Promo

These numbers are very interesting. It seems that the submissions to the last Shinsa (speaking of totals) were way less than the previous five sessions, as well as even the pass ratio was much less than previous - for any type of submission. If this was the case, then the approximate percentage should stay the same. What it didn't. Not saying they are not compared, but it simply cannot be the only thing they consider. So this just leaves the conclusion they either got stricter, or the panel changed and the current jury has higher quality levels than previously (also kind of stricter), or the submissions are getting of less quality (theoretically spoken, the older items are not getting more, many have been already submitted in earlier years, so quite likely the submissions are of less quality than probably 20 years ago). Or a mixture of all of that. PS: It seems Juyo 63 was also with less swords passing, whereas the years prior and post had higher acceptance rates. Very isolated view, but it seems two years with higher acceptance rates are followed by one strict year. At least this applied twice in the last six years. Keen to see for the next three years if this is just statistics, or more :).

@John C I do know this is not mathematics where the panel is sitting and thinking "we still have to pick additional four items to reach our ratio", yet IMHO these numbers are very interesting if looked at a longer time, not picking one single year and making judges from this.

Jussi, since you made that great job on translating the Juyo 68 Shinsa with mentioning how many items were submitted compared to how many were neglected - do you also have these numbers for previous years? To me this is statistically extremely interesting that this year they only granted Juyo to 8,57% (94/1097) of the items submitted. would be keen to know if this is anyway a general rule, or if they were less strict in earlier years, or if this might be a result to much more items submitted compared to earlier sessions.

Simon, I appreciate your thoughts and recommendations, especially given your personal experiences I also can feel what you subly are suggesting to me. So also let me be honest: my feeling is that I already got more than I ever expected. And I am very thankful for this gift that I truly stumbled upon. Maybe a year ago I read a very old post (or entry? I can't say for sure) of Darcy Brockbank where he told the story of a Nihonoto collector who has a very high end blade, but only papered Hozon. To now summarize it in my words, simply because it confirms the signature is original, and that was enough for this collector, he got what he wanted. This made me think way more than it probably should. The result was that I noticed the certification at higher level, while it does honor certain pieces, is, at least it appears to me, a truly part of Western culture - to "win", to put something "at highest level", to "compete" with others. If you though look at a blade from an isolated point of view the Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon papers are way more important, because (if signed) they verify the (signature of the) blade, whereas (to my understanding) Juyo is way more often seen as an award. Additionally (and mentioning it again), does a Masayuki/Kiyomaro blade absolutely need Juyo? Now doing the comparison/competition that I just doomed: for a lot of other smiths the fact if they are Juyo or not make a huge (especially value-wise) difference for them. Blades made by Masayuki/Kiyomaro are, from what I learnt and got told during my journey, somewhat flying above this. So even from this view, unless you have set certain collection limitations such as "Juyo only" or are a "certification junkie", it does not make this much of a difference. If you by now wonder based on the above why I even bothered to submit to Juyo, the answer is pretty simple. Because it already was in Japan, and because you nevertheless try, when the limits for the preconditions are low. Yes, sure I could wait and submit it next year again. And the following year. From what I gathered the chances that one day a blade (fulfilling certain levels of quality) can get Juyo if submitted enough times exist. But what are my advantages of this? In case this really applies, it would simply be a question of time and money until one gets Juyo papers. This to me, given the premise that I'll keep the blade anyway and do not plan to sell it, makes not this much sense whereas for a dealer who is looking/needs to make profit it makes more sense. So my premises are much different and not commercially driven. Finally, I am still young, plus I expect the NBHTK even exist after my death, or at least there will always be some kind of certification of higher level. So if I ever decide I want to go for it again, then there will always be possibilities for this. Even for my descendants.

Stefan in his above post already summarized it correctly, I may though add that it currently still is in Japan waiting for export papers to return back home, just to make it fully technically correct.

I almost forgot to mention that I am searching for the Masayuki Wakizashi with cutting test/the owner of this Wakizashi that I have attached two pictures of. So far I had not been successful in locating it, only learnt that the last known owner passed away 10 years ago. The reason for my search is that this Wakizashi also features a period cutting test (which though - for whatever reason - lacks the cutting testers name) and is from approximately the same period as my blade. I was wondering if there might be a connection between this Wakizashi and my Katana. Is anyone aware on its current whereabout?

I'll not resubmit my sword. It is just a certificate, and does a Masayuki/Kiyomaro blade absolutely need Juyo papers? Even if it would influence its potential value it wouldn't matter to me since I'll be keeping it anyway. Plus, to be honest, after more than three years of it out of hands I am really highly looking forward to see it again .

I was informed today that its submission to the 68th Juyo Shinsa was not successful, it did not make it. At first I was a bit disappointed, because it would had been the icing on the cake, but three hours later now I don't feel bad about this any more. It would had been nice to know why it didn't make it - was it the machiokuri they didn't like, any flaws that I had not seen or noticed, or didn't they like the fact that I had the sayagaki added prior to their Juyo shinsa, or would they simply not give out Juyo papers on first submission to Juyo ... I don't know and will most likely never find out. As I though had mentioned in this thread already: I rather have the sword exactly as it is, machiokuri and with cutting test but no Juyo papers than without machiokuri, cutting test but Juyo papers. The cutting test and the obviously old machiokuri tell so much more on its history and add to the item itself what a simple certificate dating 180 years after it was made can never compensate. The best part of this thread therefore is very close: to get it back into my hands. I'll give it another update when this is finally achieved. Oh, and by the way: it will be accompanied back home by the Tachi which the NBHTK attributed to Hokke-Ichijō, so even two items to look forward to.

@Bazza and all others, would anyone dare to make a guess to its approximate age? There are so many Nobuyoshi out there that I really fail to make any attribution.

Few more of tang.

This particular blade appeared on another forum. Would anyone dare to attribute it to a particular Nobuyoshi? Cutting length 68,5cm, overall length 87cm. Thanks!

Thanks for the comments so far. I'll ask him to clean the tang with oil soaked clothing, maybe this makes the signatures better visible/readable and would allow better judgements. In the meantime a personal comment on the first blade: the hi look very poorly executed, different depth, not really straight, etc. Or am I'm too critical upon those and for the period they originate they are good enough?

In a German forum a collector of German Militaria posted of an estate he had purchased. He had to buy all of the estate, so he ended up with three Tanto, which he originally did not want to have. Since his English isn't the best he had approached me if I on his behalf can post them in here to get additional opinions on the blades. The deceased owner seems to have purchased all three in Japan from the nowadays still existing dealer Japan Sword Co. Ltd. One blade was purchased in 1966 whereas the other two were purchased in 1968. All three come with "appraisal sheets", stating by who they were made and from which period they are. Since neither though comes with NBTHK certificate and the "appraisal sheets" only mention the inscription and not go into detail if gimei or not I'd appreciate any opinions on authenticity of them. They all appear to be out of polish and seems they were stored in their fittings ever since purchased. For the size of the files (and the huge amount of pictures he had provided me) I uploaded them to Google Drive. Please therefore follow these links: Tanto (quite long at 30cm) attributed to Kanetomi: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1QKPIjkgnkCafNMSB4edjEzsQFOWzo90E Tanto attributed to Soshu ju Yasutsugu: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DhaYeIoleRFVyyog9by1ynwI-mJZIUoJ Tanto attributed to Rai Kunitoshi: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1AZCmYe3AGzIfeJvN77X26bfVV1e73dz9 Thanks in advance (on his behalf)!

Well, since it is now Tuesday up for the "solution" (or what the NBHTK thought it is) - the Hozon papers attributed the blade to Hokke-Ichijō (法華⼀乗). Period-wise some were fully spot on, including @Jussi Ekholm. I hope this was some fun for all those who gave their opinions. Now it only needs to come back from Japan for myself to see it in hands.

@Ken-Hawaii, @Valric, @Kawa, @Katsujinken, @Surfson, @SteveM, @PNSSHOGUN , @geekman, @vajo & @Bazza - you had previously commented in a specific direction on this blade in this thread. Would you want to give a more updated guess, or would you stick with your previous comment anyway? Planned to "unveil" the NBTHK attribution on Tuesday, so some time for you to see if you with the blade now in polish come to a different period/smith/etc. Thought this "Kantei" would be real fun, especially since some opinions are so much different (period-wise) from others. @Jussi Ekholm thanks for your guess, noted! If less tough you may also make a period/school/region guess or more than just one particular name.

I forgot to mention - the blade was papered by NBTHK which attributed the blade indeed to a particular name. So there is a solution (well, if the NBTHK is correct with their assumption) to this as well. But for education and fun I'll wait with posting this until maybe next week so hopefully all that participated in there can give a second guess and see how they compare with that. Thanks for the participations so far, hope to get many more

It seems they get a bit out of order when uploading, not my fault - sorry. Now keen to hear what you think!

So I had sent this blade to Japan for Polish & Papering. It still is there and waiting for the export - but I already got pictures! Considering how wide spread the opinions on it were in this thread I thought it would be a fun idea to make some Kantei on it and post pictures of the polished blade only and see if those that have contributed with a guess in here would keep their opinion, or if they would change. And for those that had not participated in the past, maybe they would now give an opinion themselves. Therefore please find attached pictures of one side of the blade. Due to file size limitation in a second post the pictures of the other side.

I admit, I'm very late to this topic - and once again I'm surely not the one with the best insight on the cutting tests. What I might add though, as my first blade already carried a "cutting test" it indeed as a first reaction was quite weird to learn on such a method of proofing something. Why would they need to cut a human body, and not something else? The more I thought about it, the more I could put it in context of their period and culture. Not too long ago many had slaves and actually didn't bother to use violence on them. I did notice some approaches on various locations that tried to "change history" by pulling statues, etc. to show we do not concur with what they did back then. While some can pull the objects, they though will not change history and what had happened. But pulling them might make us loose to remember and be able to learn from the past, and that isn't a good thing. How should we learn on how cruel Hitler and the Nazis were, if we are to destroy, delete and remove everything reminding us of what they did? I always tell my employees that you are not stupid if you do a mistake, unless you do it twice. So why not learn from the past and try to change to what, according to our current society, morals and views (or even only personal view) is good, by giving these examples from the past? To the OP: thank you for posting your blade. As already initially said, I know way too little on these to comment in depth. It is very interesting to me (and what you had pointed out) that the blade underwent a cutting test twice. I really wonder why and what for? Did the current owner at the second test feel the necessity to proof again how good it is? Did he thought it would make it even more exclusive? Or did the cutter, due to the previous cutting test, thought he could do even better than the first cutter and therefore performed a tougher cut? Did you get it papered? If yes, I'd love to hear which papers it received and what they say on the blade. Looking forward to find out on the other one you mentioned you recently got ahold of!

Bit late to this thread, I assume you bought it in this auction: There are some comments to various blades from this auction in this thread, maybe therefore helpful for you too.

Oh sorry for my confusion. That is what you get for translating a Japanese news using Google Translator and understanding an item to go from Australia to Japan from an estate with additionally the picture looking very similar to the one of an auction company in Australia that is just selling an estate. Very happy to know I was wrong. Far from the expert, but I can only agree that this appears to have been an accumulation rather than a collection (this applied to basically anything that guy has had). He bought of any condition of any make as long as it is arms related. Plus it seems he preferred quantity over quality. Not noted down the results for many items, but the few were all VERY expensive. Since others did, can anyone share the final results of all items I had linked to in the starting post? Any other items that went way overpriced and might be worth mentioning? And did someone in here actually buy an item, except for the one that was already posted?

Apparently the guy wrote in his last will that one of the blades shall be sent back to Japan for being a kind of "national treasure". Since I can only read it myself with Google Translator I thought it would be better to share the link to it, for others to see/read themselves: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/5f0b23ec4e499c7cf7f62ab17c784c1dfa41e2dc This auction company is very unusual by not displaying the result. The last bid I saw on the Tsuda Echizen no Kami Sukehiro was AUD 32,000. Plus 16,5% BP this adds up to 37.280. This equals € 23.894, $ 26.938 or 20.091 Pound.

@Ray Singer would be keen to hear what you think on the other blades!

Not my home country, so don't blame me

Seems there is a giant collection of Arms for sale in Australia, I gathered the link originally from a firearms forum where it was discussed since there were hundreds of firearms for sale from this collection. The guy seems to have had everything, including tanks, mortars and machine guns! Unfortunately I was a bit too late with the firearms auctions all over, but noticed there was a separate auction (well, due to the amount everything was split into 15 separate auctions with 100-600 items per auction) for blades - and the one for the blades got postponed, hence still two days left for bidding. They are poorly described and poorly taken pictures of, so nothing for unexperienced persons like I am. But maybe some in here might find something that attracts them, hence just look yourself at it here: https://www.lloydsonline.com.au/AuctionLots.aspx?smode=0&aid=29125&pgn=1&pgs=100 I did the opposite, for being close to the end of the auction I checked which items already got high bids upon. There is a single blade in that already got massive bids on it (and from a quick check it seems one of very few/only one that actually got the signature translated) which is said to be signed "TSUDA ECHIZEN NO KAMI SUKE HIRO" and dated to 1681. It is this one here: https://www.lloydsonline.com.au/LotDetails.aspx?smode=0&aid=29125&lid=3329832 Another blade with higher bids (AU$ 5200) is this one here: https://www.lloydsonline.com.au/LotDetails.aspx?smode=0&aid=29125&lid=3329774 .. and this one at AU$ 5700: https://www.lloydsonline.com.au/LotDetails.aspx?smode=0&aid=29125&lid=3329841 .. and this one at AU$ 5228: https://www.lloydsonline.com.au/LotDetails.aspx?smode=0&aid=29125&lid=3329804 Would love to see which items you in here might like/enjoy, or what you think of the four that I had pointed out!