stumbled into one of those you would assume it is gimei by looking at 3-4 reference examples. But they are apparently not. I am still working on the why of this one. But I know it is.

 

Roger's book is good because he's gone through it all and exhaustively categorized everything so you don't have to do the level zero research. The book is invaluable for people who want to learn about swords, and this is one of the essential schools of the Shinto period so if you enjoy study this is a way to do it. And it's a super cheap insurance policy for buying unpapered blades or as mentioned above, will unlock information for you from the signature that tells you when the smith made it and under what conditions. 

 

I didn't go through Roger's book to examine your signature, but if I were buying this blade I would to assure myself if it was legitimate or not. 

 

I think if you have faith in it then send it for papers because internet opinions are always worth what you paid for them in the end.

[Johnno]

Thank you for that Darcy... As you can see I am (with limited access to books and reference materials) very much on the quest to try and learn more about my new sword... She is a wonderful sword (in my humble opinion) and definitely a learning experience. I have already spent many hours studying her and the more I look the more I see - I don't believe I will get ''bored'' with her in a hurry

[Johnno]

PS Darcy - what you said above:

 

''You can also find the edge cases where the smith did make departures from what is considered to be normal. Sometimes those cases do exist and if you just examine a handful of examples then go back and use them to rule something out you can be wrong. Fujishiro for instance if you use his book and go by 3-4 examples in there, they are not representative of the hundreds of times that a smith may have signed. Hasebe Kunishige in the Juyo zufu uses an alternate KUNI character in a handful of cases. If you stumbled into one of those you would assume it is gimei by looking at 3-4 reference examples. But they are apparently not. I am still working on the why of this one. But I know it is.''

 

THIS is most most interesting to me - if you get any closer on the WHY - well, I hope you will share your findings or hypothesis with everyone else...

 

THIS is something that I find *most* intriguing with my sword - putting it simply - if she is ''gimei'' and not made by Tadayoshi (Tadahiro) what I find interesting is this - she was made by a smith of equal ability (IMHO) who chose - for whatever reason - to sign the sword this way (unless it was done after the event and the sword was a commission that was done unsigned and was later signed by someone else) - the WHY question here is what I find interesting...

 

Once again - as I am oft to remark (lol) I am no expert - but I *can* understand a smith of inferior ability signing with a fake signature trying to impersonate a superior smith - but where the smith is obviously a highly capable smith in his own right - THIS is where *I* start scratching my head and asking WHY

[paulb]

John

some things to think about

1. While I think your sword looks to be a good thing I dont see too much Hizen in it. Nor do I see the quality I would expect from Shodai Tadayoshi (but I am only seeing pictures so that may be unreasonable) Tadayoshi is one of the top 5 shinto smiths you have to ask yourself that even though you really like this do you think it truly is that good a quality?

 

2. Having said the above if whoever put the mei on this wanted to fool the buyer he would have to put it on a good quality sword. Tadayoshi has been famous more or less from day 1 so any attempt to put his name on a poor quality blade would be obvious.

 

3. In answer to your WHY question: The reason someone would put Tadayoshi on the blade instead of his own name is that the Tadayoshi name commanded a higher price. Even people not familiar with his work knew his reputation. So when putting the mei on whoever did it was hoping to find someone who knew the name but did not know what a real Hizen blade looked like. I am surethere were as many of those around then as there are today. You have to remember that just as today there were market forces in action and people were just as happy to deceive then as they are today.

 

As I said before enjoy your sword but be careful that you do not start over stating in your own mind what you have. Before convincing yourself your sword is of the same quality as Tadayoshi or whoever you need to look at some good quality examples, in hand if possible. Stop looking at the mei and really really understand the quality of the forging and steel

continue to enjoy. your blade

[Kronos]

To address your second point Paul I disagree in that there are no hard and fast rules. There's some absolute Garbage masamune gimei's from sue-muromachi and then there's norishige's etc that had masamune gimei's because they were "close". So a large part of it is in which circles the sword was traveling, whether they be Daimyo gifts or to fool western tourists in the 19th century.

[paulb]

Hello James

Yes you are right although I dont think the wierdly attributed gimei blades were exclusively for western tourists. I dont doubt there were aspirational merchants who didnt know a good sword from a barn door who would see what they wanted to see. In this case I am getting mixed messages from the sword. Overall it looks to be a good sword but has nothing I can relate to Hizen, even early works by Tadayoshi when he was trying all sorts of different things.

So it is a good sword but with an unconvincing mei. why it was produced that way we will never know my guess is either someone commissioned their local smith to make them a "Tadayoshi" because he had heard they were good or it was fashionable to have one. Or someone thought he would get a better price using Tadayoshi than his own name.

Either way you end up at the same point a reasonable sword with a doubtful mei.

[Darcy]

PS Darcy - what you said above:

 

''You can also find the edge cases where the smith did make departures from what is considered to be normal. Sometimes those cases do exist and if you just examine a handful of examples then go back and use them to rule something out you can be wrong. Fujishiro for instance if you use his book and go by 3-4 examples in there, they are not representative of the hundreds of times that a smith may have signed. Hasebe Kunishige in the Juyo zufu uses an alternate KUNI character in a handful of cases. If you stumbled into one of those you would assume it is gimei by looking at 3-4 reference examples. But they are apparently not. I am still working on the why of this one. But I know it is.''

 

THIS is most most interesting to me - if you get any closer on the WHY - well, I hope you will share your findings or hypothesis with everyone else...

 

THIS is something that I find *most* intriguing with my sword - putting it simply - if she is ''gimei'' and not made by Tadayoshi (Tadahiro) what I find interesting is this - she was made by a smith of equal ability (IMHO) who chose - for whatever reason - to sign the sword this way (unless it was done after the event and the sword was a commission that was done unsigned and was later signed by someone else) - the WHY question here is what I find interesting...

 

Once again - as I am oft to remark (lol) I am no expert - but I *can* understand a smith of inferior ability signing with a fake signature trying to impersonate a superior smith - but where the smith is obviously a highly capable smith in his own right - THIS is where *I* start scratching my head and asking WHY

 

 

It's gimei in my opinion but of course others may disagree, and you can put it all to the test by submitting it.

 

If it is gimei then you need to ask why. There are a few reasons:

 

1. it was made mumei in the first place

2. it had a valid mei which was removed and a fake Tadayoshi put in place

3. it was made from scratch as a Tadayoshi fake

 

Case (1) would imply that it is not superior work in the Shinto period. There are koto mumei which are every bit (or better) than signed work because they made them unsigned for various reasons (some of which we don't know or understand), but we think (I think) primarily that it is a matter of deferring the pride of signing if the recipient is someone of some standing. Similar to the reasons why Tadayoshi did not put MUSASHI DAIJO when he was delivering it to someone of standing. In fact his habit I think helps make the case for this argument. Regardless it doesn't seem to be a valid reason in Shinto for a sword to be mumei. It being an inferior work that the smith didn't want his name on is a valid reason. If it was made mumei then it's an open question who actually made it, but it is next to impossible to argue that it stands with true signed work of the top generations of the Hizen school.

 

Case (2) would imply that it is a lesser smith than Tadayoshi, or else the mei would have been left intact. There is no reason to remove a mei on an equal to Tadayoshi, because you'd be taking something valid, valuable, and good, and turning it into a fake meant to deceive someone. You wouldn't downgrade a good sword like this unless you were crazy, but you would upgrade a lesser work if you felt you could get away with it and had no ethics.

 

Case (3) implies that the smith can't sell his own work. This means either the smith is no good or he's working in a period where the economics of sword manufacture are not conducive to making sho-shin new work. Kajihei is an example, he is a good smith, he is not as good as Tadayoshi but he is very strong, and he faked all the big names to make money as it seems to have been more enriching than selling his own work at the very end of the Edo period.

 

No matter how you are going to cut it, the work is not going to stand with the Shodai Tadayoshi. 

 

If you move all of this to the koto period then all the logic changes. 

 

I picked a tanto signed Yukimitsu that I knew to have a fake signature. When Tanobe sensei examined it he said it was 50/50 Sadamune (which would be an upgrade) or Shodai Nobukuni (downgrade). But this is like 10/10 being an upgrade to 9/10 and 8/10 being a downgrade from 9/10. It was all in the same ballpark and whomever put the Yukimitsu on there knew enough about Soshu to feel it was appropriate at least as a fake signature. But the key element is that mumei is a common thing in koto and isn't as big a devaluation as it is in the Shinto period since it is no longer normal at this point.

 

Not intending to burst your bubble on your sword, but the sword should be a learning experience and if you are trying to shoehorn your sword into preconceived notions then you will be going backwards.

 

We have all been there when we thought we had a true treasure and someone else with a few more years under their belt burst our bubble. It is a painful experience.

 

There is one more case though that is missing from the above... the above assumes it was made in the Shinto period. If the blade was made in the koto period it is potentially made mumei and someone thought it was close enough to Tadayoshi to pass off so made the nakago alteration. If the blade is koto then bets are off in terms of standings. 

 

So, what you need to really do is submit it and see if it will pass. If and when it fails you need to remove the signature and submit it again and get a judgment as to what it is. Then submit it to someone else and you will probably get a completely different answer. From the two answers you will be able to sit and meditate and learn from the experience. I think it could possibly go to some Muromachi school not so far away in time from Tadayoshi. The boshi looks pretty Shinto like so I am not a fan of this approach though. I think it is made after Tadayoshi and was made as a fake. 

[Johnno]

Thanks Darcy and Paul - you've definitely given me a bit more food for thought... The learning experience continues - but its not an unpleasant one In terms of the quality of my blade - well - I believe she is a fine sword - certainly one of the better blades I have owned - but yes, what something one of you said is definitely the case - there is SUCH a difference between what you can see in pictures and what you can see IN THE HAND... The difference really is staggering - I mean I am not much of a photographer to be honest and I tried to use the mobile phone camera to get the best shots I could but they don't even come close to doing justice to this sword in terms of how she looks in real life...

[Gordon Sanders]

Darcy's 1000th post !!!! Sake for everyone!!

[Johnno]

Sake DOES sound good - warm

[KarlPeterSmith]

In response to the in-depth information above... I have uploaded 2 attachments (2 examples of Umetada Myoju's work; a 1620 sword and also a tsuba) which may address both the TADA & KUNI character issues mentioned above...

 

On a positive note... #members above have complimented the blade with...

 

#3 great sugata and #8 very nice blade

 

#12 "The signature"  - "is a pattern made by Shodai Tadayoshi when he was in the end of his days and means it's a custom order for the Nabeshima daimyo. It's called kenjo-mei because he left out the Mutsu no Kami in this. The implication is that he is showing some humility in recognizing that this title is honorary only and that the blade is intended to go to someone who is a real lord of a real province." - "Tada is not correct for Shodai" , "not Tadayoshi." ,"TADA character doesn't exist for either first or second generation"

 

Well - if anyone really did go to the Umetada school -  then they actually 'may' be chiselling a TADA like that... as that is how UMETADA MYOJU did it himself. 

 

..................on another note.

I DO see the Kaku(square) and Maru(circle) argument suck in a lot of experts... and I'm slowly crossing-off these fantastically made Sukehiro reproductions from this infinitely spiralling Tadayoshi circle/square argument. 

 

PS. Umetada Myoju - evidence provided.

[Jacques D.]

The boshi looks pretty Shinto

 

 

 

I have to disagree with that, O maru boshi were rare in Shinto times and about Tadayoshi shodai there is at least one example of O maru Boshi 

[Johnno]

I can't help thinking that with my sword - the Yamashiro-den thing must be a part of the answer - knowing what better smiths at this time worked (maybe not exclusively but were good at this tradition) in Yamashiro-den... I believe the Shodai Tadayoshi did - I believe the Sukehiro smiths in Osaka did too...

[Johnno]

PS Another REALLY interesting possibility - which I think Darcy threw into the mix - and okay - maybe I am really going ''out there'' on a limb right now - but WOULD it be plausible that we are talking Sue-Koto here ? I mean nothing is ever totally ''hard and fast'' when it comes to the Nihonto world I am thinking - and the sugata of the sword is kanbun shinto I think... Okay - Saturday is always a long hard shift for me and maybe I need more black coffee or something - but that one just came to me so I threw it in there

[Jim P]

Hi Johnno, Darcy has given you the info you need the rest is just chatter    IMHO  it could be very late koto but I would look to the schools that copied the Hizen school in the Edo period the Takada school is a good starting point look at the jigane/boshi  of some of the smiths they have more in common than  Hizen Tadahiro  

 

[paulb]

Thank you Jim

I really appreciate being included in the "Chatter" category. I'll try not to bother in the future

John

You are moving at mega speed through masses of straw clutching possibilities. Please if not for your nerves sake then  then everyone elses stop, take a breath and start looking at what you have. Hizen did copy Rai (Yamashiro) and Enju work. Having said your sword doesnt show many Hizen traits it sort of stands to reason it doesnt show many (actually any) Yamashiro traits at all.

Someone else mentioned Takada which is a usual safe catch all when all else fails. I am not sure where Sukehiro suddenly came up in this but the guess and jumps are becoming increasingly bizaar.

Can I recommend you take a few deep breaths spend some time looking at your sword until you can accurately describe all its features from your minds eye (shape, hada, hamon nakago in that order) and then start going through some reference books to see where you get a match. Dont start looking for complex theories to make what you are seeing fit your preconceptions. look and then assess.

Sorry I am beginningto preach (or perhaps just chatter)

Time to stop

PS except if the shape is as you say Kanbun Shinto the sword cannot be sue koto.

[Jim P]

Hi Paul  Sorry,  I should have been clearer I was speaking about the last few posts.

   

[paulb]

no problem Jim

[Johnno]

Guys - its all good I'm enjoying my sword and I believe she has a lot to teach me And yes Paul, the curiosity thing - it *is* hard to control lol