Izumi no Kami Kunisada...which one?

[george trotter]

Hi All,

Had an interesting day yesterday...I was asked to look at a naval kyugunto. Blade was typical shape, hada, hamon, kissaki for Kanbun Osaka Shinto...and so it proved to be. I was amazed to see the Osuriage blade had it's original signature inlaid in the shortened tang. "Izumi no Kami Fujiwara Kunisada. The quality of the blade is certainly of a high grade. Here is my question...there are four generations between 1624 and 1688 or thereabouts. They rate, 1st =- 70 points, 2nd = 80 (became Shinkai), 3rd 40, and 4th 15 points. Looking at the mei I am fairly sure it is not 1st, definitely not 2nd...but as I have no pics of 3 & 4...could some of the group comment please.

Thanks,

George

[Grey Doffin]

None of the references in my index have the 3rd or 4th.

Grey

[Mark]

i do not know the blade length now,,,,, but i would think that if it is still a katana that the mei would have been folded over,,, no reason to cut it off and inset it ( i only see that with short - 2 kanji mei- that were from very long swords)............ seems strange

[george trotter]

Thanks for your comments...it is a bit strange that 3rd gen, of 40 points, does not seem to appear in oshigata books.

Mark, I understand what you are saying, I also have seen a number of the folded mei, but this one is correct...the blade features match the mei/group characteristics exactly. The blade was probably the usual length for Osaka Shinto of Kanbun, but has been shortened severely around the turn of the century (1880-1910) to fit these kyugunto fittings. The blade is now quite short, I didn't measure it, but it is shorter than WWII gunto length...say c.60 cm. I have no doubt the mei/tang are correct....just wondered which gen he was...I see gen 2 & 3 used kikumon...there is no sign of this. As I don't think it is 1st, and there is no kiku, I suppose it points to 4th?

Regards,

George.

[Jacques D.]

To be celar,

 

There is only 2 generations of Izumi no kami Kunisada (the second is Inoue Shinkai) and only the shodai used Fujiwara.

[george trotter]

Hi Jacques,

My sources say all four generations Kunisadas used Izumi no Kami, but they agree about FW, except they say 1 & 2 used it . I notice 1st gen has quite a bit of variation in his mei strokes...care to comment on this mei I posted?

Regards,

George.

[Ted Tenold]

Hi George,

 

Out of curiousity, which are the references that define the 3rd and 4th generations? Perhaps some of the members also have them and can look them up.

 

I haven't had a chance to compare this signature yet, but I'll take a moment and see what I can find at my first opportunity.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

...Hawley reports them as KUN 940 941 942 943 matching the relative value points of the first post...

Guess is this George is referring to...

[reinhard]

it is a bit strange that 3rd gen, of 40 points, does not seem to appear in oshigata books.

 

Not strange. Only logical. Like Jacques said: Third and fourth generation did not exist.

This is one of countless errors in Hawley's books. Good old Willis put just every single bit of information he could get into his compilations without checking their validity nor fully understanding their meaning.

Second generation KUNISADA, who used the same name like his father at the beginning, changed his name to SHINKAI during Kambun 12 (1672). He died suddenly in Tenwa 2 (1682). His fame surpassed his father's while he was still alive. Why should a son of his appear in 1681 using the old KUNISADA mei (until 1684) and even more absurd: How comes an almost contemporary "fourth generation" popped up at the same time, also using the old KUNISADA mei and working from 1681 to 1688 (according to Hawley)?

 

Last but not least: Never quote Hawley's silly rating points unless you are trying to undermine your credibility once and for all.

 

reinhard

[george trotter]

Hi all,

thanks for your replies. I see what you mean about Hawley's "four" generations of Kunisada Ted. Of course I used Hawley, not knowing he was in such error. I knew there were many small "doubling up" of smiths but not to this extent with such important makers...we live and learn. Gens 1 & 2 (Shinkai) I had seen in Japanese texts, but just assumed that the additional two listed in Hawley also existed...then couldn't understand why they were not in Fujishiro etc. I did not know Hawley was full of such serious errors like that.... pity Jacques didn't just say this in the beginning. As for the Hawley points sytem Reinhard, I don't use it or put any great store in it, I just put the points in the post...like Hawley says... to give a rough idea of relative standing. I suppose it like the Yen system in Toko Taikan.

 

we are never too old to learn...and on that point I get back to my original question...do you Ted, Jacques, Reinhard, have an opinion on the mei?

Thanks to all,

George.

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Hi George.

 

Hawley has to be double or triple checked with other, more reliable sources.

 

Guess you've already replied yourself in the first post exluding 1st and 2nd generation.

Considering there are no other ones...

[george trotter]

Whew...you guys...like facing a tag team...

Anyway, thanks Carlo...I'll remember that advice next time I consult Hawley.

 

In my first post I said I was "fairly sure" it wasn't the mei of 1st gen...I then asked the "group" for their comments ...so far there has been advice on the generations/Hawley, but I actually wanted feedback on the mei. Since the blade is definitely correct for the mei/school/period, so much so that I was able to pick it before removing the handle, (so the mei and the blade are definitely connected)....can I ask again...can you guys examine the pic and give me your opinion of the mei?

 

Thanks all,

George.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Since the blade is definitely correct for the mei/school/period

 

Oya Kunisada was a Horikawa Kunihiro student, so his style looks like Horikawa school in his first works.

 

About the mei as i can't see it clearly i can't say something.

[Ted Tenold]

Hi George,

 

From the image, it is difficult to make a clear comparison. Can you get some closer images of the mei, even if it's in groups of one or two kanji at a time? Stroke order, size, and character are very important. The reality of it is that even if members here find it a favorable comparison, the real judgment is made by those more qualified, and for that, the sword has to be submitted to a shinsa. Conditionally speaking, the fact that it's been greatly shortened with a gakumei will limit it's papering potential to lower or mid-level papers.

 

Anyways, please do try to get some better closeups of the signature. The exercise will do us good. :lol:

[John A Stuart]

The strokes in no way match to my amateur eyes, Izumi no Kami Kunisada (shodai). John

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

I actually wanted feedback on the mei.

 

George. It's Gakumei. Even in the case the Mei is legit, this doesn't mean the blade is by that specific maker.

To add a legit signature taken by a doomed blade to improve a (belivable enough) lesser sword is one of the tricks

Gakumei was used for.

 

Both signature and blade should be judged together, preferably in hand.

[reinhard]

The subject of KUNISADAs mei is very complicated. Fujishiro Matsuo made extensive research into this field. He explained and illustrated this in vol.8 of MeiTo Zukan. Nidai KUNISADA's dai-mei for his father made in Kaisho style (there are others), look very similar to shodai's late mei.

 

For illustration: The mei on the far right is by shodai KUNISADA, written during his later days. The other three are examples of nidai's dai-mei in Kaisho style for his father. - Before anybody is trying to tell what the differences are: These are four examples out of many. Please don't. Mr.Fujishiro explained it all in detail.

 

Sorry for not commenting the mei in question. It's not only that the picture is not good. The whole subject of KUNISADA-mei is far too complicated to make a valid statement from a distance.

 

reinhard

[george trotter]

Hi all,

Thank you for these comments. Very interesting. I also used these Fujishiro oshigata and found that some of the strokes are close so it "could be" shodai...but as you say, although the blade matches the School/period etc, a gakumei is one of the easiest ways of gimei of a lower quality blade. I will see this sword again this week and try to take some clearer, more revealing blade and overall pics....it will be interesting for this discussion....ultimately however, as Reinhard says, its proper appraisal needs to be done with sword in hand, and even then, it would still have to be confirmed by shinsa, but this is a good learning discussion....Thanks all, I will post new pics if they turn out good enough.

George.

[Bazza]

Hi all,

Thank you for these comments. Very interesting. I also used these Fujishiro oshigata and found that some of the strokes are close so it "could be" shodai...but as you say, although the blade matches the School/period etc, a gakumei is one of the easiest ways of gimei of a lower quality blade. I will see this sword again this week and try to take some clearer, more revealing blade and overall pics....it will be interesting for this discussion....ultimately however, as Reinhard says, its proper appraisal needs to be done with sword in hand, and even then, it would still have to be confirmed by shinsa, but this is a good learning discussion....Thanks all, I will post new pics if they turn out good enough.

George.

George et al,

Here is another source that might help the discussion:

http://www.nihontocraft.com/Izumi_no_Ka ... a_mei.html

 

Best regards,

Barry Thomas.

[george trotter]

Hi Baz...great article on Kunisada meis. I can see I really need to go back and have another look at this sword and also get the dry dust off the tang and try to get decent pics...then sit down and do some careful study (hamon BTW is same as illustration 1b). I also have a few reference books with gimei and shoshinmei examples. I may try tomorrow I think. Thanks again Baz.

George.

[george trotter]

Hi all...here are new pics of Kunisada...taken in garbage area behind a restaurant.

Dimensions: nagasa 64.3 cm; sori 0.8 mm; motohaba 28 mm; sakihaba 18 mm.

Hada is muji but does have some fine masame in shinogi ji.

Hamon is similar to hamon in Bazza's illustration 1a, but not so wide and has wider gaps between rises, some of which are a choji like shape and some square (fist) shaped...like Kawachi no Kami Kunisuke shodai.

I have looked over my books and the mei kindly provided by members and have to say I can't decide on any one of them...I suppose I am saying I am now more doubtful.

I would appreciate any comments and do acknowledge that first impressions have changed for me, so I understand that without having it in hand, I don't expect you can be too definite on this.

But, interesting sword and naval kyu-gunto fittings with tassel and mon (missing now).

Regards,

George.