mei

[John A Stuart]

Hi All, This is on another forum and it intrigues me. First kanji is mori or yasu, and then downhill after that. Anyone? John

[Bugyotsuji]

Hmmm... I am seeing something like...

保呂　五帰 which might be Horo Itsuki, but not sure, and even less about the 4th character

[John A Stuart]

Pretty good Piers, I had already discounted the Chinese reading on the first two kanji. I was getting Ho Ho. No joke intended. John

[Nobody]

This may be the answer.

 

保昌五郎 (Hosho Goro), and the rest (such as Sadamune?) are lost.

 

[Brian]

In any case, it does look like this mei is badly cut and added later, dont'cha think?

 

Brian

[Jean]

Remember Aoi-Art kantei and many answers. They are no existing signed blades from Hosho Sadamune (if I remember correctly)

[John A Stuart]

Thank you, this was a suriage wakizashi. Totally left me blank, this one. John

[Jean]

Must be pure masame head to toes

[John A Stuart]

A blade in poor polish. Can not make out much. john

[Jean]

Could be Mino from the togari I seem to see

[Guido]

They are no existing signed blades from Hosho Sadamune (if I remember correctly)

That's true for Sôshû Samdamune, but there are extant Mei bei Hôshô Sadamune; you'll find one, for example, in the Kotô Taikan (which, btw, doesn't match the one shown in this thread, although the style is kind of close).

[reinhard]

There is still an axe to grind. Nagayama Kokan mentions Hosho SADAMUNE as the actual founder of Hosho-school. Fujishiro also names SADAMUNE without giving an example (oshigata). Both assume Hosho KUNIMITSU as the mythical founder of Hosho school without any blade surviving. Dr.Homma, who came across almost every important blade in existence, never mentioned a single example of Hosho SADAMUNE. NBTHK is not perfectly consistent. In English Token Bijutsu magazine No.40 they say:"...pinning down to SADAMUNE should be avoided, because his authentic works are quite rare...". In No.50 (1992) they say:"...Since SADAMUNE is represented by no definitely genuine specimen, it is desirable not to mention his name in kantei..."

However, gimei in his name are quite frequent and Iimura's example in Koto Taikan has not been published ever since (at least as far as I know).

 

Let's stick to "Sam the mune" from Soshu (sorry Guido, I couldn't resist), for he was a hell of a Toko.

 

reinhard

[Jean]

back, Reinhard, and thank you for the precision, (I thought I was mentionning your post about existing signed blades by Hosho Sadamune)

[Brian]

Good to see you back Reinhard. Great chatting with you in Japan.

Can anyone summarise this for us laymen and what are the current theories on Sadamune?

 

Brian

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

However, gimei in his name are quite frequent and Iimura's example in Koto Taikan has not been published ever since (at least as far as I know).

reinhard

 

It is published in the Toko taikan by Tokuno (page 261) and in the Nihontô Koza (koto part 1 written by Honma Junji and translated by Afu Watson page 209) and referenced as juyo bijutsuhin.

 

Picture below comes from Iimura Toko Taikan:

 

[Stephen]

Herr Reinhard

 

Its been too long, welcome!

[Brian]

It is published in the Toko taikan by Tokuno (page 261) and in the Nihontô Koza (koto part 1 written by Honma Junji and translated by Afu Watson page 209) and referenced as juyo bijutsuhin.

Sounds to me like what is being suggested here are second thoughts since it was last appraised maybe?

I am sure that happens sometimes as further research is done and times change. You can bet your life that no-one is going to submit it for re-appraisal

Still a fantastic blade though.

 

Brian

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

It seems theres is a blade signed Hosho Sadamune in the British Museum. This blade would have been acquired in 1942.

[Ted Tenold]

Hi Reinhard, nice to meet you in Japan. Hope you found some treasures!

 

Since we are walking down memory lane....regarding Hosho Sadamune;

 

This year Tanobe-sensei organized a lecture for the foreign members of the NBTHK. There was a signed Hosho tanto (Sadayoshi if I remember correctly) on display. In his lecture, he addressed this topic briefly citing that although Sadamune is regarded as the founder of the school, there is only one work signed Sadamune and it is regarded as being somewhat suspicious.

 

So in this regard, I agree (and never disagreed btw) that Sadamune could be regarded as a contentious call in kantei. As a further example, at one of the US shows the American Branch provided a kantei excercise. The kantei was informal in nature and not for score, just folks putting answers on slips of paper and handing them in. Included among the subject swords was a lovely Ko-Bizen blade. The sword was ubu and zaimei to Tomasa. Bob Benson remarked during his lecture that the only proper call would have been to Ko-Bizen even though the sword is signed because there are so few signed Ko-Bizen works at all, and certainly a direct call to Tomasa would be so obscure that one would most certainly have had prior knowledge of this particular sword. Bear in mind, these comments were regarding a signed piece.

 

Back to Hosho; The Nihonto Koza lists the same Sadamune Jacques posted which is Juyo Bijutsuhin, and this is the contentiously regarded signed work nobody can really be sure of. So....Sadamune is regarded as the founder of the school, and we covered the lack of any of his works with conclusively reliable signatures. However Albert Yamanaka states that there are a "considerable number of blades by this swordsmith remaining today". Other sources such as Fujishiro, and the Nihonto Koza concur this by the direct descriptions and/or comparisons of Sadamune works, none of which are documented as being signed or unsigned other than the one contentious zaimei Jubi tanto. So the fact remains that there is also a concensus that Sadamune left a very large body of works, that today are unsigned. We can acertain, as is proper, that there is some measure of consistantly identifiable work among Sadamune works that would lead to any outward statement of "considerable numbers" of extant works, or such prominent mention of Sadamune in general. Otherwise, in the lack of extant works he would be regarded as his father, Kunimitsu, who has none to be identified, and thus the founding credit would likely have been passed to Sadaoki or Sadayoshi.

 

So, therein lies the inconsistancy that a Go can be directly attributed though there are no extant zaimei works, and that darn few any at all, while Hosho Sadamune with a large body of extant works cannot be directly attributed......in *formal* kantei. However as a measure of attribution, Kanzan Sato seemed perfectly willing to place sayagaki in direct attribution to Hosho Sadamune on the aforementioned *informal* kantei blade, and the NBTHK obviously agreed enough to document it exactly the same on the accompanying papers as "Hosho Sadamune".

 

So while I agree that there is a measure of improperness to a direct call of Sadamune in formal occassions, that doesn't make the call incorrect or inaccurate, nor does it illigetimize the written attributions that others have documented. There is little dispute that Sadamune has an extant body of works that can be attributed to him directly. It's easy to get lost in the minutia of what may be proper or improper, but never underestimate the importance of context.

 

Okay, in order not to thread drift down memory lane completely, let's get back to John's sword. The signature reads "Hosho Goro". Fujishiro documents Hosho Goro as an inclusive part of, and alternative signature of Hosho Sadayoshi. It also is listed as an inclusive part of Sadaoki. A cursory look showed no examples for comparison for either smith, but I would encourage you to have the sword looked at. Even if the signature is questionble, Hosho works are generally not, and the signature could have been placed in attribution to someone from a very recognizable school. I guess if the mei were removed and it were a Hosho, it would be Sadamune by default. :lol:

[reinhard]

Thank you for your welcoming me back (I'm sure, some others don't like the idea). I'll do some further research on Hosho-school; until then, you better believe Ted. He did a great job on the subject in his post. - As a footnote: I would like you to consider: Juyo Bijutsuhin is not an undeniable truth, for the criteria back then were based on derivation more than on quality and scientific expertise.

 

reinhard

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

However, gimei in his name are quite frequent and Iimura's example in Koto Taikan has not been published ever since (at least as far as I know).

 

If this sample, (this quoted in Iimura and others) is doutful, on what can we been based to detect a gimei if the whole workmanship matches? Also how can we say this one is doubtful if there is not other zaimei extant?

[Jean]

Jacques wrote :

If this sample, (this quoted in Iimura and others) is doutful, on what can we been based to detect a gimei if the whole workmanship matches? Also how can we say this one is doubtful if there is not other zaimei extant?

 

I asked myself the same question : How can we tell a sword is gimei if there is no reference shoshin one?

 

That's a very good question (congrats Jean )? and the only answer I can find is that all the mei found being different there is no reason to believe that the reference one is shoshin.

 

on what can we been based to detect a gimei if the whole workmanship matches

 

In this precise case, if there is no existing shoshin mei, the only conclusion I see is the following : We have no means to tell waht was the smith whole workmanship.

 

Must be the reason for which in kantei no blades can be pinpoint to Hosho Sadamune.

[reinhard]

If this sample, (this quoted in Iimura and others) is doutful, on what can we been based to detect a gimei if the whole workmanship matches? Also how can we say this one is doubtful if there is not other zaimei extant?

 

Je vous salue mes petits Gaulois. Some things never change, do they?

 

In order to tell if a mei is genuine without doubt, it is necessary to have reliable reference material. In the case of ShinTo or ShinShinTo blades there are usually enough swords surviving from every single smith to tell the difference. Going further back in time things become more and more tricky and speculative. If we're lucky, there are many signed specimen left as by Osafune NAGAMITSU or Rai KUNITOSHI f.e.. It is different however in the case of Hosho SADAMUNE. In Hosho-school there were several Toko at the end of Kamakura period working on a very high quality level, but with hardly any INDIVIDUAL traits. Among them SADAOKI and SADAYOSHI are quite well documented by several signed blades each. Unfortunately there are hardly, if any at all, signed specimen by SADAMUNE surviving. Every newly discovered blade with (Hosho-)SADAMUNE mei is put to quality test first. Here's where most of them can be excluded as gimei, for it is extremely difficult to copy top-class Hosho swords. Even shodai KUNIKANE from Sendai clearly failed. Now, when a new blade with SADAMUNE signature, made in the style of and with the qualities of Hosho-school is showing up, it cannot be attributed to SADAMUNE easily because of lack of reference material. One single mei for reference, even if it is a JuBi, is simply not enough to make judgement waterproof. As I tried to explain, this is because of missing individual traits within the Hosho-school: The blade could have been made by SADAOKI or SADAYOSHI and turned into (more prestigious) SADAMUNE later.

 

As far as Juyo Bijutsuhin is concerned: Understanding of NihonTo has improved during the past sixty years. Pre-war standards like JuBi cannot be considered the final and undeniable truth in every matter. This goes for some (not all) of old(er) literature as well.

 

reinhard

[Jean]

Not far from what I stated my Helvète friend

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

The blade could have been made by SADAOKI or SADAYOSHI and turned into (more prestigious) SADAMUNE later.

 

 

Speculation, nothing else. Untill it will be proved that this blade is not a Sadamune, it remains a Sadamune.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

The Nihonto Koza lists the same Sadamune Jacques posted which is Juyo Bijutsuhin, and this is the contentiously regarded signed work nobody can really be sure of.

 

Ted, can you elaborate a little this ?

 

Why nobody can be sure of ? Were's the problem with this blade ?

[Ted Tenold]

Carlo,

 

I'm not sure I can elaborate much. I think the thoughts that Jean and Reinhard expressed are as succinct as we can get. But I'll try...

 

Many famous swords exist with direct attributions because the history of records, some with very extensive, that support them. Therefore in the vast majority, this provinance provides the foundation that solidifies the smith and work, signed or unsigned. Many have been documented over and over again with a great number of them interchanging as gifts or awards between Daimyo, Shogun, Generals, Honored individuals, etc.. But in the case of Hosho smiths there may well be a lack of support in this respect or there might be a firmer ability to pinpoint them and "individualize" the works more. The contributing factors (in my view) might be;

 

1. Reletively short timeline of the school. Many other schools lasted much longer than Hosho.

2. Lack (or the loss) of supporting records. This would include not only the aforementioned gift or award records, but also those by Hon'ami, Temples, or the school itself.

3. Lack reliable signed examples exhibiting some consistancy in signature and work style for variant comparison.

4. Minimal variation within workstyles that would clearly illustrate individual characteristics.

 

...and though it may not in the case of Hosho because of their distinctive work style;

 

5. Work style that is so very close to another group or smith that attribution to an isolated smith is difficult at best.

 

When looking at a signed piece one can also surmise that althought they may evolve over a working life, or from generation to generaton, there will be some element of consistancy or similiarity. Without historic records, pinpoint work elements, or other signed works for comparison, why should one assume any singular example is shoshin? What is obvious is there is incomplete or vague analysis so far, that to me shows possiblity of some records, but not enough to make a clear judgment. Books list signature styles but without elaboration or support of oshigata to display them.

 

The really difficult part of this is that if, for a moment, we were to imagine a signed Hosho Sadamune ubu tachi to emerge from some hidden alcove somewhere, how are we to prove it is shoshin? If it had early supporting records, that would certainly be spectacular, but if not, then it would most likely be heavily scrutinized as well, and rightfully so. However, if it matched so clearly the one recognized example, that would certainly provide some support for the find as well as some vindication for the signed tanto, and a basis for new study.

 

I am interested in the scrutiny of the signed example and will try to find out more in the future.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Thanks Ted.

 

As very interesting swords still pop-up even today, and so also important historical records, let's me wish you and anybody

else involved in the research the best luck.

[Jean]

Brian,

 

I think that this discussion (Ted and Reinhards posts) deserves to be part of the Archives and save under subject "Hosho School"