How valid was Hawleys ratings??

[Lindus]

We constantly see Hawley mentioned as far a sword ratings are concerned,Have over the years used both the blue editions & its index link to Fujishiro as well as the revised edition with Brown cover{never understood why that edition did not have the same reference},then referred to Yamanka's news letters.

It seemed between the three that pretty much all led to a good research road,so, would be interested in what the opinion of the more dedicated students of Nihonto feel on the subject of these old guy's.

[Bazza]

The sword is the book...

 

BaZZa.

 

OK, to expand. One example will suffice. When I was a very much younger and very inexperienced collector I had 3 swords where if one read the signatures and went to Hawley they turned out to be either old or famous smiths or both. I looked and looked at these blades and felt something wasn't right. I decided they were WW2 Showa period "productions".

[george trotter]

Bazza san,

I'm not sure of your meaning?

Would it be fair to say that the sword names you looked up in Hawley all those loooong years ago just happened to be the same as some old and famous names listed there? The assumption was yours that he was saying these guys were yours ? Later, when you made the decision that yours were modern, it just means that the examples of modern makers of these same names may not have been listed in Hawley, not that he was "wrongly" saying these dates were actually for your makers?

Have I understood? commented correctly?

 

Hawley is a valuable tool to the collector as it is compiled from a number of Japanese references and is a quick look-up book that allows you to then check more detail in Japanese sources. The ratings system is arbitrary in that it just gives a "sense" of the standing of smiths...8 points been the starting point used for the (then) emerging smiths of post WWII...rising for a number of reasons to national treasure at 300? points One Japanese source uses a similar ranking based on "yen value".

As has also been said many times, Hawley contains double listings and some erronious listings. That is why other sources should be consulted also. Also, it is good as a quick reference to many smiths not covered in the more "up-market" works and should be regarded as a pretty good starting point reference IMHO.

regards,

[cabowen]

Valid for the smiths that were rated in the Japanese texts used to compile his book, not really valid for those that weren't that he simply assigned his own number to....

[george trotter]

Hi Chris,

I have 2 swords that are not in any Japanese sources, but then they are not in Hawley either...can you expand a bit on your comment please...

regards,

[cabowen]

For well known smiths that are rated in the Japanese sources used by Hawley (Fujishiro, etc.), he simply transcribes the rating and thus they are fairly accurate as they have a basis in the Japanese literature. For smiths that are not well known and thus do not generally have a rating in the Japanese literature, he simply throws out a generic number of his own derivation. Those have no factual basis.

[SwordGuyJoe]

Also, very inaccurate when it comes to gendaito. The best and worst smiths were all rated the same: 8 points.

 

Edit: With exception of "Koa Isshin Mantetsu" who is rated as 10 points even though it's not a real smith and it is all Showato.

 

[george trotter]

Now I see what you mean Chris, a fair comment about the modern smiths rating system.

A little lee-way should be allowed to his "modern swordsmiths" rating system however IMHO...Hawley and Kizu wrote the book using sources available at the time, 1960s, a time when except for the gendai "greats" already known, there was hardly any recognition of Showa gendai swordsmiths in Japan or Japanese sources....I am assuming that they took names from various WWII lists such as are shown on Rich Stein's site and assumed them to be nihonto tosho and gave them all an arbitrary "entry level" 8 points. I know I always took 8 points to be merely the "entry level" to being a recorded smith. As you say, Hawley did make a errors such as Koa Isshin (whom Hawley seemed to think was a nihonto smith) and some Seki gunto kaji also snuck in with 8 points.

Other than these quite understandable things, the system is quite usable (it seems to me).

So, the answer to the OP question of "how valid" are Hawleys ratings, the answer seems to be that the pre gendai smiths are generally OK but further sources should be consulted...and as the modern smiths are now much more known and their quality is better graded (as in Toko Taikan etc), the same applies...check more modern sources. So Hawley should be OK to quickly find/rate a smith, but further sources should be consulted for further and updated details (as there is almost no info in Hawley anyway, other sources has always been the natural direction).

Regards,

[cabowen]

Of course, as Joe as noted, Hawley is off the mark when it comes to gendai tosho, but my comments apply to lessor known smiths from all periods. There is no comprehensive, all inclusive, ranking in Japanese of all 20,000+ smiths. As a result, he was only able to copy over the rating of those smiths he found ratings for in Japanese. That might be maybe 5000 smiths. What do you think he did for the other 15,000?

[george trotter]

Yes, I see what you mean....it seems to be even more "Hawley's opinion" than I had thought.

I must say that in many of my Japanese sources there is no ratings system, and where there is a ratings system it are usually Chu-jo saku, Jo-jo saku etc., not a points system...Fujishiro doesn't even rate the few modern smiths he includes.

The upshot for the OP is that the Hawley system is really just a rating system like Chu-jo etc converted to points by Hawley, (based on the idea of Tokuno's yen value system I think). As mentioned, it is always necessary to do further research once you have found some basic info in Hawley...let the sword itself and the more detailed info be how you assess your blade...the points are just a general marker.

regards,

[Ken-Hawaii]

That brings up the question of whether modern tosho can or should be compared on a one-to-one basis with, say, Kamakura Nihonto. How would one assign point values for different techniques, modern materials, etc.?

 

Ken

[runagmc]

As far as I have always heard, the ratings in most sources are meant to be compared to others of their own era, and not meant to compare smiths from different eras. A Koto sai-jo saku smith isn't equal to a sai-jo saku Shinto smith.

[george trotter]

There is something in what you say...for example you notice the little symbols above each name in say the MASA headed smiths in Japanese sources...Koto, Shinto, gendaito an so on...I suppose it would be a questionmark as to whether a Jo-jo saku rating next to a maker from each of these periods would indicate that the quality of the work (generally) is equal across the spectrum....I suspect that a collector would rather have a ko-Bizen Jo-jo saku work than one from shinshinto etc.

This is not always the case as is evidenced by collector interest in Yasukuni tosho compared with Seki tosho of the same era. For example, collectors pay 5-8,000 for a Yasukunito and MAYBE 2500 for a Seki by a good gendai tosho...this is despite the 16? smiths of Yasukuni only having two smiths with a 2 mil yen rating while the 18 smiths of Seki have four smiths with a 2 mil yen rating. Logically, the Seki group is superior overall, yet collectors, students, researchers etc prefer the Yasukuni group....so I wouldn't go crazy about the rating systems as a true guide...there are so many personal/historical factors involved.

I suggest just use them as a quick guide and do deeper research based on the blade in hand.

Just my 2 cents.

Regards,

[cabowen]

Judging each blade individually is good advice. Every smith, no matter their "rating", made swords with a range of quality. The better smiths have a higher average quality and a smaller spread between their best and worst work. Even a lower ranked smith could make something exceptional on occasion. And I have seen less than spectacular blades from highly rated smiths.

 

The Japanese ratings are just general guidelines. Great in theory, not so much in practice. There are no shortcuts.