Signed Yamato works

[Jussi Ekholm]

As we had a discussion about rarity of signed items by 5 Yamato schools in the thread: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/41949-new-aquisition I thought I would make a new thread for the subject for not to derail that one from it's original topic.

 

I have done lots of digging for signed Yamato stuff over the years and here are the results I have found so far. I only included early Muromachi (at latest) stuff in and cropped the possible mid-late Muromachi stuff out. The format will be Kokuhō - Jūyō Bunkazai - Jūyō Bijutsuhin - Tokubetsu Jūyō - Jūyo - Tokubetsu Hozon - Hozon - Others (swords at shrines, temples, museums etc. without special designation and stuff featured in reference books I have yet to locate accurately).

 

Senjū'in

Kokuhō 2 - Jūyō Bunkazai 3 - Jūyō Bijutsuhin 5 - Tokubetsu Jūyō 8 - Jūyo 33 - Tokubetsu Hozon 8 - Hozon 1 - Others 7 = 67

Taima

Kokuhō 1 - Jūyō Bunkazai 1 - Jūyō Bijutsuhin 0 - Tokubetsu Jūyō 1 - Jūyo 13 - Tokubetsu Hozon 0 - Hozon 0 - Others 5 = 21

Tegai

Kokuhō 1 - Jūyō Bunkazai 7 - Jūyō Bijutsuhin 6 - Tokubetsu Jūyō 7 - Jūyo 46 - Tokubetsu Hozon 2 - Hozon 2 - Others 18 = 89

Hoshō

Kokuhō 1 - Jūyō Bunkazai 2 - Jūyō Bijutsuhin 5 - Tokubetsu Jūyō 5 - Jūyo 13 - Tokubetsu Hozon 0 - Hozon 0 - Others 0 = 26

Shikkake

Kokuhō 0 - Jūyō Bunkazai 5 - Jūyō Bijutsuhin 2 - Tokubetsu Jūyō 2 - Jūyo 16 - Tokubetsu Hozon 2 - Hozon 3 - Others 10 = 39

 

In total the number seems to be at 243 items which is extremely few as some of the earliest signed Senjū'in items are from early Kamakura period, and latest Tegai & Shikkake stuff from Early Muromachi.

 

[Rivkin]

I see Tegai and Senjuin every other year at H-TH level, often unreadable though.

Others are more rare to begin with and if signed tend to be Juyo.

 

[Gakusee]

6 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I see Tegai and Senjuin every other year at H-TH level, often unreadable though.

Others are more rare to begin with and if signed tend to be Juyo.

 

Kiril, thanks. On average, how many signed Kamakura Yamato swords do you come across annually would you say? A rough estimate is fine and the paper could be Hozon and up. You obviously go to various trade shows and buy/sell, so you are in midst of it. 
Thanks 

[Rivkin]

Quite similar to the table... Never seen Taima or Hosho below Juyo if signed, one Tegai every three-four years and one Senjuin in two years. pre-Muromachi. I did not pay enough attention to Shikkake.

[Jacques D.]

Jussy, 

 

I would add the Shinto Yamato Tegai school.

[Jean]

As long as they are listed under Shinto, there is no problem. For obvious reason, Yamato Shinto and Koto  cannot be mixed.

 

 

[Jacques D.]

Jean, 

 

Why not ?  They are Yamato works.  

[Jean]

Jacques,

 

Well tried but irrelevant. We are talking about Koto and Gokkaden. In Shinto exit the Gokkaden. In Shinto, blades were signed, warrior monks had disappeared.

 

BTW, yes Darcy was right, this was confirm by Jussi.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I agree with Jacques in way that the more info there is available, the better it always is. Unfortunately I have to limit my own research to c. Early Muromachi at youngest. When you start getting to later Muromachi & Edo period there are just too many swords still remaining. I just don't have enough hours to track down all these younger swords, as old sword research takes almost all of my available free time that can be spent on swords.

[Jacques D.]

6 hours ago, Jean said:

Jacques,

 

Well tried but irrelevant. We are talking about Koto and Gokkaden. In Shinto exit the Gokkaden. In Shinto, blades were signed, warrior monks had disappeared.

 

BTW, yes Darcy was right, this was confirm by Jussi.

 

Jean 

 

Please be serious  In any case, this subject is restricted to the Koto period. To believe that there can be no continuity in certain schools is a mark of ignorance

As for the "gokaden" we can only talk about them for the first generations. The gokaden do not exist anymore from the Nanbokucho period (or even before) because there are too many interferences between the different traditions.

[Jean]

« As for the "gokaden" we can only talk about them for the first generations » 

« To believe that there can be no continuity in certain schools is a mark of ignorance »

The problem, Jacques, is that you have a total misconception of the Gokaden. Marius Sesko in its encyclopedia has a very good article on Gokaden (pg 77). To begin with Gokaden means 5 traditions. You cannot talk of tradition with one individual, it is ridiculous.

in order for you to understand what means Gokaden, you will find attached a copy of what wrote Markus.

 

Concerning Yamato, the discussion was about signed Yamato swords. During Kamakura and Nambokucho, the temples had their own forges, swords were manufactured for the community (warrior monks) so there were no necessity to sign them. Reason why the signed Yamato blades are scarce. 
 

two facts:

Shinto Yamato schools are not all following Koto Yamato schools (it is an understatement) meaning Yamato den.

Shinto swords whatever the provinces are signed at 99%, reason why it has no signification to compare the number of Koto Yamato blades signed and Shinto ones.

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/shinto-yamato.html

 

 

[Rivkin]

The key question was - how many H/TH signed Yamato blades are out there compared to those at Juyo+ which one can thus easily count?

The answer:

Almost zero for Hosho. Hosho signed blades are significant portion of their total, but its a small school and signed ones are almost all Juyo.

Almost zero for Taima. Larger school, but almost all blades are suriage daito, tanto are rare of which >50% are signed.

Tegai/Senjuin. I see a signed example at TH every other year, but how often do I see a signed Juyo for sale? About as often. I can argue for 100 Juyo examples there should be at least 70-80 of those kept at H/TH levels. Possibly more.

 

This further opens the gap: signed Taima is a unique opportunity, while signed Senjuin/Tegai you actually can buy if you want to. For Tegai the signature premium is significant, so a signed daito at TH will be easily 1.5mil if its in good condition.

For comparison, buying any Awataguchi other than Shintogo Kunimitsu, unsigned, is more problematic than buying a signed Yamato blade. Shintogo exists even at TH level (six mil, Shintogo Den). Awataguchi.... Eh.

 

If you are looking for signed pre-Muromachi blades, Bizen is the only one that for some reason was not that often suriaged (except Ichimonji daito??) and had also plenty of tanto. Then you have Rai Kunitoshi and late Rai in general (post Kuniyuki) which is often ubu/signed. And Naminohira. All other schools, you'll have to deal with suriage daito as a rule. Echizen Rai is a large attribution, comparable in numbers to Tegai: how many are ubu and signed? Signed Soshu daito... Ehh... Signed Awataguchi... That's the stuff only a Serious Japanese Collector has.

 

[Jacques D.]

12 hours ago, Jean said:

« As for the "gokaden" we can only talk about them for the first generations » 

« To believe that there can be no continuity in certain schools is a mark of ignorance »

The problem, Jacques, is that you have a total misconception of the Gokaden. Marius Sesko in its encyclopedia has a very good article on Gokaden (pg 77). To begin with Gokaden means 5 traditions. You cannot talk of tradition with one individual, it is ridiculous.

in order for you to understand what means Gokaden, you will find attached a copy of what wrote Markus.

 

Concerning Yamato, the discussion was about signed Yamato swords. During Kamakura and Nambokucho, the temples had their own forges, swords were manufactured for the community (warrior monks) so there were no necessity to sign them. Reason why the signed Yamato blades are scarce. 
 

two facts:

Shinto Yamato schools are not all following Koto Yamato schools (it is an understatement) meaning Yamato den.

Shinto swords whatever the provinces are signed at 99%, reason why it has no signification to compare the number of Koto Yamato blades signed and Shinto ones.

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/shinto-yamato.html

 

 

Jean, 

 

If you were trying to argue.
I know that these are the gokaden and this is the reason why I say that we can only talk about Gokaden for the first generations of each tradition (although ?). Very early on there were exchanges between the different traditions (Masamune jutetsu for example) so that the swords no longer had the exclusive characteristics typical of their tradition (Bizen Kanemitsu produced swords with a Soshu type sugata, which means that we are no longer in the Bizen den stricto sensu) and the examples of this type are numerous.

 

Sho-shin ? Are you sure that this site says is without errors ? 

 

read Fujishiro's shinto Hen page 429,430,431, (Nanki Shigekuni) here a translation of a kind of his work 

 

Quote

This is sugu sunanagashi, and the bôshi is hakikake, becoming yakizume. This style is the Yamato Den in every way. (Similar smiths, Tegai Kanekuni, Yamashiro no Daijô Kunikane and his Mon) 

Knowing you as I do, I'll stop here because it's useless to push further

[Jean]

I let the members judge of your misconception of the Gokaden, compare to Fujishiro’s one.🙂

 

concerning Sho-Shin site, I made a screen copy of Shinto Yamato province smiths to show you that, as rookie as I am, I was slightly aware that Koto Yamato tradition carry on in Shinto 😂 you will notice that some even indulge to the time fashion (Toran Ba).
 

Taking into account the number of O suriage blades kanteied by NBTHK to Kanemitsu, somewhere these blades must have included typical Bizen kantei points.

Which leads to the main problem : When you are talking about tradition I am afraid you are mixing Provinces tradition and schools, otherwise how can someone speak of Bizen tradition when there are so different schools, same for Yamato with its 5 schools, Yamashiro …. and I don’t even dare to speak of Mino with Kinju and the Seki schools and Kaneuji schools…

 

I will end here the controverse.

[Jacques D.]

 

Bingo i should have bet some thing. as for my understanding of gokaden it is a hundred times better than yours, a certain Tametsugu brought me the proof. 

you can censor this message

[Jacques D.]

A really interesting point of view. 

 

https://to-ken.uk/onewebmedia/gokaden2.pdf

[Jean]

From Nakayama Kokan: connoisseurs book of Japanese swords:

 

you will see the definition of Gokaden. A few tables of smiths working in these traditions, it clearly shows that a smith establish in Nio province can work in Yamato tradition. It means that you don’t have to live in Yamato province to work in the Yamato tradition, the opposite being true, it is not because you live in Yamato that you have to forge in Yamato tradition (Tsutsui Kiju).

 

page 212 - Tametsugu is classified by Nakayama Kokan as Soshu tradition

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think there is one problem as people can understand things differently. I personally classify smiths/schools by province in my own head. So regardless of the style they worked in, I have them by province, as to me it seems to be the most logical way.

[Jacques D.]

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis, this is the method we should all apply, which would avoid confirmation bias. This is what Clive Sinclair did in his article. Nagayama, who is the only one to call itame mokume, gives one opinion, Nagahara gives another, and the NBTHK another. No one here has the knowledge to decide who is right. Based on the facts, it is clear that mixing in the traditions was done early and that talking about Gokaden after a certain period of time does not seem relevant to me. When you mix another color with white (even a little) you don't have a real white anymore (how to classify the Soden Bizen?). For me, in all objectivity, we can no longer speak of Gokaden beyond a certain period and Nanbokucho seems to me a correct arbitration as Clive Sinclair does. Note that Gokaden are a totally arbitrary creation leaving aside prestigious schools.

Jean
Nagayama writes that it is said that Tametsugu produced swords in the style of Norishige but Fujishiro, the Koza nihonto, the Minoto Taikan and everyone else classifies this smith as Mino. Besides there is no zaimei of him which is in Soshu den, these are only attributions on mumei blades. If the sword you have is signed it cannot be in Soshu style.
 

[Hoshi]

Quote

Nagayama writes that it is said that Tametsugu produced swords in the style of Norishige but Fujishiro, the Koza nihonto, the Minoto Taikan and everyone else classifies this smith as Mino. Besides there is no zaimei of him which is in Soshu den, these are only attributions on mumei blades. If the sword you have is signed it cannot be in Soshu style.

 

The above is akin to saying that Shizu worked in Mino-den. "Shizu was the founder of Mino-den" is something one reads once and a while from various historical source, but it is not correct, and ultimately confusing, and it's the result of trying to fit a square peg in a round role as the approximative Gokaden fails here. Shizu worked in a Yamato flavor of Soshu-den. Naoe Shizu is an off-shoot of Soshu-den that follows Yamato-flavoured Soshu-den with more gunome elements and less pronounced activity.

 

Mino is a problem in the Gokaden system.

 

And Mino is not the only problem: while Taima is a Yamato school, it's closer in worksmanship to pure Soshu-den (The Yukimitsu style of Soshu-den specifically) than it is to Yamato-den. 

 

"Tametsugu" works in Soshu-den. There is one signed daito by him in the Juyo Zufu and it is in Soshu-den. I put Tametsugu in brackets because it's a bucket attribution for Nambokucho Soshu work. Plenty of swords get the Tametsugu attribution and it is best understood as a style, period and a quality attribution than a specific smith. 

 

At the end of the day the Gokaden is pretty good. It's an entry point, and over time one learns where it breaks. It's confusing because it links provinces to lineages and styles, and that linkage only takes you so far. Ultimately don't fixate on the Gokaden. The next level isn't hard to reach either, ten to twenty great schools/lineages, and it fits the data much better than the Gokaden "Beginner friendly" approximation. 

 

This conversation is like a bunch of modern-day physicists trying to fit newtonian models to explain the movement galaxies while being well-versed in the Standard Model. 

 

[Jacques D.]

Quote

 There is one signed daito by him in the Juyo Zufu and it is in Soshu-den.

 

Which one please ?

[Hoshi]

Zufu session 13, signed Fujiawara Tametsugu Saku. Ubu as well. There is also a Naginata Naoshi. 

[Jacques D.]

I would love to see the zufu, the naginata I know.

Can I kindly ask you what are the characteristics of Soshu-den ? I have the impression that we don't have the same vision.

[Gakusee]

Tametsugu (similarly to Shizu) is not a straightforward smith to put in a category. He moved from Echizen to Mino but maintained his “Northener” Etchu stylistic elements. 
 

The NBTHK says of him: 

“ As for his workmanship, Tametsugu’s jiba is quite nie-laden and we see a standing-out itame with nagare, a blackish steel, a notare-based hamon that is mixed with gunome and that features a very noticeable amount of sunagashi, and a bōshi with much hakikake. Thus, we recognize a mix of northern Hokkoku and Mino elements.”

 

The Zufu entry for the zaimei blade Chris is referring to is attached. The text therein speculates that since it is signed with “Fujiwara”, it is therefore a bit similar in signature to the attached JuBi wakizashi, which is signed with “Noshu Fujiwara” and hence the tachi could possibly have been made after he moved to Mino (but more phrased as a question is how I understand it, rather than a statement). 
 

However, as always with Japanese swords, things are not straightforward. The hamon of the tachi does not “look” or feel (at least per the oshigata) stereotypically Mino-ish in nature (with the various symmetrical or pointy gunome features along the entirety of the blade). Per se, that is not an issue as early Mino did not have much symmetry or regularity (cf Naoe Shizu), even though one would expect perhaps more “pointy” elements than in this tachi here. Yet, this tachi seems to have gunome in there.
Overall, the zufu setsumei of the Tametsugu tachi highlights the plentiful sunagashi and larger nie in the setsumei  section, which I believe is what Chris is interpreting (together with the notare style hamon) as Soshu in style. 

Lastly, the JuBi setsumei of the attached wakizashi mentions that per Honma sensei the Mino yakiba of Tametsugu is larger / wider while the Echizen (ie more typical Go/Norishige inspired earlier ha style of Tametsugu) is narrower. 

So, here I believe we have an interesting transitional blade with a more Soshu hamon but a signature that indicates a time period closer to when he moved to Mino. 

 

[Jean]

Jacques,

 

Here is translation of the Juyo zufu: it is directly attributed to Tametsugu (not Den Tametsugu), rather Soshu den. You will see that Tametsugu spent quite a long time in Etchu before moving to Mino. I have no example of signed Tametsugu (Mino or Etchu), if someone can post them, I am curious to see the oshigata. I have seen quite a few blades attributed to Tametsugu, but none in Mino style.

here is a link to Sanmei, where the appraiser state that this work is typically in Soshu style.(The entire quenching effect is full of variety that comes from "Nie" extremely hard metal granule activities that are typical of Soshu works in the prime of Nanbokucho period)

 

http://sanmei.com/contents/media/T284983_S1521_PUP_E.html

 

 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Michael was faster than me, here are all of the 5 signed Tametsugu I have found so far. (can't understand why all of the pics are turned as they were correct position on phone...)

 

[Jacques D.]

Jean,

 

Jean it's not in Soshu den (see hamon and nioiguchi...) 

The two swords Michael share are not in Soshu den too.

 

I ask you again, what are the particularities of the Soshu den ?

[Rivkin]

I don't know where it all goes.

Whether the province, artistry or the age is used for classification is always a question since no single criteria is a perfect fit.

There is also no clear separation on practice of the type we read in NBTHK journal. "There were some bids on Tomogochi, but with tomogachi we expect hotsure to be more zanguri". These statements are important but they are from the world of "competitive kantei", which presumes careful selection of but a handful of singed blades which are the very definition of respective swordsmith's style. Alas, in real world such blades do not exist; an acclaimed kantei champion who drills for months the differences between Awataguchi Hisakuni and Norikuni is often lost outside of the space defined by 300 or so blades deemed proper for a "real kantei".

The real life's examples are a mixture of this and that, and appraisal depends on how much value is given to specific features. There are plenty of blades migrating between Mino Kanenobu, Sue Sa and Naotsuna. If gunome in sunagashi is Mino trait, it is also typical for Kaga Fujishima and Kinju's and of many others. There is a question whether a periodic gunome evolved from Shizu's style or it actually came with Kinju and others, and it all depends on how one interprets signatures and generations.

 

In Nambokucho the additional problem is the lack of signed examples which affects absolutely all daito schools (maybe except Bizen), Yamato included. A lot of attributions are modern agreements. There are plenty of o-kissaki (Den) Yukimitsu daito, and one is left wondering why the school was still prospering making daito in half burned Kamakura, where everyone else switched to signed ko wakizashi. Its a convention. Its a convention that Houju was made at Hiraizumi, though it peaked in production late Nambokucho to Oei, when Hiraizumi was 200 years as completely destroyed. These conventions are probably not too far off though, and the gap is closing fast in Muromachi.

 

[Gakusee]

18 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

 

The two swords Michael share are not in Soshu den too.

 

 

Hi Jacques, I thought it made it clear in my post that the wakizashi was more in Mino style and described by the  Ministry as made when he moved to Mino? I talked about the wider hamon (cf what Honma sensei wrote) and the word “Noshu” in the mei.

 

Also, referencing the zaimei tachi, I qualified it as a transitional blade. One cannot say “this blade does not look Soshu” on the basis of only oshigata, as Soshu hamon could take lots of shapes just the way Mino can (even though Mino is much more specific). If you are looking only at the hamon of that tachi, you cannot definitively say that it looks pure Mino either. In fact it looks less Mino than something else. 
 

With Soshu, it is much more about the colour, the purity (and wetness) of the steel, the elegance of jinie, the presence or not of chikei (and also size), the way sunagashi and kinsuji show up (more elegant than the cruder Mino work). As you move into later Soshu (Hiromitsu, Akihiro et al), the elegance is starting to dissipate and we see some gaudier work. But the problem is all of this needs to be seen in hand an and oshigata cannot render it adequately. 

[Jean]

Jacques,

 

As you are stuck in your books and certitudes, just ask Zénon Vandame, he saw my Gokaden at the French Token meeting a few years ago and there was no problem concerning the samples I displaid as representative of the Gokaden: