Gakusee

Not the blade I had in mind as the one I am thinking about is nearly 80cm in length. The long blade is Juyo-ed to mid Kamakura as Fukuoka Ichimonji Norinawa, even though Tanobe sensei has sayagaki-ed to an earlier time saying no later than early Kamakura and refers to a KoBizen smith of similar workmanship and similar but different name (Yasunawa/Yasutsuna, with a very similar second kanji). Juyo paper to Norinawa, but could also be pronounced Noritsuna and that smith is not in the meikan, so some confusion thereof. The workmanship is definitely early-ish Kamakura Bizen and here the speculation starts: too flamboyant for KoIchimonji, some traits of KoBizen (some jifu, very heavy nie), some elements of Fukuoka (gorgeous choji) but sugata of an earlier time (early Kamakura). So, overall confusing blade but one of those smiths that one could argue is late KoBizen or early Fukuoka smith. Overall a very desirable piece of my favourite flamboyant Bizen style and 78cm ubu zaimei sugata. I am not sure which shortish blade of KoIchimonji workmanship in the Berlin Museum collection that could be…. I have seen the top blades and am blanking at a “short KoIchimonji” one.

By the way, was that the Ichimonji / ko-Ichimonji ubu zaimei blade? I did not attend, so not sure which one you mean. If you remember the school, we can speculate…

Meito Nakigitsune followed by Meito O-Kanehira at TNM. Had to downsize them and take screenshots of actual photos so you can imagine what some of the raw images look like. I consider theTNM lighting some of the best museum lighting I have experienced when it comes to Nihonto. Bear in mind - again, these are the first 4-5 cabinets where the lighting is superior and where the show pieces usually are. The following 20 or so vitrines are indeed inferior.

Really? Not my experience of the TNM (at least not the first 4-5 cabinets where they normally display the choicest swords….

The world had lost a talent… May he find the peace he sought

The Samurai Museum in Berlin is excellent for 'non professional' and not knowledgeable visitors, such as children, plus advanced students. Whether it is the stage with the virtual taiko drummers, or the dioramas, or the tea house or the mounted samurai figures or the electronic displays with the cheeky animal asking questions. It is educational, modern (eg they have touch-glass displays where you can point to the tsuba underneath the glass and the video screen broadcasts info about it), futuristic and has the latest technology. But clearly it has been built with a lot of love and money from Peter. It is a product of personal affection and built so that one can really enjoy oneself there. This is not really attainable at smaller state museums like the Osafune one or the NBTHK one. They just do not have the funds or decision-making power to undertakes such expensive and extensive technology investment. The second floor of the NBTHK museum is all admin offices and the ground one is a combo of a small shop, a cafeteria-like area and indeed the introductory room. I have not been to the Osafune one, or the Nagoya one, but I have been to the Hosokawa one, Fukuyama one, and some others (eg National etc). What always needs to be there is the bilingual explanations. Then the quality of the items of course. What the smaller museums cannot achieve is what Steve is mentioning - this all-encompassing (from beginner to advanced) multilingual catering to different levels of understanding, different educational materials (particularly tactile/interactive/electronic), great technology and so on. The Japanese museums naturally cater to the more advanced taste and knowledge. The visitor is expected to know what they are looking at. Also, only very recently (perhaps the last 10 years or so) they started bothering with English explanations. Until then it was all in Japanese really. Perhaps in the next 15-20 years they will catch up and places like Nagoya will introduce more modern technology. For now, I am content that they do best what I need of them - provide the quality and depth I am after when I go to these museums. The junior / lay education etc is sort of left to the National Museum. Thomas has made numerous excellent points above. Physical size and collection scale of the museum, the large upfront investment in technology and the running costs all determine the approach to curating and exhibitions. I would say in summary, the minima are: - very good lighting - appropriate placement - adequate spacing between items - English explanations of the item / maker /some of its history and why significant - background info - and then you either go a) thematic/narrow/specialist of b) broader/more generalist/more inclusive/accessible when you approach an exhibition - additional facilities (toilets, cafeteria, lockers)

Not quite The companies need to figure out themselves first before we ask working people to spend hours of their lives on the phone trying to get to someone who has an idea of what is going on. Not that some of the committee did not already try but there was not much luck….

So, indeed shape is one of the first aspects that grab us, probably followed by proportions etc. But sometimes it might be misleading as to dating the blade. Paul’s Oei Yasumitsu is a case in point as it is shaped like an earlier sword. I attach an image of an early Kamakura kodachi, which typically people could probably not guess dates to 1245-1250 by looking at the sugata. Yet it is ubu or very nearly ubu. While the shape is not one of those curvaceous beauties, the sword’s hataraki and other activities more than make up for what the sugata does not offer.

Well, Colin, I understand completely. There will be a lot of confusion at least for the coming months until matters settle. For now we should assume things might not work out and be prepared to do a lot of convincing….

The definitions have been static for a while. However, the guidance I posted above is what has been updated.

The Awataguchi is the superb blade clearly - not just because of the name but due the very graceful sugata. I also prefer old blades and emphatic curvature and my modest collection has mostly such blades. That was the whole purpose of the post - not to opine on quality or polish etc as that is not particularly visible here but focus on proportions. The proportions plus curvature make it stand out. Thank you Paul for posting this mental exercise.

Alex, at least it is a step in the right direction.

Brendan, it is not easy. In fact it has become more difficult in the last 20 or so years but people need to read and prepare throughly. “Talking to collectors” does not cut it anymore. Attention to detail and familiarity with the law are important. Please also refer to the separate thread about Royal Mail / Parcelforce. There is some misunderstanding in that point too.

Brendan - thank you but did you even open the link I posted above? We have explained all of that and much more.

Let us hope for a positive outcome. One needs to be patient and well informed and have the right documentary back-up evidence.

Alex Not quite true. We emailed all of our ToKen members with this here: https://to-ken.uk/re...egal-and-import.html People need to refer to what we have discussed on this board several times and also to references on this and other websites. That is why the Token committee and John in particular (big shoutout to him) drafted this guidance note.

I have worked with Shiho Tsukada san and her team. They are good and helpful and my purchases have always arrived promptly.

John, however this blade is signed and dated…. Therefore the mumei exclusion condition does not apply here.

Brano - you have some amazing swords. And you like sashikomi, as we have discussed with you several times. Applying uchiko (with the usual caveats: carefully, gently, using the best polisher uchigumori powder you can find etc) on sashikomi polish blades has a lower visual impact (as the website of the Kashima sisters that Brian linked explains) since the approach to the polish is different in the finishing stage. In fact having seen blades that have been uchiko-ed many times, I have noticed that a hadori polish after years of uchiko starts to look more like sashikomi (despite the nugui stage being different). It is the abrasiveness of that powder that 'brings out' artefacts that might not have shown before or could have been hidden in the kesho method. But as we know, the polisher could also achieve that with uchigumori, if he were to keep at the sword - again, it is a matter of time, cost, desire etc. So, I am still of the belief that if the polisher wanted to and had the time (not rushed or pressed by other means), could achieve the 'multiple year of uchiko-ing' effect as part of his initial treatment. This is a contrarian view to the in-house polisher of the sisters (http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/uchiko.html). I will be curious to see your tanto 'in progress' next time we catch up. In effect, you have continued the sashikomi work of the polisher by using hazuya powder....

So, Franco it is perfectly natural for a student to charge a different fee to a mukansa smith. That entails different economics but also different skill levels. Saito san commands the highest prices in Japan because he can rectify polishing disasters or bring swords back to life. A mere deshi might not be able to do that. Polishing time, techniques, expertise and skill deservedly are rewarded with higher fees, which might not be in accordance with everyone's budget. Even Tsurura san, once upon a time, not so long ago, would differentiate between the different 'levels of polish' - see below (not on his website any more). I hope my 'sticking' of the image below is to your satisfaction? In reference to the question below: My conclusion from the sentence below was that by making the ashi 'more vivid' you had made the polish what you and Arnold perceived to be somehow 'better'. In other words, you have implied that the initial polish did not show the activities and detail sufficiently (ie, had obfuscated or concealed them to some extent) and your subsequent application of uchiko rectified that situation, so that the latter became more vivid and visible.

This is a lengthy topic..... Uchiko 'dulling' of the blade due to the micro abrasions of the powder over time might have been recommended in the 1980s and 1990s on overly brightly polished blades in heavy hadori. The feeling back then among some was that the kesho was so bright, and frankly obfuscating the true hamon, that it had better be toned down by repeated uchiko application. Indeed, people pursued a hybrid appearance between kesho and sashikomi. Again, in the Western world, firstly people did not have much access to a lot of highly qualified and skilled polishers and we were working off what we had, the understanding was inferior to today (ie shiny hadori polish was the way forward, no matter what) and went as far as believing that there was a 'Juyo polish' and 'non-Juyo polish', etc. All of that resulted in sub-standard or budget-friendly approaches (we have experienced these on this board - if people look back some 6-7 years ago they will find the threads of some promoted polishes which ended in rather pitiable outcomes) with polishes which were just not good enough. There are different budgets, different skills and different polishes suitable for different blades (dependent on their age, condition, workmanship and style). A certain mukansa might be appropriate for a certain blade due to his skill or experience, and another might be preferable for another. A sashikomi might work better for a blade but be less suitable to another. A polisher is supposed to give his best to the blade, rather than leave a user to 'improve' his polish. Such statements normally accompany kesho style polishes and serve almost as an excuse. I have not been told by a mukansa smith or Tanobe sensei to 'go and apply uchiko for 20 years and then you will see the best result'. So, this topic requires much finer understanding of polishing, different styles and methods and the effect of certain stones / uchiko on a blade.

This is a misconception and an old belief. I hear it from time to time from the older generation collector but current thinking is not consistent with that approach.

We are getting somewhere …. You are learning…. That is the whole point of this exercise

Well, please compare those mei and let us know what you think. That is part of the learning curve and pleasure of investigation and improving one’s knowledge. Bear in mind that in the period you reference, the hamon looked different, wakizashi were already in place and signatures on short swords were on the other side, general geometry had shifted/changed from the kodachi (Kamakura) times etc