Ko-naminohira tachi

[nihon]

https://www.aoijapan.com/tachi-：-unknown-signature-ko-naminohiranbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

A recently added piece by aoi-art. Nice curvature, koshi-sori, ubu and originally signed but signature is too worn down to read. Usual big name attribution by honami nisshu but I have 2 concerns, one the hamon is really close to the edge. Is it something common in the school or is it just worn down due to polishing. Second, there is a piece of paper that was posted in the listing for the sword. I'm not sure what it says or what it's is for. Any information is appreciated.

[Ray Singer]

The white paper is a scan from a page in Fujishiro koto hen. It show a dated example of Naminohira Yukiyasu made in Karyaku (1326). This is much earlier than the date that was attributed to the sword in the sayagaki (Naminohira Yukiyasu circa Hōgen = 1156 保元). The current NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon kanteisho attributes the sword to Ko-Naminohira (no specific swordsmith). 

[nihon]

15 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

The white paper is a scan from a page in Fujishiro koto hen. It show a dated example of Naminohira Yukiyasu made in Karuyaku 1 (1326). This is much earlier than the fate that was attributed to the sword in the sayagaki (Naminohira Yukiyasu circa Hōgen = 1156 保元). The current NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon kanteisho attributes the sword to Ko-Naminohira (no specific swordsmith). 

Thanks for the information Ray singer.

[Ray Singer]

A correction, the date number in the Fujishiro example is obscured. Karyaku started in 1326.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyaku

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think it is fairly nice sword. Ko-Naminohira is actually quite common attribution for old tachi. One difficulty in the attribution is that Ko-Naminohira includes everything from Late Heian period to Late Nanbokuchō. And to make it very tricky NBTHK does not specify dating for this attribution at Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon level, as far as I have seen with all of the 54 examples I have for Mumei/Fumei Ko-Naminohira attribution.

 

For this particular sword I personally would feel much more comfortable as Kamakura (perhaps late Kamakura) as possible dating. I do think the Hon'ami attribution to Late Heian and "The" Yukiyasu is extremely generous.

 

The Fujishiro page is actually for the Naminohira smith Yasuyuki (安行). He is much lesser known than Yukiyasu (行安) lineage. The tantō in the picture is signed and dated (1327) 薩摩国住人波平安行 / 嘉暦二季正月十五日 - It passed NBTHK Jūyō session 15. I haven't been able to locate the tachi in Fujishiro picture.

 

So far I have found 36 tachi that are mumei or fumei and have been attributed as Ko-Naminohira. While I personally like Ko-Naminohira stuff a lot I do think it is not that desirable attribution for high level collectors. In general they do often have quite narrow hamon. I do believe that is among the reasons why they have been attributed towards that particular school.

 

Personally I would skip this Ko-Naminohira tachi as there are and have been others with the same attribution for sale that I like much more. As it is quite common attribution they are bound to pop up for sale. Of course it is always up to liking a particular piece and prices will be different for different swords.

[Schneeds]

For whatever reason, the photographs of this are different from AOI's standard. The scans on the left are the same, but the photographs with lighting are both fewer, and in part out of focus. 

 

Contrast it with that Enju tachi further down. That is a longer blade but fully photographed their normal way. 

 

Just thought that was a bit odd. 

[Shugyosha]

I thought that the boshi wasn’t intact on one of the photos (the very top one with the lighting). If it is, there’s not a lot in it. The scanned image of the boshi is unclear, however. 

[lonely panet]

9 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I think it is fairly nice sword. Ko-Naminohira is actually quite common attribution for old tachi. One difficulty in the attribution is that Ko-Naminohira includes everything from Late Heian period to Late Nanbokuchō. And to make it very tricky NBTHK does not specify dating for this attribution at Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon level, as far as I have seen with all of the 54 examples I have for Mumei/Fumei Ko-Naminohira attribution.

 

For this particular sword I personally would feel much more comfortable as Kamakura (perhaps late Kamakura) as possible dating. I do think the Hon'ami attribution to Late Heian and "The" Yukiyasu is extremely generous.

 

The Fujishiro page is actually for the Naminohira smith Yasuyuki (安行). He is much lesser known than Yukiyasu (行安) lineage. The tantō in the picture is signed and dated (1327) 薩摩国住人波平安行 / 嘉暦二季正月十五日 - It passed NBTHK Jūyō session 15. I haven't been able to locate the tachi in Fujishiro picture.

 

So far I have found 36 tachi that are mumei or fumei and have been attributed as Ko-Naminohira. While I personally like Ko-Naminohira stuff a lot I do think it is not that desirable attribution for high level collectors. In general they do often have quite narrow hamon. I do believe that is among the reasons why they have been attributed towards that particular school.

 

Personally I would skip this Ko-Naminohira tachi as there are and have been others with the same attribution for sale that I like much more. As it is quite common attribution they are bound to pop up for sale. Of course it is always up to liking a particular piece and prices will be different for different swords.

Whats your thoughts on the state of the hamon  jussi?? To my eyes its almost gone to tge ha in some places