Ko-Bizen Nobufusa Tachi

[nulldevice]

I wanted to share my DTI acquisition. I've been experimenting with various photos trying to get the best ones that show off the features of this tachi to the best of my abilities, but I'm very much a novice when it comes to photographing nihonto. 

 

The measurements are as follows:

Nagasa: 77 cm

Sori: 2.6 cm

Motohaba: 2.85 cm

Sakihaba: 1.52 cm

 

It bears a shumei from Hon'ami Koson. 

 

The sayagaki translation is as follows (Thanks to @SteveM for helping me with the translation):

 

備前國信房 生茎尠シク區ヲ送リ佩表ニ本阿弥光遜ノ同工極ハメノ朱書有之細身、小鋒、腰反高ク踏張ツキ 先身幅ヲ減ジ小鋒ノ華奢ナル形態ヲ呈シ 板目ガ肌立チテ映リ伴フ肌合ニ直刃小乱ヲ焼キ小足入リ小沸付キ湯走細ヤカニカゝリ古様デ静 雅ナ趣ヲ醸シ古備前持味ガ把握サレ所傳ハ妥當ナル優品哉 長弐尺五寸四分 歳甲辰霜月 探山識（花押）

 

Quote

 

Bizen-no-kuni Nobufusa Original tang (ubu), but slightly shortened at the machi (“machi okuri”). On the front side of the sword is Hon’ami Kōson’s appraisal to the aforementioned smith, written in red lacquer. Slim width, small tip (ko-kissaki), high koshi-zori with fumbari. The width at the tip is tapered, giving it the delicate shape of a ko-kissaki.

 

The forging pattern is itame with utsuri, the hamon is straight with small midare, with some small ashi and ko-nie and fine yubashiri. It has a classical and calm, elegant feeling, in which we can discern traits of Ko Bizen. It is an excellent work for which the original attribution is appropriate.

 

Length 2 shaku, 5 sun, 4 bu (76.97cm)

November, 2024

Tanzan appraised (monogram)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nulldevice]

Additional photos

 

 

 

 

 

[Gakusee]

1 hour ago, nulldevice said:

Additional photos

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, excellent, Chandler and thanks for sharing. Is there also an NBTHK paper and what does it say? 
Nobufusa is a rather rare attribution. 

[GeorgeLuucas]

Really gorgeous sword, Chandler. I enjoyed handling it quite a bit, and got to thinking after the show, I think it’s the oldest sword that I’ve ever held! 
 

I didn’t have the chance to really dive into identifying hataraki, but the dramatic sugata, the ko-kissaki, and the general refinement of the hamon and hada was enjoyable to admire. Your sword really stood out amongst the others at the show as something special. 
 

All in all, what’s not to like? Well done! 
-Sam 

[nulldevice]

41 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

 

Well, excellent, Chandler and thanks for sharing. Is there also an NBTHK paper and what does it say? 
Nobufusa is a rather rare attribution. 

It is papered TH with the following:

信房

□□ 光遜 (花押) 

(と朱銘がある)

 

It seems there is some uncertainty for the NBTHK attribution but Tanobe says the attribution is appropriate, so there is a slight difference of opinions.

 

Found this from Darcy:

Quote

To mei ga aru (there is a signature: this means that it is not gimei, but the period is right and the style is outside known documented examples)

 

[Gakusee]

23 minutes ago, nulldevice said:

It is papered TH with the following:

信房

□□ 光遜 (花押) 

(と朱銘がある)

 

It seems there is some uncertainty for the NBTHK attribution but Tanobe says the attribution is appropriate, so there is a slight difference of opinions.

 

Found this from Darcy:

 

 

Thanks.  I am very clear on the “to mei ga aru” implications. Well, if Tanobe sensei has verified it, that’s great. 
 

Its sugata is truly wonderful. 

[Schneeds]

Sugata is absolutely gorgeous. I'd be thrilled to own that blade. 

[nulldevice]

2 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

 

Thanks.  I am very clear on the “to mei ga aru” implications. Well, if Tanobe sensei has verified it, that’s great. 
 

Its sugata is truly wonderful. 

Thanks Michael. 

 

This blade came without sayagaki and I had it sent off to Tanobe before it left Japan. I’m glad he agreed with Koson’s attribution

[CSM101]

A Bizen Nobufusa for comparison.

[nulldevice]

19 minutes ago, CSM101 said:

A Bizen Nobufusa for comparison.

Thanks Uwe, in my research there seems to be competing theories as to the Ko-Bizen Nobufusa and the Ko-Ichimonji Nobufusa. It seems most books I read, seem to state that the 2 kanji mei is the former and the 3 kanji mei (Nobufusa Saku) the latter. Typically you'll see more ko-chogi activity on those attributed to Ko-Ichimonji Nobufusa. But I found a recent NBTHK newsletter on their kantei series where they question if it is simply just the same smith working over a 40-60 year period and his style changing over the transition of the 12th to 13th century. The Nihonto Taikan I have as well I believe alludes to there being 2 different smiths but leaves the question open as there maybe only being 1 smith. 

[nulldevice]

31 minutes ago, Schneeds said:

Sugata is absolutely gorgeous. I'd be thrilled to own that blade. 

Thank you Erik! Its got a wonderful sugata in person and the ubu nature leaves very little to be "filled in" to appreciate sugata as the smith intentioned. I imagine if it wasn't snortened via machi-okuri, it would sit right around 80cm and show a bit more funbari.

[jsv]

I am a bit confused.

Did he agree with Koson or just say there is a red mei,

no words about the blade itself and why only TH for such a prominent smith?

[Schneeds]

1 hour ago, jsv said:

I am a bit confused.

Did he agree with Koson or just say there is a red mei,

no words about the blade itself and why only TH for such a prominent smith?

"The forging pattern is itame with utsuri, the hamon is straight with small midare, with some small ashi and ko-nie and fine yubashiri. It has a classical and calm, elegant feeling, in which we can discern traits of Ko Bizen. It is an excellent work for which the original attribution is appropriate."

 

Assuming the translation is accurate he does indeed talk about (compliment) the blade and is agreeing with the NBTHK, I think.

[nulldevice]

1 hour ago, jsv said:

I am a bit confused.

Did he agree with Koson or just say there is a red mei,

no words about the blade itself and why only TH for such a prominent smith?

I interpreted it as Tanobe agreeing with Koson as he mentions the shumei in the first paragraph and also signed Bizen Kuni Nobufusa. But that's just a guess as I can't speak to Tanobe directly. 

 

As for why only TH, I could only guess. I imagine the TH papers stating "it has a red inscription" and Darcy stating that essentially means "It's not gimei but there aren't enough references to back up the attribution" it could've stopped there. Tanobe seeming to reaffirm Koson's attribution might make for a stronger case. It passed TH in the very end of 2021. 

[atm]

It is a beautiful, old sword. @nulldevice has done a good job of showing it in photos, but it is even better in person, of course. I agree that Tanobe sensei is confirming the original Koson attribution, and he clearly wrote the sayagaki to Bizen Kuni Nobufusa. With two preeminent sword scholars in agreement on the attribution, it kind of makes the NBTHK paper an afterthought, in my opinion. 

[jsv]

Here are two quotes, first one is from Darcy the second one Hoshi.

 

 

[nulldevice]

17 minutes ago, jsv said:

Here are two quotes, first one is from Darcy the second one Hoshi.

 

 

 

It's an interesting blade to see the various attributions. Here is a great blurb from Darcy's blog:

Quote

In this case there are some smiths like Tomonari or Aoe Sadatsugu who have very little signed work available and have extremely high reputations. There are cases where a Ko-Bizen school work or an Aoe school work gets attributed to one of these mighty smiths with a kinzogan or shumei of some sort. In the cases the NBTHK will attribute to Ko-Bizen or to Aoe, and can deal with the attribution mei through several ways.

1. Ignore it completely, and treat the blade as mumei. This is done in the case of shusho which are red attribution signatures added around the Meiji timeframe (late 1800s). These are then judged to be who the NBTHK thinks they are as if the attribution is just not there.
2. Add to mei ga aru of some form to indicate uncertainty on the attribution.
3. Accept it at face value and then describe in detail in the setsumei that the attribution in this case has a non-literal meaning.

In these cases the blade has to be of a quality that is consistent with the name being invoked by the judge. Otherwise it will have to be removed in order to paper. That is, say the blade is Nanbokucho period Yoshii school. If this blade had a Tomonari red signature on it, the blade won’t paper but will need the Tomonari removed.

If the blade is in fact early Heian Ko-Bizen, and is of excellent quality, but has no other particular reason to be attributed to Tomonari, then this is the kind of attribution signature that will be considered honorary and given a pass while the NBTHK corrects the judgment.

The reason for these is that the judge at the time had no way of signaling that the blade was special quality. They don’t want to say it’s just run of the mill Aoe or run of the mill Ko-Bizen but want to single it out as special. So the judge selected a near-legendary smith of the school and attributed it to him, so you need to understand that the judge is saying that the blade is good enough to be by a smith of the highest repute of the school.

If this is the meaning to take from it, then the NBTHK will record that the signature is there and explain it more in the setsumei without saying to mei ga aru… so it’s confirmed as the correct quality and artistic integrity though the style is not correct to attribute to this smith. So, right level, probably wrong maker, and understood at the time by the judge but he wanted to flag it as a special work.

 

It seems based on the previous that the NBTHK seems that the blade judges as ko-bizen but there isn't enough evidence for them to definitively say Nobufusa so they paper it, but add their "to shumei ga aru" to the paper to state that they aren't certain and that more research is needed. 

 

Tanobe on the other hand seems to say that the [Koson] attribution is appropriate. He also affirms ko-bizen

 

Koson judged it as Ko-Bizen Nobufusa.

 

So I think its pretty safe to say, the blade is a Ko-Bizen tachi or else the NBTHK likely wouldn't have papered the blade with the shumei in place. At best the blade is correctly attributed to Nobufusa himself. 

 

Of course, it would be interesting to know what the NBTHK would judge this as if the shumei wasn't there. Alternatively, does the NBTHK take sayagaki into consideration as part of their judgements? Would a Tanobe sayagaki in favor of the shumei sway the NBTHK or be ignored? I don't know the details about how the NBTHK operates and how these external attributions (shumei, sayagaki, other origami) may influence judgements. 

[GeorgeLuucas]

All things considered, you've got the most trusted experts available giving their attributions (new and old!); and any perceived "gray" area opens the door for further study on your end.

Which I, personally, would consider an exciting and enjoyable exercise to learn from; even if you conclude "the experts got it". 

Stunning piece!

[CSM101]

Just another two for comparison. The first was Token Bijutsu 551. And now 666 and 758 in 2 posts.

[CSM101]

[Lewis B]

Some words of wisdom from Mr Sesko and appears to have been one of the Goban-kaji if Bizen Nobufusa.

 

NOBUFUSA (信房), Genryaku (元暦, 1184-1185), Bizen – “Nobufusa saku” (信房作), Ko-Bizen school, he is known as father of the so-called Bizen san-hira (備前三平, the “Three Hira from Bizen”), i.e. Sukehira (助平), Kanehira (包平), and Takahira (高平), the Kotō Mei Zukushi Taizen (古刀銘尽大全) says that the niji-mei “Nobufusa” belongs to the Ko-Bizen smith and the sanji-mei “Nobufusa saku” to the Ko-Ichimonji smith of the same name, but such a distinct differentation is from today´s perspective no longer sustainable, Fujishiro gives Nobufusa the rank of a saijō-saku but dates him to the Ei´en era (永延, 987-989) – some sources even say Kanna-era (寛和, 985-987) – and says that the more – 786 –

 

nie-laden ko-midare interpretations with a classically elegant sugata are probably works of the Ko-Bizen Nobufusa, but at the same time, he lists the other Nobufusa too as with a classically elegant sugata and a ko-midare, so between the lines we read that Fujishiro follows the amount of nie when distinguishing between these two smiths, incidentally, he lists the later Nobufusa not as Ko-Ichimonji but as Ichimonji smith ⦿

NOBUFUSA (信房), Jōgen (承元, 1207-1211), Bizen – “Nobufusa” (信房), according to tradition the son of Fukuoka-Ichimonji Nobuzane (延真), he was on the goban-kaji list of Gotoba that consisted of 24 smiths, according to this list he worked with Kanesue (包末) in the ninth month, real name Nagahara Gonnokami (長原権守), it is said that he bore the honorary title Nihon-kaji-sōshō (日本鍛冶 惣匠), about “greatest smith of Japan,” a title which was later adopted by Tokugawa Ieyasu and granted to the lineage of Iga no Kami Kinmichi (伊賀守金道), it seems that continued the nie-laden workmanship of Ko-Bizen Nobufusa and hardened a ko-midare but which got later a noticeable amount of ko-chōji, incidentally, Fujishiro dates him around Genryaku (元暦, 1184-1185) and ranks him jōjō-saku

NOBUFUSA (信房), Kenmu (建武, 1334-1338), Bizen – “Bishū Osafune Nobufusa” (備州長船

[Jussi Ekholm]

It is wonderful tachi regardless of the attribution.

[SteveM]

22 hours ago, Schneeds said:

Assuming the translation is accurate

 

*The translator has entered the chat*

 

My gut feeling is that the "to mei ga aru" in this case refers to the Koson signature, and not the Nobufusa attribution. The NBTHK attributed the sword it to Nobufusa, so the "to mei ga aru" only makes sense if it refers to the Koson signature. (Meaning: they doubt Koson wrote the shumei. Or, I should say, they have no consensus about whether or not the Koson shumei is authentic).

 

But, I say this without having consulted with either Tanobe or the NBTHK, and it is just a gut feeling. 

 

[Gakusee]

Or it could be they doubt how the shu mei exists today. For instance:  It could be that “Nobufusa” (very well preserved part of the shumei) was added subsequently above the Koson mei (much less well preserved). 
 

In principle, Koson tended to write the attribution on one side of the nakago and put his name and kao on the opposite. That is how I have seen it, including swords I owned. 
 

Here everything is on one side and also the different parts look slightly differently. 
 

Regardless of all this speculation, it looks like a gorgeous sword and Tanobe sensei seems to have verified it, so all seems good. 

[Hoshi]

Lovely sword, truly tasteful and classical sugata, well done Chandler. 

 

I also applaud that you did your research, that you took a dive on the blade and had a sayagaki made. 

 

Koson was more 'loose' in his judgement compared to the Ko-Honami, so it is a good outcome that Tanobe-sensei considers this judgement to be appropriate for the blade. He would not have made it if he disagreed outright.

 

"To mei ga aru" on a shumei or kinzogan has a certain nuanced meaning at Juyo that is different than the same expression used for mei. At Tokuho, there is much less opportunity to carefully research the blade, and in this context "To mei ga aru" could highlight some uncertainty on the shumei/kinzogan itself, as Gakusee points out with an astute observation: 

 

Quote

Koson tended to write the attribution on one side of the nakago and put his name and kao on the opposite. That is how I have seen it, including swords I owned. 

 

In the grand scheme of things it's not really important. As Darcy used to say, we don't have a time machine. To me, this uncertainty is also a blessing in disguise for learning. It is an inspiration for you to take a deep dive into the records of Nobufusa, Ko-Bizen, Ko-Ichimonji, and the wonderful period that was early Kamakura. 

 

It is a precious ancient piece with a venerable history, and a miracle that it has come to us in such a state of preservation.

 

May this sword will be a wonderful source of knowledge and enjoyment. 

 

[nulldevice]

Adding the TH paperwork just for posterity sake as we don’t see many with these sorts of notes.

 

I really appreciate everyone's questions, concerns, and comments. I've learned a lot more than I previously knew both about the smith in question as well as the NBTHK judgement process and so much more. This was my first nihonto purchase after about 18 months of study. 

 

Edited January 31 by nulldevice
Added additional comments

[Franco D]

Thank you for sharing.

 

Is it possible to see a close up of the boshi on both sides? 

 

Thanks in advance.

[nulldevice]

Admittedly the boshi has been one of the harder things for me to photograph. Here is one side. I’ll try and get better pictures today when it gets light.

 

[nulldevice]

17 hours ago, Franco D said:

Thank you for sharing.

 

Is it possible to see a close up of the boshi on both sides? 

 

Thanks in advance.

@Franco D I will apologize in advance for my poor photography skills. Getting good boshi shots is hard due to the ko-kissaki, the tightness of the boshi to the edge, and my general lack of good photography skills. 

 

Hopefully these can show enough to try and get a glimpse of the boshi you can see when actually holding the sword.

 

To my eyes, it does appear to run close to the edge but not off the edge and makes a small turnback towards the tip. Since the sword has undoubtedly been polished numerous times over its 800 year life, we can speculate how much the boshi and kissaki shape has changed over the years.  I'd be inclined to call it ko maru agari but on 2nd and 3rd photos, you almost see a bit of midare in there. There are very small midare elements like in the hamon which I do not believe I captured well enough in my photos. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Thank you for posting the NBTHK paper Chandler.

 

To me these are among the most irritating attributions that NBTHK give... I understand they just state that there is shumei XX present. I wish they would added something like (Ko-Bizen etc.) in brackets to specify what they think. However I do believe even NBTHK would at least somewhat agree with the attribution of shumei as they have papered it without making it mumei attributed as X with shumei XX.