mdiddy

http://jssus.org/nkp/fake_japanese_swords.html and http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/repro.htm

Now that it is over I will say I was most impressed with the Yamato Shizu katana. Remarkable hada.

*edit admin* I can humbly answer 5 and 9! Long live the Seki stamp!!

One thing I would recommend is to spend more time with the blade in polish. Most of the Nagamitsu I have had in the past that were in a good state of polish showed nice hada, sometimes with lots of chikei. Also, the mei can give you some indication of when the blade was made. I find his earlier mei to be more crude and signed Nagamitsu or Ichihara Nagamitsu. His later blades sometimes have extended Zoku-mei. In my experience, his earlier work is a little more basic - Bizen suguha. His later work is a little more flamboyant. Zoku-mei swords are probably a pretty good bet imho. Finally, I agree with George, can you share pictures of the mei with star stamp? I have not seen one before on a Nagamitsu.

I was able to preview the items over the weekend. There was a lot to look at - too much for one day - and was almost equivalent to going to a show. There were some very fine pieces. A few I had seen and handled before but now they are for sale I spent a little more time going over and enjoying them. Besides the outstanding swords, there were outstanding fittings including some over-the-top koshirae and a massive tanegashima. There was certainly a lot more to see and learn than differentiating showato. Well worth a day trip. Looking forward to seeing how things turn out this afternoon.

I remember a star-stamped Gassan Sadakatsu was discussed on the board sometime back here: viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9950&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=star+stamp+gassan.

Great comment. I think its worth adding that the RJT specification document addresses a swords ability to cut well and not bend or break before addressing polish and appearance. I think Baron Murata Tsuneyoshi must have been a connoisseur if he collected 65 Magoroku. He also had this to say: http://www.k3.dion.ne.jp/~j-gunto/gunto_110.htm (google translate gives a general idea that he was a proponent of swords that cut well and do not bend or break)

Maybe one thing missing from the equation is that many RJT swords are not in "art" polish. I appreciate the specification document highlights a proper polish, but many I've seen had a typical WWII-type polish (i.e. not always crisp lines, low to no nugui use, basic sashikomi, etc). And several others I have handled are not in any polish at all since they've been left to the elements for 70 years. If RJT get proper restoration then that might allow for more exploration of their craftmanship on an "apples to apples" basis with older swords that have had proper restoration. It is a lot easier to appreciate craftsmanship when its elements have been highlighted. It would make identifying the super well made RJT a lot easier.

'Nuff said. Moving on...

For some like yasukuni-to, I think it is reassurance the signature is correct and not gimei. For others, maybe it is because papers justify the quality or enhance the appeal. I don't exactly know either. What made you decide to submit your Tsukamoto Okimasa?

Well put. I agree. From your time in Japan and contacts still there, do you know if more star-stamped RJT blades - or other gendaito - are being submitted to NBTHK shinsa and what the pass/rejection rate is? It would be helpful to know if 100% pass, then I'm sure Western collectors would be well-primed to give NBTHK a lot of swords to look at. Tsuruta san has a few papered Yasukuni blades for offer on his site. I wonder if Nagamitsu et al have received papers yet.

I'm having trouble reconciling this: and this:

Hi, Here is a stamped WW2 military sword with torokusho: http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2012/1210_1039syousai.htm. Are you sure they are forbidden in Japan?

Jean - good point - thanks for pointing out. So, If this is the rule, and RJT blades are zaimei and ubu-nakago, and the smith is deceased, then if NBTHK rejects the blade it must be on the basis of it not being well-made, no? Have the best quality blades from Yasukuni smiths, Okimasa, Shigetsugu, Toshihide, etc just not been submitted yet? (I truly do not know if TH examples exist - if some do then I fall on my katana, and if they do not yet I am sure they will in the future when enough time and examples have passed by appraisers hands)

I disagree. If the debate is about whether RJT get NBTHK and NTHK papers and where they rank, then we should note that they are being compared to all nihonto in general as part of Shinsa. For WWII swords, I'm actually pretty impressed with some RJT blades, if not always by the quality of work then certainly by the variety they produced. They clearly experimented artistically rather than making uniform cutting implements. I think the two Kanehide I had surpassed the few Yasukuni I have also had, but that is just my opinion. I would add though that no RJT blade I have handled came close to superior Shinto or Shinshinto, much less Koto. I think that is my main point is that if we agree RJT blades are worthy of papering (and I think some are) then where do we consider them in comparison to all other nihonto. They do not exist in a historical vacuum.

Jean - is mid grade workmanship not the definition of chu saku? I understand this clarifies Edo period works, but the point is the same. I assume this rule would also apply to 'after Edo period' works as well.

Does Shinsa issue Tokubetsu Hozon for chu saku smiths? If not and if RJT blades have only achieved Hozon and not Tokubetsu Hozon, then what does that suggest about RJT workmanship relative to the broader, and older, landscape of Nihonto? Is there an age requirement on Tokubetsu Hozon (I don't know and am curious - I assume age requirement may be one reason RJT blades were not previously considered - I think age factors into treatment of Shinto and Shinshinto blades for higher papers). I would also be curious if other accepted gendaito swordsmiths like Yasukuni smiths, Okimasa, Shigetsugu, Toshihide, etc have achieved Tokubetsu Hozon or only Hozon? I think the Gassan smiths Sadakazu and Sadakatsu have achieved Tokubetsu Hozon, but how about the others? Does anyone have some Shinsa pink slip stories they would like to share?

I agree and appreciate how small details can be different in translation. Kudos to the translator as the document is very informative. Based on my handling of star-stamped RJT blades, I think I have seen many more with Bizen-themed choji hamon than other styles. I have seen some with suguha that had ashi and ko-ashi. I had a star-stamped Kaneaki that was Yamato-themed, all masame hada, and had a suguha hamon abundant with nijuba and uchinoke. I was most impressed with a star-stamped Kanehide that had a midare choji yet had another star-stamped Kanehide that was classic Seki gunome. I have yet to see an RJT blade with a Soshu-themed hamon showing copious and continuous nie, yubashiri, inazuma, etc but would not rule it out. I think there is a great variety of styles in star-stamped RJT blades.

Does anyone have any idea of the quality of tamahagane that the Japanese Government was supplying? Any specification documents for the tatara? I imagine the quality we see in RJT blades was heavily dependent on the quality of the raw ore.

Brian, Morita san, and George - thanks very much for sharing the RJT specifications. I found them quite interesting, including this little specification: Who needs a hamon anyhow? Also telling that the #1 specification and first criteria for judging is on a sword's ability to cut well and not break or bend. Polish and appearance were considered after that.

It would be very telling to know how many and for what reasons star stamped RJT blades have been submitted to NBTHK shinsa and rejected. I have a few additional thoughts on this. I have handled many star-stamped RJT blades. Not as many as others, but enough to feel confident commenting (George has a nice Nakata Kanehide that passed through my hands once). The star-stamped RJT blades I have handled all showed hada, hamon, and hataraki far surpassing oil-quenched showato. However, I debate if they deserve the bandwidth we give continuing to argue that point. I think the bigger question is where do they fit in the overall story of nihonto, not just WWII. Assuming most, if not all, star-stamped RJT blades are made from tamahagane with traditional methods, then I find them very average as compared to other nihonto. I do not serve on Shinsa panels, but there is quite a departure between star-stamped RJT blades and Jo-Saku or better Nihonto I have handled. There really is not much comparison in my mind. I have yet to see a star-stamp RJT blade that I would call an art sword. Don't get me wrong, they are well-made and show varieties of hada, hamon, and hataraki, but I put them on the level with Chu-Saku workmanship. I've seen several Bishu Osafune Sukesada that outshined star-stamped RJT blades. Ranking swords and swordsmiths is highly subjective, but Shinsa do it and we generally accept the variance that comes along with their assessments. While star-stamp gendaito may have achieved NBTHK Hozon papers, have any achieved Tokubetsu Hozon and if not, then why not? As I started, even more telling would be to look at the star-stamp RJT blades submitted and rejected by Shinsa and then understand why they were rejected. Were they rejected because Shinsa in 1980 did not recognize star-stamps? Were they rejected because Shinsa in 2010 did recognize star-stamps but were unimpressed with the workmanship? Were they papered because the Shinsa was impressed with the workmanship? I think exploring the workmanship of star-stamp RJT blades and considering them against workmanship shown by all nihonto and not just WWII-era Japanese swords would help a lot in Connoisseur's treatment of them.

Stephen T, Thanks very much for sharing the documents about NT's and IAO's from the Library of Congress. They are a fascinating set of documents. Besides the story on the Honjo Masamune, I was maybe more surprised by some of the holdings of leading Japanese families that were mentioned, particularly those of the heir to the Mitsubishi trust. I wonder where their 2 purported Amakuni ended up. Matt

According to Fujishiro, Tsuda Sukehiro received the title Echizen no Kami in 1657, aged 20. He died in 1682, aged 46. Assuming he was working for himself a little before he received his title, making upwards of 1600 swords over a ~26 year career means he turned out about 5 per month. For comparison, Kotani Yasunori, who supposedly was the most productive of the Yasukuni Tosho, turned out 1600 swords in 10 years working for the NTK. That is about 13 per month over that time. Wish there was more data on this subject... Does anyone know if there are estimates on how long it took Heian and Kamakura era swordsmiths to produce a blade? I would guess Ko-Bizen Masatsune was probably not turning them out at the same rate as Sukehiro or Yasunori.

Chris, Thanks for the extra info. I am very surprised none of these was suguha. I thought D was a good candidate for suguha since the hardness distribution was almost the same for the monouchi as compared to near the hamachi. Any chance you would have a shareable English version of the entire paper?

Chris, Thanks for sharing this. This is very interesting data. I have a few questions: 1. Is each of the graphs representing the work of an individual swordsmith (i.e. what is different between A, B, C...)? Also, is it the swordsmith's name in parentheses by each letter at the top of each graph? 2. Which line in each graph represents the hardness near the machi and the hardness at the monouchi (i.e. what is the difference between subscript 1 and subscript 2 for each of the X/Y plots)? 3. Do you have any information on what the hamon type of each swordsmith/graph is? It would be interesting to understand for instance what variability of hardness for choji is compared to suguha. Thanks for the additional information. Matt