Rivkin

I would answer for myself: I sometimes sell nihonto on ebay. I have 100% positive feedback. However, once in a while the buyer will send an angry email - the signature is gimei (not guaranteed in the description), nakago is wielded (not in my opinion), the sword has wrong sugata due to damage (not in my opinion), retempered (I explicitly identified the issues with nakago color and hamon) etc. etc. Am I a dishonest seller? I don't know. I know one thing - one time I've send tanto to a very respected polisher. He immideately mailed it back, saying the nakago is clearly not in the original shape, at best its was filed to imitate early work, and likely it was wielded on. Later it papered to a sai-jo saku koto smith. Nihonto can be hard to appreciate in hard, and MUCH harder in pictures. If you think ebay is bad with Chinese fakes, Japanese auctions sometimes come with high end papers, however made for other swords/fittings and so on.

Not being a specialist, I would say it boils down to price, as these are not once in a lifetime pieces, and whether you like it. The quality is average/above average, late interpretations on the basis of Soten and Goto styles respectively. I don't think the first ones are Soten school per se. The one with the "naval" topic does look more like Kyoto-Soten, but on the lower quality side of this, often quite good, school;

Poor quality XIXth century Nagoya-mono at best?

I would think they are of very different quality. I am no specialist, but the ko senjuen one will paper Juyo if submitted, in all likeness. Despite its age, it remains a graceful and rich example, offering much to the observer. Such sword in such condition would be welcome in any book on nihonto. Yasumitsu is decent, but pictures are making it a little too hard to tell...I would say it is more flashy style. The last one is hard for me to judge. I would assume it to be the cheapest one.

Juyo definitely puts any sword in 1mil+ category. And most Juyo swords are attractive art swords. However, not pretending to be a specialist, I would note that it involves very complex criteria, which are not always art or quality related. For example, for Tsunahiro tanto to pass juyo it needs: a. Be signed shodai/nidai. b. Be in more hitatsura style rather then somewhat more restrained "Sadamune-Kaneuji" style often practiced by Tsunahiro. c. Have large horimono of a dragon. One can ask, whether just having bonji instead of a dragon is "artistic enough"? Maybe, but I was not able to find such Juyo. It is a well known situation, so when buying a good tanto of his without horimono, I was explicitly told not to submit it for Juyo. Sometime, many years ago they passed Tsunahiro tanto as Juyo and since then all tantos lacking any of the elements of the passed one fail automatically. Once I bought tanto that the owner submitted to Juyo and failed. Condition and polish are excellent; a very much identical one was submitted at one time and passed. If this one is resubmitted 1-2 times, this one will likely pass, if for the particular year the competition is not too strong and somebody on shinsa likes this style. Another time I saw Muramasa tanto for sale. I usually feel that despite their fame most Muramasa are very plain and of poor craftsmanship, but this one was very good. The owner consulted NBTHK and explicitly said that it will not get Juyo - a small section of the hada is poorly forged. Everything else will make it Juyo easily, but for this two inch area. Personally, I do not submit pieces to Juyo. If I like the piece, it stays with me, if not, it sells.

I think I understand your point, but I don't think that any of the discussed swords are bad, as in showato bad. It is not an issue here. I don't think however bad and tired are completely uncorrelated. A tired sword requires more in terms of induction or assumption on the part of the appraiser regarding what it could have been. Which means that any attribution will be shakier and appraisal of its basic quality - less certain. With very tired sword it is impossible to tell how much is bad from the beginning, and how much is tired. But for myself, the question concerns the paper premium and autograph premium. The latter meaning that certain names in Nihonto come with special rules and special prices. If you collect papered Muramasa, you should expect to pay substantially more for the same condition/quality and comparable style, then you would do with Tsunahiro or Ujifusa. For reasons obvious, Muramasa is more famous, and more popular. It is not true that in order to be papered Muramasa the sword has to be outstanding vis-a-vis Hiromasa or even against average Soshu work of the time. Being papered to Muramasa means that the sword exceeds certain minimal quality requirements (which for some smiths are narrow and for some are quite substantially wider) and exhibits all the traits of Muramasa craftsmanship (hamon, kaeri, nakago, hada). For Muramasa specifically I would argue that the quality range is rather wide, while the autograph premium is substantial. If you want to collect Masamune, you must accept that tiny sway of public opinion, tipping the appraisal from Masamune to Kaneuji or Yukimitsu means close to one zero slashed in sword's price. Would bad bungo be attributed as Masamune - ofcourse not. But it could be a decent Kaneuji, which exhibits more than usual of Masamune style, and not much more. And while Masamune is mostly immune to condition issues, Kaneuji is not. And even the immunity to condition issues varies with time. It used to be that burned Masamune was simply retempered and still accepted as a very prized sword - however today most of such examples are being sold for quite reasonable sums of money. I am not arguing that they are showato. I am arguing that with comparable work against smiths of essentially the same school, the quality difference might be debatable, the condition will as a rule be considerably worse, and the price - considerably higher. Yes, you are buying a Substantially worse sword (i.e. a relatively bad sword) for more money - because it is more historically important and it belongs to the area of collecting which operates with a different set of rules. If it were signed and accepted as signed, then the premium on the signature alone could have outweigh anything related to the blade itself. Juyo Masamune is not the same as Juyo Shintogo or Juyo Akihiro. Juyo Akihiro is different then Juyo not-well-known-shinto-smith. And in the end one might prefer to collect what he likes, providing attempts are made to improve one's taste, rather than what papers well today. Same things exist in every collecting category. Example I know less about, but mass produced portraits by Rembrandt studio will come with full Rembrandt premium, if they have decent history and do not exhibit obvious issues. How much work was done by Rembrandt himself is debatable. The same period, same general style, same quality portrait in poor condition, with no provenance - is a mile away from being accepted as Rembrandt. It can start as period Dutch, slowly gain acceptance as Rembrandt school and eventually even get "Rembrandt studio(?)". If it is actually outstanding it can become Rembrandt - but share this title with much more average work, which however did not have to jump through so many hoops in the process. And yes, early Rembrandt will be substantially and substantially worse, because its attributed on the basis of style matching other early Rembrandts and some provenance. It just does not mean its great quality in 100% of the cases.

I'll try to extend my answer a bit, as I think Masamune is a great example. Last year afaik there was "new" Masamune receiving Juyo papers. At the time I was at a party with a few dealers and collectors. As always in such cases, some expressed surprise that this particular piece papered Masamune and not something less controversial. As always, I arrogantly argued that even in full polish its hard to see much in this sword. And as often before I got a reply - "You American, you see ware (nb: its like 10cm long and wide) in this sword and think no good, we Japanese see even if only 1cm shows great work - we don't care, its still Masamune". BTW, I also heard often "American buy sword, not papers" - with a hint of respect. Obviously from people who were selling swords that these (insufficiently good gentlemen) at NBTHK did not appreciate well enough. So, back to the point, Juyo is not a great sword per se. It is an important cultural asset, judged as such by a group of today's experts. It could be that it carries a very rare and important signature, which sets a standard for future attributions. It could be that some features clearly hint towards the work of some very-very top smith, though much of activity is gone and overpolished. And it could be a great looking work, therefore attributed to great smith (additional condition that it is early enough, if unsigned). But as the time passes, things change. Experts 50 years from now might put higher premiums on what is "acceptable" condition (i.e. succumb to evil Americans), which will exclude much Heian and Kamakura; they might have different perception of what "great work" is, putting Bizen on backburner and elevating Soshu once again. And for Soshu guy, at Gentoku 4, what golden age if nihonto - you've seen almost nothing yet! Finally, some "close calls" from today will clearly be reevaluated. And often, having a personal opinion by someone known to carefully research this specific school helps a lot, as it opens up many nuances that NBTHK papers either do not go into, or even missed. So basically if someone would call me and say - hey I have Shintogo with Hozon in decent condition at 35% discount, I'll post money right away. The quality varies from very good to exceptional, if condition is not an issue, what is? If somebody calls me and says - we have Juyo Masamune at 35% discount, I will most likely turn away. No disrespect towards Masamune, I hope. But they are asking you to buy into most controversial attributions in nihonto history, which historically had a tendency to change drastically, with the highest "autograph premium" (not the same as zaimei premium) possible - and the kind of premium that ensures even things in strange condition can do Juyo+. Its possible that tomorrow some of such pieces will go Kaneuji or, if things are really crazier - even Tsunahiro, while others, dismissed today, will be accepted as "real" Masamune. Its a contentious subject that very few people have enough personal rather than papered experience to be comfortable with. Now one can feel more secure by collecting zaimei blades, but then the whole discussion "sword as an art form" is no longer that relevant.

I would strongly disagree. Rarely heard any significant collector truly questioning quality of attributed, mumei, Norishige or Go. Never heard anyone seriously saying - this horrible blade passed as Shintogo Kunimitsu, what are they thinking at NBTHK. Masamune - everything about him is a very questionable subject. What is canonical vs. what is not changes a lot. Lots of burned blades, lots of questionable attributions, lots of very simple work accepted as Masamune over the course of centuries. Lots of speculation why some work today is attributed to Shizu Kaneuji, while some, supposedly inferior - is accepted as real Masamune. With my level of knowledge, I would run from buying Masamune as fast as I can. 6-7 figures investment, which overnight can become "previously attributed as Masamune". Happened many times before, and likely will happen quite a few times in the future.

Jim, the best work on the subject I know of is Kitada's "Beaty of Arts" and related articles. It points towards a few important aspects of Japanese swords - very small grain size characteristic for higher class blades, substantial inclusions of Ti, which allow sone to relatively reliably tell exactly how much western vs. local steel was used. It shows that a few analyzed high class smiths indeed produced interesting and high class work from the metallurgic standpoint. It does not show that a lower grade artistically, shinto, work has to be technologically vastly inferior.

If accepted as Masamune over many centuries - they do occasionally. If signed by the grandmaster - they do even very often. Signed and dated Shizu Kaneuji nakago, if accepted as genuine, how bad the blade has to be not to pass Tokubetsu Juyo....

A very esteemed company, but I will try my recently acquired piece. There is almost identical tsuba by Hamano Shozui, which appears in mutliple texts. I am no specialist, but I think it comes with a little side story. In Shozui's work the egret is underneath the moon and in Juyo commentaries it was suggested that the purpose it is to express a deeper Zen, relating calm and resiliance in face of adversity and uncertainty. Yet, in this work by the 3rd Master, Hamano Noriyuki the 2nd, the subject is changed so that the egret is resting in the mid-day instead. Also, the boat is carved more profusely to create a deeper shadow, which would be appropriate for the day scene. While Shozui's work is often reflected in tsubas by the first Noriyuki, such direct homage on the part of the 2nd generation is very uncommon.

6 - because Awataguchi is a great school, and Hozon to Hisakuni would not be awarded without much scrutiny. 5 and 4 are very similar to me. The rest I would not make an offer without seeing the blade in person. I simply may not like it even at a discount.

Thank you, Mr. Brockbank, for a long and informative reply. But being a troll, my motives were somewhat more sinister - to highlight that the situation in nihonto is unlike any other antiquities. There are people who do not collect early Rembrandt believing it to be rather naive and lacking individuality. There are those who shun his mass produced portraits, believing that such are indistinguishable from "Rembrandt school" (which in its own is often interpreted as a collective term for Rembrandts of lower overall quality). There are those who believe only his latest work to be true masterpieces. But any half-decent collector of Rembrandt would be surprised if you tell him: 1. You got to submit your piece to a committee staffed by people you don't know and with no clear publication record on Rembrandt specifically. It might be that there is a person there with a great track record and who saw almost every canonical Rembrandt out there. It might be that he is out sick and replaced by Rafael guy. 2. They'll look at it for a duration between 5 and 50 minutes without consulting more than 2-3 general publications. 3. They will issue a definitive judgement whether the piece is genuine or not, and whether its Rembrandt or his school. 4. If they don't like it, you are expected to burn out the Rembrandt signature. He would be even more surprised to learn that his Rembrandt should be rated. Each advancement in rank requiring it to be repacked, shipped to Amsterdam and accomponied by a hefty fee. And unless it earns rank 4, it cannot be hang in a half-decent museum. Outside nihonto, nobody talks like "I've got two rank three swords and possibly will get rank 5 on a sword which failed before, but the competition was very strong, and I was encouraged to resubmit". Even in the country where colleagues encourage you to visit city X because "it has 6 buildings that are UNESCO World Heritage" - it is a weird abnormality. Now part of it is because some sword people are really good and can make good judgements under such extreme conditions. Part is because swords were produced in numbers and a good smith can be very consistent in his work and therefore - identifiable. But part is - abnormal. And sayagaki is what you typically get in other fields - you personally approach someone with established record and they write their own opinion. Sometimes it takes them a year to do so. Often the opinion will be "it matches canonical A and B, but it also has C. Why - we don't know, but can speculate that it might be a later work than A, or actually done by a known student of B. There is a similar work found in ..., with similar concerns". Regarding the two swords I mentioned; in the first case its clear that the work is northern and has some Yamato and Soshu characteristics. Then I can guess that small dot-like tobiyaki were pushing one team towards Wakasa; in another case they paid more attention to hada and classified it as ayasugi, i.e. ko-Gassan. I saw quite a few Shimada judgements coming out recently, so maybe its a new "Koto default judgement" for NBTHK - kind of like many suspect Bungo to be used for Shinto work. I also had the same blade appraised as Uda Tomotsugu etc. Its northern, there are elements of Yamato, elements of Soshu, but the combination is unusual. If I were to submit it again, I'll probably get other attributions, but probably in the same general region and sometime between Oei and Tembun. Shimada vs. Sadamune's student - that's the range which borders on what is hard to accept. In the first case somebody really hated the blade, in the second - really liked it.

One can voice an opinion that Japanese swords are kind of like modern Art - an attempt to express very wide range of emotions using very limited technique and space. There is therefore great subjectivity in their appraisal. One person will see a tired, signed, Rai blade and conclude that there is nothing to see, except a straight white line along the blade' edge. The other will see the perfect emptyness, bounding the eternal. The third will see the soul of Samurai floating in the pure Zen. The forth will say that it is "just right". Finally, the wast majority will proclaim that since it has on its scabbard "chin-chin-chin-chin-cho-cho-cho-cho", it must possess the beauty so insurmountable, that no other sword (especially non-Japanese) could compare to it. The ones disagreeing obviously fail to appreciate the Art in so pure a form. Depending on the century in which appraisal was made, such positions also tend to shift drastically. Today Juyo books can be essentially a Bizen school inventory, and apparently 1333 is when the good stuff was suddenly over. Yet Meibutsu and other early documents failed to appreciate the truth that simple and precise. The story is not unlike a more conventional Art collecting. Today few would think of Rafael as the best artist of all times, and "Rubens school" is used as derision, nevermind that 200 years ago these were the most expensive and appreciated items on the market, especially when compared to shady van Hals or unknown Caravaggio. And the last of great Impressionists had the opportunity to brand Modigliani and cubists as inconsequentional. One can propose however a different approach - buy what you like, enjoy it, and try to learn the points by which better pieces are appreciated. In the end however it is a duty of a noble (and we in sword community Le Bourgeois gentilhomme per excellence) to learn a better judgement of his own. Regarding the superior performance/sharpness/steel/forging of Koto from purely practical prospective, one is bound to notice that all discussions of such are held up by exactly zero experimental evidence.

I would say that the need for sayagaki arises when one either tries to sell the blade (commercial) or if the blade displays some unusual characteristics, which warrant a personal attention (scientific). With NBTHK you get a judgement of somewhat anonymous nature, performed under time and other constraints. I personally had the same blade papered by different shinsa to Shimada, Fuyushiro and ko-Gassan. Insignificant sue-Koto smith and way above average of the Sadamune school. It is not extremely unusual. But there are a few people, whose personal opinion is trustworthy, especially if it concerns a specific topic they personally researched over the years. Really good specialists tend to also have really strong personal preferences. One can spend a lot of time studying Goto, but know little more about iron then the information readily available in books. My personal approach in the field which I know well (and quite removed from nihonto), is to always write in the opinion explicitly. based on comparison to which examples, therefore deemed canonical, the estimation is being made. This is highly uncommon. My speculation is that one of the "not so nice" reasons why such small effort is being avoided by most, is because in many cases the ones writing their opinions want them to appear as a result of some secret knowledge and arcane sensitivity to higher spheres, unchallengeble and therefore valuable apriori. Inserting justifications transforms it into the realm of logic and knowledge, and allows the recipient and others to openly doubt it. Finally, I can relate a story written up in one book on appraisals. A Master was asked to write his opinion on an object. Upon examining it, he sighed that it is a rather typical forgery. Well, it comes with a certificate from a true authority, grinned the owner, producing a writeup - signed and sealed by none other than the Master's himself. Look at the signature, was the reply. For many decades, I no longer sign like this - precisely because of such certificates.

Ugh, my Japanese is really bad, but it looks like Rai-something-tsugu. Rai Minamoto Kunitsugu??? There were some quite famous smiths with such combination, but this is definitely not Hisamichi's work and my feeling is that writing is of rather poor quality. It feels like Shinto-kambun sword of rather average quality... More definite answer can be had with pictures of nakago and the entire blade photographed so that it's entire shape is apparent.

Could you please photograph the entire nakago and rotate the signature so that it is in upwards direction? The sword might look like Kambun shinto and probably average work. But then again with such photos it could be Rai Kunitoshi just as well...

Hard to say anything, but looks like late Koto, hard to be more precise with this pictures. Not a bad koshirae and condition seems to be fine. Decent sword.

Well, that was my preference some time ago, as is of probably much new collectors. And now I collect almost only tanto. Strong curve leads you to saiha, so that's bad route alltogether. Cutting test and graphic hamon essentially means shinto, some shinshinto. There plenty shinto blades fitting the bill. They are showy, impressive, real weapons etc. As artistic things they are shallow, but there is still Sukehiro among them.

The first problem with nihonto is something that you like in pictures might look mediocre at hand and vice versa. Regarding this sword, it appears as a very simple and cheap blade, with little artistry except maybe in hamon's shape. It might happen that in 10 years you'll still hold onto this, "real samurai sword", and it will continue to make you happy. You might recognize in a year that there are much better examples. In this case reselling this sword will cost you some tuition money. But trust me, good swords will cost you far more than that. The only thing I can say that you can buy a similar level sword without papers for less if you spend a lot of time at shows etc. But that's the case with everything...

I don't think its tired. Without seeing the mei or even nakago color, it looks like its later than koto, say shinshinto or something... For such age, such horrendous ware are probably bad enough to prevent further investing in the sword. Some are quite close to hamon...

Sugata does look like Kambun... 3rd generation sounds about right...(???).

There are plenty of books/pictures on the net to compare the signature against. But I would just note that 2k barely, or does not cover quite decent polish this blade is in, with shirasaya and habaki. And as much can be judged from pictures alone, this is quite substantially better than typical shinto wakizashi. I would try in the very least to paper it with NTHK (as is), if that's gimei there is a chance they'll tell you in work papers what they think it is.

Yes. And Soshu hamon was specifically designed to penetrate Mongol skin, while Ichimonji tends to be more effective against Ainu. Shinshinto swords are heavy and poorly balanced to better suit fighting habits of shinsengumi (who were also heavy and poorly balanced people). And obviously gendaito were not a meager attempts to copy older sword styles, but driven by some hidden efficiency against khaki. I heard today it is tested on suits worn by hedge fund managers. Because we know - Japanese sword is the best fighting weapon, whose evolution was driven purely by intense combat competition. A number of peasants who with the advent of XXth century suddenly became samurai, ninja and swordsmiths - wrote extensively on the topic.

1. Late Sukehiro. 2. Shizu Kaneuji or Fukuoka Ichimonji. I have to say even with their level, I find 50-70% of swords attributed to these gentlemen - not as inspiring, as the "top" 30%. So it has to be a combination of great condition, great polisher and great work to start with, or it is just a lot of money for a sword I would not enjoy as much. I have seen many Kaneuji attributed swords I just would not buy. Would much rather settle for shinto gimei with awe-inspiring work.