Nakriishimei

[Clive Sinclaire]

Gentlemen

I have today been cataloguing a gendaito and, as this is not really my area of expertise, I thought the following might find answers on this esteemed message-board. Any opinions would be greatly appreciated:

 

This sword that I have been cataloguing, is made and signed in a tachi style and has a superior sugata to the more stubby gunto sugata. The calligraphy of both the mei and the date, is executed with a very thin chisel which makes an oshigata very difficult. The yasurime are similarly carved in a o-sujikai style with a kesho finish.

 

According to John Slough in his excellent book of oshigata entitled “Modern Japanese Swordsmiths 1868-1945" this is by Kojima Kanenori whose real name was Kojima Taro and who was born in 1907. During World War 2 he served as a Rikugun Jumei Tosho in Seki.

 

On page 56 of the book is a nakago which shows the full mei: Noshu Seki Ju Kanenori saku (A) which is captioned “shoshinmei” (true signature). Facing this is another oshigata which is an almost identical sword to the one described above (including the microscopic stamp named as a NA STAMP by Slough) but the calligraphy is quite different from the previous shoshinmei, B and B1). This latter is captioned as Nakirishimei. The term Nakirishimei refers, according to Slough, to mei that were applied by a Seki name-cutting specialist. He also compares the character NORI to a similar one on a sword with Showa stamp by Kanenori © and then by a further Seki-stamped sword by KazuNORI. The point being that on all three of these swords labelled as Nakirishimei, the almost identical carving of the character NORI according to Slough, indicates that they were all carved by the same hand.

 

This gives me pause for thought and some reflection. I am not convinced that a specialist name-cutter would carve a name on a hand-made sword such as this gendaito, even if it were made at the Seki arsenal. If someone went to all the effort of producing a sword, it seems that the relatively short job of signing it would not be a chore and might be insisted on. Moreover it is difficult to see how any artist might allow another to sign his work in this manner.

 

Sometimes I have heard it said that a sword was signed by someone other than the maker, because the actual maker was unable to read or write. I find this theory untenable as anyone, even I, can learn a 2 character name such as Kanenori, in less than a single hour! That it looks different from the so-called shoshinmei is undeniable, but this could mean that it is by another of the same name, or it is dai-mei or in the case of the KazuNORI maybe he changed his name. I can understand the use of a specialist name-carver on Showa-to as part of the mass-production line, but that is a different situation than a hand-made blade, I think.

 

Slough also uses the term Kazuuichimei which certainly is a noticeably inferior mei as shown on the examples in his book and is easier to understand, although I have not come across this term before and am unsure what the difference between this and Nakarishimei is or who else might have signed in this untidy manner.

 

Also, does anyone know the significance of the NA stamp which I have not seen on any other swords?

 

I am sorry that this is rather a long and detailed posting but I hope that someone may clarify these things for me as I do not believe that I have encountered these terms, except for Shoshinmei, of course, elsewhere.

 

Regards

Clive Sinclaire

[cabowen]

The na stamp is an arsenal acceptance stamp and refers to the Na goya arsenal.

 

There were certainly gazillions of Seki gunto made in a mass production like mode with the last step being the routine signing of blades. I wouldn't think this would be the case with true traditionally made blades.

 

Perhaps you need to reexamine this sword to be sure it is in fact a gendai to and not just a very well made gunto.....

[runagmc]

I assume what he means by 'kazu-uchi mei' is the simplified mei that was used for lesser quality kazu-uchi mono sometimes.

 

An example would be the Osafune smiths of late Muromachi era signing the Bishu Osafune mei rather than the longer mei they would use on higher quality special order blades. This rule, like everything else partaining to Nihonto, is full of exceptions so I guess it can't really be considered a rule.

 

From what I can tell, the difference between kazu-uchi mei and nakarishi mei might be that kazu-uchi mei weren't necassarily done by someone other than the smith.

 

I'm not sure if this was one of the terms you were wondering about but if it was then there you go.

[Yukihiro]

Here is another example of one of Slough's nakirishimei : Toshimasa's.

 

Upon closer examination, it appeared to me that there could have been not just ONE specialist name-cutter working for Toshimasa, but (at least?) TWO.

 

Do you think my assumption is correct?

 

Regards,

 

Didier

 

[vajo]

Didier this Toshimasa is a low to medium grade showa-to (not traditional) smith. Don't expect to much. 

[Yukihiro]

Of course, Chris, I don't expect it to be more than it actually is. Nevertheless I am curious of any piece of information I can gather about it. Those name-cutters were supposed to have worked for several smiths at the same time and here it seems to be the other way around, which I thought could be of some interest.

[george trotter]

Clive,

I hope what I say now is helpful and not just more confusing.

I notice you say that the oshigata with 'na" stamp in Slough p.56 is the same as the one you are investigating. Without entering the question of nakirishi mei or not I think I can say that the yasurimei you describe on your specimen and the yasurimei on the "na" oshi on p.56 match each other but you will notice they do not match the other oshigata shown. I suggest therefore that these "na" Kanenori blades may be made by a different maker to the longer mei "sho" (p.55) and Seki" (p.56) stamp Kanenori blades.

As I said, while I can't add to the shoshinmei-nakarishimei debate, I do think your noticing of the apparent differences in the two nakago-mei-yasuri styles is the pointer to two different tosho. I can't see positively whether the "na" oshigata on p.56 has the kessho finish yours has, or not, but I "think" I can see evidence of it. I think you have two different makers, one possibly not recorded, or perhaps the Kanenori Kojima Taro did work under two different contracts/locations at times?

Hope this helps,