Katsujinken

I love this thread!

59 minutes ago, jeremy said:

Thanks for posting this.  As a toyama ryu practitioner,  I found this article very interesting and a fun read

Where do you train, Jeremy? I’m in New York. 

Safe to say if it were shoshin we would know by now. 

Thank you, as always, Steve!

Just recently had a great experience buying a blade from Mark. It was exactly as described and Mark was a pleasure to work with. 
 

And Grey is a gem too!

I know what this paper says of course, but if someone with a few moments of spare time would be willing to confirm my translation I would be so appreciative. I'm giving a sword as a gift and would like to provide a nice translation of the paper. Normally I'd go to Markus, but that's not an option at the moment.

Moving from right to left, I know:

Certificate / Kanteisho

Length: 1 shaku / 7 sun / 4 (?) bu (52.75 cm)

Wakizashi / mumei / Sue-Mihara

According to the result of the shinsa committee of our society we judged this work as authentic and rate it as hozon-tôken.

2nd Year of Heisei / January 29th [1990]

Nihon Bijutsu Tôken Hozon Kyôkai, NBTHK

Thanks in advance! And if anyone has all these kanji easily available and wants to copy paste into this thread I won't say no...

Definitely worth asking. My point was just that the cost of restoration may not increase the value more than that cost. But if you love the piece it doesn’t matter!

Yes it’s made from tamahagane. 
 

Value is very low in this state. It could certainly be restored by someone qualified but it would not be a profitable investment by any means whatsoever. 

I don’t think this is particularly good work, including the way the mei is carved. 
 

Caveat: I’m a blades guy 

Holy moly. 

Congrats!

Thanks! That’s very helpful. In Japan there’s the idea of a “batto polish” for keeping tameshigiri swords in shape. 
 

I myself use an Ogawa Kanekuni shinsakuto from the mid 1980s for battodo. 
 

And I agree 100% with your last paragraph! I posted something similar on this board just the other day, actually: 

These are great, thanks for sharing. Are you based in the US? I’m curious about how often you get your tameshigiri sword sharpened/polished and who you have do the work given that it’s a shinsakuto. 

3 hours ago, Tokugawa Gord said:

The only difference is that the blade in the link has the papers, and is in a slightly better polish and geometry. So do papers then really make that much difference in the value of the sword? Or am I missing something here?

1) What Brian said; but also

2) When we’re talking about a signed Shinto wakizashi, condition and validity of signature matter very much indeed (regardless of papers, though papers make something more marketable because most buyers rely on papers to some extent). 

Brian is correct, but if you contact a shop in Japan (e.g. Giheiya), they can often surprise you given the volume they see. 
 

I contacted Giheiya and asked about shinsakuto made by 2 specific and not necessarily famous smiths who were working in the 80s and 90s, and they had found two examples within a few months.

That said and to Brian’s point, in some ways targeting a year of production is more specific. 
 

As long as you’re not buying a mukansa-like art sword, you could probably find something around $5000 USD. But Brian’s $8000 estimate is definitely a good barometer (depending on koshirae as well). 

23 minutes ago, Valric said:

We cannot agree to disagree to misconceptions of this magnitude. 
 

The idea that Tanobe-sensei would lie and fabricate some nonsense to please a gaijin by stating a notion that goes against the surface level understanding is beyond preposterous. 

 

Where to start... 

 

And also the ubu zai ichimonji in suguha being the “majority” is plainly wrong. Early ko-bizen phase work of its founders may be found in suguha. Such works are less than 10% of extant ubu zaimei ichimonji. Mumei they would have gone to Ko-Bizen. 

 

May Hachiman give us the strength. 

4 minutes ago, Brian said:

Jacques, you are so far off reality and truth when it comes to Darcy and Tanobe and this whole subject. But I am not in the mood for censorship as it will just look like I am biased.
I have NO ties to any side here, I have no personal relationship with any of these guys. So I'll let others deal with your baseless accusations and hopefully Darcy will address this silliness himself.
 

Thank you both. I tried to be diplomatic. Nothing more for me to say. :-)

1 hour ago, Jacques D. said:

Saying Mihara instead of Naoe-Shizu because the work is not as good is nonsense because the two do not have the same characteristics (sugata, hamon etc.).  

I admit this was a bad example offered too quickly. Adjust it to be about Shizu Kaneuji versus a Naoe Shizu attribution and my point stands just fine. 
 

But I think we can agree to disagree?

5 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

MIchael, 

 

I am sorry and take no offense but neither Barry nor Darcy are experts. They give their opinion but it is only worth what it is worth, same for me. 

That’s fair, these are all opinions. And that’s the point. A paper is an opinion that is really a proxy for a shared understanding of a hierarchy of quality. There is an underlying taxonomy here that should be appreciated.
 

(And by the way, Darcy has studied tens of thousands of hours more than any of us for decades now, spent more time in person with dealers and NBTHK luminaries in Japan, and handled more world class blades than any of us. I would say he is absolutely an expert. But who’s keeping score?)
 

But how about Tanobe sensei?

‘I bought a Juyo Norishige to Tanobe sensei once and he looked at it with great interest and a big smile on his face. After making a lot of appreciative sounds he look at me and said, “20% Go, 80% Norishige.”’

This is the reality, and it is clear that this is how the top experts in the world conceptualize attributions to mumei blades. 
 

Are you saying you believe that a mumei blade papered to Naoe Shizu was absolutely made by one of Kaneuji’s students during the time they lived in Naoe? In many ways, that is the least interesting bit of information that could be conveyed. 
 

I’ve made my point though. To each his own. 
 

47 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

 

I don't think it works the way you say it does.

 

I very much think it does, and Barry’s response above is also quite good.
 

Now, I didn’t say that the indication of relative quality is the only information contained in papers for mumei blades. This is very much a three or perhaps four dimensional concept, one that most collectors really struggle with. 

As I said Darcy has written extensively on this topic, and I find his arguments authoritative and pursuasive. 
 

Here’s a good example, and there are surely many more to be found on this very board: https://blog.yuhindo.com/20-go-80-norishige/#more-152

Quote

 

In some cases, an answer can be obtained that is clear and singular, but in others it is more mysterious. What Kanzan is getting at here is that the distinction between the answers in most cases is not as important as people want to believe it to be anyway. In his words, the conclusion of Norishige, Yukimitsu or Masamune are three ways of saying almost the same thing. They mean absolutely top shelf Soshu tradition work. 

 

It’s important to get your mind into this zone, where you can accept that some questions do not have straight forward answers and that sometimes there is equivalency or that the answer on its face does not mean what you think it means on its face.

 

If a sword is attributed to a mid ranked school or smith, it is a flag telling you that the judge believed it is mid ranked work first and foremost. You cannot walk away from that with the impression that the judge believed it is a masterpiece for the ages if he attributed it to a middle ranking school. Good, yes, high quality yes, major masterpiece: never.

 

Quote

 

There is always going to be a simple, easily digestible line for public consumption. With a Juyo paper that goes right on the front and if you stop reading that big text that names the smith, it’s OK. You can stop there. 

 

But if you want to learn more you need to read the commentary, you need to read it literally and you need also to read between the lines and parse out if they are trying to deal with a difficult concept that is defying easy categorization into a simple and clear box. 

 

There can be deeper meanings to things behind every simple symbol. They are there for your taking if you pay attention to them.

 

Engravings are common, but that one is terrible and in combination with other things is a telltale giveaway for a blade that is not a nihonto. 

1 hour ago, Freddie said:

So hard that (in my simple opinion) it should not count for an official statement saying that a sword was produced by a specific smith (Attributed yes).

Also, no one is really disagreeing with this. You need to pay very close attention. And keep reading. :-)

1 hour ago, Freddie said:

Is your view that two identical blades would be judged with the same result even if only one of them had a genuine signature?

Yes, in the hands of an expert this is the whole idea, and it happens all the time. The authenticated signed blades set the standards used to assign attributions to mumei blades. The field is always evolving. 
 

This is also a very important point:

2 hours ago, Valric said:

More important than the top idea that comes up on the paper is all the other ideas that have been put aside with high certainty. A sword that comes back as Bungo Takeda or Ko-Udo can be a number of things around these waters, but Ichimonji it is not, etc. On less highly rated school, these attributions are the fruit of a process of elimination when you go down quality ladders. 

Most Koto swords are unsigned due to shortening. Did you know this? Keep studying...

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

So a Naoe Shizu attribution means the sword is better than Mihara but not good enough to be called Kaneuji. 

Brian is 100% correct, Freddie—with study and training kantei is nearly a science. Nearly. But you also recognize that no one has a time machine. 

Darcy Brockbank has written a lot about this (much of it on this board in the past). That you are asking these questions is not a bad thing. It just means it’s time for you to put real effort into serious study if you truly want to understand the answers. 

Thanks Steve and Manuel. 

By the way I definitely agree that this is not a Suruga.

Happy to....thanks Steve!

(This of course assumes the tsuba goes with the box...)