Rivkin

Highly personal and arrogant-professorial: I feel the signatures become very important for a topical collection. Someone specializing in Kyushu-mono will have to consider having signed and nenki blades, whatever is the cost, or the collection is incomplete. As I am not even a nihonto person per se, justifying 200k price tag for a modestly rare signature is however quite difficult. A one of a kind sword with Gothic signature or signed spangenhelm today runs in 20-30s range, with incomparable historical value, while no particularly great revelation can arise from a non-dated non-provinced nijimei signature. For me 200k price tag that comes with high grade papers has to be contrasted to a very comparable artistry-wise non-ubu sword can be had for 15, and a very nice sword of similar expression, but less liked school (Houju for example) for 5-12. Conversely - I don't really collect pre-1300 blades as they tend to go Juyo in almost all reasonable cases (so you got a "deal" basically only if you pushed it to TJ, which is frankly a bother) and I honestly feel 1300-1350 was artistry-wise a better period. Still over the years it happened that I own a whole bunch of swords which are the only known works of a specific master, or have an extraordinary unusual date for the given name. The reasons however are purely with me being a dumpster diver, as one-of-a-kind signatures (compared to 10-of-a-kind) in the world of nihonto not always but sometimes come at a very steep discount since you don't find them in Fujishiro and Meikan. Similarly, unusual dates, which always raise generation-based questions are shunned. Nihonto community, not trying to be polite, is well known for cowardice. Maybe its the paper culture, so any little something is seen as just an extra risk that at some point the blade will be bumped down the second generation, or worse off, at some point will be send to the Great Gulag known as Muromachi period. Or in the very least receive a dreaded "Den" designation if its mumei to being with. Or maybe the community has too much of a mass-based outreach, so people are just really afraid of loosing on investment (honest warning - you will anyway! antiques are in general not a good investment) if something does not run according to Meikan. All of these monetary fears are understandable, but as a result the explorative spirit is not "in". The names that are so unusual no one would fake them to begin with now require a battalion of papers and are still questioned because, well, NBTHK failed to indicate the exact time period. Kirill R.

They sort of all three ok and about at the same level. The middle one has an issue of too rapid transition from very large nie to bland nioi and the hada is non-descriptive so its probably the least of the three. This is sort of typical JoSaku shinshinto level. The right one has decent hada, there does not seem to be great nioi-guchi control, but it feels to be of good quality. The leftmost has good tight nioi guchi, hada is a bit rough, but its quite ok. Kirill R.

In a very professorial mode: For Akihiro and Hiromitsu the issue is probably more that the daito are generally displaying far less of hitatsura and tend more towards calmer Soshu, in rather drastic contrast to tanto. Dmitry has a great example in his book, for which the alternative attribution is Sadamune. Shintogo Kunimitsu has a few daito, but one can also argue that the quality is weaker and less uniform in long swords. Signed Masamune generally all weak. There are by far not that many problems with Sadamune (or Go for that matter) attributions as with those of Masamune, and whether Kamakura or Nambokucho period's attributions to Masamune are more problematic is still an open question - he simply might have been not that early a smith. That would target the notion of him being this great teacher, but such status seems to be quite problematic at present anyway. But overall, there is often a quality differential in Soshu between tanto and daito, which is very much unlike Bizen. Daito in hitatsura are scarce to begin with; even with generally more uniform in quality smiths like Norishige, daito are much more likely to have quality issues, at least in some part of the blade. With Yasutsuna there is plethora of problems, beginning with him originally supposed to be a contemporary of Amakuni, so the exact dating is unclear, despite whatever is written in books. There is also an issue of him and Amakuni being quite popular temple swords during the Edo period, with many signed examples of both, sometimes of what supposed to be one and the same historical blade. There is probably a contributing factor can be that very few daito are still ubu, and very few schools worked in tanto during the Kamakura period. However, still Bizen, Rai, Awataguchi and a few individual smiths (Norishige, Hasebe, Akihiro, Hiromitsu tdo stand out in Soshu, for example) do seem to be an exception in a sense that their signed works are far from uncommon. Kirill R.

Aside from Bizen and some Yamashiro celebrities, who was signing their blades en masse before Muromachi… Seems to be an exception rather than a rule. Kirill R.

I don't know, 90% of price seems to be in the signature. Otherwise, is that really much different from a more typical Sairen, Jitsua or Kongobye, Naminohira quality-wise. https://www.touken-matsumoto.jp/eng/product_details_e.php?prod_no=KA-0255 Kirill R.

Hm, looks Hosho to me. Kirill R.

I feel like the guesses are converging of sorts... The blade in question is by Soshu Masahiro. Its Muromachi, but on the exact generation there is some difference in opinions. I doubt were it not signed it would have been judged appropriately, though the ara nie does suggest someone Soshu related I guess. Kirill R.

Negative on Etchu, though it is northern. One thing that can be said is that depending on the date (there is none in the signature) this might as well be the only known daito of this person, though the name is quite recognizable. Its a tanto-heavy school. Kirill R.

Shinogi-ji is masame, but it is koto. Kirill R.

Yes, lots of ara nie throughout the shinogiji. Not Naminohira, Houju, Kongohyoe… I would have maybe bet on the last one, but its not it. Kirill R.

Well, I am both a dumpster diver and like the items that are challenging. Since we seem to be on suguha train today, here is a very rare beast. Ubu, signed. As very arrogantly it sounds, I am confident the bets will not even get close to the name or even the school (I guess a lesson in humility is coming). Out of polish being a dumpster find. The blackish area close to the ha is utsuri.

Its kind of striking how thick it is in hands (leftmost) compared to almost any other tanto. I saw quite a few Tosa tanto, starting with nidai - they were not impressive. Never saw anything attributed to shodai before, but supposedly he was quite good, though obviously one would typically hope for the other Awataguchi Yoshimitsu. But the extreme kasane is something quite hard to ignore I guess, as are Yamato features. Kirill R.

I would be more than a little suspicious here. a. Compton's collection is very highly regarded in Japan and there are lots of fake Compton's sayagaki or Compton's record sheets floating around. Overall, there is certain nefarious mystery that surrounds international collections and auctions in the eyes of people there, so a provenance to something like this is well regarded. However, if the sword of this caliber somehow never made to any of Compton's publications, it probably was never in it. b. Looks shinto. Hamon is active only in the uppermost area, featureless hada. c. No papers. Kirill R.

Thick kasane, mixture of masame and ko itame hada was interpreted as attribution to the "infamous" shodai Tosa Yoshimitsu. The alternative was Hosho, but then thick kasane was creating big issues. It either had to point to some weird, probably Muromachi generation, or (as was this tanto interpreted in good old times) something legendary like Hosho Sadamune. Kirill R.

I have to honestly admit it is a very difficult tanto that had many attributions throughout his life. The uncertainty and shennanigans (for example, the photographs from the last seller shot the blade at an angle yet with mune/kasane darkened so it can't be seen at all) at some point even forced it to be essentially tossed aside. But the latest attribution is both interesting and very much believable. I am humbled by so far the guesses going into its direction. Here are some fittings to accompany. It came not with shirasaya, but kurasaya.

You put me to much shame because you are Extremely close. Let me put the uncompressed picture here. Extremely tight itame - but mixed with masame. Actually what really moved me is how straight and bright is nioiguchi yet masame enters it at quite an angle.. Another kantei note - kasane is Thick. Kirill R.

Let me throw in the stuff I really like.

Fantastic blade, except I was way off base, Kirill R.

Well in this case I can pontificate, as doing do on wrong attribution would look silly. I try not to use Japanese terminology too much, as these names can mean myriad of things and can be misleading. #1 is my favorite sword out of the group by a long shot. The hada probably looks like firy silk in good light. Very confident, very thorough forging. The kind of Rai, ko Bizen or Aoe I admire exceptionally. Probably late Kamakura. #2 I think is Nambokucho. Its rougher, a tad more provincial, there is this hint of Yamato influence in part of hamon, the hada is darker and broader. #3 Muromachi classic - hada composed of very long, broadly spaced, thin lines of nie, with mokume in the middle and tending towards masame in places. Probably in this form first originated with Oei Bizen, but seen in works of every single school now and then. #4 I think is a very highly rated smith. Awataguchi school has this habit that towards the ha the jigane becomes broader, darker (utsuri?) and more masame-aligned. So the question is, how much for #1? Kirill R.

#1 Rai #2 Enju #4 Awataguchi. And I am sure #2 is really Rai and #1 is Enju and I will look really stupid . But I got to call them how I see them. I have some doubts in #1 Rai, but if not its some really close and high end school. And yes, I will blame the photographs because I am probably completely off base here . But thanks a lot, there are really good blades. Kirill R.

All are really good swords and require some thinking. In my opinion, #3 is clearly 1400-1500, Bizen or Mihara. And seems I remember discussion of a certain Bizen sword I suspect that's what it is. In any case this is a typical Muromachi hada. Besides I think I see Rai, Awataguchi and Enju here . Just need to make sure I get the numbers right. #2 is a tad dark... Kirill R.

Papering to Yushu defeats in my opinion the advantage of NTHK - turnaround of a day to judgement sheet and papers in a month, compared to the whole long NBTHK story. I also did notice that 78 and 81 point blades were Edo period and in like new condition. The 76 point Juyo needed new polish in places. I also observed that everything papering above 76 had signature, but according to others this is not certain. There are few cases where attribution means lower quality per se. Takagi Sadamune collected quite a few problematic Sadamune blades, especially between 21 and 31 Juyo shinsas. But Enju and Rai are really different schools, not as much as Mihara and Yamato, but... Enju hada is very different from Rai. Its not as dense, its broader, blacker. In the most extreme case it approaches Naminohira-Houju type with broad black lines. There is also plethora of Rai features, whose presence largely disclarifies any possible bet on Enju. While there is some intersection between the schools where the quality argument can be applied, its not that prominent. There are great Enju blades; there are very mediocre Rai ones. I once mistook Enju for Echizen Rai in a competition (and I honestly would have difficulty distinguishing the two in quite a few cases), but I don't remember mistaking Enju for Rai per se, though from time to time I do make beginner's mistakes. Hada-wise compared to the main Rai school they are just not that similar. Quite a few early Soshu collectors are rich, smart and careful with attributions. Very careful with whatever the current NBTHK position is. Very much scared and sceptical with Masamune name in particular. There was an interesting blog "koto fanatic", unusual English language exercise by a Japanese, and it did caught some of the early Soshu issues quite well. Kirill R.

I can only offer my simple and personal opinion: Soshu, Yamato and Mihara are different schools. The differences include the type of hada, position of shinogi, and usually hamon, though there is a subset where hamon's features can intersect. Most of the distinctive traits distinguishing each school from the other are not really quality related - there are great Mihara hada examples and there are many so-so Tegai ones. Yukimitsu is cited in books as alternative for Masamune, but the last three decades this alternative seemingly went one way - some green paper period Masamune were reclassified as Yukimitsu. If there is an opposite ereclassification from this period it would be interesting. As the best Masamune and the best Yukimitsu are not particularly similar. Kirill R.

Yes, that's Japanese way to do online auction. The bidding is over when beyond the given time, there are no bids for x minutes. The seller can withdraw the listing at absolutely any time. Used to make me upset as well. Kirill R.

The problem is not someone making money or not, the problem is how to attribute things where we don't really have a solid understanding of what are the absolute, unquestionable works of the Master against which everything else needs to be compared. The position of not recognizing a specific type as Muramasa, which is recognized by others, is unfortunately a judgement call. Its not something that can be proven or even given a really solid argument. The problem with the early Soshu is not that people suddenly discover Masamune, if a blade was not considered such during the Edo period, the chances of it suddenly getting this attribution are mostly imaginary. The problem is first that Masamune is still ill defined so there are plenty of Juyo or Hozon or Jubi or whatever Masamune owners who are convinced Shizu, or Hasebe, or Naotsuna, or Go would be more appropriate. Its interesting that Kamakura names - Yukimitsu and Norishige actually seldom come up in this context. There are still questions whether Masamune can be all three - a Kamakura smith, and a great smith, and a smith with unique features in his work. There are solid arguments that one can obtain a reasonable and consistent definition of "real" Masamune, but one of those needs to be relaxed. Second is that there are too many blades, they are not tremendously different from each other, and almost nothing is signed. So you have something that is well defined by features (no, its not about quality only, there are quite a few Norishige in decent condition that should never be Juyo) - Norishige, Akihiro, Hiromitsu, maybe Go, Chogi, maybe even Sadamune. And you have Masamune, Hasebe, Shizu, Tametsugu, Naotsuna where things are kind of shaky. It goes down to personal preference whether someone believes the oshigata from Edo book that says Tametsugu was Mino smith and was related (teacher of?) Kinju-Kaneyuki and thus whole bunch of works in such style go to him. Etc. Etc. Its not about money, its about too many attributions being based on pure judgement calls, guesses and information from Edo publications which might or might not be accurate, because the blades shown there do not exist today, and well all those publications did show plenty of authentic Amakuni works. With Shizu versus Naoe Shizu when it comes to Nambokucho blades it is almost purely a personal preference. One person will say - it has ten togari in daito, too much to call it Shizu. Another will say - I call Naoe only with twelve togari or above. Early Soshu is difficult and never absolutely certain. Just the nature of the game. Those who want certainty, they do collect Edo or some respected Osafune lineage. Or one can accept NBTHK papers of specific color as absolute. Does resolve a lot of headache. Kirill R.