Sukesada

[kissakai]

Hi

My friend has a Bizen Sukesada blade
With so many smiths with this name I wonder is it possible to pin it down to an approximate date?

 

 

 

[Geraint]

Dear Grev.

 

I can't see enough of the boshi and hamon to make any confident assertions but the style of the mei would suggest to me Shinto so far.  I would do some digging around Yokoyama Sukesada and see what comes up.

 

I'm quite sure that others will chime in on this one.

 

Look forward to any conclusions.

 

All the best.

[kissakai]

Two more images

 

 

[Baba Yaga]

5 hours ago, Geraint said:

style of the mei would suggest to me Shinto so far.  

 

 

 

Why is that? 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Difficult unless it is clearly a superior work. At best you can compare how the Mei is done with the named Sukesada along with general workmanship. 

[Alex A]

Not really with what's available.

 

Looking at it, reminded of something you may find around end of Muromachi, Katate-uchi. 

 

As mentioned, cant see boshi/jigane.

 

[Geraint]

Dear Patricius.

 

Nothing but  gut feeling base on the, for want of a better term, chippy nature of the mei.  The handwriting style as it were.  Nothing else to go on as others have suggested but my immediate response was based on the rather similar style of mei found in the Yokoyama school.

 

The overall sugata seems to me to be more late Muromachi but............?

 

All the best.

[kissakai]

Circa 1600 - 1650?

 

[Bugyotsuji]

1550 to 1600?

[kissakai]

My mistake

 

 

[Bugyotsuji]

No mistake, Grev! Just offering another different opinion for a fuzzy picture. 

[The Blacksmith]

Many moons ago I had a Shin-Gunto katana, with a Bizen Sukesada blade, which I showed to Victor Harris at the British Museum to see, if like the original poster here, if he could give me some idea of the probable actual smith. The blade was a bit tired and had been through the wars, in fact, since it was possibly Eisho period, ca. 1520, it had probably been through several wars! Vic dated it approximately and said that they had one with a similar blade, but in better condition, which he would show me... Vic then  disappeared for some time, and then returned with a sword in its fukuro which he handed to me. Upon observing due etiquette I withdrew the sword from the bag and there was an absolutely stunning gold mounted katana, with an almost identical blade, but in pristine condition! By far the nicest sword that I have ever been privileged to examine!

 

Apologies for being slightly off topic, but still relevant to Bizen Sukesada.

[Rivkin]

I think with shinto Bizen we would see the lines which are a bit deeper, wider and less straight.

The stylistics sort of late Muromachi and sugata can be a match.

Two things which are weird to me is the way the second kanji is written - that's gotta be very distinctive and if you find a similar example in a book that's probably it, and the nakago tapers a bit more than typical Tembun period's Bizen work, but that could be shadows.

[Baba Yaga]

6 hours ago, Geraint said:

Dear Patricius.

 

Nothing but  gut feeling base on the, for want of a better term, chippy nature of the mei.  The handwriting style as it were.  Nothing else to go on as others have suggested but my immediate response was based on the rather similar style of mei found in the Yokoyama school.

 

The overall sugata seems to me to be more late Muromachi but............?

 

All the best.

 

I got you on that.  My "guess" was was more of Muromachi with a later Mei. Pictures are always worth a 1000 questions. 

[Gakusee]

The hamon and shape and nakago sort of look in these photos consistent with Muromachi to Shinto Sukesada.

 

But two things to note on the mei:

- as Kiril intimated, it does look “blocky” (I think Geraint above also had some intuition about its appearance)

- the usual early Sukesada mei starts with “Bizen [no] Kuni Ju Osafune…” while here I seem to see “Bizen [no] Kuni Osafune Ju…” -> food for thought…..

Markus does however list some late Sukesada following the format here 

[Jacques]

Ask yourself if the shape of the nakago is the right one

[Bugyotsuji]

Quite distinctive writing, and for me the most salient feature is at the top left of each character, where the first stroke starts with a pronounced north-westerly pointing stroke. The angles of these starting 'brush' strokes are markedly consistent. Look at the top line of 長 for example.

 

None of the 祐定 Sukesada Mei featured in my Japanese Fujishiro show such a habit.

[Alex A]

8 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

Ask yourself if the shape of the nakago is the right one

From memory

 

Around 1570 ish, sure ive seen all variants on Aoi,s sales pages, tapered and non tapered. Seems to be less nengo on the tapered.

 

Looking at some blades i would have assumed Edo but Aoi have them down as late Muromachi,.. I get the impression they study the sword and are not so nit picky when it comes to general Sukesdada mei as there was so many and some obscure.

 

Anyways, just thoughts.

[kissakai]

With the previous info I was wondering if it was possible to remove smiths that this should not be?

Re:
- the usual early Sukesada mei starts with “Bizen [no] Kuni Ju Osafune…” while here I seem to see “Bizen [no] Kuni Osafune Ju…” -> food for thought…..
Markus does however list some late Sukesada following the format here 

Quite distinctive writing, and for me the most salient feature is at the top left of each character, where the first stroke starts with a pronounced north-westerly pointing stroke. The angles of these starting 'brush' strokes are markedly consistent. Look at the top line of 長 for example.

None of the 祐定 Sukesada Mei featured in my Japanese Fujishiro show such a habit.

A mei added later?

Below smiths that are within the suggested period

 

Name	Mei	Gen	Province	Era	Circa	H/TT/FS Rating
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tenmon (1532-1555)	1532-1555	15 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tenmon (1532-1555)	1532-1555	20 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tenmon (1532-1555)	1532-1555	20 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tenmon (1532-1555)	1532-1555	40 / /
Sukesada	祐定	2nd	Bizen	Tenmon (1532-1555)	1532-1555	80 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Kōji (1555-1558)	1555-1558	40 / /
Sukesada	祐定	2nd	Bizen	Eiroku (1558-1570)	1558-1570	40 / /
Sukesada	祐定	2nd	Bizen	Tensho (1573-1592)	1573-1592	15 / /
Sukesada	祐定	3rd	Bizen	Tensho (1573-1592)	1573-1592	15 / 450 /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tensho (1573-1592)	1573-1592	15 / 450 /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Tensho (1573-1592)	1573-1592	90 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Keichō (1596-1615)	1596-1615	15 / /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Keichō (1596-1615)	1596-1615	15 / 300 /
Sukesada	祐定		Bizen	Kanei (1624-1644)	1624-1644	15 / /
Sukesada	祐定	1st	Bizen	Kanei (1624-1644)	1624-1644	15 / 350 /

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Although various smith lists do talk about 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation Sukesada, they seem fairly arbitrary, and the dates often overlap or are too far apart to make sense to me, and judging from this you do get a sense of father, sons, brothers, cousins even, making a large Sukesada bandwagon community, sharing every last drop of glory (and income) from the Sukesada name!
 

Some of the genius Sukesada smiths stand out from the crowd, and certain other close relatives come close.

[kissakai]

Thanks Piers, at this stage maybe the list can be trimmed down. I'm drawn to the distinctive kanji

 

[Bugyotsuji]

In other words you are asking us which approach might be best?

Do we trust the group instinct for a slice of historical time, as above, and narrow down from there?

Or do we list all the Sukesada smiths who signed with eight characters in exactly the same format as your blade, (e.g. …Koku/Kuni, Osafuné Jū, and no Saku) and erase all the recorded ones with a different style of writing?

Or do we apply all these methods together, hoping to push the known boundaries? 

[Bugyotsuji]

PS I have a Sukesada wakizashi which at least has a date of Tembun 3 on it, which is nice to have, but I am still in the same boat. Although the Mei is similarly short, the blade is not a Kazu-uchi mono. So…….

Which actual Sukesada was it? Same question! 

 

My giant Mei compendium lists up the Mei formats of many Sukesada smiths of the 1500s. Should I go back and photograph them all again and post them here on NMB once more? 
 

Quote from p.28, 18 Jan in Edo Period Corner part II: “I just looked up Sukesada who signed short like that, and who produced known swords in early Tenbun, or in the preceding Taiei/Kyōroku (1521-1532). Maybe I should have included late Eishō.
    Found 12 smith entries and photographed them all! “

    
 

     
 
 

[Rivkin]

there are three mainline smiths which are considered as individuals, the rest are sort of interchangeable and indistinguishable. 

The issue is the nakago and especially the second kanji, to the point of asking oneself is this gimei or real, and if real than its quite unusual and if one can find something similar. The writing is not typical, but its well done so there is a chance.

[kissakai]

Something more to think about

With so many unknowns I assume this post has run it's course

 

Thanks

 

[Bugyotsuji]

That's a good question, Grev. They definitely do need sorting out; it's still a rats' nest.

[kissakai]

Is it worth me starting a new post 'Sukesada' where NMB members can try to put it in some sort of order?

 

[Gakusee]

5 hours ago, kissakai said:

Is it worth me starting a new post 'Sukesada' where NMB members can try to put it in some sort of order?

 

 

Apologies, Grev - what are you trying to achieve with a new Sukesada post? Markus Sesko and Hawley have both listed and sorted various Sukesada smiths. 

 

If it is one of the master smiths, eg Yosozaemon, etc, usually the sword tang will bear the specific name or the NBTHK will have noted it. If the NBTHK have not noted one of the greats (Yosozaemon, Hikobei, Genbei, Hikozaemon) on the paper, then it is one of the many Sukesada smiths (or at best they might say something like 'late generation').

 

[kissakai]

Hi Michael

It was this response that posed the question:

They definitely do need sorting out; it's still a rats' nest.

It's not something that is of any real interest to me so it can stop here.

 

[Gakusee]

The reality is that they cannot be 'sorted out' to a specific smith unless they are dated and named (or in very rare circumstances, the quality is very high and they are dated, so they go to the school head of the time). They are often generic, multitudinous and span several centuries. One could say 'well this does look like a Muromachi Sukesada' or 'this is signed Sukesada,the mei is a bit unusual for the Muromachi ones, so likely later one', or 'this is a Sukesada but the shape is not early', etc. 

Actually, people sometimes even struggle to differentiate between a kaziuchimono Sukesada from non-kaziuchimono one, let alone pinpoint a generic one.

So with the more generic Sukesada, one can sort of veer towards a broad period and whether it is mass made or not.