markturner Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Hi , I have been using the Sho-shin and nihonto club database to try and find the exact smith for two of my swords. found a few likely candidates on both the internet sites, but today visited my dealer Don bayney and while there, had a look in his copy of Hawleys. I found possibles in there that were not appearing in either of the two internet sites, specifically, SU415 and MU283,286 & 272. Sho -shin lists all the munetsugu smiths and their hawleys numbers from 520 to 560, however in hawleys, the numbers are in the 200's. Why does the sho-shin database give hawleys numbers that are 100's apart? I wondered why they appeared in the book and not on the database and how, I can find any further info on those hawleys numbered smiths, on the internet anywhere. Thanks, Mark Quote
cabowen Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 There are many duplicates in Hawley's book due to the way it was compiled. It is not always the most accurate source.... Quote
runagmc Posted January 20, 2012 Report Posted January 20, 2012 Nihontoclub.com swordsmith database is not complete or completely accurate. It is, however, very usefull when you don't have access to your reference books. Quote
kazarena Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Mark, Sho-Shin database mostly covers smiths which appeared in Toko Taikan. NihontoClub database neither is nor intends to be a full copy of Hawley's. Less known smiths aren't covered as much, primarily due to resource constraints. I'd suggest always to look back into the sources, Nihonto Meikan and Toko Taikan first of all. If some records are missing, I'd be happy to add them for you. Regards, Stan Quote
markturner Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Stan, a bit of digging around on the interweb leads me to believe both of those books are both expensive and very difficult to find. Is it possible for you to dig out the info on the smiths I referenced from Hawleys? It would be much appreciated if you have those reference books. regards, Mark Quote
kazarena Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Mark, Munetsugu is listed in Hawley under MUN521-588. I wonder if you were looking at the older version of Hawley's book and numbering was different there. As mentioned in another thread, MUN555 and MUN559 (Koyama Munetsugu) seem to be good candidates for further comparison. However, I wasn't able to find any references to either of them signing 三条宗近十六代宗次. You were saying the sword is dated. Is there a photo of the inscription with a date and also a photo of the sayagaki? Regards, Stan Quote
markturner Posted January 21, 2012 Author Report Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Stan, here you go, sorry for the quality, phone camera was all I have handy! Thanks so much for your interest and help, rgds, Mark Quote
kazarena Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 Hi Mark, Thank you for posting the photos. Yes, the date is as described, Bunsei 2 (1819). In regards to Munetsugu MUN555, also known as Mutsu no Suke Hiromoto, there's a good write-up on him here: http://www.seiyudo.com/ka-010712.htm (sorry, in Japanese). Still, there is no mention of a signature like on your sword. Also, your signature is done in large and rather sloppy characters, not typical of Munetsugu/Hiromoto. Here's another sword by Hiromoto: http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2009/0910_1106syousai.htm Anyway, it appears to be a quite exciting puzzle you'll need to solve. This is what I like about Nihonto :D Regards, Stan Quote
cabowen Posted January 21, 2012 Report Posted January 21, 2012 The Nihonto Meikan is the definitive listing of smiths. There is no listing under Munetsugu for any Munetsugu working in Shinshinto signing with this mei. The kanji do not look anything like the well known Koyama Munetsugu. They remind me more of the Hizen Munetsugu who worked in Shinto. I think you have an unlisted smith here, which happens from time to time.... Quote
markturner Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Posted January 22, 2012 Thank you Stan & Chris, very helpful. Perhaps not exactly what I wanted to hear as the mei issue is unusual. looking at the pictures of the sword in the first link, my blade is very similar in the sugata, hamon and nakago, which is encouraging, but the mei is as you said not the same at all. What does the sayagaki tell you or add to the equation? To me it raises the question, if the blade was of a unlisted ( and by implication not so good smith) why have a Honami heijuro sayagaki, ( presumably he must have thought it good to do the sayagaki) and also, if the smith was 16th generation from sanjo munechika, would he not be known of by lineage or reputation somehow? As you say Stan, an interesting puzzle! Interestingly, the second sword linked by Stan is nothing like the first in its hamon, very different. Why would that be? My blade was also in the Bigelow collection at one time, again, that says to me it must be of some note, would you not agree? It's strange that with all the seemingly very obvious pointers ( lineage claim to very famous smith, sayagaki, etc) that the sword is not more easily attributable with certainty. One more point, what does the 2nd mekugi say to you ? Apart from that, the blade shows no other signs of being suriage to my untrained eye.... thank you, Mark Quote
nagamaki - Franco Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 On occassion there were unlisted smiths, sometimes due to historical times, sometimes because they may have died young before their work became independently established from their teacher's and widely known, whatever the individual case may have been, it doesn't mean they were completely unknown, just not well recorded at the time. In such instances an organization like the NBTHK with extensive records will most likely be able to help. In one such case a friend/fellow collector who was a member of the NBTHK received his 'unknown swordsmith' sword back from shinsa with a nice letter from Mr. Tanobe explaining and giving the basic details of who the smith was, his teacher, lineage, etc.. Quote
kazarena Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 Hi Mark, It is known that Honami Heijuro died in 1882 at the age of 55. This places your sayagaki roughly between 1847 and 1880. It would be good if somebody could confirm the sayagaki is indeed made by Honami Heijuro. It's just a pure speculation, but as there were only 2 Munetsugu working at that time, and the sword was still pretty new within this timeframe, it suggests the current owner wasn't sure who exactly made the sword. This may explain why it was brought to Honami. Regards, Stan Quote
markturner Posted January 22, 2012 Author Report Posted January 22, 2012 Hi Stan, I say the sayagaki is by Heijuro, as that is how it is described in the auction catalogue ( the blade was auctioned by Sothebys in 1979 and I have the catalogue, came with the blade). Other than that, and not being able to read Japanese (sadly) I can't be sure. I kind of assumed it said so on the sayagaki. Can you read what it says from my crappy photos? I have studied the blade carefully, along with my books etc and it certainly looks like a "good" blade, excellent polish, good hamon, activity going on the right side of the hamon, nice boshi, very thick and nicely shaped. Incidentally, what does anyone think of the traces of whitish inlay in the Mei? Unusual? It's a shame there is no regular shinsa here, I would like to take it along. I have just joined the To-ken society of Great Britain, so perhaps Clive Sinclaire or one of the other guys there may be able to shed further light. Its certainly fascinating trying to piece together the history and provenance of these pieces, regards, Mark Quote
cabowen Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 As explained, there are any number of reasons a smith may be unlisted. It may also be the case that this is an early or late signature of a recorded smith that is not recorded.... In any case, unlisted does not mean inferior.... Quote
runagmc Posted January 22, 2012 Report Posted January 22, 2012 Quote Incidentally, what does anyone think of the traces of whitish inlay in the Mei? Unusual? Sometimes people put white powder in the mei to help it show up better for translation or photos. Could that be what you're seeing? Quote
markturner Posted January 31, 2012 Author Report Posted January 31, 2012 Ok thanks for the answers, it appears to be a bit of a mystery, hoping the next meeting of the To-ken society and Mr Clive Sinclair will shed some light on things, thanks, Mark Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.