SOLD

Tracked across 76 dealers worldwide · price history · sold archive

Specifications

About the maker

Kencho兼長

Kanenaga of Bizen, written 兼長, is transmitted in the published sources as a pupil of Osafune Chōgi (長船長義の門と伝え), and so as a smith of the Soden-Bizen line in which the Sōshū manner of Masamune was carried into the Bizen workshop. The published record is candid about how little signed work survives: extant in-mei examples are exceedingly few. The standards are a wakizashi dated Jōji 5 (1366), designated an Important Art Object, and tantō dated Shitoku 4 (1387) and Kakei 2 (1388), the latter two showing nie stronger and ji-ha activity richer than the first. From these few dated blades the published sources draw the judgment that anchors the whole attribution: his workmanship approaches that of Chōgi yet pushes the Sōshū side further still (長義の作風に近似しながらもそれ以上に相州伝が強調された). The reality of the kantei, however, lies elsewhere, since almost everything that survives under his name is a grand o-suriage mumei katana attributed to him by workmanship rather than by a signature. In that majority register the published sources describe a katana that resembles Chōgi but is, in their words, more strongly nie-laden, with activity working freely within the temper (長義に似て一段と沸が強く、刃中よく働く). The form they record is itself part of the recognition: wide *mihaba* with almost no taper from base to tip, thick *kasane*, a rather deep *sori*, and an *ō-kissaki* or an extended *chū-kissaki*, the bold Nanbokuchō shape preserved by *ō-suriage*. The temper they describe is a large-pattern *midare* on a *notare* or *gunome* base, mixing *gunome* and *ko-gunome* with *chōji*, angular ha, pointed *togari* elements, and the waist-open *koshi-biraki* shapes that give his work its swing. *Ashi* and *yō* enter well, the *nioiguchi* runs deep and bright, and the *nie* clots and in places coarsens, with *kinsuji* and *sunagashi* running frequently. Small *yubashiri* and detached *tobiyaki* break out above the temper, and the *bōshi* runs *midare-komi*, often pointed and sweeping into *hakikake* or a flame-like *kaen* tip. The *jigane* is the Bizen base over which that Sōshū temper is laid. The published sources describe *itame* mixed with *mokume* and *ō-mokume*, areas of *nagare-hada*, and a grain that stands out (*hada-dachi*); over it fine *ji-nie* adheres densely and *chikei* enter thickly and well. The Bizen *utsuri* is present but faint, recorded again and again as a *midare-utsuri* that stands only dimly (淡く乱れ映り立つ). That thin reflection is itself a tell: the more the Sōshū side is pushed, the less the old Bizen *jigane* shows its *utsuri*, and on the most Sōshū of his blades the reflection recedes almost to nothing. The published commentary reads the surviving *utsuri* as the proof of his province, judging one such katana, because the reflection appears at all, to be Soden-Bizen (映りが現れていることから、相伝備前と鑑せらる). The work therefore divides in two. The rare dated signed pieces are the calibration: the Jōji wakizashi runs toward a *hitatsura* tone, and the Shitoku and Kakei tantō carry the Sōshū manner so far that the published sources liken them to Norishige, written as blades that at a glance could be confused for him in their emphasized Sōshū-den (一見則重にも紛れる位に相州伝の強調された). The signature style and the chisel-work of these dated pieces confirm, the sources say, that this hand belongs to the Chōgi line. Against that calibration stands the great body of *ō-suriage mumei* katana, more flamboyant and bolder in pattern than Chōgi himself. The published record also preserves a dating question, attributed to Honma: the Jōji Kanenaga signature differs from Chōgi's, whereas the later Shitoku, Kakei and Meitoku pieces match the signature style of Chōgi's Ōan years, so that the received account ought to be re-examined (通説を検討すべき), and the earlier Jōji Kanenaga may be a separate line while the later Kanenaga is the true Chōgi pupil (長義とは別系であり、至徳以後の兼長が長義の門下であろう). The sources present this as an open question of scholarship, not a settled fact. Within the Chōgi group his place is the most Sōshū-emphasized extreme. The published commentary repeatedly distinguishes him from Chōgi by degree: where the ordinary *ō-suriage mumei* attribution to Chōgi runs a step quieter, his is the bolder, larger-patterned, more strongly nie-laden hand, and one Tokubetsu Jūyō katana is judged, among the Chōgi group, the work most properly attributed to Kanenaga himself (長義一類の中でも兼長に最も擬すべき). His waist-open *gunome* is the most particular of these tells, a swing the orthodox-Bizen members of the group do not show; his *sunagashi* and *kinsuji* are the most profuse, and his detached *tobiyaki* the most insistent. He stands thereby apart from the more orthodox-Bizen Kanemitsu and Motoshige, whose work keeps closer to the Bizen *chōji* line, and beside Chōgi as the pupil who carried the Sōshū side of Soden-Bizen the furthest. Kanenaga is *Jō saku* in Fujishiro's grading, with a *Tōkō Taikan* valuation of 900. Despite the near-absent signed record, the weight of designation behind his name is substantial: none of his blades carry a national heritage designation, but eleven have reached Tokubetsu Jūyō and seventy-nine more are Jūyō, ninety in the two top tiers, with several further designated Juyo Bijutsuhin. The provenance recorded against his blades carries names of standing, the Sanada Family, the Tōdō Family, Sakai Tadayoshi, the Tsuchiya Family of Tsuchiura, the Yamauchi, and the American collector Walter A. Compton. Of recorded whereabouts, two examples are held by institutions, the Bizen Osafune Sword Museum and Itsukushima Jinja, the rest by private hands. Because almost nothing signed survives and the attributed katana are themselves uncommon, a Kanenaga reaches the market only rarely; with no blade locked in the highest heritage tiers, the recorded examples sit in the Tokubetsu Jūyō and Jūyō tiers, most of them held rather than traded, so that an example coming into open hands is a landmark when it does, not a thing to be sought at will.

Taiseido

taiseido.biz