Brano

Please define a proven fact Do you want a specific person who submitted a blade for Juyo and the blade failed and then later asked again and the blade succeeded? There are many - even on this forum

I totally agree with you Bobby In the last few years, there has been a minimum of excellent blades available from dealers And yes - there are definitely some excellent blades without Juyo/TJ papers hidden from public view somewhere in Japan However, out of all the major book publications that contain over 3000 blades, there are only 294 that do not have Juyo or higher grades Every year, a few hundred blades that did not have Torokusho "appear" in Japan and there may also be hidden treasures among them But the total number of hidden gems will be far below the 1000 blades in my opinion

I understand and respect that as your opinion The competition is in the blades themselves of the same smith or school If it were only by the quality of the blades submitted (I assume this is your claim), then blades with the attribute Mihara, Nio, Naoe ... would not have passed Juyo if there were enough blades from Awataguchi, Ko-Bizen, Ko-Aoe, Ichimonji, etc. And of course all of them would be in a state of preservation corresponding to obtaining Juyo status And this is not speculation Jacques It is not unusual for a blade to fail one year and succeed the next or two years later With the same judges Why? If the only criteria was quality, then the blade would pass first time or never pass Regarding your comment "I am interested in is recognizing a swordsmith's work at the first glance" - I don't understand if you mean the judges' skills or your own There is nothing unusual about a blade having excellent metallurgical quality and it is not easy (maybe even impossible) to attribute a blade to a specific swordsmith I agree with many of your contributions And some I don't

In this case, I think you misunderstood the meaning of the text that you are questioning (I personally agree with Darcy's opinion on how Juyo/ TokuJu Shinsa works) The sentence you are referring to says that if 5 blades from Nagamitsu are submitted, with 4 being at ubu/ zaimei/ perfectly sound level and the fifth being an o-suriage mumei in above average metallurgical quality and condition for Juyo, then maybe all four will be selected and maybe only 3 of those four and the fifth blade will not pass this time. However, a year later, this fifth blade can easily pass Juyo if it is the only representative of Nagamitsu for that year's Juyo

Are you talking about file marks on nakago after o-suriage? If so - then that's not true (maybe sometimes, but it's definitely not the rule) Taken from setsumei: File marks on the obverse are sujikai (sharply angled), while the file marks on the reverse side are kiri (horizontal). And here you will find a photo https://eu.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/10837781/439094963

Still available

Here is an automated translation of setsumei Tanto from session 69 Important Sword Designation No. 69, Measurements Nagasa: 25.8 cm, Sori: Uchi-zori, Motohaba: 2.3 cm, Nakago length: 10.9 cm, Nakago sori: Almost none. Shape Sugata: Hira-zukuri, Mitsu-mune, Mihaba is standard, Kasane is moderate, Features uchi-zori. Forging (Kitae) Kitae: Itame hada with some nagare, Ji-nie is well-developed, Chikei appears prominently, Bo-utsuri is visible, The steel is tightly forged. Hamon Hamon: Chu-suguha with ko-ashi, Slight kinsuji present, Nioiguchi is bright. Boshi Bōshi: Straight, turning slightly in ko-maru style with hakikake. Horimono Horimono: Omote: Plain ken (straight groove), Ura: Suken carved in flowing style. Nakago Nakago: Ubu, Kurijiri, Yasurime: Katte-sagari, Mekugi-ana: One, Omote: Two-character mei (signature) centered below the mekugi-ana, Ura: Dated inscription. Explanation Shintōgo Kunimitsu is effectively the founder of the Soshu tradition and is renowned for training three legendary swordsmiths: Yukimitsu, Masamune, and Norishige. His work, while reminiscent of the Awataguchi style at first glance, is distinguished by prominent chikei and kinsuji in the ji and ha. He excelled in suguha variations (ito, hosu, chu, hiro) and is considered one of the two greatest masters of tanto alongside Fujishiro Yoshimitsu. This hira-zukuri tanto exhibits typical late Kamakura-period traits, including standard mihaba, moderate dimensions, and uchi-zori. The itame hada mixed with nagare, along with pronounced ji-nie and chikei, showcases Kunimitsu’s characteristic workmanship. The chu-suguha hamon with a bright nioiguchi and slightly hakikake boshi further confirm this attribution. The blade’s strong, well-forged steel and the presence of a dated inscription on the nakago make it exceptionally valuable for historical study. This piece is recorded in the Kōzan Oshigata.

No Here are the current Shinsa fees https://www.touken.or.jp/shinsa/fee.html

Most rich people are well educated And to assume that the rich are mindlessly spending their money on a piece of metal in the form of a Japanese sword is, in my opinion, wrong Of course, this happens sometimes - especially when selling through reputable auction houses However, when selling through a specialized dealer - an uneducated rich person buys an unshortened Shinto or Shinshinto, which is healthy and nice and heavy ... Why would he spend ten times as much for something like this? He doesn't understand what he is buying at all

Well Kirill - I have to say that such a statement is a bit unfair Besides, you are also a seller as you said yourself and I assume that as a good seller you also emphasize positives and optimistic assumptions If a Ford dealer said - well, in truth, Honda has fewer breakdowns and our service hours are twice as expensive, but we have higher fuel consumption - he probably wouldn't be successful in selling If a seller doesn't include misleading information, but emphasizes sales arguments in a positive light, then he is just applying the right sales strategy

In the previous post it was stated on NTHK papers Kenmu Era ( 1334-1336 ) However, according to sugata I would say a few decades younger around the Enbun/Joji

JuBi Tomoshige is in Nihonto Taikan Koto III Here is setsumei in Japanese NT3_Tomoshige_set.pdf

This sword was also published in Token Bijutsu En Here is a PDF scan 730010781_set_GB.pdf

This is how it should be measured However, I have personal experience after purchasing a blade from a reputable Tokyo dealer that the declared figure for kasane was actually kasane measured on nakago Real dimensions measured with a digital caliper Motokasane 6.3 mm Motokasane at shinogi 6.7 mm Sakikasane 4.2 mm Kasane at shinogi nakago 7.6 mm

I am interested in purchasing Juyo Nado Zufu vol.61

It is not unusual for a seller to list kasane for shinogi and not for mune, so the buyer expects a more robust blade I have not found any publication that would publish data for kasane for both mune and shinogi However, Token Bijutsu masterpieces oshigata always has data for kasane (I assume always measured for mune) @ Kirill: Motokasane larger than 8mm for Koto blades are really rare and I don't know of any blade with a kasane over 10mm (measured for mune)

How can you describe an attribution as gimei? If a blade has an attribution, it means it is a mumei (it can have Kinzoganmei/Shumei...) Maybe I misunderstood your statement - you mean that all/most blades attributed to the best swordsmiths in Western collections are not what Shinsa says?

Yes - that's it It is undoubtedly an amazing blade and one of the best tantos from Norishige Setsumei translated using a translator: Designated on April 23, Heisei 26 (2014) – 23rd Designation Session Inscription: "Norishige" Measurements Nagasa: 23.8 cm, Sori: Uchi-sori, Motohaba: 2.05 cm, Nakago length: 8.7 cm, Nakago sori: None Shape Sugata: Hira-zukuri, Mitsu-mune. The mihaba is standard, with a slightly Fukura-kareru appearance. The ridge (mune) is sharply tapered. Forging (Kitae) Kitae: Itame-hada mixed with masame, partially showing hada-tachi. The ji-nie is densely distributed, and chikei are prominently visible. Hamon Hamon: Overall, the yakiba is high, featuring a ko-notare pattern mixed with ko-gunome elements. The hamon has ashi and yo, with deep nioi and thick nie. Kinsuji, nie-suji, and sunagashi cross between the ji and ha, while yubashiri follows the hada lines. The mune is hardened (yakikomi) from the base to the tip, giving the impression of a hitatsura-style hamon. The nioiguchi is bright and sharp. Boshi Bōshi: Midare-komi. The omote side shows strong nie with island-like (shima-ba) formations, while the ura side has vigorous hakikake with a flame-like (kaen) appearance. Nakago Nakago: Ubu, with a shallow ha-agari and kurijiri. The yasurime are unclear. One mekugi-ana is present. On the omote side, below the mekugi-ana, there is a large, bold two-character inscription ("Norishige"). Smith Etchū no Kuni Norishige Period Late Kamakura period Explanation Historical sword records from the Edo period list Norishige as one of the "Masamune Juttetsu" (Ten Great Disciples of Masamune). However, based on the sugata of his tachi and tanto works, as well as dated pieces from the Shōwa and Gen’ō eras, it is more accurate to consider him a student of Shintōgo Kunimitsu, as described in Muromachi-period texts. He should thus be regarded as a fellow disciple of Masamune rather than a direct student. Norishige’s style closely resembles that of the highest-tier Sōshū smiths, particularly Masamune. However, he often displays even more pronounced nie variations than Masamune. His forging features bold, large-patterned hada-tachi, known as "Matsukawa-hada" (pine-bark grain), with prominent chikei. Additionally, the hamon exhibits dynamic hataraki where the forging texture interacts with the hardened edge, showcasing an extraordinary range of nie activity. This tanto exemplifies Norishige’s distinctive style, with a standard mihaba and his characteristic "hako-sori" (box-shaped curvature). The jigane combines itame and masame, with dense ji-nie and abundant chikei. The hamon is notably high, blending ko-notare with ko-gunome, featuring deep nioi, thick nie, and a bright nioiguchi. Kinsuji, nie-suji, and sunagashi extend dramatically across the ji and ha, while yubashiri follows the hada lines. The bold chikei and well-refined itame-hada serve as a textbook example of "Matsukawa-hada." Furthermore, the radiant hamon, characteristic of top-tier Sōshū work, displays thick nie that fully expresses the beauty of nie activity across the blade. Large-scale kinsuji, nie-suji, and sunagashi dynamically traverse the ji and ha. This work perfectly encapsulates Norishige’s mastery, and its exceptional preservation makes it an outstanding example of his artistry.

Kotetsu has always been highly priced However, I doubt it will sell for this price A Tanto by Norishige was on offer two years ago and the asking price at the time was 75 million Yen and it was sold A few months ago this blade reappeared on offer from the same seller as a consignment sale. It has recently disappeared from the offer, so it has either been sold or the owner has taken it back Almost all top blades are traded quietly and there is no interest in either party letting the price be known

So if I understand you correctly - you claim/think that the above examples of naginata-naoshi with boshi that kaeri has were not modified from naginata, but were made as we see them - correct? And don't worry - my English is worse than yours and I often use a translator

In fact, with today's AI capabilities, it's quite easy to get a translation of Japanese texts However, many nihonto enthusiasts lack a library they can work with

Come on Jacques Do you expect someone to show you a blade before and after? What is the argument that they are two different blades? On the left is the blade that NBTHK designated as a naginata If you have even a little imagination, then you can guess whether it is possible to preserve the kaeri when transforming into a naginata-naoshi by modifying this particular blade by the mune

It is undoubtedly a generous gesture from @Rayhan It is one thing to process data and databases for one's own use And another thing to have publicly available data Just a friendly reminder Every publication is subject to copyright And since Japan is a signatory to the Berne Convention, copyright expires 50 years after the author's death

Another example of an early Yamashiro blade with very fine ko-nie jigane and chikei, which are also very fine (you can see them better in places where the photo is a bit out of focus)

The first case you describe is actually the jigane itself (chikei is not made of a cluster of ji-nie) The published photos are of a blade from a first-class Soshu swordsmith, however the chikei are made of martensite crystals that are woven through the layers of jigane Chikei can take many forms and many times may not be visible at first glance Here is an example of a Bitchu blade from the end of Kamakura, where the chikei are about the thickness of a human hair (for a better idea - the sakihaba is 16mm and the kissaki is 25mm)