Rivkin

The one in the book is original, authentic Hasebe for which sayagaki was originally ordered. I feel it is kind of rare situation I guess where the piece is actually copied rather than something is being created "in a general style of". I actually wanted to buy the copy as well, but it did not work out. Kirill R.

Since we seem to combe back to subject of forgeries, horrors and problematic sayagaki, here is one. Original Kunzan's sayagaki with a substituted, probably Edo copy, of Hasebe blade in hitatsura. Actually the copy is very good, except the hada is a dead giveaway, being featureless tight itame. Kirill R.

I think number one problem with trying to buy an old blade instead would be that hitatsura, even more so than other advanced Soshu techniques, prefers o-tanto, wakizashi format. About 10x times more risk that blade simply blows up compared to almost any other heat treatment pattern. A huge difficulty when making a truly long blade. In ko-waki at 1.2 there is a myriad of choices, beginning with Oei Hasebe (one can even get Nambokucho Hasebe, but the condition will be an issue) or late Nambokucho Hiromitsu line (forgot the name, Motomitsu or something). At 2 we might enter lesser Hiromitsu or Akihiro blades. On younger end, at 400-700k there will be Tsunahiros, Shimadas et al. But any quality hitatsura in daito scale is probably going to be so rare one sees them once a year. Kirill R.

Sorry, I would restate: Its a very bright blade that will impress beginner a lot. Very few smiths today work with hitatsura and there are some interesting details here. The choice of forging and tempering techniques is however quite basic and created a product that lacks depth, subtlety and long term appreciation. Kirill R.

Two big negatives: a. Dense itame without much expression - a bane of all modern production. b. Hitatsura does not have internal activity and is done sort of nioi with ko-nie boundary. The boundary is very sharp (i.e. matching the dense itame) without much activity either. Kirill R.

I feel it depends on definition of authentic. Most Ieyasu-period appraisals to this name were not and will not be publically re-evaluated. Around third of Masamunes from Ieyasu collection are not polished, very many from similar period collections are burned. There are many Masamune that look substantially different in period or craftsmanship from what one expects with circa 1330 Soshu. This includes probably the second most important Masamune - Fudo Masamune. Are many of those Edo period pieces - no. Kirill R.

Its hard to judge by these photographs. Its even hard to exactly determine which of Hizen styles is used. But the better of Hizen blades in Soshu style are first class. They are not uncommon with o-kissaki and cut down to the point of passing for Nambokucho ones. https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/q283519169 I've seen some of them with Honami papers to either Sadamune or Masamune. Personal feeling - modern attributions are reasonably solid, plus minus generation in Hizen. Same for Rai style, its relatively distinctive. Nosada can pass for genuine Rai, Hizen generally does not, too bright, too "glassy", distinctive hada. All of the opinions presented are personal and erroneous. Kirill R.

Heavily depends on date/polishing. Gendai and shinshinto tend to be reliant on larger nie crystals in which case modern LED works well and halogen might get better results than incandescent. With older swords LED is still an option, but requires a lot of fine tuning. By default incandescent is the best. They still sell them in photo-stores or for photo needs online. Moonlight can also work well if one wants something "natural". Also gendai-shinshinto can be viewed well with the blade between the light source and the observer. Older swords tend to be viewed at large angle from the nakago, while pointing kissaki towards and slightly below the light source. Kirill R.

Involved question! I think for pre-Tembun blades there could be just a note made that the signature requires further study in Juyo zufu without the blade being rejected - meaing the writing is old, but can be not contemporary to the blade. If they feel that the signature is actually from Edo period, they will reject it even if correct. Daimei can be applied for Edo period works, but I thought only to the cases where such collaboration is well established (for example, between 1st and 2nd generation). Possibly Kiyomaro-Kiyondo can be one of them, but I don't have any experience... What I do know is that tosogu where signature is 100% of the actual maker's name, but is quite unusual - it is typically rejected. I had encountered quite a few pieces with signatures or writings that were added later, and the shinsa does not want to create any future misreadings vis-a-vis what it considers the authentic signature, and rejects in case of doubt. P.S. However I had shumei and kimpenmei blades papering with a note that the attribution is not correct, but also heard many more stories about similar cases being rejected. Kirill R.

Georg, it looks about right in a sense that wide and nie-spotty variation (but a very loose one) on Chogi-soden-bizen topic is one of the possible expected outcomes if it is Kiyomaro. And what you show is (sort of) consistent with that. Another likely possibility would have been something more "Masamune"-like. The problem is that similar things were done before and after by many others and the early works by Kiyomaro can be, well, not that distinctive by themselves to an untrained eye like mine, and possibly not only mine, and it might come down to whether the signature is within the accepted ballpark. There is a high profile Kiyomaro collectors club in Japan and they also can be of significant help in getting this answered. But yes, the style shown in this sword is (sort of) one of the expected possibilities. Just a personal, and likely erroneous take. Kirill R.

Hi Bob, much appreciate it! The website is going through quiet renovations so not much new there, but I hope to get up soon a neat article on Japanese tsubas dug out on the Continent. I am stuck in CA and do constantly travel now for work without a permanent living space, so will not be able to be in Chicago, unfortunately. Same reason, with most library in storage can only say that there are published lists of Daimyo collections, of which 大名家, 著名家刀剣目録 is probably the cheapest and one of the thicker ones. It only has attribution and length, but there are quite a few sayagaki that come with a paperslip that the sword is in this or other published list for such and such family. But that's about 15% of swords with sayagaki stating that this is from a specific Daimyo collection (kaho, denrai etc.). My question was whether there is a clear understanding for the reason - I mean it makes sense in addition to sayagaki to have a clear reference and starting point in case if someone would want to trace the sword's path through archival records, like its possible in principle for Shimazu clan. Sayagaki says this sword was given by xxx to yyy - but where one finds details without the reference? Is it a contemporary record, or somebody in the 19th century wrote a letter to this extent, when giving it is a dowry - which is unfortunately often the case. But I guess the lists might be very incomplete, so sellers simply do not want to waste time trying to find a reference for their daimyo-sayagakied sword. Not that I would really doubt sayagi itself, since big name Daimyo ones are not that common. P.S. Watched 嘘八百 on a flight over. Poorly filmed, but nice and fresh in the way it shows how other communities are a little bit more open about their "shinsa issues". I think it gets even worse in paintings. Kirill

One thing that puzzles me is how few blades with sayagaki to Daimyo collections have actual reference to the list in 著名家刀剣目録 単行本 or similar two volume publication. Is it because sellers are sort of "lazy" to find the actual reference for their sayagaki/"Daimyo torokusho", or its basically a vain attempt because the list itself is very much incomplete? Thank you! Kirill R.

Thank you! Its hard for me to claim expertise on the intent and procedure that was in place, since unlike Andy Quirt and quite a few older generation's representatives I was not there. All I can observe right now is being on the receiving end of these opinions. I feel that they were somewhat popular in the interwar period, since that was how the blades were judged - and most of those are kind of worthless today unless they provide a direct provenance to older collection. Basically even the most experienced people at the time had limited access to top blades and were dominated by pre-Meiji appraisals, so the opinions can be random. The desire for sayagaki truly awoke again only in the late 60s, when blade market was beginning to strive, and for some reason probably more so than now it was felt that green papers are not enough, so a lot of blades were given a sayagaki. Honami Nishu at best worked with questionable ko-mihara Juyos from 21-27th sessions, and almost half of his sayagaki will not paper today the same. Appraisals sort of close, but substantially different, for example what papers as Edo Sendai sayagakied to Yamato Hosho. It seems he was the person to be contacted till late 80s about things that were raising eyebrows. Dr. Honma Junji basically wrote sayagaki for blades like those published in the register of Daimyo treasures, which for some collectors kind of what needs to be collected. His appraisals are very seldom overturned, but they also have quite a few nuances to them. Dr. Sato wrote a very substantial portion of the total number of sayagaki. It might be that especially with the top names any papers were still not getting acceptance by themselves, so sayagaki was considered a must and he was the person to be asked. I think with some specific attributions like Muramasa there is a substantial chance that today's judgement standards will not confirm his appraisal - but it is just my personal observation. He also often gave benefit of the doubt to a traditional attribution, if it already existed. It does not go outside of realm of reasonable possibility, but there are cases when you get his sayagaki and green papers to say Sadamune and today it comes out as Shizu Kaneuji. Kirill R.

Thank you very much, it was kind to mention... I have to say that the reason I place so many articles on Japanese topics on my sites is because it is a current ongoing learning process, versus medieval Islamic or Caucasian, where earlier articles where already summarized in the last two books. Back to subject, from my database of auctions (which has some issues), from the total number of sayagaki: 46% by Dr. Kanzan Sato 9% by Tanobe Michihiro 3% by Dr. Honma Junji Among others Honami Nishu and Honami Koson are strongly represented. There is correlation with paper level. For example, I guess there was significant recent shift in Muramasa appraisal, so significant chunk of Dr. Sato sayagaki to him has green papers. Honami Nishu has a correlation to the smallest overall percentage of recent papers. Kirill R.

Couple more. Kirill R.

It is a very strange blade in many aspects. The condition of nakago is not a good fit for Muromachi, it looks later. The shape which is quite straight and has pronounced fumbari almost looks Keian to Manji, but it lacks typical shinto suguha in boshi. The signature is a decent match but the writing is somewhat weak, though hard to say with just these photos. Personal opinion it is gimei. Kirill R.

The signature is strange indeed as Ray mentioned in the way Bishu ju is omitted; also my personal feeling would be that Tadamitsu tend to fall into slightly earlier sugata - either long blades with long nakago and slight saki-zori or dating to 1500-1520 uchi-gatana with short-wide nakago. A personal feeling - this one seems slightly later. It certainly falls into uchi-gatana dimension size-wise, but the proportions are different. This being said, with multi-generation smiths from Sengaku deviations in signatures and work style, but seldom both simultaneously, are often accepted. I had little known smith with work sort of typical for the school, but the signature included names he was never known to have - and it papered, no one will argue that among the many generations there was not one who did not have these names, even if they are not in the books and even look very strange (wrong clan name). Slightly different story than here though. Kirill R.

Possible, but a few things: Very few swords were made beginning with 1700 due to economic collapse. Nakago condition and the lack of well defined filing more consistent with earlier date Lots of ware and other issues is also not that common in Kambun and later swords. I personally would not discard 1550 as possiblity. Kirill R.

Without looking at the signature, it kind of feels early Edo or maybe Momoyama. Kirill R.

It is quite hard to show a sword with exactly the same yasurime, hi, sugata, exactly this length of kissaki, and I have to admit that kantei by hi is way above my level. There are plenty of good horimono that do not repaper, this one I do (sort of) know. Meiji to Showa had some of the best cutters that ever existed. Kirill R.

There is no visible damage to its complex sugata so the chance of being burned is very low. Other than this, shinshinto and gendai are not known for widespread flaws. Maybe a tiny fukure, a short ware somewhere. Not something a window will tell, and unlikely something truly catastrophic. Even if it is (early?!) Kiyomaro, the chances of it having such a distinguished work that it can be judged by it alone - is low. If you collect koto, you study blades. If you collect Edo, you have to study signatures. Otherwise there are plenty of top name blades out there that in craft look 100% convincing, but will never paper because the signature has strange elements to it. Some in 1970s did get green papers, but today's Art world is much more paranoid. Would it still be worth its money if it polishes and does not paper? Maybe. If the work is good, it can be a decent Kiyondo. It can also be a dud someone made, lets say in Taisho era. It will be a fun project though and about a year of precious waiting and guessing "did I win the lottery", so that's by itself is probably worth a lot. Kirill R.

Potentially erroneous and highly personal take - signature will play >80% of the role in papering this blade. The best course is to show the photograph to someone who seriously deals with Kiyomaro collecting in Japan and see what the response is going to be. For pre-Muromachi blade signature might be in 10% of importance and even significant issues will be overlooked. There are quite a few Juyo where "people know" the signature looks strange and can be even Muromachi period add-on. There are very respected blades like Hojo's gifts where it can be theorized that the signatures were added around 1520 - and it does not really bother people except maybe those with more "historian" attitude. Its about 30% for Muromachi blades, but goes up to 70-95% for top names for anything from Edo period, except very few who are kind of known to be highly unique in their work. Mumei blades appraised to Sukehiro or Shinkai are exceptionally rare and bordering on non-existent for some judges. Bad signature on Kiyomaro cannot be broken (we accept that the smith had a cold and his hand wavered in second kanji...) by the blade's quality by itself, unless its close to the best blade Kiyomaro ever made. Otherwise no matter what one finds - shinshinto take on Soden Bizen, Soshu a-la-Norishige, Soshu a-la "Masamune", Bizen that tries to be more Ichimonji etc. etc., related things were sort of experimented on by others at the same time, and even at very good quality level it can theoretically be Kiyondo or a dozen of other shinshinto (and even later) smiths who worked within roughly the same Soshu-Bizen "area of interest" - and whose blade was then upgraded with a signature. Very few will take a risk to claim on paper it is Kiyomaro if there are doubts on the signature. Per current practice It will likely not be rejected, but the paper will not be issued, as "more research is needed". Kirill R.

Have to honestly admit I don't know from the hip about Asago-Taima school. Other than that to me later period Fujishima looks like typical Muromachi period Soshu (choji with sunagashi style, practiced almost everywhere at the time), maybe with a little bit more pronounced Norishige-imitation-like hada, and more coarse nie which extends further into ji. I would not be surprised that sayagaki were requested in hope that the attribution will be a somewhat higher name in Soshu. Kirill R.

Where to begin... Mainline Goto Menuki which turned out to be a similar item, but clearly different in details from the one photographed in the attached papers. The worst by far however was a blade with very high papers, big name, sold at a considerable discount to what such papers tend to command - and a realization that is boring as hell. And obviously when trying to bring back to seller you are told that the sword market is extraordinary bad and well you had a great deal when bought it, but that was a week ago. Lesson learned - mid Kamakura Bizen/Fukuoka/etc in suguha with few exceptions, Heian in suguha, all those Ukai, Rai for me are in 99% of cases turn out to be boring, single day study swords, which also can easily be somewhat to Very tired even at the highest levels of paper kingdom, were they are also commonly encountered - and are almost of no value to me. In suguha I can enjoy Shintogo Kunimitsu, Ko Aoe, some Oei Bizen, sort of like Nosada or Hizen Tadayoshi and that's about it. For the rest comparing to Soshu or Hatakeda-Moriie everything looks pale, dim and basically boring. Really not that different from a non-Japanese 10th century sword in Japanese polish, if one fancies such experiments and has a highly uncommon access to very good condition examples. For me aside from the few schools, one can find funner, more artistic and if one desires - more bloodied things to collect in non-Japanese world at lower prices. So I learned that my preferences in nihonto are very narrow. Consequence - also learned that reliance on paper level in nihonto is also not a good fit for me. BTW general result - one learns on average more from unexpected (and often bad) experience compared to cases where everything goes as planned. Kirill R.

My very personal and erroneous take. 20s Juyo sessions are suspect in a sense of quite a few genuinely old blades of somewhat boring nature making it there. Rather ordinary looking Mihara and similar others, not to argue that the schools are bad, but what was passed was not outstanding. Regarding judgement, I feel Tametsugu ones tend to come with Den since he is portrayed as a unique smith who was Kaga, Echizen and Mino. So something completely out of bounds for Norishige, like well defined periodic choji, will not disprove Tametsugu attribution (lets just call it his Mino phase?). Which in turn makes him a little bit of a vacuum since wtih Den he can collect as attributions the works with a very wide range of features - and also his attributions sometimes jump to others when resubmitted. I don't think its really a downgrade, since because of sugata changes once its certain that the blade is circa 1350-1360 there are not that many available Soshu attributions. A lot of Tametsugu are Masamune and Norishige's from Edo period, that got caught into a big slide of scepticism, especially beginning with the 1990s. The attribution from 1970s that I find very many issues with is Takagi Sadamune. Maybe I am wrong, but often these are unimpressive works which were known traditionally as Sadamune, but could be easily today going as lesser quality Nobukunis - but in 1960s, 1970s they made good papers as "Takagi Sadamune". Don't have that many issues with Shinto blades. Sukehiro. Shinkai, Kotetsu will secure Juyo level prices without any advanced papers. Kirill R.