Help with information Yoshimasa ( 3rd generation), Tsukushi Nobukuni school. Any insights from the group ?

[Jon]

I’m presently looking at all the information I can find on the the smith Minamoto  Nobukuni Heishiro Yoshimasa ( 3rd generation Yoshimasa)

 

What I know so far:

 

He is the third generation Yoshimasa from the Tusukushi Nubukuni school ( Chikuzen province), school founder was Yoshisada keicho ( 1st generation Yoshisada), with the first generation Yoshimasa being his son. 
 

Yoshimasa 3 made swords in the around Jokyo era ( 1684 to 1688) in the Chikuzen province.

 

rating wise I believe he was rated by Fujishiro as Jo Saku, his Toko Taikan rating was ¥3M ( on page 747) and his Hawley rating was 40 ( ref YOS363).  Now the ratings confuse me a bit as I understand it a hawley rating of 40 is pretty average work at best, the same with the Toko Taikan rating of ¥3M…so the Fujishiro rating of Jo Saku seems higher than the others ( I may be wrong).

 

if anyone else has any views on this smith, his rating, school, links to on line articles or actual examples of his work to show I would be great full.

 

Jonathan

[mdiddy]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

if anyone else has any views on this smith, his rating, school, links to on line articles or actual examples of his work to show I would be great full

 

I am a fan of Chikuzen Nobukuni Yoshimasa. I have had several and keep one in my collection as it was an early find. If you google around for 'Nobukuni Yoshimasa' or 'Chikuzen Nobukuni Yoshimasa' you should find very many examples to compare to as well as good info on the Chikuzen Nobukuni school and his place in it.

 

I wonder based on what you are saying if you are more likely to have an example by the 2nd generation Yoshimasa rather than the 3rd. The 2nd was very prolific and active in Kambun. The ratings you share align with the 2nd. You would probably be much more likely to run into a 2nd generation Yoshimasa than a 3rd. Would you have some pictures to share?

 

Here are pictures of a couple. The katana is from my collection and shows a Soshu-style gunome midare with deep nioi guchi and prevalent sunagashi. The wakizashi I sold sometime back but shows a different type of gunome hamon. I also have a katana with a nice suguha, but no photos of it to share (yet).

 

[Jon]

Hi matt

 

Thanks for the response and great pictures, they are two nice blades, lovely 

 

I’m glade to see there is some enthusiasm for Chikuzen Nobukuni Yoshimasa. Im a new collector and it’s the first blade I have  purchased ( I have another  blade ( koto) I inherited, that’s is out for Polish and a Shirasaya).

 

But the blade I’ve just purchased is papered as Hozon Yoshimasa (3rd) chikuzen ju minamoto Nobukuni 

 

Katana Length/Type: 70.2cm Shinogi-zukuri Blade Width at: Machi 2.8cm   Yokote 1.75cm
Kasane: 0.7cm Sori: 1.4cm  Tori  Kissaki: Chu-kissaki Mune:  Lori   Nakago Length: 25.2cm Mekugi ana: Two
Nakago: Suriage Nakago Shape: Futsu Nakago-jiri: Inyama  Yasurime: (omote) Kiri  (ura) Katte
Mei: Katana-mei Chikuzen ju Minamoto Nobukuni Heishiro Yoshimasa Hamon: Suguha Boshi:  Ko-maru sagari 

 

I should get it next week so only have dealers pictures at present, cannot wait to get it in hand. Once I have it I will take some better pictures and upload them.

 

[Jon]

Interestingly from what I can read the first generation Yoshimasa was the best of the Tusukushi Nubukuni so I may have to see if I can find one of this smiths swords to look at.

[mywei]

Might not be what you're looking for but

 

https://nihontou.jp/...gu/nagae/053/00.html

 

Elegant naginata signed Heishiro Yoshimasa (not sure 1st or 2nd gen.), lacks papers but looks like a active work in his style in good condition

 

 

[Katsujinken]

The SHODAI and NIDAI (1st and 2nd generation) Yoshimasa were ranked Jo Saku by Fujishiro. As I mentioned in your other thread, the 3rd generation is ranked chu saku, the "lowest" rank given by Fujishiro. This aligns with the other rankings you have noted and with the price you paid. But again please understand these "rankings" are relative and inexact and not a shortcut to placing blades in context. To truly understand requires lots of time with books and swords in hand. Welcome to the rabbit hole!

[Jacques]

48 minutes ago, Katsujinken said:

. But again please understand these "rankings" are relative and inexact and not a shortcut to placing blades in context. To truly understand requires lots of time with books and swords in hand. Welcome to the rabbit hole!

 

I would love to know why these rankings are relative and inexact.

[Katsujinken]

29 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

 

I would love to know why these rankings are relative and inexact.

Okay, Jacques, I’ll bite despite your usual latent sarcasm. :-P

 

it’s really quite simple, especially for a less experienced collector. These rankings refer to the overall work of a given smith and are also to an extent a product of the time in which they were promulgated. They do not necessarily speak to a specific blade in question. This speaks to my very first piece of advice in the other thread, which is of course, to always buy the blade and not the papers. And as we all know, in order to do this one must educate oneself via books, and seeing swords in person, and learning from experienced luminaries such as yourself. 

[Jon]

4 hours ago, Katsujinken said:

3rd generation is ranked chu saku

cheers Michael, it looks there is an error in the data base I was using at it stated the 3rd generation was Jo Saku, it was confusing me ( as I understood he was not in any way comparable to the first Yoshimasa, and this is why I was asking the question as the data therefore seems to have an error and I don’t have access to the seminal books on smith grades.

Also the data base was not tying up with the information I was reading, kokan Nagayama (1995 translated 1997) clearly stated the best smith in the school was the first generation Yoshimasa, who was the the son of Nobukuni Yoshisada ( the founder of the school). But the data base below was not clear on that. So really my question is on the seaming inconsistencies. Im starting to get that especially with these ratings they are profoundly contextual, which is the fun of starting to study something which is based around both and art and science.

 

again cheers.

 

 

 

[mdiddy]

On 6/30/2023 at 5:55 PM, Jon said:

But the blade I’ve just purchased is papered as Hozon Yoshimasa (3rd) chikuzen ju minamoto Nobukuni 

 

 

Maybe some good news, but the Hozon paper makes no mention of the generation. It just confirms the mei as Chikuzen ju Minamoto Nobukuni Heishiro Yoshimasa. Regardless of the relativity of rankings, the rankings are higher for the nidai (2nd generation) vs. the sandai (3rd generation).

 

The style of mei on your sword - kanji, chisel width, tagane, etc - is very similar to that of the nidai (2nd generation).  I compared your mei to some others out there.

 

 

[Jon]

21 minutes ago, mdiddy said:

I compared your mei to some others out there.

Matt

 

Thankyou so much for this, I will add this to my research file. You’re all providing some brilliant information on this school.

[SteveM]

Here are two papered examples of Yoshimasa 3rd 

 

https://ginza.choshu...e/gj/tloh/001/17.htm  ←tokubetsu hozon

 

https://www.e-nihont.../products/detail/853   ← hozon

 

 

[Katsujinken]

I suspect if the NBTHK felt strongly about a generation they would have specified one given the implications of an attribution to the first or second generation. This is perhaps why the original seller pointed to the third generation. That said, I haven’t examined the mei in detail. 

[Jacques]

On 7/2/2023 at 9:04 AM, Katsujinken said:

Okay, Jacques, I’ll bite despite your usual latent sarcasm. :-P

 

it’s really quite simple, especially for a less experienced collector. These rankings refer to the overall work of a given smith and are also to an extent a product of the time in which they were promulgated. They do not necessarily speak to a specific blade in question. This speaks to my very first piece of advice in the other thread, which is of course, to always buy the blade and not the papers. And as we all know, in order to do this one must educate oneself via books, and seeing swords in person, and learning from experienced luminaries such as yourself. 

 

I see no reason why one swordsmith being ranked higher than another should be inaccurate. Besides, everything is relative, and that's precisely what Fujishiro is doing. Now you have to be able to judge the difference in level between a jo saku and a chu saku, and this difference does indeed exist.

 

ps no sarcasm there.