Koto (Soshu den?) or newer creation?

[JAMJ]

Hi all,  A question about this tanto I picked up a few years ago that is unsigned. What novice study I undertook on the blade it appears to be a Soshu-den creation, but would like input if it's actually Shinto blade made in an older style.  Thanks in advance.

[Ray Singer]

It would be helpful to see the entire nakago but this seems to be more recent and the horimono unfortunately does appear to be very crudely executed. 

[JAMJ]

Hi Ray, A few more images for you to take a look. The blade does appear to be tired and some of the horimino polished away. Thanks for your input.

[JAMJ]

Hi again, more on this.  Other searches point to the tanto characteristics being reminiscent of the Rai school, specifically the Kuninaga line. However if it's Shinto it is also similar to Yasutsugu school. Any thoughts on either of those possibilities?

 

Trying to learn where my deductions are failing me 😁.  Thanks

[Geraint]

Dear Jeff.

 

Your deductions are, to say the least optimistic.  For any quality sword everything will be quality, shape, hada, hamon and so on, including horimono.  Have a look here, http://www.sho-shin.com/edo-shimosaka.html  Look at the nakago, shape, file marks and so forth.  Look at the horimono, quality of carving. look at the blade geometry.  Train your eye to see the differences between your blade and those by great smiths.   What you are doing at the moment is equivalent to saying, 'It's a painting of sunflowers so it must be by Van Gogh'. You are just starting on a long journey, keep looking.

 

All the best.

 

 

[JAMJ]

Dear Geraint,

 

It is a long exercise indeed!  I know the quality isn't there I'm just using the "styles" that are displayed from the great schools. It's more for learning styles as a way of understanding which characteristics are adopted by which smiths.  If only there was an unlimited encyclopedia of not so great sword makers as a reference. 😂

 

The study of run-of-the-mill blades may be an exercise in futility. But it's a fun way to pass time.  Thanks!

[JAMJ]

Dear Geraint and anyone who can help educate.  I probably should also ask in general interest.   For me this is something of which I am truly ignorant.  It's it possible for less skilled smiths to work in the classic schools alongside the great smiths that we see represented in all the references but who turn out modest products.  Meaning, they learn and produce the same style of the quintessential smiths within those schools but their works are not recognized as associated with the school due to poorer quality?  Or was that simply not done?  I'm asking because I'm wondering if it is possible for mumei or gimei swords from those schools to be dismissed if they don't look like one of the representative masters..  I may be incorrectly presuming there were many more smiths at work than what are represented in the lineages.

I know there are other characteristics that date a sword, but specifically asking about contemporary swords for the periods.

Thank you for enlightening.

 

With appreciation -

[DoTanuki yokai]

Many masters have a habit of not to sign the work if they are not satisfied with it. (As an Hobby artist myself I understand this well)
Sometimes this blades gets attributed to the smith or someone else. 
Also many great smiths made copy’s of earlier famed works and some of them get attributed to the old masters. 
And sometimes one of the lesser rated smiths come up with a true beauty. 
The ratings tell you what you can expect from a smith but every blade must be judged on his own in my opinion. 
 

Only the best smiths really achieve to recreate the Beauty of the old master and are able to even fool the experts but many have tried. 
 

Edit: I think In most historical pieces when the work does not fit the smith it was simply attributed to someone else and that could lead over time to a wrong view of someones works  but we cannot go back in time and find out for sure, so we need to work with what we have.

[JAMJ]

Dear Christian,

Thank you for your reply. And it's understandable that if a named smith created an inferior piece of work they may not sign it. I guess what I'm also asking is take, for example, a modest unsigned koto blade existing today that has features similar to what was produced from a particular school during that period.  What is the likelihood that it came from an unnamed smith in an established school versus a smith who set up an independent shop? 

I imagine during warring periods schools were flooded with unnamed smiths to keep up demand. Did they copy the styles of the masters named in lineages or were their works unique?  

Trying to get a frame of reference for researching swords that are of lesser quality but have some telltale features. 

Much appreciated

[DoTanuki yokai]

How a smith made his swords was kept as a secret in the smithing schools back then. 
So to reproduce the works of the old master would require to know how he worked and what he did, outside of his school unlikely too find out and a random smith might not have the resources to pay for enough experiments to find out. 
 

This a why the Gokaden work so good in the early Nihonto times, they stick to what they know that it works because steel was too expensive to try things with it as a lesser smith. 

[Soshin]

23 hours ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

Many masters have a habit of not to sign the work if they are not satisfied with it. (As an Hobby artist myself I understand this well)
Sometimes this blades gets attributed to the smith or someone else. 

 

That is one possibility, but you might also be projecting your own idea and emotions about the art you create as a hobby on a professional artist (that is what they did day in and day out) that lived many 100s of years ago in premodern or medieval Japan. There is also a cultural dynamic you might be missing as well. For example, swords made as offering at Shinto Shrines and Buddhist Temple generally speaking never being singed out of respect to the Kami or buddhas. Ultimately, we do not know for sure why some great works are never signed.   

[JAMJ]

All good information to bear in mind.  If I could surmise a couple points again for my edification. Is it true then that 1) any koto sword would have come from an established school, and 2) regardless of the mei and quality of these swords it should be attributed to the school indicative of its characteristics. Not considering the swords that may have been re-tempered. Is that a safe to say? 

Many thanks

[Geraint]

Dear Jeff.

 

To add to what has already been said.  I think you are asking a complex question and so the answers will be equally complex.  Let me have a stab at it. (Pun intended!)

In the latter part of the Muromachi period the demand for swords was very high and the extant schools were producing at quite a rate.  It is generally agreed that some of those swords were functional but of lower quality.  These swords are often called kazu uchi mono or sokoto, see a really good resource here, https://studyingjapa...engoku-period-sword/    Bizen province produced large numbers of swords at this time and the name Sukesada is common.  If a mumei sword of this period has the characteristics of  Bizen Sukesada school work, in other words it has been forged using the same technique then it would likely be attributed to Bizen Sukesada.  As with every statement in this subject there are exceptions but a Bizen Sukesada smith would normally forge in the school style.  In modern terms the style and the mei become a brand which sells, why would you do something different?

 

Certain smiths developed distinctive styles of their own and moving into Shinto times different schools emerge which have their own stylistic traits.  It also becomes quite common for smiths to travel to other schools to learn their technique and so forth.  To add to the confusion certain smiths became adept at forging, in both senses, the work of famous smiths.  Some very well known smiths sought to master all the gokaden and succeeded.  This was evidence of their mastery and they were not out to produce forgeries.  However unscrupulous dealers might either have the mei removed and then pass the sword off as a mumei work by a famous smith or add a false mei.

 

That's enough for one post, made things any clearer or just muddied the water?

 

All the best.

 

 

 

 

[JAMJ]

Dear Geraint,

Given that I would not expect to get my hands on a work by one of the highly adept masters, it seems for swords that I may acquire my assumptions would largely hold true.  Also, what is the likelihood that a modest Shinto sword extant today would have been made by a smith copying a different school style?

Thank you for the reference!

Even with the books I have on hand I find it difficult to piece together all the considerations to help me attribute a sword.

Much appreciated...

 

[DoTanuki yokai]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:26 PM, Soshin said:

 

That is one possibility, but you might also be projecting your own idea and emotions about the art you create as a hobby on a professional artist (that is what they did day in and day out) that lived many 100s of years ago in premodern or medieval Japan. There is also a cultural dynamic you might be missing as well. For example, swords made as offering at Shinto Shrines and Buddhist Temple generally speaking never being singed out of respect to the Kami or buddhas. Ultimately, we do not know for sure why some great works are never signed.   

Interesting approach but instead of projecting stuff I actually take it from a story about Koyama Munetsugu where it is told that he does not sign works he is unsatisfied with. 
For more examples yokoyama blades that have only one side of the signature only “Bishu Osafune ju” or the many Tanto by kiyomaro. 

[Soshin]

1 hour ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

Interesting approach but instead of projecting stuff I actually take it from a story about Koyama Munetsugu where it is told that he does not sign works he is unsatisfied with. 
For more examples yokoyama blades that have only one side of the signature only “Bishu Osafune ju” or the many Tanto by kiyomaro. 

 

 

Okay, not projection then it its generalization by citing a few examples. This is meant as a joke and not disrespect, but I am intellectually curious how common this approach was historically when it came to Japanese sword and sword fittings artists working in their active periods.   

[DoTanuki yokai]

I just think being a goban kaji or mondo no sho is a honor but also gives high expectations on your work. 
They are great masters but I can imagine that they also make mistakes from time to time and make inferior blades not worth the title they carry. (In their own opinion)

Like you said there are many reasons why a blade could be unsigned and I don’t know of any pre edo stories supporting my point. 
Sadly I don’t think there will show up an old private historic letter translated by Markus Sesko from one smith to the other to solve this mistery 

[JAMJ]

Hi again,  I appreciate your insights on mumei nakago.  Still on the kick with this tanto.  Attaching newer pics that I hope reveal features better and also have done a little more research.  Could it be from early Shinto Yamashiro Horikawa Kunihiro school?  Like this smith?: https://nihontoclub.com/smiths/KUN863

 

 

[JAMJ]

Just realized the last two file formats didn't convert..

[Baba Yaga]

On 6/30/2023 at 4:26 AM, Geraint said:

Dear Jeff.

 

To add to what has already been said.  I think you are asking a complex question and so the answers will be equally complex.  Let me have a stab at it. (Pun intended!)

In the latter part of the Muromachi period the demand for swords was very high and the extant schools were producing at quite a rate.  It is generally agreed that some of those swords were functional but of lower quality.  These swords are often called kazu uchi mono or sokoto, see a really good resource here, https://studyingjapa...engoku-period-sword/    

 

 

 

 

• "Kazu-uchi-mono was a sword made just good enough for one battle. They were not made for permanent preservation."

Ya, this is a Mantra which came from a bad source of material. For some reason it's a highly repeated Gaff, If anything was produced Kazu uchi mono would  most definitely been Polearms and arrows used in 80% of the battles. If a weapon was made so flimsily is sure wouldn't last 100's of years. Can anyone really identify the source of this writing from the 15-16C.    

[JAMJ]

5 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

Kazu-uchi-mono was a sword made just good enough for one battle.

It does escape logic that a sword would be made to barely survive one battle. I wouldn't care to go to battle with such a weapon, although they may not have had a choice and hoped the battle would be resolved that day.

If the sword survived to this day I expect it had some value otherwise why preserve it over the centuries.  Or I suppose a bird in hand is better than any in the bush. 🤷

[Gakusee]

20 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

• "Kazu-uchi-mono was a sword made just good enough for one battle. They were not made for permanent preservation."

Ya, this is a Mantra which came from a bad source of material. For some reason it's a highly repeated Gaff, If anything was produced Kazu uchi mono would  most definitely been Polearms and arrows used in 80% of the battles. If a weapon was made so flimsily is sure wouldn't last 100's of years. Can anyone really identify the source of this writing from the 15-16C.    

Indeed, they were not made for one battle but were simply mass produced swords forged in large numbers and distributed in bundles. 
 

M Sesko:

 

kazuuchi-mono (数打ち物) – The changes in the Muromachi period, the insecure times during the warring Sengoku era, and the sword trade with Ming China brought an unprecedented mass production of swords. These mass produced swords became to be called kazuuchi-mono (lit. “made in large numbers”) and the Osafune smiths of Bizen province and the Seki smiths of Mino province were the main producers of such swords. But also Yamato was back then a center of sword mass production. As they were delivered in 
bundles (taba), they were also referred to as tabagatana (束刀, lit. “bundle swords”) or tabane-mono (束ね物). To distinguish between a mass produced and a elaborately made swords when talking of swords from the Muromachi and Sengoku era, the term chūmon-uchi (注文打ち) was introduced which means lit. “special order sword” or “sword made on order (and not produced ahead for stocks).”Mostly kazuuchi-mono were only briefly signed or not signed at all whereas chūmon-uchi proudly mention the full name of the swordsmith, his place of residence, and the production date on the tang.
 

[Baba Yaga]

, Where did Sesko find this information? What and WHO is the source?. Valadation occurs with more than one sources when a premise is challenged. This's exactly the same as what I call circuler reporting. One news agencey reports a story out of there buttox and all the others follow the story as being true, Has anyone notice information doesn't change in this hobby? America and other contries were the center of mass weapenry production and it worked ou tfor them. "just good enough for one battle" is the craziest premise of war I've heard in this hobby.  

 

[Brian]

Markus' info is correct. What do you see written there that even needs validation? It's pretty logical and documented.
He's not the one who said they were made for minimal use, you do know that right?

[JAMJ]

Mass-produced at a time of demand makes more sense than single use.

Having a signature on a custom-made sword is completely understandable. If I were to have a sword made I would insist the smith signed it. There are however multiple examples of unsigned swords attributed to great smiths throughout history, whether within or outside a period of increased demand. Are those of less value because they're not considered a custom (signed) job? Value is in the eye of the holder and, for example, historically the desire for a particular sugata is a characteristic that assigns value to the bearer.  To that, if it was designed for a particular customer's liking but in a manner that is not appealing to someone else then it should be if less value to others, regardless of the maker.

 

Ultimately, I suppose there is no greater value than sentimental value and probably why more than just custom-made swords have survived with great care to this day.  Informative discussion.

[Baba Yaga]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

 It's pretty logical and documented.
 

 

Interesting!  Can you provide documanation and multiple sources of information. Logical? "just good enough for one battle" That's not very logical for battle, or that time periods methods. 

 

For the record, Tsuba has nothing to do with my inquirie.   

 

[Brian]

Not sure if you actually have a point to make here. NO-ONE here is backing the "made for one battle" story. NO-ONE here stated that.
You're the only one harping on that point. Everyone else here including Markus has said that isn't valid and is an old wive's tale.
So what are you trying to prove?

[rematron]

Sesko did not say "just good enough for one battle".  That quote is from studyingjapaneseswords.com which appears to be run by Yurie Endo Halchak.

 

23| Sengoku Period Sword　(戦国時代刀） – Study of Japanese Sword (studyingjapaneseswords.com)

 

Sesko's literal translation of "kazuuchi-mono" is: 'made in large numbers', as @Gakusee pointed out above. 

[Baba Yaga]

3 hours ago, rematron said:

 

 

Sesko's literal translation of "kazuuchi-mono" is: 'made in large numbers', as @Gakusee pointed out above. 

 

Where, or who did Sesko recieve his literal "kazuuchi-mono" translation from?  

 

Let me make an analogy. All Japanese Miltary swords traditionaly made were mass produced in large numbers thus inferrior. I don't believe this is true but "similar" logic. 

 

[rematron]

I think Sesko could probably translate it himself, being a studier of Japanese language. However, here's what the web says: