seattle1

Hello: Perhaps I am posting under the wrong category, but does anyone know a source of traditional Japanese oshigata paper? The technology hasn't been really been overwhelmed by something better, but the paper is hard to find. Thanks in advance. Arnold F.

Hello: I am glad to see a couple of posts that were at least open mind about Never Dull. I only spoke of my own experience and stressed caution in experimentation and use. I find it does no damage, does not differentiate the spot attended relative to the surrounding polish, and will minimize blackish spots, but not remove them, at least not within my limits of caution. It is no substitute for a professional togi if aesthetics are the primary goal. Denis's post was particularly helpful as a caution. I presume he is a physician and the citations warn of the importance of skin and breathing protection, as I believe I did. There are some terrible things done to swords and some rather benign, like the use of choji oil which one author claims to be a scented transmission fluid. I have seen another report, I believe in an issue of the British To-ken Society programme (could be wrong as to source!), which analyzed Kleenex-like tissue to the level of all the abrasives it can contain. Most steel wool is a big "no no," and I would never dream of using the rough paper included in Japanese sword care kits. Swords are the leavings of time and it is sometimes better to do nothing, certainly to avoid harm if we know it as so, but we should also remember that togi is, by definition, a reductive process, so it is always a matter of a "trade off" and all trade offs are a function of what we value. For some, stabilizing damage is highly valued, for others putting a sword into a state where it can qualify for a (good?) paper is more highly valued. It is always a personal choice. Arnold F.

Hello: What Never Dull is not is a "polishing compound". It is an abrasion free cotton soaked with a high viscosity liquid of some sort. It will not scratch, it will not have an effect on any surrounding polished area in my experience, and that experience is very short term use, perhaps five minutes per try. What I have used it for is that dark black post rust spotting on a blade. It will not produce an undetectable blending into the surrounding area, however it will tend to minimize the spot. "Minimize" is in the eye of the beholder; for some it will be seen as slight, for others it will be seen as a great improvement. If two or three attempts don't do it, quit. If the spot is new and rather fresh with an obvious to the touch raised and rough surface, that should be removed. It is very easy to do with the edge of one of those high copper (no zinc) content British pennies - use the one with Queen Victoria or her son. More recent coins will tend to have zinc and the like in the alloy and might scratch. Those coins will remove the crust of the rust without scratching the surrounding polished surface. Don't take my word for it, try it. I have seen thousands of polished blade surfaces with spot or spider rust here that have been visually ruined by being scratched by some well meaning collector using a steel stylus of some sort. The penny use is not a substitute for a togi when widespread deep rust is present. Before trying the Never Dull be sure that any loosened rust bits are gone before using the Never Dull or they might cause scratching. Take a British penny as described to a rust area of a low value sword or one headed for a togi anyway and see for yourself. Ditto with the Never Dull. There is nothing to compare with a professional polish, however small damage minimizing things like those described can be useful. Experiment for yourself and report to us. Needless to say I only recommend the above, nothing but the above, and from experience. Polishing "compounds" are a no no, so is steel wool, etc., etc. If you are content with your sword as it is, leave it alone. Arnold F.

Hello: Yes Never Dull is more or less the same as Duraglit. they are probably functional substitutes. We have had one vote that cautions against the use Never Dull. To each his own. A careful reading of my post will flash caution, reinforced by experience; aggressive use of the product will have undesirable results. It would be hard to damage a blade with Never Dull to the extent that enthusiastic use of uchiko will, but some will insist on trying. Easy does it is the rule. If a blade really needs a "face lift", a professional togi-shi is the only way to go. Short of that Never Dull, in my own experience, will do good and no damage. Some years ago a well known professor of metallurgy at the University of Washington had a substantial following for his "discovery" of the wonderful effects of sandpaper as a polish ... you can imagine the consequences, sooo, judgement and caution should never be checked at the door! Arnold F.

Hello All: Good stuff and very educational. When it comes to tsuba that are not ita plate the seppa-dai and mimi measurements might have been helpful. We should all remember however that "tsuba typing" is a much newer thing than blade kantei and open to other views that can be strongly argued as the level of NBTHK assessment at the lower paper level is rather hit and miss. No criticism meant; let's see some more. Arnold F.

Hello: My guess would be Ko Shoami, c. Momoyama, Kyoto, and pine bark like. Any guess is at a disadvantage without a measurement given for both the seppa-dai and mimi. Arnold F.

Hello: Chris's most recent post does add to the discussion in at least one important way by way of laying stress on the buyer, and selling context, sort of the economic sociology of the market place. The more knowledge of how to find the best alternatives comes only with time and exposure and we should appreciate the "curtain raising" from time to time. We get some of the same deeper looks from some of the things that get into Markus Sessko's blogs, and I have found the book Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords: A Collector's Guide, by Nobuo Nakahara worth three reads. Such "tales out of school" do not of course always get universal applause. As for the issue of sales prices not being mentioned, well the question initially posed was paper value impacts a priori. I fully agree that sales data, across various types of selling situations would be the most useful, however a great deal of that never enters any data base. Arnold F.

Hello: The rather innocent question of relative valuations was carefully avoided by Chris, probably wisely, and then dug into in some detail by Kunitaro and paulb. The latter two give specific price ranges for three designated smiths. The problem is that ranges really avoid the issue of evaluation for a particular blade. Such terms as "good condition" really beg the question as to sugata if suriage to any extent, quality of the shape, quality of the togi and its current state, degree of kizu (I have seen significant and multiple hagiri on at least one Tokubetsu Juyo koto blade), when the paper was issued, etc. Also omitted entirely was the fact that fashion changes as to what smith or group is most sought after at any given time. The issue of whether a particular designation is a "terminal" one, or a steppingstone is significant. That makes a huge difference in a buyer's willingness to pay, risk included. From an economic point of view it would seem to matter a lot as to from whose point of view the range is viewed. Caveats don't mean that a study of relative paper impacts can't be done, it is just that they haven't been. The huge problem is the unique quality of each and every true Nihonto, and any judgment or range has severe qualifications. What I would like to see is the question posed to four different groups of actors, with their identities protected. A group of existing papered blades ranging from Hozon to Tokubetsu Juyo, each very well and fully described, could be presented for hands on examination to 1. owners of same, 2. leading auction houses, 3.dealers, and, 4. leading private collectors - three or four for each group - and ask them. The range would in part be determined by the skills of the viewer, but more importantly by the motives of each of the four sets. Hence the final point:the where, when, by whom, how and to whom of each transaction, is critical, and hence the enemy of over generalization. The most obvious demonstration is that the owners will have a high price bias and the collector the lowest. Just thinking out loud. Arnold F.

Hello: Interesting topic indeed Matt! Chris Bowen is of course essentially correct that generalizing hard and fast rules about factoral differences between papers is more or less hopeless. The reason is that all swords are essentially unique and there can be great quality differences in the work and condition of any smith's total output, and one never knows, in most cases, whether any paper is as high as a given blade can go, or just the first step. However I do wonder if papers do not matter with gendaito? I believe he excludes shinsakuto, which of course would not in cases of living smiths receive papers at all unless the issuer made an error. Many collectors do seek papers on some gendaito, thus having an implicit impact on value, as some have been faked and some signed student work or had students sign with the major smith's name. Perhaps Chris could clarify. More generally I do believe that papers are of value, the issue of relative impact aside, and in a situation or two we can really speculate on value. Matt mentioned the NBTHK and we can surely say that if we assume a blade has reached its terminal paper, Hozon, Tokubetsu Hozon, Juyo and Tokujo have a clear rank order for any given smith, just as a few years ago Kichi, Tokubetsu Kicho, Kosho Tokubetsu Kicho, etc., had impacts. Aside from that I believe we can generalize to the extent of saying that papers, any paper, have a larger relative impact on a signed blade than one that is unsigned or suriage, the reason being that the uncertainty surrounding blades without mei is substantial but not fatal. What one group or one submission might say today could very well be "elevated" to a much better call next year. A down grade is destroyed. With a signed blade the paper says, in almost all cases, that the object is genuine. Failure there has no good solution, just more risk and expense and probable disappointment. The outcome is often fatal. Matt concluded that papers were more important outside Japan than in Japan. I have been to a number of dealer shows in Japan and blades almost always have papers, NBTHK papers, and the majority of potential buyers are Japanese. It is increasingly common in the US these days to see or expect to see a papers for all high ticket blades on sale. Finally, the NBTHK is hardly the only or even the oldest paper issuing group in Japan. There are two versions of the NTHK, each with senior judges who have good bona fides and real credibility. There are well respected papers issued by the now defunct Fittings Museum (a major misnomer), the Toen-sha of the late Murakami sensei, and various strictly regional groups. There are also papers issued by togi such as Fujishiro sensei, Kajihara sensei, and others. Sayagaki also have value when issued by important scholars. The trick is knowing something about each of there groups and individuals as their assessment is subject to change over time. These are just a few additional thoughts. For a new collector it looks like a jungle, but remember folks pay really serious money for papers and the consequences of that behavior must have a market impact on the values of what is assessed; how much is the question! It would not be empirically impossible to actually measure such things, at least by way of illustration, but it has not been done in a rigorous way as yet. Arnold F.

Hello: Finger prints, if that is what they are, require some first aid. In an extreme case, perhaps on a highly rated and valuable sword, even the attention of a polisher might be called for, however there are many small things that can be done to help a blade short of a togi. Polishing is a great a wonderful thing, and when well done you are actually helping extend the appreciation and time line of the stream of existing swords, but that is another issue. It seems to me that uchiko use, sufficient to eliminate securely established prints, is nothing short of brutal. Such an abrasive use of uchiko would probably dish the spot, if ever so slightly, and it would take on a quite different look from the rest of the polished surface. I would recommend the use of a product called Never Dull, not always easy to find, but very effective. Its intended use is to polish, that is to remove a film, and to do so without scratching. Common uses are on uniform buttons, bike chrome and the like. It is cotton impregnated with some liquid that when used with little pressure will tend to remove stains and films of various kinds, do no scratching and to leave a sort of white dry surface that can be cleaned off with old fashioned lighter fluid. A few repeats might be called for. As who knows what the liquid in the cotton is, wear rubber gloves and have good ventilation. Be sure the surface is cleaned of any particulate matter before you start, restrict yourself to the marks you are trying to get rid of, and there is no need to rub more than a few minutes or press hard. In my experience it is excellent stuff, but of course anyone who uses it does so at their own risk. Good luck. Arnold F.

Hi: The issue raised was whether the initial unsigned piece shown was done by Enshin. I do not believe that has been established. Yes, he signed with alternative names, but is there a certified mu mei blade reliably attributed to Enshin? Barry is your "Ichi" also signed as Enshin or is it "Ichi" attributed to Enshin? Just curious. Arnold F.

Hello: Just for clarification I did not say or suggest that the blade is old, I merely pointed out that within my limited experience I have never seen a blade said to be by Enshin without his mei. He certainly could do exquisite jihada, very top Awataguchi style. I believe he was in the copy and honorable reproduction camp and not a faker, though again there might be unsigned examples I am entirely unaware of. Arnold F.

Hello: Hayama Enshin did quite a number of excellent utsushi of early blades, in addition to mirrors and the like, however I have only seen them carefully noted as to maker and with other subordinate information. Perhaps Chris could ask Ando san!? Arnold F.

Hello All: What an interesting question Mark poses! It is one for which there is no easy or perfect answer. If one starts with the premise that collection is just appreciation for the object, then owning a sword is unnecessary. Money could well be spent on amassing and studying a library on swords and their contexts, for which there now is a virtual Niagara Falls of material. One could visit museums around the world, attend sword shows, join associations of collectors, participate in kantei competitions to hone and test one's skills, etc. In fact most of that is just a good starting point for buying the first sword if ownership is the intention. For the buying part the advice will be all over the board. Some will suggest that an unsigned Shinto wakizashi is cheap and the perfect onion skin to be peeled to learn from. The idea of a top shinsakuto, and there are terrific examples, is another way to go. They are very costly. Paying the high price is more or less necessary for someone, just to keep the craft going. Under today's restrictions a licensed smith can only make a few blades a year and to be working as a smith in high cost of living Japan means they must make something close to their foregone wage to be in that activity. Japan is one of the highest GDP per capita countries on earth as well, so do the math; the price for a first buyer from a smith of note will be high. Who knows how any not at the very top will sort out over the years, so it is sort of a crap shoot. The best bet is probably to buy a shinsakuto on the second or third bounce. Buying a top quality, Jo saku or above, Shinto wakizashi is probably dollar for dollar the best quality per dollar expenditure that can be made. At the end of the koto period there were tons of fine long swords that could be carried by the samurai who now had to wear two swords. Outstanding smiths found that market demand led them to make wakizashi and numerous fine examples exist, highly rated and reasonable. Finally, if one wanted to jump higher I would suggest a Juyo from the Heian or Early Kamakura era, ideally Bizen. For it to cost less than a top German sports car means that it would come with flaws to a greater or lesser degree. Worry not, almost all really old swords are flawed, it is just degree and dollar considerations. Such a sword would be a tremendous model, an example from which most other swords eventually derived in one way or another, and it would be a great standard by which to judge the next sword to be brought into the collection. Twenty to thirty thousand or so would get such a thing. If that is too much, who says a good sword can't be owned jointly with others? Just some off the cuff thoughts. Arnold F.

Hello: Well, as pondered earlier, I wonder if there is any parallel evidence of craftsmen who work in other areas than swords, for example tosogu, katchu, weaving, pottery, maki-e, yuzen, bamboo weaving, woodworking, etc. and who have received Ningen Kokuho status, as Mike says, a very great honor indeed, also being awarded something by their special admiring organizations, similar to Juyo designations for their great skill and aesthetic taste? Modern tosogu such as tsuba are not intended to be used, ever, other than part of a koshirae, and I suppose the same is true for armor makers, however the products of the others have the same uses today that they had in antiquity. When the "use" connection is broken, does something qualitative happen? The social purpose of all the Ningen Kokuho designations is to encourage and perpetuate skills that might be "forgotten" or at least not practiced, and we all value that. The Ningen Kokuho status and the appreciation of swords as art objects alone, is sufficient to assure the craft of the swordsmith. What would Juyo status mean? Just curious. Arnold F.

Hello: Further to Mr. Trotter's comment about post-koto blades, I think it is not just the almost complete lack of battle during those times but also the typical Shinto model, admired so much for its newness and looks, namely a construction of a tight jihada combined with a yakiba that is nie dominated, is a recipe for a blade more prone to breakage in use. Testing was a smart device to assure reliability. Arnold F.

Hello All: I thought Chris Bowen's remarks were right on the money. I have no really firm personal views on the questions posed as only time will tell. Its just fun to kick around ideas. Perhaps someone more familiar with parallel treatment of the works of modern tsuba makers, for example, who make tsuba with no intent of them protecting a hand, or modern armor craftsmen who never expect their works to have to withstand a sword, could tell us: are they papered by supporting organizations? Finally, Chris could not be more right on the relation between what we see as beauty and the blended functional characteristics of the sword. It reminds me of a statement the late Albert Yamanaka made in his Nihonto News-Letter, when he said no smith ever intended to make a beautiful blade (or words to that effect). He of course was talking about swords made for use as swords. I can dig up the exact quotation if anyone is interested. Arnold F.

Hello: The question is not, as Josh replied to it, will a living smith get a Juyo Token designation for any of his output. The posed issue was the following (to paraphrase it): are currently made swords, which are by construction as much Nihonto as their earlier ancestors, given that they are not made for the primary purpose that Japanese swords were made for in the past, candidates for Juyo status sometime in the (distant?) future? If "yes", why; if "no", why not? Still curious. Arnold F.

The historical development of the Japanese sword led to a product optimized to cut, and thus disable or kill a human opponent. They can and have cut many other things, from dead bodies for tameshigiri, to water soaked bundles of straw, to plates of iron, even to well placed kabuto, but the ultimate "test" was use in battle. We consider a Nihonto to have been made of tamahagane, laminated in construction, differentially hardened and usually, but not always, to be of an equi-angular functional form (see, Saunders, Sam C., "Shape and Cutting Efficiency...", Newsletter, JSS/US, Vol. 33, No. 7 (Dec., 2001), pp.20-30). Contemporary Nihonto made by licensed smiths in Japan, and usually referred to as shinsakuto, are constructed exactly like the older swords made at a time when battle use was the main criterion. However they are spoken of and considered only as "art swords" and not as weapons. The question is, are they, like their Nihonto ancestors of the years prior to the end of WWII, true Nihonto? If the answer is yes, will, at sometime in the future, a maker of one of today's shinsakuto, have a sword designated a Juyo Token or will the highest accolade always be that the maker is designated, during his lifetime, a Living National Treasure? Just curious. Arnold F.

Hello All: I think it would be interesting to ask the question "by what criteria might the next smith post Gassan Sadakazu be awarded Juyo status by the NBTHK?" My Juyo Index is a little out of date, being published in 1999, but at that time he had one, a wakizashi made in 1908, two years after receiving Ningen Kokuho status from Emperor Meiji, and he may have received others Juyo since. Needless to say one must be dead to receive a Juyo designation for one of one's blades, though interestingly that general rule is sometimes violated by the NBTHK, probably in error. Second I would think that the next such person will probably have to be not too far in time from Sadakazu. The not too discontinuous flow of time for such a designation would seem to be fitting, and the NBTHK exhibits a keen awareness of that in many ways. The unique feature that dominated the lives and careers of smiths working just before and after Sadakazu was of course the third Haitorei edict of 1876. Few smiths continued, Sadakazu is perhaps the best known. He worked before and after the edict, not passing on until 1918. His contemporary, Miyamoto Kanenori, the only other Ningen Kokuho prior to the post-WWII era, was also a superb smith, though perhaps less even in quality, and he worked both before and after the edict. Hayama Enshin was another "before and after" smith of real quality. Chris Bowen would be better informed than I am of other contemporary candidates in addition to Kanenori and Enshin, but they are both excellent. Moving on somewhat in time would be Horii Taneaki, Sakurai Masatsugu, Watanable Kanenaga, Yokoyama Sukekane, Gassan Sadakatsu and Kasama Shigetsugu. There were a number of fine smiths working during the war years, though by then the stretch of time would be substantial. Miyaguchi Yasuhiro, Kajiyama Yasunori and Kotani Yasunori, all working at the Yasukuni Jinja come to mind, as does the excellent Yoshihara Kuniiye, grandfather of the contemporary Yoshihara brothers. Tsukamoto Okimasa has been mentioned, though more realistically in that he died so young at age 43 his unrealized promise seems mentioned as much as the quality of the blades he actually made. When we go further into the so called shinsakuto of today, I believe they would all be out of the question. Not only are some of the best still living, but in contrast to the above, their output are Nihonto in every sense but intended use, always the acid test. Finally I wonder if designations since Sadakazu's have not already been made in everything but name and the same degree of recognition? I have in mind the Yushu saku and Sai Yushu saku for the NTHK when under the leadership of Yoshikawa Koen sensei. Sensei stressed quality and condtion above all, including the historical role treasured by the NBTHK. At least the following, perhaps more, post-Sadakazu smiths have been awarded Yushu status:Horii Hideaki, d. 1943, Yoshihara Kuniiye, d. 1970, Tsukamoto Okimasa, and, Hayama Enshin, d. 1920 at age 75. Depending how one spins the argument, they could all be seen as reasonable Juyo candidates pre-vetted. Arnold F.

Hello All: Very well put Chris! I have been in this game for some years and I believe I have seen all the options you mention, except for co-burial, and permutations thereof. If I could comment on one option you did mention, that of a dealer dispersal, it would be to suggest that while the collector might utilize prior consultation with the dealer along the lines you mentioned, the acquisition of an arm's length dealer appraisal, without necessarily subsequent strings, could also be considered. That would involve an up front fee, perhaps one already spent in an insurance appraisal, and it might remove a perhaps unconscious bias in that the dealer has no necessary expectation of business down the line. I am glad you did mention dealers as it seems to me that too many collectors view them with some disdain. They are valuable market makers and can be as useful in the life hereafter as when the collector is building his collection. They can considerably improve market efficiency by knowing, as they often do, the tastes and preferences of prospective buyers. Auction houses can "spread the word" too, but they can be highly inefficient, destructive of property in their care, and very costly. Cheers, Arnold F.

Hello: I would like to respond to Chris's comment, which I believe advances the theme I tried to open. I hope my replies will never be seen to attack a person or even their views; only to add clarification if possible. The point I was trying to make was not that a shinsa and resultant papers clarifies value, as papers say nothing about that in a direct way. They often are unhelpful as to generation of a particular named smith and can even shy away from any smith when mentioning a group whose members can vary greatly in value smith to smith and period to period. What I do believe is important is that a paper will serve as a somewhat practical floor in the price setting process. That alone will give a widow, a child, an estate executor, etc., a useful degree of playing field levelling against the unknowing or the unscrupulous who would otherwise cry "fake", "retempered", "iron tsunagi for the nice mounting", or terms to that effect. The actual setting of value is of course a step beyond that. The shinsa can be thought of as almost a necessary condition in the selling process, particularly when the seller has little personal knowledge; but it is hardly a sufficient condition for value determination. The different shinsa organizations all have slightly different criteria themselves and their relative staus and competitiveness changes over time, but they all are very much better than nothing. For a fairly recent criteria set of the NBTHK check Danny Massey's site, which I believe is nihontocraft.com. It is quite surprising how many collectors fail to take even the most minimal steps to advise their families about what they own and what those things are worth, however when they do the shinsa papers can be invaluable starting points. Arnold F.

Hello: I have been lurking around the Message Board and this topic is both important and interesting, so here goes my two cents worth. I thought several posts quite interesting and useful, particularly those of Mike Chris and Mike, all of which hardly needs repeating, however there are other considerations. Some sort of authentication has long been recognized in Japan, just witness the importance of the Hon'ami family for hundreds of years, though the general proliferation of origami type authentication hardly predates the 20th Century. Papers are a sort of control for the collector and the dealer, and hopefully a confirmation of one's own study. The shinsa process outside Japan is really quite new, dating as it does to no earlier than that of the NBTHK in Dallas in the early 1970s as far as I know. With the widespread access to good publications with well authenticated oshigata and photographs I believe that most collectors with five or so years into the game, can do a fair first approximation on commonly seen signed blades as to whether or not the mei is right. The rub comes with unsigned swords. To judge such swords really takes an almost encyclopedic fund of knowledge that can be applied in a systematic way. That way is really equivalent to the kantei process and that is a skill in very scarce supply among non-Japanese based collectors. To merely tell a koto from a shinto sword is a genuine challenge; the period, the school, the maker, to say nothing of quality, whether it has been retempered etc., is no easy task. Kantei is the key to efficient use of the hundreds of clues all unsigned swords display, and how many collectors outside Japan have ever participated in such an exercise? Shinsa are very valuable activities and the market test is their own frequency in recent years which demonstrates that. Several have pointed out that the resulting paper to the lucky submitter is of value if one wants to sell. Of course that is true, but I believe that an even more important consideration is that it helps put an aggregate value on one's collection. We are only the temporary custodians of these wonderful pieces of steel and when the grim reaper does arrive, the swords no longer belong to the collector and the estate usually must face the task of dispersal. Swords are tangible assets, easy to buy and hard to sell for the collector, and often next to impossible for the estate, and by that I mean sell at a price that is reasonably close to their true value. It is hard to think of any economic commodity that is more illiquid, more heterogeneous, more difficulty to store or transport without damage, or more difficult for the uninitiated to value. To most non-collectors a fine koto o-suriage Tokubetsu Juyo in shirasaya would hardly look as attractive as a Chu (no) Jo saku shinshinto sword in nice bright mounts. It is for the above considerations, and more, that papers are of real use in helping to determine the value of that part of an estate. Dealers can play an important role in the whole process, but at least the paper is an important device in the field leveling process. Arnold F.