mas4t0

I've attached a photo to provide some further clarity to what Jean described above. The knife at the top is clad in folded iron which was polished on natural stones and the bottom knife is clad in pattern-welded layered "damascus" steel which was etched to bring out the pattern. The visual effect is very different (for the reasons described by Jean).

Perhaps some have mastered it and have kept it quiet? It would be damaging to the market if word were to get out that it's impossible to tell apart a contemporary blade from a blade close to a millennia old. There would of course be a strong financial incentive to keep this hidden (if it were the case). I'm not implying this is the case, I'm sure it's very unlikely, but I think it is a possibility.

I've wondered the same thing. I somewhat doubt that there's much in the way of technique that wouldn't have been rediscovered or reverse engineered. We're really only discussing surface properties, which arise from chemical, mechanical, and geometrical properties. Geometry can of course be replicated, leaving us with the chemical and mechanical properties (chemical composition, grain, hardness, strength, inhomogeneities, etc). I would guess that smiths have relearned what was lost in terms of forging technique and heat treat (which should take care of the mechanical properties). If that's the case, it would follow that the differences lie in the material itself. I would guess there's a difference in micro-alloying of the metal (niobium, vanadium, titanium, molybdenum, zirconium, boron, etc) which is responsible for the differences in colour, specularity, etc (when polished with the same stones and technique). I have a pair of honyaki kitchen knives which are as close as possible to identical - other than the steel composition. One is around 1.3% carbon and 0.25% manganese while the other contains an additional 0.4% chromium and 1% tungsten. I sharpen and polish them exactly the same way, (on the same stones) but interestingly the blade containing chromium and tungsten has a noticeable blue tinge when they're placed side by side.

For those interested in science and proof, here's some empirical findings related to the topic of religion. If you have time for the full lecture: On the other hand:

The core of the disagreement centres on epistemological differences, which are likely irreconcilable; there's no reason for anyone to lose face or be humiliated.

As far as I'm concerned the answer is knowledge. A great collection is one where you can tell a captivating story about each and every item and answer just about any question someone might ask. I don't care if it's a collection of insects, books, meteorites, memorabilia, coins, stamps, toys, swords, etc, etc; people find it fascinating when it's tied together in a meaningful way with an interesting narrative. Otherwise most people don't care unless they're connoisseurs themselves. I tend to view collectibles as props for storytelling. I'd rather be shown (or possess) a collection worth $0 where the owner has true knowledge and passion for each item than a collection worth $20 million which is devoid of meaning.

That story sounds familiar, was it featured on an episode of American Greed several years ago? As I recall, he was buying wine, drinking it (keeping the bottles) and then refilling them to resell (also duplicating the labels and reselling multiple bottles). They loved him because he would open and share the real high-value wine with them (before refilling the bottle and sending it back to auction).

Thank you for sharing Mike. Some people... I was taught by my father that you only buy from friends if you're paying above market rate.

If I may request one further clarification on this matter... What kind of price tier would this "first grade stuff" generally fall under? >¥ 50,000,000? >¥ 500,000,000?

Kirill, How does this manifest in your experience? Outright refusal to sell (albeit politely), an additional gaijin tax, etc or that you're unwelcome in certain circles, etc? Is it a matter of race, nationality, or simply not being a part of the Japanese elite who are "supposed" to own such things (i.e. would a successful Japanese entrepreneur or perhaps a lottery winner of low birth face similar pushback)?

I can't help but wonder what the gender ratio is in sword clubs. It's obviously male dominated, but are we talking <70% male? >90% male? 99% male? Is the male dominance intentional and desirable to members? Is it ultimately about male bonding? A safe space of sorts for men, where a more even gender distribution would be antithetical to the underlying social goals of the group? How would people feel about an increased female membership? Would you welcome it or do you feel that the addition of young women would change the dynamics of the group in an undesirable way? I ask because (in my personal experience) showing art objects (of various sorts) to male friends (young men) has tended to illicit envy (which is never a good thing), but doing the same with female friends (young women) has often had a very positive reception. Has anyone else had similar experiences? Would you be pleased or perplexed if a dozen young women joined your society?

Given that Fujishiro's system is contextual (i.e. he refers a smith's ability to those in his school, time period and tradition), a smith who (for example) may have a Jo saku rating and was part of one of the top schools may be of higher skill than a Sai-jo smith of a lesser time period and school... Do we know the extent to which Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo are contextual? As in, is it a competition with all other blades submitted in that session, or is there an element of contextuality? Would it stand to reason that a very slightly "objectively better" sword may be passed over in favour of an exceptional example from of a lesser smith of a lesser time period or school (a slight handicap as it were, such as in golf, horse racing, and competitive sailing in order to make the chances more equal)? I realise there's a lot of variables, but I'm just trying to understand the last few posts. My understanding is that a Juyo from a chū-saku smith would tend to be quite a weak Juyo compared to Juyo blades from higher ranked smiths of the same school and time period. I'm thinking here only of signed pieces, as unsigned pieces (if assigned to a particular smith) will no doubt be assigned in accordance with the skill and workmanship displayed (i.e. better blades will be assigned to higher ranked smiths and lesser blades will be assigned to lower ranked smiths). Any clarification would be much appreciated.

Are you making an analogy between kantei and divination?

Thank you Jacques for explaining your meaning. That's what I assumed you meant.

I'm not making an argument for elitism, or seeking to engage in a philosophical discussion, just defining terms to see if there's an alternative definition being used by others here; as I don't follow the meaning of a few posts. Elitism could result in technocracy, but elitism is more general and can take many forms. Historically elitism has often been related to social class, with monarchy being supported by elitist doctrines such as the divine right of kings (i.e. that kings derived their authority from God and could not therefore be held accountable for their actions by any earthly authority, such as a parliament). Elitism is basically the belief that all opinions are not equal, and that the opinions of certain groups are more meaningful than others (regardless of the grounds for thinking that). Some may believe that the views expressed by their religious leaders carry especially high weight, others may believe that the views expressed by (relevant) academics carry especially high weight, others may believe that the views of the elderly carry especially high weight, etc; anyone who believes that the input of one particular group is likely to be more constructive than the input of another can be considered to be elitist. This is diametrically opposed to direct democracy (as in the case of an anonymous referendum for instance) where every vote carries the same weight irrespective of the expertise, social status, etc of the person casting the vote. There are philosophical arguments for elitism on almost any grounds, and this has been fertile ground for discussion for millennia. There's plenty of arguments for authority being respected on the grounds of wealth, power and notability. As this forum is devoted to Japanese swords, I'd maybe suggest Japanese history as a source for why it has often been necessary to respect the wealthy, powerful, notable, etc and to hold them in the very highest esteem.

But that's precisely what an elitist is. An elitist is someone who believes that individuals who form an elite—a select group of people perceived as having high intellect, wealth, power, notability, special skills, experience, etc—are more likely to have relevant expertise. If someone is an elitist, they accept the above, so it naturally follows that they believe those experts deserve influence or authority greater than that of others, and that others should defer to expert judgements. I think that the above is rather uncontroversial in most circumstances. If you need surgery or legal representation you'd probably prefer a properly qualified professional with an excellent reputation (I certainly would). I'm still unsure though whether the opinion being expressed (with the word "elitist") was that we should defer to the wisdom of the intelligentsia (in Japan), or if something else was meant, such as, "You should respect my authority."

I would have taken someone self-identifying themselves as "elitist" (in this context) to mean that they only consider blades ranked at TJ, JuBu and Kokuho worthy of consideration and/ or would always defer to recognised experts. Maybe we could clarify the semantics of what is truly meant (i.e. in what sense is the word being used): A person who believes that we should defer to the elite (i.e. recognised experts in Japan)? A person who has self-appointed themselves as a member of the aforementioned group and expects others to defer to them? Can anyone clarify why a French politician is being quoted?

For anyone curious, what's now being discussed (i.e. a representation or imitation of a thing as opposed to the thing itself) is formally termed a Simulacrum and what's being exposed here is a deep philosophical difference (as opposed to a lack of understanding or something that can be resolved through education or debate). Similacra have been of interest to philosophers for thousands of years and I recall writing by Plato (The Sophist), Nietzsche (Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer) and Baudrillard (Similacra and Simulation) on the topic, though I'm sure there are many others. Further discussion here will likely fall along the lines of prior philosophical inquiry. Very briefly... Plato uses an example from the visual arts as a metaphor for the philosophical arts and the tendency of some philosophers to distort the truth so that it appears accurate unless viewed from the proper angle. Nietzsche addresses the concept of simulacrum (though he doesn't use the term), suggesting that most philosophers, by ignoring the reliable input of their senses and resorting to the constructs of language and reason, arrive at a distorted copy of reality. Baudrillard argues that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. I'm sure we can all see the application of each argument to this current discussion.

I found this an interesting discussion, and I think this probably gets to the core of the matter. I'm quite young (and not American) and my experience has been that those (my own age) generally (a) have the time but lack the resources, (b) have the resources but lack the time or (c) have neither the resources nor the time. I think it is an accurate observation too that there is a lack of interest in collecting antiques more generally (among younger generations), but I feel that this would be a discussion revolving around cultural theory (modernism, post-colonialism, post-modernism, etc) which would require several thousand words. If anyone is interested in going there I can find some references to share.

I hope he didn't suffer and had his loved ones with him at the end. Thank you to everyone for sharing stories.

I'm glad we're on the same page Dan. No disrespect was intended, I just wanted to be sure that those passages were well understood (I wasn't aware of your background, one way or another). I'm sure of those "3 types of blocks, 3 punches, and 2 kicks" there are countless subtle variations, a few of which are an official part of the style, but many, many more of which are your own innovations based on experience.

You are of course correct Dan, but I feel like those quotes can be quite easily misconstrued. I could probably detail well over 100 variations of jabs. If we take for the sake of simplicity the assumption that you need to practice a movement (correctly) at least 10k times in order to have it locked in... If you threw 500 jabs per training session, and trained 5 nights per week, it would take you ~1 month per variation to reach a decent standard. It would take you close to 10 years to learn all 100. Each of those techniques would be (close to) useless to you, until you've done your 10k repetitions. You need to train with sparring partners, so you can hardly keep the technique secret (from your training partners). But when you've got 50 variations locked in and ready to go, you just throw a jab and it'll be the right one, thrown correctly. You reach a point where it's not about technique, you're giving no thought to technique, only thinking of higher level strategy. Akin to hitting a button on a fighting game. If a professional sportsman starts thinking about his technique mid game, he's sure to lose. Which really is to say that technique is important, in fact it's vital, technique should be the focus of countless hours in the gym. Technique is vital and technique training (whether in weightlifting, track and field, martial arts, ball sports, etc) is essential to high level performance. It only seems to disappear when you've mastered the techniques to such an extent that you've truly made them your own and adapted them to your own anatomy. I felt it worth saying as I've had this discussion with many students over the years. To be beyond technique and just generate force optimally is the ultimate goal, but the way to get there is though countless hours of technique training (usually with many, many variations over the years).

It's an interesting observation, and I've seen the same thing. I've seen one sweaty guy convert the patina on his tsuba into active rust (I don't know if it was his body chemistry or if he was doing something strange with it away from the dojo), and I've seen rubbing on (mostly) production fittings. I tend to think of it as somewhat analogous to the difference between anodizing (a passivation process used to increase the thickness of the natural oxide layer on the surface of metal parts) in the case of an old patina as opposed to plating in the case of an applied finish. It could also be the case that the patination layer on a newly made (and patinated) tsuba is very thin, so it's fully worn away with heavy use, while an older piece has a much thicker layer of the same substance (so potentially the same rate of wear is occurring with both, but there's a lot more to wear though on the antique). I've been using a tsuba from Kevin Adams for quite a few years and there's been no rusting or (discernable) rubbing. I think he said at the time though that the patina took quite a few attempts to get right. I'm just thinking out loud.

Tom, Obviously my take is mostly irrelevant compared to Ford's, but I'll offer an explanation all the same in case Ford doesn't see this. The finish in this case appears to have rubbed off (as opposed to undergoing a chemical reaction). This rubbing is likely due to the low wear resistance (i.e. ability to resist material loss by some mechanical action) of the finish or due to poor adhesion to the underlying metal. The finish would appear to be chemically different to the patina of a properly patinated tsuba. Do you know whether the finish is a patina or is it perhaps a kind of paint or other applied finish? The oxidised Iron which forms a patina on antique iron tsuba (and on well patinated modern iron tsuba) is a crystalline structure which remains bonded to the underlying material; thereby giving greater wear resistance. It's also sufficiently chemically inert to not react (i.e. go live) too readily. Which is really just saying, "it rubs off easier because it rubs off easier."