Early Go Yoshihiro examples with Yamato influence

[Lewis B]

Reading up about blades with both Yamato and Soshu characteristics, there are references to Go Yoshihiro and Yamato Yoshihiro (early and late generations) and that Go Yoshihiro was in fact a Yamato swordsmith (at least in his early career). Early Yamato Yoshihiro possibly being Go's father. The biographical work here for Go Yoshihiro https://nihonto.com/go-yoshihiro/ states that his early work shows a strong Yamato influence but I have yet to find an early blade that has been definitively attributed with these characteristics. His later Soshu era blades also appear to show Masame hada mixed with Itame? I believe it was Kazuo Tokuno who theorized that Go was in fact a Yamato swordsmith and then incorporated Soshu features, without actually apprenticing with Masamune, such was the diffusion of knowledge and techniques at the time.

 

Does anyone have any examples of early Go work that exhibit these postulated Yamato features, beyond the Masame/Itame hada?

[Nihonto student]

Dear Lewis,

 

here some info especially regarding the Nabeshima Go:

 

https://swordsofjapa...go-yoshihiro-katana/

 

 

 

Good info also in this post.

 

 

Kind Regards,

 

Giordy

[Lewis B]

Hi Giordy,

I was familiar with the Nabeshima Go although I'm not sure that shows the masame hada that seems obligatory for Yamato, certainly Senjuin which is the school most likely associated with early Go. Yamato boshi tends to have varying degrees of hakikake covering the full spectrum all the way to full on kaen, although Senjuin Yoshihiro has a tendency towards o-maru from the example in the Kantei thread and the example below.

 

And in that kantei thread, Go Yoshihiro was sort of excluded mainly due to the style of boshi. Kamakura era Senjuin Yoshihiro, who it is postulated to have been Go's father, may be the smith. I wonder if these 'early Yamato inspired Go blades' referred to on nihonto.com are really by Go's father.

 

Go was supposedly born around 1300, so his father could have been around long enough to have made the dated short sword signed Senjuin Yoshihiro from 1353. Certainly not out of the realms of possibility Go included some of his fathers Yamato-den forging style while apprenticing with Masamune, especially given his young age and experience. 

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

Senjuin Yoshihiro. Juyo papered

 

https://winners-auct.../productDetail/26999

 

 

 

[Lewis B]

Go is said to have had a close relationship with Norishige (geographically and in sword making) so he may have been influenced by several styles incorporating Soshuden Masamune, Norishige's Ko-hoki/Soshuden and his father's Yamato (Senjuin) style where he may have cut his teeth. It's fun to speculate although we can never 100% secure in such suppositions. 

[Nihonto student]

14 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Go is said to have had a close relationship with Norishige (geographically and in sword making) so he may have been influenced by several styles incorporating Soshuden Masamune, Norishige's Ko-hoki/Soshuden and his father's Yamato (Senjuin) style where he may have cut his teeth. It's fun to speculate although we can never 100% secure in such suppositions. 

I have no more information than you have Lewis, a complex topic for my knowledge even given the few references/certainties on the matter, someone more expert than me will certainly have better arguments than mine and therefore it makes no sense for me to launch into statements that don't have a solid base... regarding that, I think we can agree that stylistically Yoshihiro had various influences, what seems curious to me is how he acquired all these influences in such a short period of time... from what I've been able to read by the way I think that Yamato's traits mainly concern the hada, below is the description from the sho shin site:

GO YOSHIHIRO GEN-O (f: NORISHIGE): GO-UMA-no-SUKE. "GO" is 
      his short name, always piped with the greatest 
      affection by the greatest of experts. Born: 1299, 
      Died: 1325. 
      MATSUKURA JU. Reputed as "The Best Student," he has 
      been the focus of scholarly pursuit for six hundred 
      years. The intriguing legend of "The Ten Students" may 
      have twisted study such that independent men were 
      assigned posthumous rolls not of their own creating. 
      There are claims that there are no known SOSHU-style 
      YOSHIHIRO swords. Blades known to be his are in 
      YAMATO-style. Blades said to be his are seen in two 
      styles, YAMASHIRO where KO-ITAME is the definer, and 
      YAMATO, where MASAME is found. It is safe to call 
      YOSHIHIRO a lover of YAMATO. Attributed blades are 
      found, narrow with KO-KISSAKI, old style, medium with
      CHU-KISSAKI or NAMBOKUCHO, wide with O-KISSAKI. 
      IHORI-MUNE that is steeply ridged. Extraordinarily 
      fine-textured ITAME or running ITAME with MASAME that 
      shows refined JI-NIE and CHIKEI. Steel is clear and 
      bright. 
      HAMON patterns maybe a rolling NOTARE-MIDARE mixed 
      with GUNOME-MIDARE of wide and relatively even height. 
      Pattern may widen or elongate in the MONOUCHI. ASHI 
      falls from the line.SUNAGASHI with INAZUMA and long 
      KINSUJI add depth. There is HOTSURE. The HABUCHI is 
      NIOI-FUKASHI and KO-NIE. Some swords are CHU-SUGUHA 
      with ASHI and YO. 
      BOSHI can be MIDARE with ICHIMONJI-KAERI but ICHI-MAE
      BOSHI (fully tempered head) is the expected GO BOSHI. 
      FUKASHI-KAERI. 
  MEI: YOSHIHIRO
       ETCHU-no-KUNI YOSHIHIRO
       MATSUKURA-GO JU YOSHIHIRO

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gakusee]

19 hours ago, Lewis B said:

Hi Giordy,

I was familiar with the Nabeshima Go although I'm not sure that shows the masame hada that seems obligatory for Yamato, certainly Senjuin which is the school most likely associated with early Go. Yamato boshi tends to have varying degrees of hakikake covering the full spectrum all the way to full on kaen, although Senjuin Yoshihiro has a tendency towards o-maru from the example in the Kantei thread and the example below.

 

And in that kantei thread, Go Yoshihiro was sort of excluded mainly due to the style of boshi. Kamakura era Senjuin Yoshihiro, who it is postulated to have been Go's father, may be the smith. I wonder if these 'early Yamato inspired Go blades' referred to on nihonto.com are really by Go's father.

 

Go was supposedly born around 1300, so his father could have been around long enough to have made the dated short sword signed Senjuin Yoshihiro from 1353. Certainly not out of the realms of possibility Go included some of his fathers Yamato-den forging style while apprenticing with Masamune, especially given his young age and experience. 

 

 

 

The exclusion of Go in the kantei thread was not only or not even primarily due to the boshi. Let us not confuse Go with the blade there, as Go Yoshihiro made much more subtle and more refined blades than that. His quality is generally higher than that kantei blade which had too too much hadaka nie, ara nie etc. 

[Lewis B]

3 hours ago, Gakusee said:

The exclusion of Go in the kantei thread was not only or not even primarily due to the boshi. Let us not confuse Go with the blade there, as Go Yoshihiro made much more subtle and more refined blades than that. His quality is generally higher than that kantei blade which had too too much hadaka nie, ara nie etc. 

No I wasn't making any suggestion Go was a real candidate for that blade, merely following Kirill's kantei thought process to exclude his attribution from the list of possibles.

 

As for Giordy's reference, it certainly adds to the dichotomy of what is accepted as Go Yoshihiro. He clearly has a leaning towards Yamato, yet Soshuden, with which he is most closely associated in the reference books, is said to have had its roots in the Yamashiro gokaden. How much would he have been allowed to improvise if a student of a master like Masamune, who has quite a different style. I would have expected more Soshuden influence had he apprenticed in Sagami. He was clearly a gifted prodigy and its possible to imagine he was able to absorb different techniques and create something unique that appealed to his artistic and technical capabilities.

[Nihonto student]

I would have a million questions and it would go off topic...so just a couple of hint:

The intriguing legend of "The Ten Students" may have twisted study such that independent men were assigned posthumous rolls not of their own creating. 

Based on this someone could also speculate that Yoshihiro wasn't even a student of Masamune, in my ignorance I ask if there are certain historical sources regarding this.

 

From nihonto.us:
As with the smith, Shizu Kaneuji (志津兼氏), swords exist from Yoshihiro (義弘) that are dated to a time before his study under Masamune (正宗).  Early blades such as these show a strong Yamato (大和) influence.

 

Obviously I won't express myself in saying whether the works after his apprenticeship with Masamune are qualitatively better, but I think we can agree that in any case his works considered earlier are not mediocre, therefore seem certainly another previous apprenticeship, also comparing the dates of their life (Not certain) in broad terms, Masamune would have been 50 to 60 years old (Top of his career) when Yoshihiro would have started his apprenticeship and to "knock on his door" I imagine it was necessary to provide references of a certain type.

 

 

[Lewis B]

From the Soshuden Museum. The idea being these 10 makers were already established swordsmiths and just implemented some of Masamune's ideas into their own style. That would certainly explain some of the divergence from traditional Soshuden style from the likes of Go (Yamato), Norishige (Ko-hoki), Chogi and Naotsuna. 

 

The Masamune no Jittetsu were already well established swordsmiths who worked in their own tradition as well as studying the techniques of Masamune. There is a legend about Masamune's jittetsu (followers/disciples) that came from the depths of centuries and is known to everyone in Japan now. They were 10 as the saying goes and they studied the art of sword-making with Masamune implementing their own ideas and methods of blade forging. [Gō Yoshihiro (江義弘), Saeki Norishige (佐伯則重), Bizen Kanemitsu (備前兼光), Bizen Chōgi (備前長義), Hasabe Kunishige (長谷部国重), Sekishū Naotsuna (石州直綱), Chikuzen Samonji (筑前左文字), Yamashiro Rai Kunitsugu (山城来国次), Mino Shizu Kaneuji (美濃志津兼氏), and Mino Kinjū (美濃金重)] Probably it was one of the first kind of workshops attended not only by beginners, but experienced and well-known sword smiths. The composition of the so-called Masamune’s ten best disciples was determined in different ways at different times and by different specialists. In modern literature, its composition is uniform and includes ten masters. This list did not always consist of ten smiths: sometimes it was supplemented by Kongōbyōe Moritaka and, at one time, it did not include Rai Kunitsugu, Naotsuna or Chōgi (Nagayoshi).

 

From nihonto.us:
As with the smith, Shizu Kaneuji (志津兼氏), swords exist from Yoshihiro (義弘) that are dated to a time before his study under Masamune (正宗).  Early blades such as these show a strong Yamato (大和) influence.

 

I don't think there are any existing signed and dated Go Yoshihiro pieces. The earlier dated Yoshihiro works are likely Senjuin Yoshihiro (possibly Go's father).

[Lewis B]

The idea of sabbatical for experienced smiths where styles of different schools were intermingled and knowledge on sword making exchanged, was not a new idea. There are the famous Goban Kaji who were summoned to the forges set up by Emperor Gotoba in the early 13th century. With the participation of 42 smiths this wasn't an inconsequential undertaking. They spent a month or 2 working in Kyoto, then to be replaced by another group. Seems like a very good way for the styles of the principle Gokaden of the time to cross pollinate. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think the fact that main core Sōshū works lack signed & dated work. from Yukimitsu, Masamune & Sadamune there are extremely few dated items and it makes researching quite difficult. Then For Hiromitsu, Akihiro and onwards you will find lots of signed & dated swords. I feel when making statements like in the link that "there are dated works by Gō Yoshihiro before studying with Masamune" it would be extremely important to give a source of that information or provide a reference item.

 

I have all of these following items featured in my references.

 

Shintōgo Kunimitsu 10 dated works

1294 - 1324

Shintōgo Kunihiro 2 dated works

1318 & 1324

Yukimitsu 1 dated work

1322

Masamune 1 dated work

1328

Sadamune 2 dated works

1335 & 1361

Norishige 6 dated works

1314 - 1328

And for the sake of this discussion 2 Senju'in Yoshihiro smiths that I have data for

Yoshihiro (義弘) 2 dated works

1353 & 1358

Yoshihiro (吉広) 1 dated work

1343

 

One difficult thing when we are discussing lesser known smiths in English, that there can be several Japanese characters that read out same way in English. I checked my sword books for various Senju'in Yoshihiro smiths

 

Yoshihiro (義弘) there are supposedly 2 smiths working c. 1350 , 1400

Yoshihiro (吉広) 1 smith c. 1345

Yoshihiro (吉弘) 1 smith c. 1350

Yoshihiro (義広) 5 smiths working c. 1230 , 1275 , 1335, 1345, 1469

 

However I believe when NBTHK etc. speak of Senju'in Yoshihiro (義弘) they would refer to c. 1350 working smith. I don't think I have any of the other Senju'in Yoshihiro smiths being referenced anywhere excluding the 1 (1343) dated work from the other smith.

 

 

[Toryu2020]

As stated above, the list of Jutetsu was simply a device to help you in kantei, to help you remember the better known smiths with similar attributes. Consider the difficulty of a craftsman moving all his tools to Kamakura across a wartorn country for a short apprenticeship? Consider the smiths of a generation before who moved to Kamakura, they moved and they stayed. The theory I always like was that smiths were influenced by Masamune's work not by the man himself. The armies of the Ashikaga travelled all over Japan carrying their Soshu swords with them. If they needed some polish or repair there was an opportunity for the local smiths to see and absorb the Soshu style. Ashikaga went all the way to Kyushu where he spent some time and this would account even for the influence on Sa.

 

It wasnt like the Edo period when you could take a year off and go study with some distant teacher...

 

-t

[Rivkin]

9 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Yukimitsu 1 dated work

1322

Is this a real blade? I've seen dated oshigatas, but was not aware the dated work exists.

[Nihonto student]

Thank you all for the clarifications,

 

 

Giordy

[Gakusee]

13 hours ago, Rivkin said:

Is this a real blade? I've seen dated oshigatas, but was not aware the dated work exists.

 

Yes, it is a real blade indeed and rather striking in real life. Not to everyone’s liking but shows that Yukimitsu could do the Shintogo subtle elegance and then the more flamboyant later hitatsura. 
 

I was so surprised by the workmanship that I had to document it…. 

Plus it is probably the rarest Yukimitsu blade in existence in terms of inscription too. 
 

AI translation of the text 

 

Short Sword
Signed Kamakura [Jū] [Ie] Yukimitsu / Genten Second Year, Third Month (元享二年三月) (March 1322)

Blade Length: 23.9 cm
Slight curvature inward
Late Kamakura Period (Genten 2, 1322)

Private Collection

 

In ancient sword manuscripts from the Muromachi period, Yukimitsu is noted for a variety of hamon (blade patterns), including straight lines, small and large waves, and irregular patterns. His work demonstrates diverse techniques. The present blade is mainly straight with shallow irregularities, and larger irregular patterns are not attributed to Yukimitsu’s usual style.

This particular sword stands out as a rare example among his works, featuring a thick, layered hamon that mostly shows the notare (wavy) pattern. It also displays kinsuji (bright streaks of hard steel) and nie (crystal-like grains of steel), with yubashiri (a pattern resembling small islands of hard steel) and tobiyaki (areas of the blade hardened by tempering) interwoven, creating a complex and lively appearance.

This work is consistent with descriptions in ancient manuscripts, making it an important example when studying Yukimitsu’s legacy. The fact that it is signed and dated further increases its historical value, making it indispensable for research on his school and style.

 

[Franco D]

Does this tanto have nie utsuri?

 

Yubashiri? 

 

Please describe if so? 

 

 Nagasa? 

 

Thank you.

[GeorgeLuucas]

Beautiful blade. I plugged it into google translate for my own curiosity.

Apologies for the tiny font! But I hope this helps anyone interested.
*Beware: google translations are not always perfect*  
Cheers,
-Sam

[Rivkin]

5 hours ago, Gakusee said:

 

Yes, it is a real blade indeed and rather striking in real life. Not to everyone’s liking but shows that Yukimitsu could do the Shintogo subtle elegance and then the more flamboyant later hitatsura. 
 

I was so surprised by the workmanship that I had to document it…. 

Plus it is probably the rarest Yukimitsu blade in existence in terms of inscription too. 

 

Thank you very much, that's quite something.

[Gakusee]

3 hours ago, Franco D said:

Does this tanto have nie utsuri?

 

Yubashiri? 

 

Please describe if so? 

 

 Nagasa? 

 

Thank you.

Franco 

So, are you going to be referring to my verbal explanation or your eyes ?? Come on - the images are very clear. It of course has yubashiri but much more than yubashiri - as I said, it has the traits of hitatsura. The thick streaks you see are pure ara nie in the jigane and layered so thick that it is difficult to comprehend. The quenching temperature must have been rather high and he must have kept it there longer than usual. 
The nagasa is in the photo. 
 

However, to make all this more educational and easy, in my original post above I added an approximate translation of the museum plaque. 

[Franco D]

1 hour ago, Gakusee said:

So, are you going to be referring to my verbal explanation or your eyes ??

 

I'd prefer your verbal description, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. 

While the images do show that there's a lot going on, the clarity is basically is poor. 

 

[Gakusee]

58 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

I'd prefer your verbal description, otherwise I wouldn't have asked. 

While the images do show that there's a lot going on, the clarity is basically is poor. 

 

Well essentially because I don’t have the time or inclination to be digging my raw images… I think this is plenty. I also have videos of the blade etc etc etc  but keeping them. Various considerations and size limits etc. 

[Lewis B]

8 hours ago, Gakusee said:

 

Yes, it is a real blade indeed and rather striking in real life. Not to everyone’s liking but shows that Yukimitsu could do the Shintogo subtle elegance and then the more flamboyant later hitatsura. 
 

I was so surprised by the workmanship that I had to document it…. 

Plus it is probably the rarest Yukimitsu blade in existence in terms of inscription too. 
 

AI translation of the text 

 

Short Sword
Signed Kamakura [Jū] [Ie] Yukimitsu / Genten Second Year, Third Month (元享二年三月) (March 1322)

Blade Length: 23.9 cm
Slight curvature inward
Late Kamakura Period (Genten 2, 1322)

Private Collection

 

In ancient sword manuscripts from the Muromachi period, Yukimitsu is noted for a variety of hamon (blade patterns), including straight lines, small and large waves, and irregular patterns. His work demonstrates diverse techniques. The present blade is mainly straight with shallow irregularities, and larger irregular patterns are not attributed to Yukimitsu’s usual style.

This particular sword stands out as a rare example among his works, featuring a thick, layered hamon that mostly shows the notare (wavy) pattern. It also displays kinsuji (bright streaks of hard steel) and nie (crystal-like grains of steel), with yubashiri (a pattern resembling small islands of hard steel) and tobiyaki (areas of the blade hardened by tempering) interwoven, creating a complex and lively appearance.

This work is consistent with descriptions in ancient manuscripts, making it an important example when studying Yukimitsu’s legacy. The fact that it is signed and dated further increases its historical value, making it indispensable for research on his school and style.

 

Wow, and in a private collection too. Lucky owner

[Hoshi]

Old sources mention Go Yoshihiro and Norishige as natives of Etchu Province, with Go said to have died young.

 

To me, It would seem highly improbable that he was a Yamato Senjuin smith. Name matching doesn't help us as the only signed and dated Yoshihiro blade (YOS143) doesn't match in characters to those of Go in ancient records, and the date (1343) is far off in time, moroever the records make no mention of a resemblance to the work of Go. 

 

What about the Yamato influence? The majority of Go's kitae is typically described as itame, often mixed with nagare or mokume. There is only one instance I could find where his kitae is partially blended with masame: the renowned Kabuto-Giri Go. I have also observed that certain works display his ichimai boshi with a subtle hakkikake flavor.

 

Regarding influences, I've had in hand Go's with traits from three different attribution clusters: the Norishige cluster (Mokume/Matsukawa, complex jiba), the Masamune cluster (angular chickei, yubashiri, inazuma), and the Yukimitsu cluster (ko-itame in the Shintogo style). For Go, I have not personally handled an example where Shizu comes to mind, though the Kabuto-Giri Go is noted for this in the NBHTK setsumei record. It is essential to recognize that, while not all blades attributed to Go feature an ichimai boshi, its presence—when combined with the masterful traits typical of other top Soshu smiths—strongly leans toward an attribution to Go.

 

Now where would such Yamato influence come from, if not Senjuin?

 

We can have fun and speculate. We we might imagine the possibility that Shizu and Go, both supposedly active during the Kenmu era, experimented with one another's techniques while working alongside Yukimitsu, Masamune, and Norishige in the Kamakura atelier. However, this idea rests on many unsecured assumptions, including that Shizu apprenticed directly under the Soshu masters and that certain Soshu-den works displaying Yamato influence are accurately attributed to Go. 

 

Attribution is uncertain. 

 

As seen with signed works by Yukimitsu, his craftsmanship shows considerable variation, making him the prime candidate for pieces where distinguishing traits are less pronounced. His range spans from Shintogo-like hada with a gentle, shallow notare, to a flamboyant midareba incorporating gunome elements, even producing works approaching Hitatsura. This uncertainty is not limited to Yukimitsu. For instance, of the four extant signed tachi by Norishige, two exhibit a shintogo-like fine hada, a far different approach to Matsukawa. Nor was Matsukawa the exclusive domain of Norishige. Hata Chogi, of which we know very little, left us two works indistinguishable on a trait-basis from Norishige's signed tanto. 

 

It's wise to think in probabilities. 

 

Perhaps the Kabuto-Giri Go, with its distinct Yamato influence and ichimai boshi, was a masterwork of Shizu? We may never know for certain, as the hand behind it is never known for certain. I think that the key to thinking about attribution and influences is to think in probabilities. 

 

The best way is to go with the cannon of tradition. After in-hand examination, it could be 60% Go, 40% Shizu.  

 

This is certainly the most tractable way, but is the most accurate way? The alternative is going with the historical dark matter. Or in other words, incorporating the lost record. Imagine that it might be 45% Go, 35% Shizu, 4% Yukimitsu on a creative day, 1% the long lost Shintogo student Kuniyasu, and 15% a master whose name has left our records forever. Then replace all these probabilities with distributions encoding uncertainty and you start to reach the limits of useful abstraction. Not much of a means of knowledge advancement since there is no knowledge, only questions. 

 

The supreme quality of the Kabuti-Giri Go, however, is beyond doubt. An accepted attribution to a Soshu grandmaster of this caliber signifies the most masterful craftsmanship that reflects the pinnacle of the Soshu tradition, and one amongst the best Nihonto in existence. 

 

This brings a bit of nostalgia. Darcy would have enjoyed this thread. As he used to say, we don't have a time machine. 

 

[Lewis B]

On 9/27/2024 at 8:17 PM, Hoshi said:

Old sources mention Go Yoshihiro and Norishige as natives of Etchu Province, with Go said to have died young.

 

To me, It would seem highly improbable that he was a Yamato Senjuin smith. Name matching doesn't help us as the only signed and dated Yoshihiro blade (YOS143) doesn't match in characters to those of Go in ancient records, and the date (1343) is far off in time, moroever the records make no mention of a resemblance to the work of Go. 

 

What about the Yamato influence? The majority of Go's kitae is typically described as itame, often mixed with nagare or mokume. There is only one instance I could find where his kitae is partially blended with masame: the renowned Kabuto-Giri Go. I have also observed that certain works display his ichimai boshi with a subtle hakkikake flavor.

 

Regarding influences, I've had in hand Go's with traits from three different attribution clusters: the Norishige cluster (Mokume/Matsukawa, complex jiba), the Masamune cluster (angular chickei, yubashiri, inazuma), and the Yukimitsu cluster (ko-itame in the Shintogo style). For Go, I have not personally handled an example where Shizu comes to mind, though the Kabuto-Giri Go is noted for this in the NBHTK setsumei record. It is essential to recognize that, while not all blades attributed to Go feature an ichimai boshi, its presence—when combined with the masterful traits typical of other top Soshu smiths—strongly leans toward an attribution to Go.

 

Now where would such Yamato influence come from, if not Senjuin?

 

We can have fun and speculate. We we might imagine the possibility that Shizu and Go, both supposedly active during the Kenmu era, experimented with one another's techniques while working alongside Yukimitsu, Masamune, and Norishige in the Kamakura atelier. However, this idea rests on many unsecured assumptions, including that Shizu apprenticed directly under the Soshu masters and that certain Soshu-den works displaying Yamato influence are accurately attributed to Go. 

 

Attribution is uncertain. 

 

As seen with signed works by Yukimitsu, his craftsmanship shows considerable variation, making him the prime candidate for pieces where distinguishing traits are less pronounced. His range spans from Shintogo-like hada with a gentle, shallow notare, to a flamboyant midareba incorporating gunome elements, even producing works approaching Hitatsura. This uncertainty is not limited to Yukimitsu. For instance, of the four extant signed tachi by Norishige, two exhibit a shintogo-like fine hada, a far different approach to Matsukawa. Nor was Matsukawa the exclusive domain of Norishige. Hata Chogi, of which we know very little, left us two works indistinguishable on a trait-basis from Norishige's signed tanto. 

 

It's wise to think in probabilities. 

 

Perhaps the Kabuto-Giri Go, with its distinct Yamato influence and ichimai boshi, was a masterwork of Shizu? We may never know for certain, as the hand behind it is never known for certain. I think that the key to thinking about attribution and influences is to think in probabilities. 

 

The best way is to go with the cannon of tradition. After in-hand examination, it could be 60% Go, 40% Shizu.  

 

This is certainly the most tractable way, but is the most accurate way? The alternative is going with the historical dark matter. Or in other words, incorporating the lost record. Imagine that it might be 45% Go, 35% Shizu, 4% Yukimitsu on a creative day, 1% the long lost Shintogo student Kuniyasu, and 15% a master whose name has left our records forever. Then replace all these probabilities with distributions encoding uncertainty and you start to reach the limits of useful abstraction. Not much of a means of knowledge advancement since there is no knowledge, only questions. 

 

The supreme quality of the Kabuti-Giri Go, however, is beyond doubt. An accepted attribution to a Soshu grandmaster of this caliber signifies the most masterful craftsmanship that reflects the pinnacle of the Soshu tradition, and one amongst the best Nihonto in existence. 

 

This brings a bit of nostalgia. Darcy would have enjoyed this thread. As he used to say, we don't have a time machine. 

 

What a wonderful response. It's hard to argue against your thought process and to not think in probabilities. I especially echo your nostalgic reference to Darcy. His educated and insightful contributions are sorely missed.