Help Reading old Kicho papers for Kaga Kyomitsu, Generation identification?

[AntiquarianCat]

Hello again everyone and thanks for your advice last time I was here. I’ve spent more time reading books, and looking at examples from different time periods so hopefully I’m getting better at this hobby. 

 

Anyways, last year I bought an unsigned sword with old Kicho papers attributing it to Kashuu Kiyomitsu. I know that’s less reliable than new papers but I genuinely like the sword, and it’s got the kaga nagako and matches what Marcus and others write about Kashuu Kiyomitsu traits like the Ashi and coarsish Itame hada with the occasional masame thrown in. 
 

I can’t read Japanese though so my ability to understand the NBTHK papers is limited to what OCR software can tell me which is that it says Kashuu Kiyomitsu and it’s an old certificate from the 50s. If anyone can tell if the papers narrow the attribution down to a generation that would be great. Or if not, might it be possible to use the photos to guess which Kiyomitsu made it? The ashi and konie in a hamon that’s otherwise nioi kind of sound like what the books said about Hinin Kiyomitsu, and he has an interesting story so I think it would be nice if this sword were conected to him but even if it weren’t, I’m quite fond of it.

 

I hope the photos of the certificate, and ones where I tried to capture the hamon, or hada help with identifying the maker.

Thank you again everyone,

[AntiquarianCat]

Also if it’s of any use, here is a photo of what was its torokusho, some nagako photos, and a couple more photos where I tried to catch the masame that shows up in the hada.

Also the swords proportions are as follows: Nagasa is over 61cm, and the sori is about 1.5cm.

Thanks again

 

 

[SteveM]

Don't forget the "Den" in front of Kashū Kiyomitsu (in parenthesis)

伝（加州清光）

 

It's hard to say for sure what the shinsa team was trying to say, but my guess is that the sword came with some provenance pointing to Kashū Kiyomitsu, and the shinsa team agreed that it could plausibly be Kashū Kiyomitsu, but that there were also other qualities in the sword that perhaps pointed away from Kashū Kiyomitsu. So the Den (Kashū Kiyomitsu) attribution seems to say, "we note the provenance of the sword, and we don't necessarily disagree, but we can't quite sign up unanimously to that judgment". 

 

Worth reading the following:

https://blog.yuhindo.com/den/

[AntiquarianCat]

Thanks! I should try to remember that character if it’s an important qualifier on a judgment. The lack of certainty doesn’t bother me this in this case since the sword had a good confluence of both being cheap and appealing to my tastes.

Would I be correct in assuming Den in this case means either Kashuu Kiyomitsu or someone trained in or utilizing their tradition? And could the lack of a signature have contributed to that judgment?

[Bugyotsuji]

Juan, read Steve's link above your post, and then come back and rephrase your question, maybe!?!?

[AntiquarianCat]

I’m sorry, I’m probably asking my questions without thinking and phrasing them well enough. To be totally honest, I had previously read that essay several months ago, and I’ve done so again and it lists several scenarios that could lead to receiving a den ranging from the judges not being entirely sold on an older attribution, to saying it was qualifier that was frequently attached to mumei blades they judged in the past (I don’t know if a 1950s judgment counts as that) I’m just wondering which of the scenarios could explain this judgment, and if this is one of the cases where I should still treat it as if it’s a presumed Kashu Kiyomitsu.

[Bugyotsuji]

Ah, ok, my bad.

 

I guess if you look at that old paperwork again, it could be translated as: "Mumei. In the opinion of the board, the signs point to Kiyomitsu of Kashu."

 

(But then you could ask, do they mean a particular Kiyomitsu, or the Kiyomitsu smith line in Kashu?)

 

Or you could resubmit it.