Please help my English

[kunitaro]

刀剣鑑定で　最も大切なことは　作者を当てることではなく　「作位の上下」「出来の良し悪し」を見極めることです。

「上作」「上出来」とは、傷がなく見栄えがすることではありません。

Could you translate this above ?

I would to like to say exact meaning without misunderstanding.

 

Especially,

「作位 (Saku-i)」

and

「出来 (Deki)」

What is the best way to translate those?

 

Please help me for my English study.

[k morita]

Hi,

Maybe i'm wrong. :lol:

 

sakui-----rating of the art work(sword).

deki------composed,---composed mainly of midareba in nioi deki.

[Bugyotsuji]

OK< I'll have a go at a more general translation!

 

For Japanese sword appreciation, the most important thing is not to get the name of the smith, but to be able to discern the difference between superior and inferior craftsmanship, ie to what extent the smith achieved excellence.

 

Superior craftsmanship and excellent results are not just the lack of flaws and a pretty appearance.

[george trotter]

Ah, you beat me Kiyoshi sama,(edit to add...and Piers too!)

I am a little different...(but maybe wrong).

 

sakui no shoka/joge = high/low construction

 

deki no yoishi waruishi = good/bad workmanship

 

I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

[Bugyotsuji]

George Sama, Morita Sama, Kunitaro Sama, I hedged my translation by using the word 'general'. The question is a good excercise and I have gone away to learn more about the finer meanings of Sakui and Deki. Many thanks.

[kunitaro]

Thak you all.

It is helpful !

 

作(construction/art work/) and 位(Rank, Rating, Level)

This come to 上作　中作　下作, however, Book is showing/saying Saijo-saku,Jojo-saku,Jo-saku,Chu-saku, Not ge-saku, but, there is a Gesaku.

 

出来 Deki is also related to the quality of workman ship,

we say that 出来の良い (deki no yoi = well done)

or

上品な出来(Jouhin na deki)

激しい出来(Hageshii deki)

 

To recognize 作位(saku-i) and 出来(deki)of the blade and hatarakis without checking a books, is an original purpose of Kantei Study.

There is all different qualities of Nie, Nioi, kinsuji or Utsuri etc..

 

Anybody who understand, please explain for newbies.

 

When you understand this, we can go to "Waht's a Kantei Point".

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14500

[cabowen]

Thak you all.

It is helpful !

 

作(construction/art work/) and 位(Rank, Rating, Level)

This come to 上作　中作　下作, however, Book is showing/saying Saijo-saku,Jojo-saku,Jo-saku,Chu-saku, Not ge-saku, but, there is a Gesaku.

 

出来 Deki is also related to the quality of workman ship,

we say that 出来の良い (deki no yoi = well done)

or

上品な出来(Jouhin na deki)

激しい出来(Hageshii deki)

 

To recognize 作位(saku-i) and 出来(deki)of the blade and hatarakis without checking a books, is an original purpose of Kantei Study.

There is all different qualities of Nie, Nioi, kinsuji or Utsuri etc..

 

Anybody who understand, please explain for newbies.

 

When you understand this, we can go to "Waht's a Kantei Point".

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14500

 

 

Perhaps originally the purpose of kantei was to judge the quality of the workmanship in a blade. Certainly this would have been of primary importance to an actual user, not a collector. Today, however, nyusatsu kantei/shijo kantei, as they are practiced in Japan, are all about identifying the smith with little to no mention or explanation of actual quality.

[kunitaro]

however, nyusatsu kantei/shijo kantei, as they are practiced in Japan, are all about identifying the smith with little to no mention or explanation of actual quality.

 

Because, They use only super master pieces for Nyusatsu-kantei.

so, very clear activities to recognized school or smith.

and same time, people could see the Quality level as well.

 

When you go home, looking normal quality blade. doesn't fit with Study...

 

When you studying with only book, we will never understand 出来 or 作位

without understanding those, Kantei or Quality discussion will be confused. I think.

 

However,,,,, This discssion should go another thread ??

"Whats a Kantei Point"

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14500

[cabowen]

 

Because, They use only super master pieces for Nyusatsu-kantei.

so, very clear activities to recognized school or smith.

and same time, people could see the Quality level as well.

 

When you go home, looking normal quality blade. doesn't fit with Study...

 

When you studying with only book, we will never understand 出来 or 作位

without understanding those, Kantei or Quality discussion will be confused. I think.

 

However,,,,, This discssion should go another thread ??

"Whats a Kantei Point"

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=14500

 

I agree that they use only representative swords by upper level smiths but surely there are differences in quality between say, a shinshinto by Chounsai Tsunatoshi and a koto Rai Kunitoshi. In all the kantei kai meetings I attended, I rarely heard any discussion about identifying qualitative differences as you have mentioned as the original point of kantei. In fact, one of the few sources of discussion of these sort of differences comes in the writing of Albert Yamanaka....

 

Because most people have little opportunity to see the types of swords used in kantei meetings, it would be perhaps more useful for people to learn the difference between poor, good, and better swords, rather than focus on who made them.

[Jean]

Chris,

 

I agree with your last paragraph. One must be able to distinguih the quality of a blade whatever his kanteisho, this come first well before knowing the name of the smith, same for the wine

[kunitaro]

same for the wine

Exactly

[b.hennick]

I would like to remind you of this thread on kantei for quality:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12083&hilit=+kantei+for+quality

[Jean]

Thanks Barry for the reminder, I remember it well as well as Chris comment at the bottom of the first page to which I fully concurr.

 

In Art field, being able to spot/find/make out quality is the first thing to learn or how can one spot a gem among mud?

[cabowen]

Once one learns to identify quality, one is freed from the need of hand holding....

 

Someone wrote me and asked for a list of good gendai smiths they should collect. I replied that it would be far more productive to learn what quality looks like, then a list becomes rather meaningless (learn how to fish, so to speak). I do know of several collectors who have built their entire collections by crossing names off of a list. I wonder if they would recognize a good sword without their list???

[nagamaki - Franco]

Once one learns to identify quality, one is freed from the need of hand holding....

 

Amen, and, it is not necessary to own a quality sword in order to be able to identify a quality sword, only to have the opportunity to study quality swords. There is at least one person who regularly attends sword shows that goes around trying to see if he can find a gem in the mud on the tables without buying any swords, and often does. The quality issue is also one reason why collectors seem to get stuck forever at one level of sword collecting without ever graduating to the next level.

[Bugyotsuji]

It amazes me to hear of top-end dealer sword auctions where the dealer picks up a sword with the tsuka still on and glances at it for a few seconds before making the decision to bid or not. They will do this with countless swords all through the day.

[kusunokimasahige]

This shows you that quality of workmanship is (often) more important than the Nakago or the name on it.

 

KM

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

I agree that they use only representative swords by upper level smiths but surely there are differences in quality between say, a shinshinto by Chounsai Tsunatoshi and a koto Rai Kunitoshi

 

I don't think we can compare them. Each smith, each school, each era, has its own criteria of quality. A koto saijo saku smith must be compared uniquely with its contemporaries.

[Bugyotsuji]

Chatting with a friend who knows far more than I about Japanese blades and he suggested, as mentioned above, that Saku-i is connected with i-retsu/kurai-dori, ranking of a smith's work, from Sai-jo-saku downwards.

 

Deki on the other hand is to do with Kansei-do, completion, or all-round balance and finish, considering the Sugata, the Jigane and the Hamon.

[cabowen]

I don't think we can compare them. Each smith, each school, each era, has its own criteria of quality. A koto saijo saku smith must be compared uniquely with its contemporaries.

 

 

 

 

So quality is relative? Maybe you should read Yamanaka for a different opinion. How many Juyo koto compared to Shinshinto?

 

Why the movement in Shinshinto to recreate Koto?

 

Most experts I have spoken with have said that swordmaking reached its peak in the koto period.

[Jacques]

Mister Bowen,

 

I cannot understand how you can compare two smiths separated by several centuries and using different material, different technique etc. What can lead you saying one is better than the other ?

 

Most experts I have spoken with have said that swordmaking reached its peak in the koto period.

 

True, but it's only a generality. You cannot apply that statement on individualities

 

A smith makes sword which are not all at the same level of quality, you will have average ones (for his proper level) and masterpieces, once i was lucky enough to handle together two swords by the nidai Tadatsuna. Inami san was kind enough to explain me why one is tokubetsu juyo and the other only tokubetsu hozon, the reason is easy to find. the first is largely better in quality than the second. . Not easy to see for me without explanations.

[cabowen]

Swords are generally judged by their craftsmanship and their artistic merits. Koto masterwork, especially those from late Kamakura, have been considered the peak of the craft/art, due to both the supreme quality of workmanship exhibited by the best smiths and because of their artistic merits.

 

As you have said, materials and techniques thereafter are different. Most experts say that the craft declined when smiths started using "mass produced" steel and the country was at peace (relatively speaking). This is rather common knowledge and why Masahide started the movement in Shinshinto times to rediscover the methods used during the koto period to improve the quality of swords.

 

Quality is not relative- we don't see different Juyo requirements for swords of different periods. Good is good, regardless of when it was made, but the best of Koto has always been considered better than the best of what came after. The best of koto is always more expensive than the best of shinto, etc.

 

Swords were all made to do the same thing, thus we can certainly compare them across periods and thus make absolute statements like the best of koto is better than the best of shinshinto, regardless of materials, etc.

 

Like violins; the best are still considered those made in Italy in the 17th and 18th centuries. Surely materials and construction has changed. We can still compare those made during all periods because their intended purpose is the same and because the basis for evaluation is the same.

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

Mister Bowen,

 

As usual you digress, i said :

A koto saijo saku smith must be compared uniquely with its contemporaries

 

Please answer this question, How can you determine Hankei (for example) is better than Ko Bizen Yoshikane ? The first is rated Sai-jô saku the second only Jojô-saku. What are your basis ?

 

 

Edit,

 

Very very interesting :

 

Fujishiro's system is contextual2, and this is an important thing to keep in mind. He refers a smith's ability to those in his school and time period and tradition. It is a rating of "where he stands", so a smith who (for example) may have a Jo saku (superior) rating and was part of one of the top schools may be of higher skill than a Sai-jo (supreme) smith of a lesser time period and school. Consider it the same way you would a B student at Harvard vs. an A student at the local community college. Knowing the context of these ratings and the average skill of the time periods and schools is important in understanding the significance of the rating given.

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/ratings.html

[Eric H]

How can you determine Hankei (for example) is better than Ko Bizen Yoshikane ? The first is rated Sai-jô saku the second only Jojô-saku

However, the statement by Chris Bowen is absolutely correct and in accordance with what is teached by renowned experts.

 

Eric

[runagmc]

There is a difference between comparing 2 craftsmen (bodies of work), and comparing 2 swords.

 

The restrictions/advantages of the time period and school in which a craftsman worked have to be taken into account when comparing 2 bodies of work - but when comparing 2 swords side by side, superior quality is superior quality... regardless of the restrictions/ advantages under which the craftsman worked.

[Danocon]

Sadly-the young samurai knelt next to his fallen friend. Gently he removed the hilt of the broken sword from the dead man's grasp-remembering the day he had acquired it.

The name on the tang had not served him well. He had pointed out the various flaws to his brother in arms but he saw only the clothing it wore.

 

Good is good gentlemen.No matter who made it- Last week or 800 years ago.

 

This is a fine and informative discussion. Quality has to be the first and foremost point.

As Jean said-If the wine tastes like shiite what matters the vintage?

[cabowen]

Hi,

 

Mister Bowen,

 

As usual you digress, i said:

 

"A koto saijo saku smith must be compared uniquely with its contemporaries"

 

Please answer this question, How can you determine Hankei (for example) is better than Ko Bizen Yoshikane ? The first is rated Sai-jô saku the second only Jojô-saku. What are your basis ?

 

The basis is quality of workmanship and artistic merit. You don't compare with ratings from a book but with the swords in hand.

 

Why don't you try this Jacques: hold the best Norishige in hand and compare to the best Hankei attempt at copying Norishige. I will take the original.

 

 

 

 

 

Very very interesting :

 

"Fujishiro's system is contextual2, and this is an important thing to keep in mind. He refers a smith's ability to those in his school and time period and tradition. It is a rating of "where he stands", so a smith who (for example) may have a Jo saku (superior) rating and was part of one of the top schools may be of higher skill than a Sai-jo (supreme) smith of a lesser time period and school. Consider it the same way you would a B student at Harvard vs. an A student at the local community college. Knowing the context of these ratings and the average skill of the time periods and schools is important in understanding the significance of the rating given."

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/ratings.html

 

I am not talking about ratings I am talking about absolute quality. Ratings are generalizations. Though your quote illustrates my point (and should answer your original question):

 

"so a smith who (for example) may have a Jo saku (superior) rating and was part of one of the top schools may be of higher skill than a Sai-jo (supreme) smith of a lesser time period and school."

[Jacques]

Hi,

 

"so a smith who (for example) may have a Jo saku (superior) rating and was part of one of the top schools may be of higher skill than a Sai-jo (supreme) smith of a lesser time period and school."

 

And it is why you can't compare two smiths of different era (Koto vs Shinshinto for example). Would you say that Bizen is better than Soshue ? I don't think.

 

To conclude, it is just relative and this is my last word.

 

If you want, as you like, having the last word :D

[cabowen]

Of course we can compare. It is done all the time. Suit yourself....