Tegai To Sue-Tegai - Nbthk Cutoff

[Ray Singer]

Hi, can anyone confirm where the NBTHK shifts from Tegai to Sue-Tegai? I am specifically wanting to know whether the NBTHK will paper a sword to Tegai if it is Oei/early Muromachi, or if any sword from Oei on will be referred to as Sue-Tegai in their kanteisho. Greatly appreciate any help on this topic.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Curran]

Ray,

 

Over the past 15 years I've specialized a bit in Oei blades from various schools.

My personal opinion is that I think the Sue attribution would start after Oei, but I'm not certain with Tegai blades.

Maybe someone like Tenold can say more definitively.

[Jean]

Sue Tegai begins Ei-kyo, post Oei.

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/yam11.htm

[Ray Singer]

Thank you both. I have heard the line drawn in different places (start of Muromachi or later into Muromachi period) in different references. It would be wonderful if there was an additional notation of jidai on the kanteisho, such as Tegai (late Nambokucho), but their attributions seem to be always restricted to Tegai or Sue-Tegai. 

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Jean]

Ray,

 

You will never find but exceptionally a period or a generation in a NBTHK kanteisho. I have seen several NBTHK kanteisho on Kanekiyo and in just one it was indicated it was the second generation, the rarest (Nambokucho) on which there are almost no information.

[paulb]

Gentlemen

I am interested that you are able to so clearly define the transition from tegai to Sue-tegai by date. I had always assumed the use of such terminology was driven by style and characterisitcs rather than time period. Thus the style went through a period of transition. You see such evolution from ko-Aoe to Aoe to Sue Aoe but there is a definite overlap where for example characteristics one would see in sue Aoe start to appear in Aoe. The same is true in Yamato Shizu and naoe shizu.

In these cases I thought the best you could hope for was to give a period when the changes first started to be seen, or when speicific characteristics disappeared. Is this not also the case with Sue Tegai? 

[Ray Singer]

Hi Paul,

 

    As far as the way that organizations will place attribution, I believe that it is primarily based on when they believe that a sword was made. If the sword were clearly a product of the mid-15th century or later, the attribution would be Sue-Tegai, even if it exhibited some characteristics more consistent with earlier work. I own a sword which in quality and characteristics of the kitae and hamon is very consistent with Ko-Mihara. The shape however indicates early Muromachi/Oei and for that reason the sword received an attribution to Mihara (rather than Ko-Mihara). I believe it is likewise for other situations where indicators point with reasonable confidence to a specific date.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Jean]

Paul,

 

Japanese Nihonto scholars have established the cut off dates, even if of course there is an overlap in the forge. If you read the Connoisseur's book p.141, Nakayama Kokan clearly states that all Aoe swords made during Muromachi are called sue Aoe, even if there is an overlap between Chu Aoe and Sue Aoe. It depends on when the smith is said to have exercised his activity.

[Curran]

Exactly per Jean's comments, I was cautious to say when the NBTHK goes to Sue Tegai.

When they divide depends more on the school than on any date.

 

Paul- you are perfectly understood. I agree.

I just think we're discussing NBTHK convention more. That changes too depending on the decade.

[paulb]

Jean and Curran

Yes of course you are correct and I am sorrry for the slight diversion from the original theme.

While I understand the need to draw these timelines I sometimes think we become too rigidly tied to them and inadvertently draw artificial cut off dates for changes in style which in reality never existed. changes in shape and features was an evolution rather than revolution sometimes happening faster sometimes more slowly. It seems that our need for order and categorisation finds this difficult to deal with. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I believe at least in kantei bids a cutoff from Muromachi is noted. Here are two quotes which indicate that there was a demand for either specifying Sue or Muromachi.

 

 

But there were also dōzen bids on Kanenaga (包永) and just „Tegai“. The Kamakura-era Kanenaga was the founder of the Tegai school and his descendants used this name until the Muromachi period. But there are no tantō from the 1st generation Kanenaga extant. That means one had to specifiy the bid by „Sue“, „later generation Kanenaga“ or „Muromachi period“ as plain bids on „Kanenaga“ and „Tegai“ are too ambiguous and can not be counted as atari.

 

 

The vast majority of all bids was on Kanesada, followed by Kanetoshi (包俊), Kanezane (包真), and other Sue-Tegai smiths. Because all Sue-Tegai smiths displayed more or less the same workmanship and it is hard to nail down a certain smith, all bids on „Sue-Tegai“ were counted as atari. The famous Kanenaga was, as mentioned, active in the Kamakura period but his name was continuously used over the Nanbokuchō until the Muromachi period. There are some Muromachi-era Kanenaga tantō extant but none of the first generation. Also a big gap in quality can be grasped between the early and the Sue-Tegai Kanenaga smiths. So a bid on „Kanenaga“ was only atari when it came with the note „Sue-Tegai“ or „Muromachi“. Otherwise a dōzen was given. The same applies to „Tegai“ bids, i.e. without the supplement „Sue“.

 

[Jean]

Jussi,

 

Most of time the cutoff date for sue schools is Muromachi. The Tegai school is a bit apart as at the end of Nambokucho, the Tegai school seems to have almost disappeared to revive in Muromachi, most of the noted smiths having started their activity in Eikyo.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think it's bit transitional like Paul said earlier and we tend to be bit too caught up on classifications in general. I know at least I am.   I was looking at Nihonto Kōza and there the cutoff for later group seems to be at Muromachi as early part of Tegai is told to be until end of Nanbokuchō. There are several Ōei dated examples listed under Sue-Tegai. Of course these classifications are not set in stone and I believe it's pretty much impossible to say if the suriage mumei sword was made in 1386 or 1402. However they have to draw a line somewhere. I've thought that Sue-Tegai = Muromachi and Tegai = pre-Muromachi.

[Darcy]

I personally think that it is another too-literal Western thinking. We are getting wrapped up in is this pre or post Oei (maybe one year!) like it matters. They don't really know. There is no way of knowing.

What Sue-Tegai means is a sword with later period characteristics and a falloff in quality from earlier Nanbokucho or Kamakura work. It could actually be earlier but not good enough to group with Nanbokucho or it could be later. There is no way of knowing. But it's just a way of tossing a sword into a bucket where it is related to Tegai but is no longer maintaining the attributes or qualities normally associated with the school.

 

Attribution is the first form of grading quality. When you get into the more vague stuff (I had a sword attributed to Ganmaku and I challenge anyone to find 10 Ganmaku mumei at all and let alone in this situation find any common ground between them) it can mean "we don't know" and if the quality is better it would go to a better school. 

 

Paleontologists do it too.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wastebasket_taxon

 

NBTHK does not have a time machine. So you have to keep this in mind. The further you go from the center of the world the more vague it gets. The more vague the less accurate and also the less important the need for accuracy is (the judgments become fungible). School-you-never-heard-of-A is equivalent to School-you-never-heard-of-B. 

 

Sue-Seki means "Seki but not by anyone good enough that we will be happy to slap a name on it."

 

Masamune *often has* and *often does* mean "best quality Soshu". You really need to check the fine print to know if a Masamune is attributed to Masamune because it is believed to be by Masamune *now* or if it is a traditional but weak attribution that does not match Masamune by current standards but represents top level Soshu work. 

 

Going too literal both ruins your ability to read between the lines to hear what they are saying.

 

If you are buying a Yukimitsu for instance that says the attribution needs to be studied but it is by a top level Soshu smith it means that Yukimitsu was often used as a default attribution for high level Soshu work and so he became known as having a huge variety of styles. This is shrinking every year as some of those swords are now taken away and given to Masamune, Sadamune, Taema, etc. So if you have a Yukimitsu that needs further study it can include Yamato Taema. If you have a Yukimitsu that needs further study "but is certainly a top level Soshu smith" then it is possibly Masamune or Sadamune. Look at the style. If it is a daito and in suguba it means maybe Shintogo Kunimitsu but they do not attribute mumei daito very easily to Shintogo Kunimitsu (in my experience, two are all I know of, one is a wakizashi and the other is a katana that had old Honami papers). Otherwise those blades go to Yukimitsu but could actually be Shintogo. And you should be expected to look at it and understand that it exists in this quantum state of indecision between Yukimtisu and Shintogo. But ain't nobody going to stick their neck out for it.

 

If it is midare then consider Masamune or Sadamune. Norishige needs to be considered as well and at the far end of the spectrum even Go. But in the meantime it can be papered as Yukimitsu if it has a history as Yukimitsu because his level is right up there with all those other guys. 

 

Or it still could be a "well we are not sure but this is top Soshu skill so it stays Yukimitsu."

 

Or it's just slam dunk, now THIS is a YUKIMITSU. The context is important in how they say it. 

 

So it's important to know what the names mean in terms of quality assessment. And not to get wrapped up in is this one year before or after Oei making it Nanbokucho or Muromachi. Nobody knows and it's only important for guys who are absolutely not going to buy a Muromachi blade but really want a Nanbokucho blade. And in practice there is no difference plus or minus one year from Oei but they have different verbal tags so people separate them with a huge dividing line. 

 

Closing it up it is much more of a danger zone to get a Masamune that says it's certainly by a top level Soshu smith because it means it is very likely not Masamune as the NBTHK wasn't willing to stick their neck out on it. Because it says Masamune in the big two letter column that westerners can maybe if they are lucky read and stop there doesn't mean it's got a full attribution to Masamune, especially if there is kinzogan on it. If you get a Masamune with nobody sticking their neck out you almost surely have a Yukimitsu or a Shizu. If you have a Shizu with doubts you might have a Masamune. If you have a Sadamune with doubts you probably have Nobukuni and a Nobukuni with doubts depending on the quality can be Sadamune. Yukimitsu with doubts is the grand central station of Soshu because of all the blades incorrectly attributed to him in the past... that's what made up the "Yukimitsu has a wide ranging style." No, he doesn't really as much as he used to. You need to use your noggin then to follow the bread crumbs to what they're trying to say. 

 

So use your noggin on Sue-Tegai and figure out what they're trying to say. Not whether it is +/- one year of Oei. 

 

Or so my beliefs are at this point in time.