YASUMITSU FIRST GENERATION BIZEN - IDENTIFICATION HELP

[reinhard]

Fujishiro and I are having a difference of opinion there.

 

No, you don't. Read carefully.

Instead of considering yourself on eye-level with one of Japan's undisputed authorities, you better start reading fundamentals again.

 

reinhard

[nagamaki - Franco]

When it comes to nihonto, its just when you begin to think you know something that you discover you have it all wrong. Unfortunately, because of this thing we call the internet where information comes way too easily, this first statement is all too often compounded.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Fujishiro and I are having a difference of opinion there

 

The period given on Fujishiro's books is just indicative. Below one of the rare dated blade made by O-Sa. (NihontoKoza Afu Watson translation).

 

[NihontoEurope]

All,

 

Thanks for comments and uploads. Appreciated!!!

 

Jean, Yes...big names = Shinsa. I had my trip planned to Japan. It was cancelled for three big reasons this April. Needless to elaborate more on that.

 

Uploading an edited version of the last Oshigata of O-Sa. There are simularities of those works and there are not similarities to the oshigata Jean uploaded. My thoughts, and my thoughts only as a non-authoritive, is that early works from O-Sa is a bit different to the "newer" works. Also, it seems to my eyes that when the shape of the sword changes, the nagako changes in form as well. It could be a presentation issue or something. I don't know.

 

Anyway. A shinsa it will be...

 

Is it ok to start a new thread on a smith that I cannot find ANY info of. I'll try and start a new one!

 

It is NAGAYOSHI and I hope to get some help there as well.!!

 

Thanks

 

Martin

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

It smells gimei. Nagasa ?

[NihontoEurope]

Jacques D.,

Nagasa = 27,2

 

/Martin

[reinhard]

What you need to know about O-SA for starters:

 

"During the early times of his career, he followed the the classical tradition which had been inherited in the RYOSAI, SAIREN and JITSUA line largely out of their originally Yamato-den background. However SA began to introduce the Soshu style, which resulted in a highly more clear and refined ji-ha workmanship....

Inclusion of SA among the "ten disciples of MASAMUNE" is based on SA's innovation in bringing in totally new elements to his own old heritage.

However, taking into consideration of the confused historical condition at that time, we cannot help remaining sceptical about the barest possibility of SA having really come to Kamakura to train directly under MASAMUNE. It is much more reasonable to assume that the Soshu-den, which was giving a great impact in the then sword world because of its novelty, was reaching far enough to influence the sword world even in Kyushu.

It seems most timely that military powers from the Kanto region, where Kamakura was centrally located, were sending their forces to northern Kyushu. In Kemmu 3rd year (1336) Ashikaga Takauji's forces landed on a seashore called Ashiyatsu in Chikuzen after they were defeated by the Shogunate's forces led by Kitabatake Akiiye. Ashikaga's troops stationed there for some two month until they reinforced their military forces. Also, another Ashikaga troop remained in Kyushu for a few years around Teiwa (1345-50) and Bunna (1352-56) times to enjoy a temporary power locally.

Those Kanto warriors came with works of top ranking Soshu sword-makers and thus very likely gave Samonji opportunities to come across masterful Soshu swords. It should be noted that there are SA's (scarcely) dated works representing Kemmu 5 (1338, now retempered), Ryakuo 2 (1339, 2 specimen) and Ryakuo 3 (1340). There is also a Kano 1st year (1350) date given in a work of YUKIHIRO, who followed O-SA'S workmanship most faithfully.

Thus it can be conjctured that changes in O-SA's style took place after Ryakuo (1338-42) and before Kano (1350-52), i.e. around Koei (1342-45) and Teiwa (1345-50) times."

 

About the famous "Kosetsu" tachi:

 

"This wide tachi in the most sturdy blade structure, however, has a kissaki yet to be fully extended and a kasane not so thin yet, which indicates it has a blade structure characteristic of the Nanbokucho times shortly before the change into the Enbun-Joji style (1356-68) took place."

 

(BTW: Shohei era lasted from 1346 to 1370).

 

These are excerpts from a comment on Kosetsu Samonji by Tanobe-Sensei. I added some numbers in brackets.

 

reinhard

[NihontoEurope]

reinhard,

 

Nice information. I will analyse it and cross check with other data I have.

Most greatful!

 

/Martin

[Darcy]

Just one tachi from O-Sa is still extant today.

 

False. Jacques is reminding me of the Detroit Lions from a few years back.

Sorry to bring back an elderly thread but mentioning the Kosetsu samonji had me google it and come back to this thread with interesting Samonji information.

But no, there are two tachi that are extent today from Samonji.

If you hit the books and find the earliest dated Rai Kunitoshi they will all tell you it is around 1290-1293. But this is not the earliest dated Rai Kunitoshi.

 

This one is at Sho-o 2 (1289)

 

 

So in this case, all the books are completely wrong. Books, the problem is that the authors are always writing from what they see and so are formulating an opinion based on what they see. This can't be helped, this is what they should do. But what the student needs to do is to understand that they are the blind men trying to deduce things like what an elephant is like. You can sometimes get a big picture then by hovering over them, reading all their opinions, and trying to unite it into something that makes some sense.

 

Anyway in conclusion there are two signed Samonji tachi. This is the other one. Half the mei is cut off but the setumei makes it clear this is Samonji and the work style matches the Kosetsu. It is interesting in having different hi on both sides too. It matches well as Tokuju Samonji that one of my clients owns (which is mumei).

 

There are of course several mumei katana attributed to Samonji now. But this one like the Kosetsu is in another range because of the signature and these remain tachi.

 

[cabowen]

Books, the problem is that the authors are always writing from what they see and so are formulating an opinion based on what they see.

 

That's one problem. There are others, like the fact that many Japanese authors simply repeat what came before. This tends to perpetuate errors.

 

Like I have said, books are a great starting point but they can only take one so far.

[chrstphr]

Jean,

 

I have seen swords being Tadayoshi work to the naked eye, but after an investigation of the MEI it fails being a Tadayoshi. Stating that one should start research/investigation on metalwork before signature or the other way around is a bit odd to me.

 

 

there have been numerous instances of a sword being by a particular smith, but having his gimei on the nakago.

 

Kotetsu was asked once about a sword as there were many fakes. He responded, " the sword is mine, the signature is not." Clearly this sword would have been passed by if you only went by the gimei.

 

on this board some time back, there was a sword, that had a mei that was clearly gimei. The mei was removed and the sword sent in to shinsa. Sword can back attributed to same smith!

 

If the ironwork says masamume, doesnt matter there is gimei of masamune on the blade. That is why everyone is recommending starting with the blade itself. It will tell you much more that any mei will tell you.

 

 

Chris

[Jean]

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-yasumitsuosafune

 

Typical Oei jigane, not typical utsuri, generally bo utsuri. Sugata: less classical because generally when the hamon is suguha, the sugata is rather early Kamakura style with ko kissaki and fumbari.