Kantei Quizz N°9

[Jean]

Here it is

 

http://www.aoi-art.com/kantei/kantei09.html

 

 

As Darcy said in his last Picture kantei :

 

- period

- tradition

- school

- smith

 

Good luck, I am leaving tonight and be back in a fortnight

[takakage]

which utsuri............

[sabiji]

(late)Nanbokucho

Yamashiro den

Nobukuni school

 

Because there is very fine and nice ko itame hada, nie deki....

[takakage]

i don't know, usually nobukuni hada is not so tight

[Darcy]

A cut off nagamaki can be hard to come to an age determination on sugata because it's not clear how much is left and how much of the entire piece was modified. A naginata is modified at the kissaki as well as the nakago to make a naginata naoshi, this piece qualifies as a nagamaki naoshi because the boshi is present and not yakizume as a naginata would form.

 

I make the following observations:

 

- Suriage blade with 3 mekugiana indicating 2+ shortenings favors koto over shinto.

- Special note about katana mei indicates a Muromachi or later piece -or- Aoe -or- a handful of other guys who reversed the positions

- Utsuri indicates Bizen or Aoe

- Nie-deki includes Ko-Bizen and Ko-Aoe, to the borderline with Chu-Aoe

- Hamon style is similar in some ways to some very early Fukuoka Ichimonji, and the oshigata shows a structure that appears to be Kumo-no-Iwata, which is found on Ko-Aoe

- dense ko-itame is also a feature of early Aoe

 

So I'm thinking we're looking at an early period Aoe or else something that resembles early period Aoe. The hamon doesn't seem to be a slam dunk for Aoe and it being a Nagamaki might be hard to fit to early Aoe work.

 

Something that resembles Aoe that might work as later period pieces would be Kashu Ietsugu.

 

I'm not comfortable with this kantei because the hamon doesn't strike me as typical Aoe and a nagamaki might be inconsistent with early Aoe. Reading what I see leads me to early Kamakura, mixed Bizen/Yamashiro tradition, early Aoe school in spite of that, and about the smith all I can do is rule out Tsunetsugu. Backup answer is Muromachi period Kashu Ietsugu.

 

So I'll pay attention here, see if I have something to learn. I hope to heck it's not Shinto.

[paulb]

Darcy,

I am currently doing a lot of work on Aoe. Chu-Aoe produced nagamaki.

paulb

[Guido]

I go for Aoe, too - not because I can really see any of the trademark features like Chirimen-hada, Dan-utsuri or Sumigane, but mostly because Mr. Tsuruta writes "He cut the signature on the Katana mei not Tachi mei." which is a dead ringer for Aoe .

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

IMHO another point that might fit Chu-Aoe school is the Boshi. Still, being a Nagamakhi Naoshi, might be a "tricky point"

(pun intended).

 

Let's study a little more...

[takakage]

in spite ko itame hada......a work of uda, the hamon could match

[Darcy]

I have a Chu-Aoe nagamaki naoshi in my Bizen book, and it is similar to this piece. But I felt that this piece, some of the things in it looked older and more like Ko-Aoe, so what I was saying is that I didn't feel comfortable with saying a nagamaki naoshi was Ko-Aoe. Chu-Aoe would be fine.

 

So I'm interested in seeing where it goes. My own answer kind of cheated on the Ko/Chu thing by saying early Kamakura Aoe (which could be either) and it is probably I think attributed directly to one of the Aoe smiths (if Aoe is right).

[Ted Tenold]

Definately Koto for me. Nagamaki span quite a timeline in Aoe works. From the image (Danger Will Robinson! Danger! Danger! ), the steel doesn't look like the quality of Ko-Aoe. The Chu-Aoe works I've seen lacked the luster of earlier Aoe, but did display some prominant utsuri, and Bizen looking characteristics I see some of in this piece, also fitting Chu-Aoe. The lack of sumigane is a mild concern, but not a total break from Aoe as it is not a totally dependant feature for Aoe either. The boshi also looks Aoe style, and since it's still there and not removed, the period doesn't extend much past Nambokucho for me where longer sweeping Naginata styles would have had the boshi removed with the sori alterations. I could go Ko-Aoe, but the steel and yakiba just don't drive me to earlier times.

 

So, I'm guessing

 

Nambokucho

Yamashiro

Chu-Aoe

 

That's as far as I get right now.

[paulb]

Hi Ted,

interested in your comment that chu-Aoe lacked luster of ko-Aoe. I have been studying Aoe in some detail recently and at least 1 source, I think Nihonto Koza talks of the the steel of chui-Aoe being "clearer" than ko-Aoe. I assumed this meant brighter or deeper coloured. Could you describe your observation in a little more detail please?

regards

Paulb

[Ted Tenold]

Paul,

 

The Chu-Aoe I've seen (two in all, so not really a great cross-section of the school to go on), seemed "whiter" to me one had sumigane the other didn't. Not dull, or low quality looking, but more reflective(?), but not the depth of the Ko-Aoe jigane in color and warm luster. My guess is the styles of kitae create these visual differences. However the utsuri in the Chu-Aoe was quite striking. My post was one of thinking out loud for guessing the subject sword. Admittedly, I could have worded it better, but I had only a few moments to spare, and I don't feel like I've made it any better now to be honest. As for the Koza, I'm not really sure what "clearer" means? The blurred distinctions and varieties of styles definately make for a good subject to study. Let us know what you've seen too.

[paulb]

Hi Ted,

Thanks for your reply. My exposure to Aoe "in hand" is equally limited but I have and am spending a lot of time studying a chu-Aoe piece dated to the end of the Kamakura. I agree regarding the meaning of "clarity" in steel it is hard to define. In ths case there is a mirror like blackness which appears to give depth to hada and from whch the nie stand out (sounds terrible but looks beautiful). There are also areas of jfu which produce a mistiness below the shinogi.

The reason I asked the question is that whiteness in the steel seems to be a characteristic of sue-Aoe rather than chju. Unfortunately the timing of chu and sue seem blurred and differ depending on the reference.

I will keep you posted if I make any progress.

regards

Paul

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Would second Ted with this one :

 

- Nambokucho

- Yamashiro

- Chu-Aoe

 

I can't go further.

[Brian]

http://www.aoi-art.com/kantei/kantei10.html

Nanbokuchu Aoe has it. I wonder if they are refering to early Nanbokucho, or are they pointing to sue-Aoe? Most of the bids went to sue-Aoe, and would be interesting if this is seen as later, to know what points pushed it over into sue. I know at the beginning of sue-Aoe, there was quite a bit of crossover work and varied styles with no definite defining characterists, so this must have a lot of elements of chu- in it.

 

Brian

[paulb]

Hi Brian,

As far as I can see the most definitive feature of Sue-Aoe is the almost total lack of Nie. their hamon is described as tight exclusively nioi based.

You then get the more vague references to colour of steel, shirrake utsuri rahter than Jifu etc.

You are right about defining a period for chu-Aoe as almost every book uses a different time span. The greatest variation being from Chu-Aoe mid to late Kamakura and Sue Aoe being in the nambokucho to

chu-Aoe mid Kamakura to end of Nambokucho and sue-Aoe being in the muromachi.

Based on the majority view I think the first definition is more accurrate but that is purely opinion based on very limited exposure.

It is interesting that when their neighbours in Bizen were taking on Soshu influence and incorporating nie in their jigane and hamon sue-Aoe were going in the opposite direction and becoming totally nioi based. Does anyone have a view as to why this might have happenned?

regards

Paulb