A Question about Sword Attribution

[drac2k]

I have what appears to be a Naginata in a wooden saya with an attribution to what I believe is the sword maker, however there isn't an inscription on the tang. My question is how can someone assign a maker to the blade when it isn't named?

Also, a translation would be appreciated; I would have gone to the translation section first, but I also had the previous question.

[Stephen]

Sonething kuni Kaneuji translation section will fill in blanks

 

Usually it states the school or teacher 

[Franco D]

1 hour ago, drac2k said:

My question is how can someone assign a maker to the blade when it isn't named?

 

https://markussesko....kantei-introduction/

https://markussesko.com/kantei/

 

Keep in mind that while kantei is a proven method to identify the maker of an unsigned Japanese sword, an origami, or a sayagaki in this case, is a rendered opinion (generally, but not always, by a recognized expert). Keep in mind that even expert opinions are not infallible, that is, 100% correct all of the time.  Thus, it would be wise to proof such opinions of mumei swords and not simply accept its conclusion at face value without supporting evidence.  "The sword verifies the mei and not the other way around."

 

Regards,

 

[jesup]

The nice thing about mumei is it can't be gimei. :-)  I have a blade with 3 attributions: NHTK, NBTHK, and one personal one by an known expert from the 1970ish era.  NTHK and the expert agree; NBTHK attributes to a slightly "better" smith.  I (and another current expert, though only looking at images I took) agree with NTHK, though it's close.  But it's a very good smith, regardless.   (bought at Christies after it failed to sell at auction; I think it's an ex-Bruce Kowalski piece).  I may update the papers at some future shinsa here in the US.  It'll be interesting to see what *they* say :-)

 

(The two smiths are Daido and Mutsu no kami Kaneyasu)

[SteveM]

Sayagaki says

Mino-no-kuni Kaneuji

 

Length 1 shaku 5 sun 2 bu 

Value 1000 "kan"

 

Signed / Hon'ami Kōga

 

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

4 hours ago, SteveM said:

Sayagaki says

Mino-no-kuni Kaneuji

 

Length 1 shaku 5 sun 2 bu 

Value 1000 "kan"

 

Signed / Hon'ami Kōga

 

 

 

 

 

I was interested in the "Kan", as I hadn't come across it before.

 

When would the sayagaki have been done?

 

When / where would that unit have been used rather than yen etc?

 

[drac2k]

Thank you gentlemen for the wealth of information that you have provided me; as I am trying to digest this information I feel like a Neanderthal who has just been handed a laptop.

To crudely summarize my understanding is that there are certain governing bodies/societies that can identify swords like mine that are not named, by shape, style, metal hardness, temper line, etc.

The maker is Mino-no-Kuni Kaneuji; a length and a value have been assigned to it.

Is Hon'ami Koga the individual who ascertained the characteristics of the sword or is he the one who polished it?

Please excuse my simple questions, especially if I got the whole thing wrong. 

[SteveM]

The Hon'ami are a family of sword polishers and appraisers. "Family" is used very  loosely here, because as with most hereditary lineages in Japan there was a lot of adoption and marriages of convenience and branch lines. The Hon'ami were the official sword appraisers/caretakers to the Shogunate. Since swords were highly valued as gifts among the military aristocracy, the Hon'ami family had quite an important position in attributing or validating the value of these gifts. Swords were in constant circulation, going to and from the Tokyo central government, and back out to branch families of the Tokugawa, or to daimyo who provided a favor or service to the government, etc. When the shogunal government finally fell, and Japan starting modernizing in the late 1800s, the Hon'ami were cut loose from steady government employment, and drifted around for a bit. One of those drifters was Hon'ami Kōga. You can read about him here in Markus Sesko's article 

https://markussesko..../05/02/honami-koson/

 

Your sayagaki looks to be from the early 1900s. It doesn't look to me like its from the 1800s. So this puts it at odds with the time Hon'ami Kōga was alive. (It also doesn't look very much like Hon'ami Koga's normal signature). It could be a forgery, i.e. someone trying to make the sword look more important than it is. Or, it could be from Hon'ami Kōson (1879-1955), who was "adopted" into the Hon'ami family and married off to one of Kōga's relatives. The monogram written below the signature looks kind of like one used by Hon'ami Kōson. So maybe before he took the name "Hon'ami Kōson" he used the name of Kōga, to whom he was related through marriage. It is also very possible I have the name wrong,or the age of the sayagaki wrong, but to me the name looks like Kōga (written in calligraphic form). There are a lot of possibilities, and I'm just throwing all of these out there so you know the margin of error is pretty wide. Actually, there were two different Hon'ami appraisers who used the name Kōga, but the other one is from an even older time, so I've rejected him as even a remote possibility. 

 

The sayagaki doesn't mention anything about polishing, so who knows when it was last polished.  

 

Kan is a monetary unit equal to a string of 1000 copper "mon" coins. The values written on any sayagaki in modern times shouldn't be taken literally as a price for the sword inside. It should be considered a relative valuation, and its just a way for the Hon'ami to say "this sword is worth a lot of money". So you'll never find an amount on a Hon'ami sayagaki that doesn't represent a lot of money. Hard to say how much 1000 "kan" would be in today's money because of the huge fluctuation in exchange rates - let's say 1000 kan is about $100,000. Note, the "kan" as a unit of money wasn't in use at the time this sayagaki was written. As I said, its just a way of saying "you have a very valuable sword", which is what the customer wanted to hear when they approached a Hon'ami appraiser. I just read very recently (probably another Markus Sesko article) where the Hon'ami started using "kan" because it allowed them to use higher numbers; 1000 kan looks more impressive than "3 gold pieces", especially when people aren't really using "kan" anymore so they have no internalized concept of how much 1000 kan would be in real life. It just sounds like a lot. 

 

https://en.wikipedia...anese_mon_(currency)

 

 

[drac2k]

Thank you; you explained it perfectly so that even I could understand it.

[Brian]

Me too

[drac2k]

Well, this is the final chapter of this sword, maybe.

A friend of mine(even though I met him only once, I trust him wth my Japanese swords, so I guess that constitutes a friend), carried my sword to the "NTHK 2024 EAST COAST SHOW," and had it papered . Here are the results below.

This should be the end of the story, however, my friend told me that several knowledgeable sword collectors told him that if the sword was put into proper polish , it might turn out to be an older blade..........well, this is where I'm getting off on this train, but this certainly illustrates how complicated Japanese sword identification is!

 

[Franco D]

38 minutes ago, drac2k said:

several knowledgeable sword collectors told him that if the sword was put into proper polish , it might turn out to be an older blade.

 

Well, it is either already an older sword or it's not regardless of the shinsa result. 

So, the question comes down to whether or not you're willing to follow through to find out? 

This doesn't mean throw out the current shinsa result, but rather take the information given, learn from it, and use it to help you move forward.  

Selecting a polisher will be important if you choose to go that route. 

 

 

Regards

[drac2k]

I'll stay on second base and let the next guy at bat have a go at it ,lol .At present I'll enjoy it for what it is(as stated), and what it could be.

[ROKUJURO]

David,

just an additional remark: Perhaps it once was a NAGINATA, but as marked on the SHINSA leaflet, technically it is now a WAKIZASHI. Depending on the HAMON in the tip (KAERI or not), it may prove to be a NAGINATA NAOSHI.

[drac2k]

Thanks for the additional insight.

[Natichu]

6 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

David,

just an additional remark: Perhaps it once was a NAGINATA, but as marked on the SHINSA leaflet, technically it is now a WAKIZASHI. Depending on the HAMON in the tip (KAERI or not), it may prove to be a NAGINATA NAOSHI.

Doesn't the shinsa report note it specifically to be naginata naoshi? 

 

Under construction, it is listed as "(その他)薙刀直し". 

[Rivkin]

Unfortunately I estimate about 25% of mumei blades at this shinsa were papered to Echizen Seki.

Its basically says "late Muromachi to Kambun, we don't care about the details".

[mywei]

That seems a bit sub-optimal in terms of shinsa quality?

[ROKUJURO]

12 hours ago, Natichu said:

Doesn't the shinsa report note it specifically to be naginata naoshi?  Under construction, it is listed as "(その他)薙刀直し". 

Indeed, there it is: NAGINATA NAOSHI! 

[Franco D]

 

 Such a thin blade with naginata hi and mitsu-mune on a naginata naoshi might raise some interesting possibilities. 

Out of polish mumei o suriage generally will not get you definitive answers.

 

Regards

Edited August 3 by Franco D

[Shugyosha]

14 hours ago, mywei said:

That seems a bit sub-optimal in terms of shinsa quality?

Haven’t there always been “dustbin” categories for later mumei blades? Bungo Takeda used to be favourite with the NBTHK as they worked in a number of styles. Many blades and little time will lead to less effort being made with the more generic blades. 

[Rivkin]

18 hours ago, mywei said:

That seems a bit sub-optimal in terms of shinsa quality?

It does save a lot of time though. Probably the feeling is its not worth to consider a more detailed analysis which for the period will not be precise anyway. NTHK NPO issues many Kaga judgements for the same rough period.

This being said, there has been many weird things with the shinsa in the post-Covid timeline.

At the show I learned a blade papered as Bungo Yukihira by NTHK was given Muromachi Naminohira judgement by NBTHK.

 

Personally it looks like neither, though I hope my memory is valid enough to serve as a reference. There was none of typical Yukihira specific features like the start of the hamon etc., but it did look early (ko kissaki, narrow hamon), had a sense of rustic Kyushu (darker jigane with utsuri, somewhat coarse masame), but did not have a typical wave strong single masame line of Naminohira and nioi-guchi though tired in places was I think better defined.

It looked like a blade one would not be able to put in a single bin with 100% certainty - yes can be early and Kyushu, but not a match for Jitsua or Naminohira... Though Jitsua would make some sense, but going all the way to the famous Bungo Yukihira basically shocked the show attenders.

 

I think that NBTHK is becoming more and more conservative (i.e. Muromachi-oriented), but at the same time they are producing less eyebrows rising judgements.

Its interesting that as a result the collectors community now more seriously considers alternative judgements or asking different people for opinions. "Papered to X but the judgement is weak" is often heard.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Perhaps western collectors can form their own Shinsa panel, then everything would be attributed to the very best smiths....!