Hoshi

Old sources mention Go Yoshihiro and Norishige as natives of Etchu Province, with Go said to have died young. To me, It would seem highly improbable that he was a Yamato Senjuin smith. Name matching doesn't help us as the only signed and dated Yoshihiro blade (YOS143) doesn't match in characters to those of Go in ancient records, and the date (1343) is far off in time, moroever the records make no mention of a resemblance to the work of Go. What about the Yamato influence? The majority of Go's kitae is typically described as itame, often mixed with nagare or mokume. There is only one instance I could find where his kitae is partially blended with masame: the renowned Kabuto-Giri Go. I have also observed that certain works display his ichimai boshi with a subtle hakkikake flavor. Regarding influences, I've had in hand Go's with traits from three different attribution clusters: the Norishige cluster (Mokume/Matsukawa, complex jiba), the Masamune cluster (angular chickei, yubashiri, inazuma), and the Yukimitsu cluster (ko-itame in the Shintogo style). For Go, I have not personally handled an example where Shizu comes to mind, though the Kabuto-Giri Go is noted for this in the NBHTK setsumei record. It is essential to recognize that, while not all blades attributed to Go feature an ichimai boshi, its presence—when combined with the masterful traits typical of other top Soshu smiths—strongly leans toward an attribution to Go. Now where would such Yamato influence come from, if not Senjuin? We can have fun and speculate. We we might imagine the possibility that Shizu and Go, both supposedly active during the Kenmu era, experimented with one another's techniques while working alongside Yukimitsu, Masamune, and Norishige in the Kamakura atelier. However, this idea rests on many unsecured assumptions, including that Shizu apprenticed directly under the Soshu masters and that certain Soshu-den works displaying Yamato influence are accurately attributed to Go. Attribution is uncertain. As seen with signed works by Yukimitsu, his craftsmanship shows considerable variation, making him the prime candidate for pieces where distinguishing traits are less pronounced. His range spans from Shintogo-like hada with a gentle, shallow notare, to a flamboyant midareba incorporating gunome elements, even producing works approaching Hitatsura. This uncertainty is not limited to Yukimitsu. For instance, of the four extant signed tachi by Norishige, two exhibit a shintogo-like fine hada, a far different approach to Matsukawa. Nor was Matsukawa the exclusive domain of Norishige. Hata Chogi, of which we know very little, left us two works indistinguishable on a trait-basis from Norishige's signed tanto. It's wise to think in probabilities. Perhaps the Kabuto-Giri Go, with its distinct Yamato influence and ichimai boshi, was a masterwork of Shizu? We may never know for certain, as the hand behind it is never known for certain. I think that the key to thinking about attribution and influences is to think in probabilities. The best way is to go with the cannon of tradition. After in-hand examination, it could be 60% Go, 40% Shizu. This is certainly the most tractable way, but is the most accurate way? The alternative is going with the historical dark matter. Or in other words, incorporating the lost record. Imagine that it might be 45% Go, 35% Shizu, 4% Yukimitsu on a creative day, 1% the long lost Shintogo student Kuniyasu, and 15% a master whose name has left our records forever. Then replace all these probabilities with distributions encoding uncertainty and you start to reach the limits of useful abstraction. Not much of a means of knowledge advancement since there is no knowledge, only questions. The supreme quality of the Kabuti-Giri Go, however, is beyond doubt. An accepted attribution to a Soshu grandmaster of this caliber signifies the most masterful craftsmanship that reflects the pinnacle of the Soshu tradition, and one amongst the best Nihonto in existence. This brings a bit of nostalgia. Darcy would have enjoyed this thread. As he used to say, we don't have a time machine.

Kudos to the forumites (more patient than me...) that have taken the time to meticulously dispel this misguided belief that Kamakura swords never show core steel. Note that these swords - in spite of the core steel appearing in various forms - are Tokubetsu Juyo. First, Aoe and Rai are prone to showing core steel. Hence, the deterring factor is mitigated. But more importantly, the integrity and regularity of the Jigane are secondary factors. Consider the following traits: A Rai blade with an unexpected drop in clarity of the nioiguchi in a section of the hamon near the boshi A late Aoe blade with ashi that slant only in the upper section of the hamon on one side The unexpected presence of clumped nie in the O-choji of an otherwise flamboyant Ichimonji A fall in the quality and variety of nie near the monouchi of a Soshu blade These are subtle things that Westerners typically wouldn't care about that may cause massive penalties that reverberate both in the attainable level of certification and the end value of the piece on the market in Japan. The market knows this and acts accordingly.

It is an undeniable fact that Rai blades use a multi-layered construction. I posit that this is one of the reason how they outcompeted the Awataguchi school. Simply put, they were able to cut costs of raw material by using a laminated construction. Rai Hada is a distinct discontinuity in the grain of the jihada that appears along the surface following repeated polishing. It is a sign of masterful forging? Not per se, only insofar as it contributes to an attribution to Rai. Now one argue whether this is Shingane (i.e low carbon steel) or medium carbon steel, or a kneaded combination of various materials. I don't find these terminology games to be particularly interesting. And it is confusing to newcomers. Personally I prefer being agnostic on what it is, and speaking simply of core steel, meaning the steel used for the core that shows through the jihada following polishes. Often Shingane is associated with low quality steel. This is not necessarily the case. There is an enormous variation in the quality of core material across periods, schools and smith. And it is also an undeniable that all else being equal, a Rai blade showing intact jihada is preferable to one showing patches of Rai Hada.

You're welcome. Just remember that Shintetsu is never a positive trait, even when it is a kantei trait (e.g., Aoe, Rai). However, when it is a common trait, it is least likely to detract from the overall appraisal of the blade because it is to some degree expected. The same logic applies for Ware, which is common for Hosho, or Nagare elements which are common in Kamakura Soshu works. Such traits would be considered a significant problem in a blade by Osafune Kagemitsu for example, where consistency in the Jigane is considered the smith's forte and a major point of appreciation. The rule of thumb: "If the smith/school is known for certain traits, either positive or negative, ensure that the blade exemplifies the positive, and rest assured that the negative will not detract"

The links were posted previously by Jussi. I'm reposting them for clarity: Tadahiro_1 Tadahiro_2 Tadahiro_3 This is incorrect. There are approximately ~1'000 Jubi and ~12'000 Juyo. Similar situation in Japan. The market is so small that a few whales are sufficient to cause a tremendous impact, and the larger the whale - the higher the odds of a whale museum spawning (e.g., Nagoya Token World). This causes a similar lock-up situation.

Tadahiro is a good example because they are plentiful and similar. It's the closest we have to a commodity in the Nihonto sphere. This lets us compare different attributes and think more deeply about price determinants. Tadahiro_1: 1M yen Tadahiro_2: 2M yen Tadahiro_3: 3M yen For most in the West, Tadahiro_2>Tadahiro_3>Tadahiro_1. Why? It's an excellent example because it illustrates some of the difference between Western appraisal of value and Japanese appraisal of value. Koshirae: West > Japan In the West, having a koshirae is highly valued. It's known to Japanese dealers, hence they'll adapt low quality koshirae to sell blades to the western markets. In Japan, sword collectors typically do not care. These are seen as two separate objects, and they appeal to distinctly different collectors types. It's a completely different world in terms of knowledge. Jigane consistency: West > Japan Western buyers are highly sensitive to minute defects in the jigane such as ware, showing of shintetsu, or irregularities (nagare elements). Much less so in Japan. In fact, if one carefully studies the elite blades (Tokuju/Jubi/Jubun/Kokuho), these types of defect are often present, even in the highest ranking smiths. Jigane consistency is not to be confused with brilliance/wetness (Uroi). The uroi quality of the jigane is a highly valued attribute in Japan, even in the presence of nagare elements or ware disturbing the consistency of the jigane. Brightness of the Hamon: Japan > West The attribute of "bright and clear" or Saeru is the most important attribute of a sword in Japan. This manifests as clarity in the Jiba, the contrast between the ha and the ji, and the overall consistency of the nioiguchi, a ha free of blemish (Shimi), and overall distribution, type and variety of nie. These are paramount qualities. There are differences between schools in how these qualities are appraised (e.g., Soshu vs Bizen), but these are advanced topics best left for another discussion. Now go back to the 3 Tadahiro and look at the hamon photos. Tadahiro_1: suffers from a grave flaw on a suguha blade: inconsistent nioiguchi. There is an area where the nioiguchi expands upwards and downwards, this is considered a lack of control by the smith and disqualifies the blade as a good sword. This explains the price, it is simply a bad example of Tadahiro. Mistakes happens. Tadahiro_2: the nioiguchi is rather consistent. Check. However, the contrast between the ha and the ji is not pronounced. Hence, it is not 'bright and clear' - rather, the noiguchi line is and the hamon is rather unremarkable. The Jigane is consistent everywhere, and it has a koshirae and a horimono. This appeals to the western market, but is very weak in the Japanese market. Tadahiro_3: the nioiguchi is deep and consistent. The ko-nie laden nioiguchi creates a bright contrast with the ji, and extends downwards towards the ha. There are kinsuji forming into the ko-nie, another sign of a good sword. These attributes are highly valued and constitute the essence of a masterfully crafted sword. Now, there is shintetsu showing. Big problem in the West, not so much in Japan. For these reasons, Tadahiro_3 > Tadahiro_2 > Tadahiro_1 - and while this hierarchy will be quite obvious to any intermediate student in Japan, it's puzzling for us in the West simply because we value attributes differently. For the sake of simplicity I'm leaving out other attributes (Motohaba, Sori, Nakago condition). These attributes are overshadowed anyway by the stark contrast in the Jiba of these works.

Hi Giulio, I made this graphic myself some time ago during the course of my research. It warrants some updating, but it's generally accurate. Do keep in mind there is missing data (e.g., imperial collection, unpapered shrine swords, etc.). Thank for the reference, I'll check it out.

The topic of mumei Kyomaro has been covered quite extensively in the past. It never made any sense, at any point in history, to erase a Kyomaro mei. You can take the best of Kyondo, erase the mei, and NBHTK might pass it as Kyomaro as this is the closest stylistic match. This is probably what happened with Tsuruta's mumei blades. We are way past the age of 'honest' suriage. At the end of the day attribution is a judgement on the quality of the blade. The sword is way above the average of what is generally shared here, and expresses sand-like grains of dispersed ara nie, which is a style that appeals more to some and less to others. Along with flawless standing out hada, these are generally traits that have a great appeal in the West, and less with Japanese collectors, with caveats applying to certain makers. Also the name-calling exercise here, calling people "nasty morons" reflects poorly on the entire hobby and turns people off. Reality is that there aren't many knowledgeable old sword collectors willing to chime in online in the first place, and these types of interaction will shrink the pool even further towards topics of lesser interest.

I'll bite. Pre-requisite: Get a tsunagi made for your sword (a wooden copy) to high levels of fidelity. Option A: American-saku Koshirae - Carry the tsunagi around and use it as a go/no-go rod to prod into F/K's and Tsubas. - Remember that it's a whole. Fuchi needs to fit the tsuba dimension wise. Pro's: - Express your inner self. You want a pink wrap? go for it. - Honestly the most fun you can have. The value is in the journey. - You can use this method for non-standard size blades Con's: - You can get into Frankenstein territory and end up with an amelican skool koshirae. As you go deeper into the hobby you'll come to realize you've messed up pairing theme X with Y, school A with B, etc. - Set your money on fire. This is the cost of expressing your inner self, the next owner most likely won't have the same taste as you. - Hard to visualize the end result. Sometimes the dream is better than the reality. Option B: Tsuruta-saku Rattler - Source the "Koshirae by the Kilo" merchants. Usually you'll find a bunch of old, near valueless, koshiraes in the back of dealer shops kept to make ensemble. Use your greatest diplomatic skills to ask if you can prod around with your handy rod. Once you find one that has an approximate fit, you go in with a wood file, add filler seppas (usually from leather), and patchwork it together. Dealers have experience with the ol'wood file and can help you. Pro's: - CHEAP. You can get away sub 1K with this, all included. 500$ even. Con's: - Your sword could get scratched or worst when visiting this saya. Old Sayas can be full of a mucky, abrasive mixture of oil, dust and fine sand. Beware Sword STDs. - Get ready for the RATTLER. Since it hasn't been fitted properly, it'll rattle and give off all sorts of signs of awkwardness. Option C: Edo Retrofit -Carry the Tsunagi and prod into all the koshirae you can find as your go/no god rod. Once you find an approximate fit, you get the experienced sayashi confirmed it's doable, and exercise his craft. Pro's - Perfect fit. The best Sayashi can achieve marvelous degrees of fit. - Authentic koshirae. You can get a good, historical, and valuable koshirae. - Sayashi will clean the Saya so your sword doesn't get AIDS. Con's: - Adds 1K above Option B - For standard length, motohaba and sori. - Since you're spending to make it properly, you're likely going to be spending much more on the Koshirae to get a good one. - Need to navigate Japanese cultural waters. If you show an tiny Aikuchi tanto koshirae to the venerable master Sayashi and point to some massive Odachi dinosaur slayer and ask "Can you fit it?" chances are you won't get a clear no and your project will sit on the sidelines for six months in deep cultural awkwardness. - Just like polishing a sword, once you've adjusted a koshirae, you've drained some life out of it (and modified a historical artifact). Now, most end up murdered and boxed up anyway at some point. Koshirae life is rough to begin with. But that is still a moral price to pay. Most of us pay our dues and start with the Tsuruta Rattler or American-Saku path... Good luck in your quest.

This isn't reflected in reality - "Itame that tends to nagare" or "itame that is mixed with nagare" are common terminologies used in Setsumei describing Soshu Joko. Sadamune, Masamune, Go, Norishige, Sa and so on. "The nioguchi is not subdued" - again, second tier soshu bucket attribution have, at times, subdued nioguchi described in their setsumei. This goes for Tametsugu, but also Sanekage and others. It is expressed in context of the in comparison to the clarity (saeru, often expressed as "bright and clear") of the top master, and serves as one of a few other differentiating factors (e.g., from Norishige to the Sanekage bucket). Note that "bright and clear" is not restricted to Soshu, but is a general trait of grandmasters and a point carrying the highest degree of appreciation. Also note that 'subdued' is a tricky term to capture in English translation, and has different meanings in different contexts. First gen (Norishige, Masamune, Yukimitsu, and all the forgotten ones...) have broadly different styles and artistic expressions. This is part of the beauty - they were all grandmasters and created their own unique styles. When you know you know. And let's not forget the archetypical midare hamon. The Midare Shintogo is considered the first piece of Soshu work, and the earliest iteration of the tradition. high-class chickei, perfection in the nie, uroi kitae (wetness), midare hamon - these are the archetypical traits. And as Michael rightly points out, it all falls off quickly after just two generations, never to be seen again.

Zufu session 13, signed Fujiawara Tametsugu Saku. Ubu as well. There is also a Naginata Naoshi.

The above is akin to saying that Shizu worked in Mino-den. "Shizu was the founder of Mino-den" is something one reads once and a while from various historical source, but it is not correct, and ultimately confusing, and it's the result of trying to fit a square peg in a round role as the approximative Gokaden fails here. Shizu worked in a Yamato flavor of Soshu-den. Naoe Shizu is an off-shoot of Soshu-den that follows Yamato-flavoured Soshu-den with more gunome elements and less pronounced activity. Mino is a problem in the Gokaden system. And Mino is not the only problem: while Taima is a Yamato school, it's closer in worksmanship to pure Soshu-den (The Yukimitsu style of Soshu-den specifically) than it is to Yamato-den. "Tametsugu" works in Soshu-den. There is one signed daito by him in the Juyo Zufu and it is in Soshu-den. I put Tametsugu in brackets because it's a bucket attribution for Nambokucho Soshu work. Plenty of swords get the Tametsugu attribution and it is best understood as a style, period and a quality attribution than a specific smith. At the end of the day the Gokaden is pretty good. It's an entry point, and over time one learns where it breaks. It's confusing because it links provinces to lineages and styles, and that linkage only takes you so far. Ultimately don't fixate on the Gokaden. The next level isn't hard to reach either, ten to twenty great schools/lineages, and it fits the data much better than the Gokaden "Beginner friendly" approximation. This conversation is like a bunch of modern-day physicists trying to fit newtonian models to explain the movement galaxies while being well-versed in the Standard Model.

Anyone knows why smiths changed sugata after the mongol invasion? I know of third hand written reports of old swords being inadequate against mongol armour. I'm curious. They have must taken mongol gear, tested somehow, and decided they needed a longer kissaki / change in sword geometry. Curious if there is any experimental archeology on the topic.

This is something which personally interests me. Does anyone know of an academic paper that compares the steel composition of top smiths in different regions and compares light reflection? The steel "hue" enigma truly puzzles me. Blackish steel in the North, Bluish in the south, etc. We need a formal analysis of steel composition between different regions / periods, and link this to light reflection. IV: Nakago powded beneath the hamachi (edge side, mune side) x Region (Bicchu/Bizen, Sagami, Kyoto) x period (Mid kamakura vs Late Kamakura vs End of Nambokucho/Early Muromachi) DV: steel composition + light reflection The loss of luster of Sagami steel, the rise of hitatsura, similar trends observed in other schools. We need to figure this out. Some material ran out and it's a big piece of the Kamakura Golden Age enigma.

Aggregating statistical information from different sources (Tukuno, Fujishiro, Pass factor, Kokuho counts...) is the wisest path. One must keep in mind their sources (monetary values of observed sales, historical appreciation, NBHTK's pass factor, ministry of culture...) within their particular historical context and access to source material. None of us here have sampled enough blades to come to approximate the statistical distribution of excellence. We have seen only bits and pieces of the elephant, here and there. Some of us more, others less. But in the grand scheme of things - nothing compares to what some established scholars have handled through history. Stay humble and keep an open mind.

So this is more or less, the canon of the top 10 if memory serves: Masamune (2) Go Yoshihiro (2) Ko-Hoki Yasutsuna (0) Awataguchi Yoshimitsu (1) Sanjo Munechika (0) Ko-Ichimonji Norimune (0) Ko-Ichimonji Yoshifusa (0) Osafune Mitsutada (1) Ko-Bizen Masatsune (0) Ko-Bizen Tomonari (0) In parenthesis, what I've had the chance handled. Sadly not a lot. Some of these smiths are incredibly elusive. Now, personal preference, purely based on what I've been impressed with in the past, or which I am familiar with and that you can reasonably find: - great Aoe - great Taima - Kencho - Hiromitsu - Anything awataguchi - Sa Ichimon - Kagemitsu - Yamato Kanenaga/Norinaga - Nosada Things that are appreciated, but just don't do it for me: - Run of the mill Ichimonji and 'Rai Kunimitsu' - Kinju & co. Anything that gets close to Seki...Seki is the cursed place where the art went to die (exception: Nosada)

My experience has been a welcoming one I must say. Foreigners have an advantage over Japanese: we can walk into a sword shop without second thoughts, visit a famous collector with the right connexions, and basically move freely far outside of the strict norms the Japanese must observe. In my experience there is far more friction between top Japanese collectors than from Japanese collectors to foreign collectors. There are complex webs of intra-dealer/intra-collector dynamics in Japan, and being outside of these webs gives us far more freedom. We are strange creatures outside of their world, and seeing foreigners interested (and most important of all, knowledgeable) in Nihonto is a point of pride and brings joy. Demonstrating knowledge and understanding opens many doors. As for prices, well, this thread inevitably promotes "ladder theory" in one way or another. There are shortcuts but they are noisy. One needs the Zufu volumes, and to study them to contextualize a blade. Translate setsumei, sayagaki, etc. Look for the devil hiding in the detail, and understand where the work sits within the corpus of the smith.

Wonderful to meet more local people interested in Nihonto, thanks for tagging and suggesting.

If you're still on the hunt, here is one which is affordable features an O-kissaki, from the Nambokucho period: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-hokke-nanbokucho-period/

Relic of the past. Digital libraries are far more efficient and instantly searchable, not to mention much cheaper. Ipad with an instant library of a thousand volume searchable, the cognitive gains are simply immense. The current practice of reading entire volumes containing lists of smiths and work is an incredibly inefficient search methods, and impedes learning. Motivated beginners nowadays can learn at a rate unimaginable in the past and reduce the knowledge asymmetry immensely (and as a side-effect, horse trading income). Paper is tied to demographics. Collectors are a venerable population, in the US I would think it is mostly boomers who could enjoy the bounty hunting period of history. So paper will slowly die out with the cohort. The question is whether or not new blood will enter the overseas market of if it will concentrate back into Japan, which faces a similar albeit extremely skewed population of very wealthy whales competing for the top. Same story with NBTHK papers really. Should be at this stage digital certificates, but the tastes are driven by the demographics. Everything with swords moves slowly due to the preferences of the cohort. In fifty years we might see blockchain-issued NBTHK papers. The new reality will take time to manifest, and Nihonto will probably be one of the last collectibles to shift into the new digital epoch. Which is unfortunate because it reduces the immediate value and appeal of the hobby with newcomers.

It's just badly organised tech-wise. We should have videos at this point of swords, the sort that Ohira-san makes. The problem is that all of this costs money, running a website, doing the videos, documenting, collecting votes in an interesting way, keeping a leaderboard, giving clues, etc. What's the business model here to sustain it? I don't know.

Give hints when it's veering off-track by providing some broad clues. It's hard to operate kantei on the internet due to the varying degrees of photographic quality and styles. Another way to give hints is to describe the visual elements on the photography, such as the utsuri, or the boshi. These are traits which are hard to infer upon from photos.

Blades in these shapes were not mass produced as far as I am aware. Another probable case is that this is an early momoyama period work, made mumei later to pass off as Nanbokucho. Seki at this point would lead us to someone associated with Daido, who made blades with O-kissaki in Seki during the early momoyama days.

Jussi, great answer. When a school spans multiple period, they'll often market the place within the most valued period. We saw this with Tsuruta's latest Ko-Bizen, which was bucketed in Heian in the description while belonging to Kamakura. We all have a clear association with Nanbokucho and its characteristic shape, but it's important to remember that schools such as Yamato operated during the Nambokucho period and maintained the earlier shapes. Context is everything and each blade much be analysed without shortcuts.

I'd have never guessed. I associate Ayanokoji with Sadatoshi, which generally displays a finer hada, ko-nie, and profuse nijuba. These are also traits of Sanjo/Gojo. I think you style of photo really brings out the traits, but on the downside it makes work seem much rougher than they really are. I was also unsure about the hazy white upper portion, whether it was utsuri, or something else. Those tobiyaki all over the place, the irregular nie and relatively coarse nie and hada, the bright contract with the ha, these attributes bring me elsewhere. Utsuri (if this is utsuri) rules it out though. I went through the records and found some Ayanokoji work (although, in the minority) with tobiyaki drawn in the Oshigata. So much to learn. An enriching experience all in all.