O-Wakizashi Signed Kanemoto

[paulb]

Jason

A shinsa is not a definitive answer, it is an opinion, allbeit a very educated one.

The other trap you are falling in to is creating scenarios to fit what you are seeing, i.e. is it possible that later in his career etc

The more explanations you have to apply to cover the discrepancies from the norm, the more likely it is to be wrong. Shinsa panels look for swords to comply with the standard they expect from a given school or smith, if it doesnt they begin to doubt.

I am not saying your sword is wrong and as Jean says anything is possible but wanting something to be right can sometimes cloud objectivty and logical appraisal.

[Chango]

Jason

A shinsa is not a definitive answer, it is an opinion, allbeit a very educated one.

The other trap you are falling in to is creating scenarios to fit what you are seeing, i.e. is it possible that later in his career etc

The more explanations you have to apply to cover the discrepancies from the norm, the more likely it is to be wrong. Shinsa panels look for swords to comply with the standard they expect from a given school or smith, if it doesnt they begin to doubt.

I am not saying your sword is wrong and as Jean says anything is possible but wanting something to be right can sometimes cloud objectivty and logical appraisal.

 

Gotta agree Paul... it's far too easy for me to get overly excited about this one and with my lack of knowledge on the subject it's also too easy to fill in the blanks with potentially bad guesses.

 

Kanemoto is a hard school to research; there's a dearth of information and examples but just about everyone who has a Mino sword with Sanbonsugi seems to be trying to shoehorn their blade into Magoroku's description (and who can blame us, after all it quadruples the value! ) creating too much bad and/or conflicting info and the workmanship among Kanemoto smiths is apparently very similar if even the the NBTHK has trouble placing them in specific generations.

 

For example, the Connoisseur's Guide says Magoroku did a "Jizo" boshi and later gen did Ko Maru but there are plently of dissenting examples going either way. Another is that Magoroku's hamon was "drawn" very low on the blade and hugging the ha, but I've seen quite a few dissenters and some that I wonder if the hamon appears so low simply because the blade has been polished down so much as there is only a tiny or no hamachi left. Other sources say Magoroku had a very wide variety of sanbonsugi patterns from barely identifiable as sanbonsugi at all to quite regular in execution.

 

I had an easy time identifying, studying, verifying traits and feeling comfortable with ID-ing my first sword (Tadayuki) even though it's in worse condition. This Kanemoto is proving to be much harder for me...

 

... still, if nothing else I'm learning a lot, have begun to establish my personal nihonto library and am having a good time!

[Darcy]

I stick with the opinion that it is 3rd gen. 

 

If you get this papered you should get a sayagaki because the NBTHK is most likely going to just write Kanemoto on the paper. Or have someone check the paper when it gets back and see if you need to get more info from there. Sometimes the 2nd gen made them more regular looking at first glance but when you look at them closer it's groups of 2 in there mixed in with the groups of 3. So it is just not his style but something that the third gen liked in his work and formalized and then the line after that stayed with. 

[Chango]

I stick with the opinion that it is 3rd gen. 

 

If you get this papered you should get a sayagaki because the NBTHK is most likely going to just write Kanemoto on the paper. Or have someone check the paper when it gets back and see if you need to get more info from there. Sometimes the 2nd gen made them more regular looking at first glance but when you look at them closer it's groups of 2 in there mixed in with the groups of 3. So it is just not his style but something that the third gen liked in his work and formalized and then the line after that stayed with. 

 

Thanks Darcy, I appreciate your advice and I think that's a fair assessment considering the information I can provide online.

 

While I am still learning, I've done A LOT of searching, reading and online comparisons with every Kanemoto blade I could find from all generations. I'm thinking the same person who made this sword made mine:

 

http://sanmei.com/contents/media/A69044_S1290_PUP_E.htm

 

 

It seems the  style of the sanbonsugi in the Sanmei example is very similar with the smaller roundish gunome and tall (but still somewhat rounded) togariba of varying heights but otherwise laid out in the standard "1 tall, 2 small, 1 tall" pattern.

 

It's hard to get in pics but under the right light the tight unbroken whitish line outlining the hamon pattern (Nioguchi?) is visible on my sword too; in my pics it throws off the true shape of the hamon somewhat as you are only seeing the "inside" of the hamon, not the whole thing.  

 

I'm not so sure there is a hadori polish on my sword as was discussed earlier; what looks like a "suguha hamon" at an angle seems to be a result of the whitish "haze" in the steel from the ha to about the depth of the lower gunome in the hamon, as can also be seen in the sanmei example (and other Kanemoto examples I've seen pics of):

 

 

 

 

 

 

And the mei for comparison:

 

 

Now Sanmei attributes their sword to Magoroku but the NBTHK papers only name Kanemoto without a generation, so I have to wonder... do they have it wrong, or do I?

 

I would hope they are a wee bit more knowledgeable than I am though.

 

Another thing that makes me wonder is a spot of thick black scaled rust on the blade just above the habaki that looks just as old as the rust on the nakago and the large amount of kirikome (many straight cuts and "skip marks" across the mune and shinogi ji, not to mention fairly heavy blade chipping). Anyway, it would seem it's been a LONG time since my sword got a polish and it's either been in a serious fight or was purposely damaged to look that way. The damage is not consistent with someone just "messing around" with the sword; it's generally where/how samurai trained to block attacks with their blades and most heavily chipped along the ha where the blade would contact with the most force. Finally, the damage seems non-fatal to the blade; there are no cracks and plenty of room to polish out the chipping (minus the damage on the mune anyway) so being a (presumably) fine Kanemoto sword, why didn't it get repaired and used again back then?

 

The next piece of the puzzle is the koshirae; even if it's not a Magoroku Kanemoto, someone must have thought it was something special to dress the blade in kairage-zame. The saya and tsuka are almost certainly made for the sword but the tsuba (obviously an Edo piece) was not fitted for the blade and rattles around so I don't think it was originally part of the koshirae. Other than a single menuki (a war fan tassel) the rest of the fittings are missing so I can't tell much other than it seems to be much older wood/same and of finer workmanship than my other similarly dressed (late edo koshirae) Tadayuki:

 

 

So the conspiracy theorist in me wonders if this sword was donated to a shrine after a battle during the Sengoku Jidai or kept as a trophy and past down within a samurai clan until it was looted after the war and brought to the USA.

 

Yeah, I know it's just a guess but regardless of whether it's a second or third gen Kanemoto it very well might have a documented history somewhere. Anyway, I am continuing to look for more information and intend to preserve the sword in it's current condition until I have some assurance that It's not an important historical artifact.

 

I'd be grateful for any advice on where to go looking for information and constructive critique on my analysis and/or random starry-eyed musing... I know every new guy seems to think his battered old sword is a priceless treasure but I'd rather look like a fool online than be the guy who let a real priceless treasure slide by unrecognized or get messed up from thoughtless restoration due to his lack of knowledge!

[John A Stuart]

To me, the qualifier, is that the example given of the Sanmei sword, whatever generation they attribute it to, signature is significantly different from the OP signature. They are not subtle differences either. John

[Chango]

To me, the qualifier, is that the example given of the Sanmei sword, whatever generation they attribute it to, signature is significantly different from the OP signature. They are not subtle differences either. John

 

Yes but Magoroku's signatures have an awful lot of variation. Here's a few I've collected, some with comparisons.

 

From: Mino toko Meikan:

 

From Hosokawa Collection (Book Lords of the Samurai: Legacy of a Daimyo Family):

 

From Victoria and Albert Museum:

 

 

Various internet examples:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...And probably closest match I've found, from Marcus Sesko's reworking of Nihon Koto Shi (pic 338, page 263)

 

 

Now that example isn't identified as Magoroku in the book, just Kanemoto, along with other mei which are Magoroku Kanemoto that I've found in other sources as well. Could it be Sandai Kanemoto?

[Prewar70]

I'm a novice, but I have an opinion based on generalizations, so take it with a grain of salt.  I'm also thinking back to my days in school, if I raise my hand I'm putting myself out there to learn and be educated, so here it goes.

 

From all the gimei signatures that are out there, Kanemoto seems like an easy one to try and replicate.  It's 2 characters, multiple generations, and a desirable name.  Your mei seems different on many points.  Finally, you are overthinking it and speculating far too much.  Get it in the hands of some stateside experts or send it to Japan for polish and Shinsa and put your mind at ease.  You'll stop thinking about it so much once the process has started.

 

I have a potential 3rd generation Tadayoshi that I have resigned myself to being gimei.  It's in Japan now being polished and Shinsa in November.  Either way, it's still a beautiful blade.  I felt much better once it was out of the house!

[Chango]

I'm a novice, but I have an opinion based on generalizations, so take it with a grain of salt.  I'm also thinking back to my days in school, if I raise my hand I'm putting myself out there to learn and be educated, so here it goes.

 

From all the gimei signatures that are out there, Kanemoto seems like an easy one to try and replicate.  It's 2 characters, multiple generations, and a desirable name.  Your mei seems different on many points.  Finally, you are overthinking it and speculating far too much.  Get it in the hands of some stateside experts or send it to Japan for polish and Shinsa and put your mind at ease.  You'll stop thinking about it so much once the process has started.

 

I have a potential 3rd generation Tadayoshi that I have resigned myself to being gimei.  It's in Japan now being polished and Shinsa in November.  Either way, it's still a beautiful blade.  I felt much better once it was out of the house!

 

Yeah, this one is eating me alive and if it's not haunted already, the sword will be after my head explodes all over it. 

 

For the record I've been trying to focus on the features of the blade, not the mei  and I don't think I'm dealing with a gimei sword because all the other features match so well with the school but I have been wrong before... just ask my wife!

 

I really do think there was a big group of smiths pumping out piles of "Magoroku Kanemoto"  blades throughout the 1500s; I don't know how else there could be so many of 'em with so many small variations in museums and private collections nearly 500 years later. 

[Chango]

Still digging up info on this topic... if nothing else it will make good reading for others interested in Kanemoto school swords...

 

Here are a few more I've found with comparisons to my blade:

 

Two Magoroku swords that are in the Seki Sword Tradition Museum:

 

 

 

A gakumei Magoroku Wakizashi that was on display at the Kyushu National Museum (http://www.kyukoku.or.jp/meihin/detail.php?id=00000673):

:

 

 

 

I asked about this Wakizashi in the main forum not too long ago: (http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/20725-Japanese-readers-please-help-with-a-quick-translation-of-info-card-in-seki-museum/):

 

My understanding is that it has traits of both Shodai Kanemoto, Magoroku and Nidai Magoroku and can't be definitively attributed to one of the three. Other than the hamon pattern, my blade seems very similar to this one.

 

Although my sword is in bad condition, a few moths of repeated oiling and wiping has gone a long way towards making the hada more visible, though I can't seem to get a decent photograph of it with my camera phone and mediocre photography skills.

 

Here is a clear image of a Magoroku hada:

 

 

After looking at my sword under magnification I have to say my sword's hada looks very very much like that.. My sword also has "hada wara" lines along the shinogi that look like delamination... another Magoroku trait.

 

Something that is fascinating to me is how the whole surface of the blade shines like millions of tiny diamonds at the right angle with a light (in the dark) even through the surface damage. My Shinto katana doesn't do that and has a very similar look on the "in the dark" photos of a Magoroku papered katana that was up for auction on AOI art a couple months ago (http://www.sword-auction.jp/en/content/as16489sk%E5%88%80%EF%BC%9A%E5%85%BC%E5%85%83%EF%BC%88%E4%BA%8C%E4%BB%A3%EF%BC%89%EF%BC%88%E5%88%9D%E4%BB%A3%E5%AD%AB%E5%85%AD%EF%BC%89-katana-kanemoto-2nd-generation-magoroku).

 

I wish I could show all this with pics and I've tried but they just don't turn out.

 

As for the hamon, I now understand why it screams "Sandai Kanemoto" in my earlier pics but I think it still differs from "ginsu knife" sanbonsugi of later generations (like this one: https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22248/lot/1119/)

 

The sanbon-sugi doesn't deviate from the "1 tall, 2 small" pattern but the lengths and shapes of the togari and gunome vary across the blade and the hamon seems to get closer to the ha as it approaches the hamachi (though not to the extent of other magoroku blade pics I've seen):

 

 

 

And just to drive me nuts, here's an Iaito (fake) Magoroku sword from Japan with an identical hamon (http://www.omiyage-nara.com/fs/sikaya/gd476):

 

 

Does that count as a reference?

 

Anyway my "scholarly hobbyist newbie"  conclusion is that this sword falls in that "grey zone" between Kanemoto 2 and Kanemoto 3 (1520-1530's) with a decent possibility for Magoroku but I'd put my money on an undetermined Kanemoto 2-3 like the earlier mentioned wakizashi in the video http://www.militaria...in-seki-museum/  My reasons are:

 

 

1. I interpret the sword's sugata and koshirae as being intended for use as a "Katate-uchi" (Nagasa is 56 cm, BTW) which fell out of production after about 1532 according to internet sources...

 

 

 

... and the blade's ragged yet formerly extravagant koshirae seems to support that as the tsuka is longer than a regular edo wakizashi yet still 1-handed and the kojiri  (or rather the spot where the kojiri should be) is flat, not rounded. The tsuba is katana-sized but was not fitted to the blade so it probably isn't part of the original koshirae. I also have another edo era katana with a kairagi-zame saya to compare it with and this one seems to have been far better made, thinner and seems generally older than my edo example. Still, the Koshirae may not be as old as the blade but I've gotta wonder if it's older than Edo... what do you guys think?

 

2. Sugata and hada seem match the work of Magoroku near as I can tell. The nakago is a dead ringer for Magoroku and I can match it up perfectly with several ubu Magoroku nagako life-sized pictures and drawings. Yeah, it's shorter (Katate-uchi vs uchigatana!) but taking that into account, they match scary-well. The mei is at least trying to advertize "Magoroku Kanemoto" but the "kane" large stroke is rounder than the majority of the examples I've found and looks more like Kanemoto 3's mei to me. The "moto" on the other hand is very much like Magoroku's and not like Kanemoto 3's, which are usually running style and are generally more sloppy looking.

 

The Kissaki shape is also a match and it seems to have a "jizo boshi" that matches other Magoroku swords. As for the hada, it's masame on the shinogi and itame (almost mokume in places) in the ji. There are hada wara lines in the shinogi.

 

3. The hamon is not typical Magoroku, though some elements of the togari/gunome are similar in shape to extant Magoroku blades.

 

In the end though, it looks more similar to later generation Kanemoto to me according to what I've learned...but  I still wonder. English sources invariably state that Magoroku did irregular sanbonsugi but Japanese sources seem to leave open the possibility for a Magoroku blade with a regular-ish sanbonsugi hamon along with his more typical style(s):

 

"After the shodai Kanemoto, Magaoroku Kanemoto appeared, and he is known as the originator of the sanbonsugi hamon. His sanbonsugi are usually gyoshotai (a kanji character style between the kaisho and sosho styles), and he does not use only one style, but uses has all kind of patterns. His hamon can contain up and down variations with togariba, and the togariba can be groups of two or three or four or five. They can be continuous and become a fused group, and between these groups of togariba the vallies of the yahiba almost disappear. Up and down uneven variations of togariba are continuous and the entire hamon can be composed of sanbonsugi. Also the hamon can be formed using mainly using round topped gunome and can be called sanbonsugi, and just like on this sword’s mixed hamon. Thus Magoroku Kanemoto made all kinds of hamon and variations."  http://www.touken.or.jp/english/translation/637.htm

 

I think I could describe my sword as "gyoshotai sanbonsugi" but I could be wrong ... any thoughts?

 

So after an embarrassing number of hours devoted to researching this sword and spending more $$$$ in books than I did for the blade, that's what I've got. I am ready and willing to be schooled.

[Chango]

Here's a couple of pics of the Koshirae in profile with a fuchi added ...

 

 

 

It makes for a very light, quick and well-balanced 1-handed sword that surprisingly doesn't feel too short.

 

What do you guys think... Edo or earlier in vintage?

[BIG]

Hi Jason, spending more money in books, as in the blade I think is a sign of anticipation. The search for Magaroku is a long term search...

other words, if you find a mumei attributed to him there is no daubt, the mei is not the target. Other words... The way is the target...

 

Isn't it fun to collect nihonto?

 

Best Regards

[Chango]

Hi Jason, spending more money in books, as in the blade I think is a sign of anticipation. The search for Magaroku is a long term search...

other words, if you find a mumei attributed to him there is no daubt, the mei is not the target. Other words... The way is the target...

 

Isn't it fun to collect nihonto?

 

Best Regards

 

To be honest, I haven't been building a Magoroku library, but a more general Koto era nihonto happy shelf and this sword actually wasn't all that expensive as the previous owner didn't check to see what name was chiseled onto it.  

 

And yes, I'm loving it!  Wish I had a bank account to match my interest but there is still pleasure to be had in the learning and reading aside from owning lots of the good stuff.

[Chango]

For the record, here are 3 mei from Kanemoto 3; two from Fujishiro and 1 currently for sale on Tokugawa Arts (http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/T81251_S5892_PUP_E.html) which is probably Kanemoto 3 but may be #4

 

[SAS]

Maybe there is a secret "mei code" for the generations lol