My first Nihonto and my first question...

Honya · July 7

Hello everyone,

I would like to share some pictures of my first nihonto because I always enjoyed photos others posted here and I have also one question about it.

Mumei (attributed to Enju Kunifusa)
O-ei era (1394 - 1428)

nagasa 61,9 cm
sori 1,36 cm
weight 467 g
Moto-haba cca 27 mm
Saki-haba cca 16 mm

It is one of the smallest katanas and definitely the lightest I have heard about, but I really like it. I am sure I could buy a more valuable sword for the same amount of money, but I absolutely don't regret it.

It also came with a beautiful koshirae, although not originally made for this particular sword. I will post some photos later.

I am sorry for the quality of photos, I used my cellphone.

Best regards

Jan L.

Honya · July 7

And the question: in Torokusho there is written something different than "mumei" that should be there. Google translated it as "Yoshi (Den) Awataguchi" and it really seems to me that it might be the name of the school.

I want to say I am completely happy with the sword and also with its attribution. I only want to solve this mystery.

NBTHK origami - pic 1

Torokusho (I believe it's the right one because of the date, prefecture, length and mekugi ana) - pic 2

Google translator gave me this - pic 3

What is even more interesting for me, that there is a very strong connection between these schools and styles. (Awataguchi Kuniyoshi -> Rai Kuniyuki -> Enju Hiromura - as I found)

So far three possibilities came to my mind:

a) the person who registered the sword back in 1952 (or 1951?) misunderstood the meaning of the column and instead of writing "mumei", he wrote down his "attribution" (but then why it's only "Yoshi" and not for example Yoshimasa?)

b) there was something written on the nakago at the time of registration but the owner believed it's a gimei so he decided to remove it because he wanted the sword to receive NBTHK papers.

c) the least probable option - there was something barely visible on the nakago but it disappeared during these 70 years between registration and receiving Tokuho. I think it's almost impossible that the experts in NBTHK wouldn't notice anything.

Do you have any other idea how this could happen? What do you think about it and about the sword? I would really appreciate your opinion on this.

Please, feel free to post your opinion, I am not going to use it anywhere else...

Thank you in advance!

Best regards

Jan L.

Nobody · July 7

1 hour ago, Honya said:

And the question: in Torokusho there is written something different than "mumei" that should be there. Google translated it as "Yoshi (Den) Awataguchi" and it really seems to me that it might be the name of the school.

.................................

The description on the Torokusho is “なし（傳）粟田口 – None, (Thought to be) Awataguchi”.

なし(Nashi) means Mumei in this case.

Basically, registration papers do not mention any attribution. The Torokusho of your katana was issued in the first year when the registration system started. So, there might be a little confusions.

Lewis B · July 7

Looks like a good first sword in decent polish. Regarding the attribution I would not consider anything written on the registration paper regarding Den or smith, as reliable. The NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon paper is what really matters. Did the blade come with sayagaki? Oei as stated in the brackets would put it in the early Muromachi era (1394-1428).

Rivkin · July 8

Its hard to analyze the blade because there are too many light sources above and therefore no contrast. Otherwise - good news, a mumei attribution in early torokusho points it was very likely a Daimyo blade. Sometimes the province reveals which one.

Bad news - it was submitted for papers probably many times. Oei Enju can go Ryokai, sometimes Mihara. It can't go Awataguchi. They might have been said Oei because shortly afterwords Enju did change quite considerably.

Honya · July 8

Thank you all very much for your help!

18 hours ago, Nobody said:

The description on the Torokusho is “なし（傳）粟田口 – None, (Thought to be) Awataguchi”.

なし(Nashi) means Mumei in this case.

Great! Thank you for the translation, mystery solved

18 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Did the blade come with sayagaki?

No, I suppose it is not important enough.

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

Its hard to analyze the blade because there are too many light sources above and therefore no contrast.

I'll try to make a better photos. I am not new in photography, but taking photos of a blade is a whole new discipline.

Have a nice day!

Jan L.

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

Jussi Ekholm · July 10

I believe Enju Kunifusa in general is a quite new attribution that NBTHK uses for mumei items. So far this is the only sword I have seen feature it. I needed to check the background of Enju Kunifusa as I was not that aware of him. It seems there were 2 generations. I only have 1 single signed item on record, a tantō dated 1418. So the smith is extremely rare.

Honya · July 10

The only mention about Enju Kunifusa 2nd generation I found anywhere is here - http://www.sho-shin.com/sai16.htm

There is also very brief description of his style and his signature. I believe O-ei era Kunifusa and thus "my Kunifusa" is 2nd generation.

And I found him also in your Juyo index (thanks!), pages 505 (katana) and 682 (tanto).

If anyone has some more information about this smith, I would be really grateful...

Honya · July 10

4 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I believe Enju Kunifusa in general is a quite new attribution that NBTHK uses for mumei items. So far this is the only sword I have seen feature it. I needed to check the background of Enju Kunifusa as I was not that aware of him. It seems there were 2 generations. I only have 1 single signed item on record, a tantō dated 1418. So the smith is extremely rare.

And thank you for your research, of course!

Jussi Ekholm · July 10

Thanks for looking it up, unfortunately I made an error in the index that I now corrected. The item in session 46 is actually a tantō. Unfortunately I don't yet have the book for 65 session but indeed there seems to be a second tantō with earlier 1398 date but I don't yet have good info about it. I believe both would be works of the 2nd generation if the historical timeline would be correct.

For working times of the smiths Seskos index gives Eiwa (永和, 1375-1379) and Nihontō Meikan gives Shōhei (正平, 1346-1370) for the first generation. And both give Ōei for 2nd generation.

Rivkin · July 10

I had couple of blades with either confirmed or disputed Enju Kunifusa attribution; there are Honami Koson sayagaki to him.

Weak suguha hamon, prominent shirake utsuri, long masame-nagare somewhat about the ha.

It looks like jigane is the key - if its a bit darker but with finer itame it goes to Enju Kunifusa, otherwise Ryokai is a common choice. Rai Morihiro is another similar style, but tends to have wider more prominent hamon, often with a bit of notare.

Honya · July 12

Hello,

I tried to make some more photos under different light conditions as Kirill suggested.

Please don't blame only the photographer that there in not much to see, maybe that's also the sword's "fault" I tried to do my best.

I really like its "minimalistic design" although from collectors point of view maybe there is not much to be appreciated (kinsuji, chikei, nie, utsuri...). Of course kitae kizu are clearly visible.

If I would try to describe the surface I would use terms "frosty look" and "peach skin". I saw these terms for describing the blade somewhere, unfortunately I don't remember where exactly. And maybe I use them wrong as I have zero experience.

The last photo I put because the darker spots are clearly visible (and brighter spots in bo-hi).

Any advice on how to take good photos of the sword is really welcome!

Honya · July 12

And I post two photos from the shop where I bought the sword to compare. The dark spots are also clearly visible.

Honya · July 12

On 7/8/2024 at 11:34 AM, Rivkin said:

it was submitted for papers probably many times.

Could you please explain to me why do you think so?

Rivkin · July 12

The first two photographs are good, more depth of field - larger f number would be helpful.

Unfortunately, high end attributed blade for a high end collection probably did not settle to Muromachi without a fight, so it was probably checked at least a few times.

It has nice, dense itame jigane with some nagare. I think its certainly an attractive blade.

Hamon appears weak.

Would its kissaki be a bit shorter it would have been more consistent with earlier attribution.

Mihara/Ryokai/Enju Kunifusa are typical possibilities for this kind of work without looking deeper into boshi etc.

Still I think it has the potential to be judged as ko Mihara...

Jacques D. · July 13

Quote

Otherwise - good news, a mumei attribution in early torokusho points it was very likely a Daimyo blade.

We read some really weird stuff on this forum, I guess the author of these words won't be able to back up his claims with reliable sources

Jan,

The NBTHK experts have issued an opinion, so trust them and don't listen to what some people says, which is nothing more than self-proclaimed expert opinion.

Alex A · July 13

Must admit Kirill, that one must have a few of us wondering.

Shugyosha · July 13

2 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

We read some really weird stuff on this forum, I guess the author of these words won't be able to back up his claims with reliable sources

Jan,

The NBTHK experts have issued an opinion, so trust them and don't listen to what some people says, which is nothing more than self-proclaimed expert opinion.

Proclaimed with the usual staggering lack of self-awareness.

Honya · July 13

Kirill: Thank you for your explanation and for your thoughts!

6 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

The NBTHK experts have issued an opinion, so trust them

As I wrote before, I am absolutely happy with the attribution from NBTHK experts. I was just curious about what is written in torokusho and it is (thanks to Nobody's translation) solved. But it is interesting to read others opinions and thouhts (yours too) and subsequent discussion... I can learn a lot this way.

Schneeds · July 13

I think your pictures with the dark background are quite good, especially for a cellphone. Well done.

Rivkin · July 13

Nothing beyond a personal observation: early torokusho with mumei attribution are rare and most I encountered had good associations. Awataguchi is a big name and also classy, not something an average pawn shop appraiser would typically use (unlike more common things like Rai Kunitoshi) and not something an average person would own.

I saw exceptions like mumei Muromachi Kaga blades owned by what appears to be a regular name still with a pack of 1945, 1946 and early proper torokusho all with attributions, but almost every other case was something interesting.

Honya · July 14

Erik: Thank you, but I forgot to mention that I took my Olympus camera for the second attempt. My 6 years old cellphone cannot take such photos...

Honya · July 16

Hello,

koshirae as i promised... Signature on tsuba is Seiryuken Eiju cca 1780 - 1800. That's all I know. And I really like decoration on saya (beside the fact I like the whole koshirae). Anyone has some idea about the technique?

cisco-san · July 26

overall great first blade in very nice Koshirae!! Well done!!

Honya · July 26

Thank you, Klaus!

Sign In

My first Nihonto and my first question...

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation