Obscure Maker Wakizashi

[2damaxx182]

Hello group, 

First time post here. Just trying to get more info about an obscure Maker. Bought this wakizashi a couple years ago and not had much luck learning more about it or it's maker. Had a knowledgeable source tell me it's Kanbun Period and most likely from school Seki in Mino. The Mei reads "濃州住兼品" Noshu Ju Kaneshina? Any information would be greatly appreciated. It did come with kicho white papers but I know those don't mean much these days. 

[SteveM]

Hello Michael - Do you have a picture of the papers?

[2damaxx182]

I do. Also have picture of the registration.

 

Edited January 21 by 2damaxx182
Got better pic

[SteveM]

I'm at a loss. No such swordsmith (Kaneshina) appears in any of the obvious references. My gut feeling is that the original reading of Kaneshina may be wrong, and that the "shina" part is actually something else. But I can't tell what it might be. But I could be wrong. Stay tuned. Maybe somebody on the forum has a more comprehensive list of Nōshū swordsmiths.

 

Nōshū is synonymous with Mino. Seki is the center of swordmaking in Nōshū/Mino province. Kanbun is also a safe bet for this sword. 

[Jonas Ne]

I dont have any information to contribute, but I would like to say beautiful sword!

[2damaxx182]

Thank you so much. I seem to see a pattern with my sword. No one can definitively say much about it but it seems to be obviously Seki Mino and Kanbun or early Edo. At some point I will get the motivation to just submit it to Shinsa. I'm convinced it will pass Hozon but I just wish I could get more perspective on my wakizashi. It's my first and so beloved to me. If only I knew more about it. 

[Kanenaga]

Perhaps kanekazu ?

[2damaxx182]

Interesting. What made you think Kanekazu? 

[Jacques D.]

If it can help, the Nihonto meikan lists a Kane (nobu,nara nori)  兼命 who was from Seki and worked in Kansho 寛正 (1460/1466).

[SteveM]

3 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

兼命

 

Yes, this is the kind of thing I was thinking. 

 

 

[Kanenaga]

So my copy of Self & Hirose (Japanese Art Signatures) shows the kanji with the three boxes can be read "kazu". Not one that we encounter often in sword signatures.

[SteveM]

Yes the kanji 品 can have several possible pronunciations (shina, kazu, nori, etc.). I use the word pronunciations here instead of "readings" because it can be confusing. How you pronounce 品 isn't the problem here. The problem is that the name, 兼品, doesn't show up in the usual swordsmith indexes. So I suspect the name on the sword isn't actually 兼品, but something that looks confusingly similar.

 

Maybe 兼邑 or 兼別 or 兼命 or something like that. It's hard to determine what that second kanji is, because its not inscribed very clearly. 

 

In 1951, which is the date on the registration card, the NBTHK was just a couple of years old, and they may well have made a mistake in thinking this 2nd kanji was 品. They would have been looking at a huge volume of swords and would have had very little time to research each sword. 

[2damaxx182]

On 1/27/2024 at 8:23 AM, SteveM said:

Yes the kanji 品 can have several possible pronunciations (shina, kazu, nori, etc.). I use the word pronunciations here instead of "readings" because it can be confusing. How you pronounce 品 isn't the problem here. The problem is that the name, 兼品, doesn't show up in the usual swordsmith indexes. So I suspect the name on the sword isn't actually 兼品, but something that looks confusingly similar.

 

Maybe 兼邑 or 兼別 or 兼命 or something like that. It's hard to determine what that second kanji is, because its not inscribed very clearly. 

 

In 1951, which is the date on the registration card, the NBTHK was just a couple of years old, and they may well have made a mistake in thinking this 2nd kanji was 品. They would have been looking at a huge volume of swords and would have had very little time to research each sword. 

This is super interesting. I guess I don't have many other options then other then to submit to Shinsa. No info at all about this maker due to the confusion with that last kanji. 

[Bugyotsuji]

I suspect that if we can’t read it here, then the staff at Shinsa will not be able to read it.

[Rivkin]

I guess shinsa's response - they won't care. Its a shinto blade by an unlisted (or not) smith of minor standing. Ok. They'll issue the papers, whether with or without the full name but certainly without much specifics. They do it all the time.

[Mikaveli]

I also couldn't find any listings for the Kanji 兼品

 

So, just possible suggestions, based on alternative Kanji (sharing a radical or visually similar), not looking at the blade:

 

兼印 Kaneaki - 15th century Seki smith.

兼昭 Kaneaki - 20th century Gifu smith.

兼円 Kanemaru - 15the century Seki (2 generations)

兼昌 Kanemasa - at least two generations

兼命 Kanenaga - multiple possibilities.

兼里 Kanesato - various.

兼知 Kanetomo - various.

兼角 Kanezumi - various.

兼嘉 or 兼賀 Kaneyoshi etc.

 

Not sure it's any of the above, but all are worth looking at how similar their signatures appear, perhaps?

 

 

[2damaxx182]

16 hours ago, Rivkin said:

I guess shinsa's response - they won't care. Its a shinto blade by an unlisted (or not) smith of minor standing. Ok. They'll issue the papers, whether with or without the full name but certainly without much specifics. They do it all the time.

I'm newer to all this. It's my first blade after all. I'm surprised by this prediction. So they would issue Hozon papers but not really know who the maker is? I thought the nbthk would be more strict. I also thought it would be more recognizable because it's registered in 51 when only daimyo were registering first. Does that not really hold weight? 

[Rivkin]

15 minutes ago, 2damaxx182 said:

I'm newer to all this. It's my first blade after all. I'm surprised by this prediction. So they would issue Hozon papers but not really know who the maker is? I thought the nbthk would be more strict. I also thought it would be more recognizable because it's registered in 51 when only daimyo were registering first. Does that not really hold weight? 

 

Explanations begin at Juyo level. Till then the paper says sort of "its signed ... Its genuine". ... can be incomplete signature. were it really old they would maybe also say like "Muromachi".

[SteveM]

6 hours ago, 2damaxx182 said:

I also thought it would be more recognizable because it's registered in 51 when only daimyo were registering first. Does that not really hold weight? 

 

It's not a very reliable "rule of thumb" for anything but maybe the first 1000 swords or so. Yours is #5975. And despite the name "daimyo registrations", there were no more daimyo after the 1870s. Many of them transitioned into politics and became part of Japan's "peerage", and it was these guys and their heirs who held swords in 1951. All swords were supposed to be registered, not just the good ones, and not just ones held by the former daimyo and their heirs. Its just that the big collectors were encouraged to register so that everyone would feel confident in the new system. 

 

I should also correct something I said earlier. The NBTHK didn't and doesn't register the swords; its done by people from the Ministry of Culture, and then later devolved from them to the local Boards of Education. But the guys at the Ministry of Culture who were in charge of the very first registrations, were also the same guys who set up the NBTHK, so there is some overlap in the personnel. At any rate, the guys doing the registering aren't interested in whether the name is authentic or not. They are just recording what they see on the tang. 

 

With regard to your sword, in order to submit it to shinsa, you would first have to send it to Japan, where it would get "re-registered". You need an agent located in Japan to handle this. The old registration card you have is now invalid, hence, it needs needs to be re-registered before it can be submitted for shinsa. After that, you can send it to the NBTHK for authentication. From there, it will be as Rivkin says. 

[2damaxx182]

On 1/30/2024 at 9:33 PM, Rivkin said:

 

Just to reiterate I'm newer to this topic. But so I can learn. But from what was said here the NBTHK and Shinsa don't track sword makers or really try to find a history of the blade. They verify authenticity and provide papers to prove it. Juyo is highest so they will on those but with a sword like mine they will issues Hozon papers and may or may not add the Mei on the page? It seems like Hozon papers are just for investment purposes. I myself am more interested into in the history of the sword. Is submitting to Shinsa worth it? At the very least since this maker isn't on any records would it be worth it to submit just to get this 'Kane-shina" on the records? Or is it not worth it in your experience. 

[Rivkin]

In theory they can put school (province), period, even generation in papers.

Often there will be hints allowing to pinpoint such data, even if its not stated directly... sometimes its what missing that counts, like the Masamune will simply go by his name, but something like "Shitahara Masamune" will include school's name. Its rather cryptic and requires significant experience to understand.

With a rather basic signed blade 90% chance they will copy the signature as they see it, ... in places they can't read, and say its authentic. 

Is it worth it is a question to someone willing to spend... I would just use the same money and buy a second blade.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Perhaps you could take a high quality picture of the signature and another of bottom character directly from above. There were some good possibilities that could be plausible smiths of the item.

 

Your sword seems to have the old NBTHK Kicho paper that was issued in 1972 (昭和47). Back when the old papering system was in use by NBTHK then also branches around Japan could issue the papers. Even though these things have happened much before I was born I have looked into it as I am lucky to have the NBTHK magazines from this time. For example in 1969, there were several local branch shinsa every month. Now as I have the magazines there were problems in that method of shinsa, and local branch shinsa were stopped few times, before altering the system to the current one. I believe one local branch shinsa termination happened at the end of 1972.

 

I think sending to NBTHK might not be worth it, as Kirill said. Even though I am a member and big supporter of the organization and I do appreciate their current system, unfortunately currently just the cost and difficulty of sending an item like this from outside Japan is just too high in my personal opinion. I do think there is a high chance that NBTHK would have some info and references on the smith if they can read/guess the character. They do have their own records of papered items and I think Hozon blades are 120,000+ currently but I believe they do not share those records.

 

I feel you have nice and interesting item, hopefully you are enjoying trying to figure it out. I think that is one of the fun parts of this hobby.

[2damaxx182]

4 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Perhaps you could take a high quality picture of the signature and another of bottom character directly from above. There were some good possibilities that could be plausible smiths of the item.

 

Your sword seems to have the old NBTHK Kicho paper that was issued in 1972 (昭和47). Back when the old papering system was in use by NBTHK then also branches around Japan could issue the papers. Even though these things have happened much before I was born I have looked into it as I am lucky to have the NBTHK magazines from this time. For example in 1969, there were several local branch shinsa every month. Now as I have the magazines there were problems in that method of shinsa, and local branch shinsa were stopped few times, before altering the system to the current one. I believe one local branch shinsa termination happened at the end of 1972.

 

I think sending to NBTHK might not be worth it, as Kirill said. Even though I am a member and big supporter of the organization and I do appreciate their current system, unfortunately currently just the cost and difficulty of sending an item like this from outside Japan is just too high in my personal opinion. I do think there is a high chance that NBTHK would have some info and references on the smith if they can read/guess the character. They do have their own records of papered items and I think Hozon blades are 120,000+ currently but I believe they do not share those records.

 

I feel you have nice and interesting item, hopefully you are enjoying trying to figure it out. I think that is one of the fun parts of this hobby.

Its been a bitter sweet experience because i feel like I'm drinking from a firehose of information. I just want to know more about the history of my sword not for value but just because Japanese culture and history is fascinating to me. I also want to know how old it is. When I first got it it was stated to be Kanbun era which to me is super cool. I'm in the USA and I think it's super cool that my sword is older then our countries independence. But the more I learn the more I know everything is just an educated guess. That makes the search for info more stressful. What if I don't have anything special at all. Like i said. Bitter sweet. Working on getting better pics of the mei now. 

[2damaxx182]

17 minutes ago, 2damaxx182 said:

Its been a bitter sweet experience because i feel like I'm drinking from a firehose of information. I just want to know more about the history of my sword not for value but just because Japanese culture and history is fascinating to me. I also want to know how old it is. When I first got it it was stated to be Kanbun era which to me is super cool. I'm in the USA and I think it's super cool that my sword is older then our countries independence. But the more I learn the more I know everything is just an educated guess. That makes the search for info more stressful. What if I don't have anything special at all. Like i said. Bitter sweet. Working on getting better pics of the mei now. 

 

[SteveM]

Very few of us know the specific histories of our swords. It's just one of those "unknowable" things unless your sword came with a detailed provenance. Even for Jūyō swords (or Tokubetsu Jūyō), the NBTHK doesn't research the history of the sword. They just provide you with details on the specifics of the sword as they see it now: the hataraki, the shape, the inscription, any other engravings, etc.. Even if the sword comes with an origami paper, or a sayagaki, the NBTHK may not even mention those things at all, or mention them in passing.

 

I think what you have is definitely special, in that it is a real, traditionally-made, Japanese sword. I think Kanbun is the right call, and though I have some doubt about the second character of the swordsmith's name, I have no reason to doubt the 濃州 (Nōshū/Mino).

 

Looking at the new close-ups you just posted, I still don't know what it is. It looks like 品, but the lack of any reference to any such smith nudges me to think the second kanji is something else. It could well be an undocumented smith. (Doesn't change the likelihood that its a Nōshū blade from the Kanbun era). 

 

 

[2damaxx182]

12 minutes ago, SteveM said:

Very few of us know the specific histories of our swords. It's just one of those "unknowable" things unless your sword came with a detailed provenance. Even for Jūyō swords (or Tokubetsu Jūyō), the NBTHK doesn't research the history of the sword. They just provide you with details on the specifics of the sword as they see it now: the hataraki, the shape, the inscription, any other engravings, etc.. Even if the sword comes with an origami paper, or a sayagaki, the NBTHK may not even mention those things at all, or mention them in passing.

 

I think what you have is definitely special, in that it is a real, traditionally-made, Japanese sword. I think Kanbun is the right call, and though I have some doubt about the second character of the swordsmith's name, I have no reason to doubt the 濃州 (Nōshū/Mino).

 

Looking at the new close-ups you just posted, I still don't know what it is. It looks like 品, but the lack of any reference to any such smith nudges me to think the second kanji is something else. It could well be an undocumented smith. (Doesn't change the likelihood that its a Nōshū blade from the Kanbun era). 

 

 

I very much appreciate the perspective. it puts my mind at ease. And it also makes sense that there is a limit to what we can know. Possibly know about our swords especially with how old they are. I'll try to obsess a little less but I will always be on the lookout for that Shina kanji. I've yet to see it in any other mei. Maybe one day I'll learn more. 

[Bugyotsuji]

The closest I can find, if that Kanji has not been cut off in the middle, or even if it has, is something even more obscure like 邑

喿, 嵒 etc.

 

[Mark S.]

I have two such blades with smiths that aren’t recorded.  The first is a WW2 Showato katana signed Unjosai Katsunaga.  There are other examples of work by this smith but no official records reference him.  The second blade is a wakizashi signed Kuwana ju Morishige and was papered by the NTHK-NPO in 2023.  
 

Just an FYI, smiths/blades that are not recorded, but the organizations feel is ‘authentic’, are referred to as “Meikan-more” (roughly means “not in the Meikan”) and that phrase may be included on the paper. 
 

There is an old post somewhere (and it MAY have been stated by Darcy - a longtime respected member who is no longer with us) that states something like “one of the important aspects of sending a blade by an unknown, unrecorded smith to Shinsa is to get him on the record”.  Of course this may be considered a ‘selfless act’ as it would cost you money and may not add anything to the value of your blade, but it may add to the knowledge and history of nihonto.  

[Bugyotsuji]

Also, something may not have been mentioned above, is that although some blades are dated, many are not, so an educated guess is the best you'll get without an authentic date on it.

 

For example, most of can look at a TV and say "early 1950s" because it is b&w, small screen in a clunky box, and has no remote control etc.