The different Mei of Nagamitsu

[Daniel]

Hi, yesterday I flipped through the pages of Slough's Modern Japanese Swordsmiths . When I looked at the Nagamitsu pages all the different Mei made me wonder. I know there are a couple of you who have handled a few blades made by him to say the least during the years. So question number one. Do you know or suspect that the different mei for example Nagamitsu versus his art name Ichiryushi meant anything? Second question. Just to be clear I know all swords has to be judged on their own merits. But if we make some generalizations. Did you notice any difference in quality for example when signed by his long mei Ichihara Ichiryushi Nagamitsu Saku compared when signing with the plain Nagamitsu? Maybe it's that simple that the length of the mei wich name he signed the blade with didn't mean a thing or did it? Have you noticed a pattern? Best Regards Daniel

[cabowen]

I have handled many over the years but have never made a formal study of the mei, nor attempted to correlate the different styles with the workmanship present in any given blade.

 

There does seem to be some variation in both workmanship style and quality. Given the sheer number of these that pop up, it is very likely that Ichihara Nagamitsu ran some sort of sword making group with several people assisting in the making of all of these swords. As with other such production facilities, it is also likely that there were many daisaku/daimei produced as a result. Until someone uncovers some sort of documentation that proves the existence of such a facility, it is uncertain.

 

While they are surely better than 90% of what we see in Seki blades and are very serviceable, practical blades, they don't, in my opinion, (including even the very best of the Nagamitsu blades I have seen among the uncountable many) compare to the better work seen in this era. This is the reason I have never spent much time with the various signatures or other research for that matter, and have always tried to steer people away from them and towards works by better smiths.

[David Flynn]

Chris when you say better than 90% of seki blades, does this mean the ones with seki and showa stamps, or all seki blades including Gendai? That is a very broad statement. If you are refering to show and seki stamped blades, you should say so. Also if this is your criteria, then the same applies to Tokyo swords.

[cabowen]

I am saying 90% of all blades made in Seki. Since only about 5-10% of all Seki made blades were gendaito, the Nagamitsu blades, by virtue of their being traditionally made, are better than all the nontraditional blades, stamps or what have you. I would maybe even go further and say that most Nagamitsu blades are as good as half of the gendaito made in Seki. Since there were only a handful of good, traditionally trained smiths in Seki during the war making traditional blades, there are very few as a percentage of the total of any merit. I would say 5% of the total production or so is about it, so this really isn't much praise for Nagamitsu, rather it reflects the dearth of talented, traditional smiths in Seki during the war....

 

I am basing this on my experience. Others may have a different picture.

[David Flynn]

I believe we have been down this road before, though I still believe you are prejudice.

[cabowen]

yeah, I am prejudiced...I openly admit my preference for high quality work..... :lol:

 

But don't believe me....One measure might be the awards received in contests in which the entries were critically judged....Total up all the awards given in all the pre war and war era sword making exhibits, from the Imperial exhibit, all 8 of the Mombusho sponsored contests, up to the last two sponsored by the military. Let me know what percentage of the awards went to Seki smiths. Or, take a look at some of the rankings done during the war. Again, notice where the Seki smiths are....Take note of any awards Nagamitsu won and his ranking as well....

 

It is well known that Seki was a center for showa-to manufacture and it should be no surprise that most of the swords seen from Seki are mass produced. It is also a fact that there were few trained smiths in Seki.

 

Of course if you have some other info, let us know....

 

Again, my opinion is based on the above data as well as the large number of swords I have seen by Seki smiths and Nagamitsu. Your mileage, as they say, may vary....And, as always, if Nagamitsu or Seki blades are your thing, to each his own....

[mdiddy]

I have held and owned several Nagamitsu, some of which had been polished, and have not noticed a difference in quality based on length of signature. From an artistic standpoint, they were all of seemingly good quality with consistent hamon (usually some gunome variant) and hataraki in both ji and hamon. From an iai practitioner's standpoint, I would be curious if they differ in quality as I have noticed differences in the shape and curvature, with many being what I would call 'stout' (shorter and thicker). I have always heard they performed well in cutting and I think the 'world-record' tameshigiri was performed with a Nagamitsu.

 

One difference I have noticed though is that earlier Nagamitsu seem to be of lower quality as compared to later Nagamitsu. Most Nagamitsu I have held were not dated, but I implied some crude dating based on the mounts, earlier being mounted in Type 98 mounts and later in Type 3 mounts (most Nagamitsu are seen in Type 3 mounts). There are similarities, but the earlier Nagamitsu seem more crude, lack hataraki, and had more basic hamon.

 

In my opinion, every Nagamitsu I have held was of higher quality than Seki Showa-to, but no Nagamitsu was of higher quality than examples I have held by Seki Kanehide or Seki Kanenori. The examples I have held by those two smiths all displayed more consistent hamon and more varied hataraki. Keep in mind though that I am just a lay collector and not an Iai practitioner or on a Shinsa panel.

 

Finally, I agree with Chris that Nagamitsu was probably not a lone smith cranking these out and had some kind of operation. If he had an operation then many could be dai mei which could explain the varying signatures but consistent quality.

 

My experience is based on handling maybe 50 Nagamitsu which could be a limited set so please take that into consideration.

[falconj]

maybe it is such that as 'seki' smiths were that lowly rated at the time that they were not even asked to compete or the cost of entering may have been to great for these low ranking smiths to have submitted representative examples of their sword work in the Imperial Exhibit, military contests or whatever as described, and therefore 'nagamitsu, etc would not rank or even feature in the highly placed records of contests in the Tokyo contests, I do not think you could judge the results of a contest as described as the only measure of a smiths work at all, is there any record of how many of the seki smiths work was judged compared to the other establishments, I doubt it,

as has been said many times before when discussion's like this come up or attribution of sword is given to one smith or another or whether it is gimei or not

 

" that this is only one person's opinion and that he or she is not always correct, it is only his or hers opinion !"

 

I have been told this by experts

 

regards

John

 

ps: we might as well include " emura " in all this

[David Flynn]

I collect Gendai from any area they were made. My whole criteria, is that a good sword is a good sword. I have no bias or prejudice as to who a smith is, or from what area, or school from which he came. I personally own two Nagamitsu with different signatures. I believe one is "nicer", than the other, but it's nice to have both to compare.

[cabowen]

maybe it is such that as 'seki' smiths were that lowly rated at the time that they were not even asked to compete or the cost of entering may have been to great for these low ranking smiths to have submitted representative examples of their sword work in the Imperial Exhibit, military contests or whatever as described,

 

They are well represented in the later contests. Nagamitsu entered as well....They just didn't win many awards. Only a few entered the Imperial Exhibit because at the early date it was held, there simply weren't more trained tosho working in Seki. Once the war started, their numbers increased.

 

 

and therefore 'nagamitsu, etc would not rank or even feature in the highly placed records of contests in the Tokyo contests, I do not think you could judge the results of a contest as described as the only measure of a smiths work at all, is there any record of how many of the seki smiths work was judged compared to the other establishments, I doubt it,

as has been said many times before when discussion's like this come up or attribution of sword is given to one smith or another or whether it is gimei or not

 

I think a contest, where usually a smith enters his best work, is indeed a viable proxy with which to judge a smith's ability in relation to his peers. These contests were held on a yearly basis and we have 11 years of results. Sure, there was most likely some political noise in the results, but by and large, we see the majority of the Seki smiths going home without any major awards, year after year, along with Nagamitsu.

 

We also have the various rankings that were published during the war years. Again, few Seki smiths in the upper echelon. Nagamitsu again, as well.

 

As has been said over and over, Seki was not the center of traditional sword making during the war. There were only a handful of smiths there who were professionally trained and making traditional swords. Did they manage to make a better than average sword from time to time? Sure. Were there talented smiths there? Sure. Are there blades made in Seki during the war that I would consider worthy of collection as Nihon-to? Sure. I have in fact, and have mentioned this repeatedly, seen good work from a few smiths from Seki in the past. In particular, Kanehide's work has always impressed me....

 

My point, and one I will stick to unless someone has some other evidence to convince me otherwise, is that with the overwhelming majority of what came out of Seki mass produced and, with very few traditionally trained smiths of above average talent, most of what came out of Seki was mediocre at best when compared to the traditional, quality work produced elsewhere.

[cabowen]

My whole criteria, is that a good sword is a good sword. I have no bias or prejudice as to who a smith is, or from what area, or school from which he came.

 

I couldn't agree more. I have often said these exact words to people who have asked why I collect gendaito....

 

While I have chosen to limit my collection to Tokyo smiths, I have no problem admitting I have seen excellent work from smiths from all parts of Japan and have indeed owned many blades from all over at one point. I decided to focus on one area. Just a personal choice. And not an easy one to adhere to...I had a beautiful Shibata Ka blade here back from polish recently, 29" long, special order made to commemorate the Nanking "Incident" that was one of the best war era gendaito I have seen. I sold it because he wasn't a Tokyo smith. I really wanted to keep it but I have a focus and he didn't fit....

 

As I said, my prejudice is I favor excellent swords. Based on what I have seen, which is a fair amount, Seki and Nagamitsu just don't measure up....Surely I haven't seen everything so it is possible there are Seki works and Nagamitsu blades that are excellent. If I should ever come across one, I will adjust my opinion accordingly....

[Daniel]

Hi all, Thanks for all your comments. I was just curious if it could be so that mei including the name Ichiryushi were reserved for work by Nagamitsu himself well just a thought but I guess we'll have to wait until someone uncovers some sort of documentation just like Chris said.

[David Flynn]

Daniel, unfortunately, the only signature we can be sure of, is signed, Bizen kuni ju ichihara ichiyrushi nagamitisu saku. I have only seen two signed this way and they were truly wonderful swords.

[Daniel]

Hi again, It isn't my intention with this thread to start the battle again whereas Nagamitsu is overestimated or not. As I have just started to focus on Gendaito I just own two. One by Tobi Masahisa of wich I asked a few questions some time ago and the other one is a Gendaito made by... Well surprise Nagamitsu. When comparing the two swords I to feel that it's strange that the Nagamitsu would probably bring so much more money if I should sell them. But just to be clear I have no intention of selling either of the swords at the moment I like them both very much. Maybe we all can agree that Nagamitsu wasn't one of the top of the line smiths but at least he was a decent one. So if somebody has something to add regarding the questions about the signatures I'd be happy. Once again thank you for taking the time to reply. Kind Regards Daniel

[Swords]

Hi I have a Nagamitsu sword with the 2 engraving 

It also has the 2 horizontal rather then 3 this I read it and was probably signed be a pupil or assistant  and who used his forge 

The hamon is suble wavy very basic if that means anything 

My take is it’s still a nagamitsu signature and probably better than most We can debate all day about this but you can pick apart many other swords who signed but which is better ?!??

Many many swords were not signed by the original smiths 

and should be considered by his own merit not just the signature alone 

 

 

[Swords]

As I said I own a sword signature the 2 engraving there were  2 types one with 2 horizontal lines and one with From what I researched the one with 2 were signed by a pupil or assistant but used the same forge The hamon on mine is basic and don’t know if the makes any difference in quantity Because I only have the one sword I can’t compare Because they were mass produced How is mine rated? After reading this thread it seems the newer swords were not good quality? However I would think since they were commissioned by the Rikugen a commissioned  army sword smith wh made swords for the Osaka Rikugun Zoheisho army arsenal I would think that would make these swords better than most that were made by other smiths I thought because it’s a Nagamitsu sword I bought a decent sword but having read the feed it dosnt sword promising 

Here’s some information on mine hopefully some one can add there thoughts

 

 

Cutting edge is a little over 25 and half inch. Entire sword in scabbard is 41 inch.

Blade is massive, thick and traditional hand forged with 

Active Notare midare (wavy irregular temper line Original family crest or mon 

Blade shows very active Yokote and Boshi line toward sword tip

Blade  original war time polish 

[PNSSHOGUN]

Pictures speak a thousand words.

[Swords]

Im not able to send them because of file size Not even one picture 

[Brian]

It would be crazy for file size or image size to be restricting your uploads. Unless your pics are ridiculously large, which is never needed. A HUGE image can be under 200k, and we allow megs/
Read the How-To section. There are posts on uploading. But easy enough to Google free image resizer and do the necessary.

[Rich S]

From my website Nagamitsu page 20+ years ago.

 

"Given the number of variations of signatures (mei) found on Nagamitsu blades, combined with the quantity of blades known, it seems unlikely that they are all the work of one lone swordsmith. It is likely that Nagamitsu had a number of students and assistants who also produced blades at his forge and who signed sword blades on his behalf. Therefore each blade must be judged on its own merits and not simply on its signature."

 

As long as it's a legit Ichihara Nagamitsu it's likely a fine sword. I wouldn't worry about it. Also, given the brief period, WW2, that these swords were made, I personally doubt the terms early and late have any real meaning, just MHO.  Also since there were different smiths, students, assistants making them, having variation in "quality" is to be expected.

 

Rich

 

 

[Swords]

Well I need an appt and cannot get one I was able to send photos on another sword but I. Cannot send one?

[Ooitame]

Hi Steve, yours looks like a 3 stroke. I am adding a link with a few mei from members here. In Ray's link in the attached NMB post yours looks very similar too T. I find that with Nagamitsu swords they should be judged individually.

If you search my posts you will find my Nagamitsu. Better pictures of the hada and hamon help in judging quality.

[Swords]

 the more the merrier Any help from others is greatly appreciated  I thought it was 2 strokes I was looking at the 2 that the top right but maybe I’m looking at it wrong so what’s the difference between 2 and 3 strokes or dosnt it matter? Not sure how to find your post’s I’m new to this forum I would be interested in finding the difference of other 2 engraving signature like mine

 

thanks for your help 

[Rich S]

Steve

 

2 vs 3 stroke Naga doesn't really matter IMHO. If you will look at the various mei on my site you will see significant differences in the mei - obviously cut by different hands, but all legit Nagamitsu.

Rich

[Swords]

I see that I guess because the mei is a little different the value is by its own merit unless of course it from the master himself I just couldn’t tell which ones are better than others 

[Swords]

2 hours ago, Rich S said:

Steve

 

2 vs 3 stroke Naga doesn't really matter IMHO. If you will look at the various mei on my site you will see significant differences in the mei - obviously cut by different hands, but all legit Nagamitsu.

Rich

Hi how do I see your site 

[Swords]

Hi rich how do I get on your site 

 

steve

 

 

 

[Brian]

http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/naga.htm

http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/nihonto.htm

[Swords]

I want to reiterate Nagamitsu mei signature !

according to what I read about Nagamitsu That 2 or 3 stokes naga is the trade mark of a Nagamitsu signature Mine I believe is a 2 stroke naga but someone said it was 3 Anyway 

It doesn't say the signature has to be longer to be a true Nagamitsu sword or a better quality one  If anyone wants to add to this please do I copied this about Nagamitsu as follows 

Ichihara Ichiryushi Nagamitsu often carved mei using an unusual style of Kanji for the "naga" character. "Naga" is usually written with three horizontal strokes to the right of the top vertical stroke. On many Ichihara Nagamitsu blades the "naga" Kanji is written with only two horizontal strokes. It is my belief that this is a "trademark" of Ichihara Nagamitsu and an important kantei point in distinquishing his blades from those of other swordsmiths who signed Nagamitsu during this period. However, there are several Nagamitsu blades known signed with a standard "naga" Kanji which may be a variant and from the same forge as the others (see oshigata "T" and "V") and perhaps carved by a student or assistant. Much has yet to be learned about the blades of from the forge of Nagamitsu.

 

Steve 

[David Flynn]

There are other smiths who signed Nagamitsu,  besides Ichihara Nagamitsu.