Niō Kiyotsuna

[Swordlook]

http://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-nio-kiyutsuna-2

 

I’m an neophyte… but this sword appears very nice. Having a hard time finding a lot of information on Niō Kiyotsuna. Anyone have a good place to start?

 

Thanks,

[Shugyosha]

Hi Ken,

 

The problem is it depends on which Nio Kiyotsuna you're talking about as there are a number of smiths in Suo province using the same name. A further issue is that Aoi's description says "late Kamakura period" and so it also depends on how late is late. This is from Markus Sesko:

 

 KIYOTSUNA (清綱), 1st gen., Genkyū (元久, 1204-1206), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), called Niō Saburō (二王三郎), according to tradition the son of Kiyozane (清真) and the grandson of Kiyohira (清平), but this does not match with his handed-down active period of Genkyū because Kiyozane worked around Kenchō (建長, 1249-1256) and Kiyohira around Bun´ō (文応, 1260-1261), some sources list Kiyotsuna as actual founder of the Niō school, a legend says that the name of the school goes back to a tachi of Kiyotsuna which was once used at a temple fire in Suō´s Kizakimura (木崎村) to cut the chain which locked-up the gate of the Niō-dō (二王堂) so that the precious Deva statue (Niō-son, 二王尊・仁王尊) could be rescued, but Tanobe Michihiro assumes that the name of the school rather goes back to the Niho fief (仁保) which was located in the Yoshiki district (吉敷) of Suō province, the blades show noticeable Yamato-influence, i.e. a suguha mixed with ko-gunome, hotsure and sunagashi in the style of the Shikkake school in combination with a (not pure) masame-hada and takanoha-yasurime, the subdued and hazy nioiguchi has something in common with Kyūshū-mono, jō-saku ◎

 

KIYOTSUNA (清綱), 2nd gen., Jōei (貞永, 1232-1233), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), first name Ushisaburō (丑三郎), he signed the character for “tsuna” also in the variant (縄), his handed-down active period is doubtful, suguha, ko-gunome

 

KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Bun´ei (文永, 1264-1275), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), called Niō Saburō (二王三郎), it is said that he came originally from Chikuzen province, there exists a tachi with the date signature of the second year of Bun´ei (1265), it is likely that this entry refers actually to the 1st gen. Kiyotsune because also the first names match, the mentioned tachi has a koshizori, a thick kasane, a broad shinogi-ji and a high shinogi, the jigane is a dense ko-itame mixed with masame, irregular so-called herakage (箆影) appear, this is a kind of utsuri which runs over the yakigashira into the ji, the hamon is a suguha, a suguha with ko-ashi, hotsure and sunagashi, or a gunome mixed with ko-midare, always in ko-nie-deki, he chiselled the lowermost stroke of the left radical (氵) of the character for “Kiyo” (清) in a perpendicular manner and the first and third strokes of the right radical (青) – i.e. the uppermost horizontal strokes of the upper part – in an interrupted manner, that means chiselled from both sides towards the central vertical stroke, at the character for “tsuna” (綱), the fourth, fifth and sixth strokes – i.e. the lowermost strokes of the left radical (糸) – are all chiselled from bottom to top

 

KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Einin (永仁, 1293-1299), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱)

 

KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Gentoku (元徳, 1329-1331), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), he signed the character for “tsuna” also as (繩), deep sori, chū-kissaki, ko-itame-nagare mixed with masame, suguha with ko-gunome-ashi in ko-nie-deki which tends to a slightly undulating notare

 

KIYOTSUNA (清綱), Kenmu (建武, 1334-1338), Suō – “Kiyotsuna” (清綱), “Bōshū Kuga-jū Kiyotsuna” (防州玖珂住清綱), “Niō Kiyotsuna” (二王清綱), he lived in Kuga (玖珂), there exists a tantō with the date signature of the third year of Kenmu (建武, 1336)

 

There may be something in the paperwork that helps to tie it down but neither my eyesight nor my Japanese is good enough for it to be obvious. 

 

Lovely sword though...

 

Best,

John

 

P.S. Some info here on Shoshin.com - http://www.sho-shin.com/smiths1c.htm

[Swordlook]

Hi John,

 

Thanks for the reply and the provided info. This was one of my problems also as the listing seems to be very vague in comparison to others on his site. Not sure if that’s on purpose or just in haste to get it listed. It would appear to be a rare sword no matter which Kamakura Kiyotsuna smith produced it. The sword seems to have had a very good steward over the years as it seems in very good condition (possibly a little on the short side?).

 

Ken

[paulb]

I am not sure if it is because I have been told at some point or I have just assumed but I tend to regard late Kamakura as post 1300 more specifically 1310 to 1334. I would assume this is a 14th century piece.

I agree it looks to be a very fine sword. Nio is another of the satelite schools that seems to be greatly underated by much of the sword world, but there are staggeringly good examples of their work extant.

[Shugyosha]

Hi Ken,

 

Maybe it's simply them being prudent with their description: if the specific smith isn't mentioned in the paperwork, then perhaps they are reluctant to make a representation as to which it might be. 

 

The kasane suggests that it is very healthy and looking at the pictures there is no suggestion of kitae ware, o hada or shin tetsu showing. The possible detractors are, as you say that it is a little short of the magic 70cm, that it isn't a mainline school (though see Paul's comment on this above) and perhaps that it wasn't passed at one of the early Juyo shinsa... but it is Juyo Token and I would suggest that quality wise it compares very favourably with this Juyo Yamato Shizu blade for around the same money: 

 

http://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2015/15772-2.jpg

 

John

[Swordlook]

You are probably correct that it isn’t attributed to a specific smith. I assumed that since they mentioned Nio Kiyutsuna and not just Sue-Nio that it was. Just a newbie here but the Nio seems to be tighter, brighter and more consist to me than the Yamoto Sizu (possibly just the pictures). If you don’t mind me asking a couple follow up questions?

 

· What years are consider to be the hard or best years for Juyo papers?

 

· Possibly a big question but what are the best or mainline schools?

 

Ken

[paulb]

Ken

I am not sure there were good or bad years for Juyo papers and if there were there are a lot of different opinions.

 

There are those that think the earlier Juyo shinsa's say between 1960s and early 70's were more demanding. therefore the papers are of more value as an opinion.

 

I think those of the late 70's /early 80s suffered by association with the scandals of the time although Juyo papers were only issued by the Tokyo head office and the lower level papers that had problems orignated from branch offices.

There is ongoing discussion regarding whether current papers are as high vlaue as earlier ones, whether the shinsa is as accurate or inconsistant.

 

The bottom line is that they represent the best indicator currently available as to the authenticity and quality of a blade and their value is recognised by the majority of commercial dealers.

However just because its Juyo doesnt mean you will like it. As you will see said often here buy the sword not the paper. (You will also pay a premium on a blade with a Juyo paper compared to one of equal quality but without.)

 

Regarding which are the best of the mainline schools it is not a big question it is an impossible one. The choice of "best" after you reach a certain level becomes totally subjective. So by best are you considering the aesthetically most pleasing, the best functional piece or the most commercial?

The most popular mainline koto schools I believe to be:

Bizen Ichimonji and Osafune

Yamashiro Rai and Awataguchi

Soshu

Yamato Taima

Yamato Shizu.

But there are many others of equal (well almost) merit and you need to judge each sword by its merits.

Sorry I doubt this is much help. Unfortunately there is no easy answer and no substitute to looking at as many swords as you can and then deciding what you like!

regards

Paul

[Ron STL]

I recall seeing this sword listed on AOI and did admire it very much. Only drawback perhaps, it is a little short. (Amazing how picky we collectors get!) I own a similar mumei sword attributed to Kiyotsuna but it never reached Juyo. When first found I asked Tanobe about what it might be. What puzzled me was it showed a mixture of Yamato and Yamashiro characteristics. He initially said "at least Nambokucho" and possibly Nio.den. After polish and shinsa it was attributed to Nio Kiyotsuna of late Kamakura. It failed to reach Juyo and was resubmitted again the next year, and again failed. Tanobe insisted it is Juyo quality and that I should wait a few years and submit again. At my age, I'll not worry about it because the sword is beautiful, Juyo of Tokubetsu Hozon. To enjoy the sword one must definitely study the jigane and the hamon. Otherwise it appears to be a lovely shape, but having a quiet hamon. There is so much more to be enjoyed if you study in various lights. Which Kiyotsuna made it? I was always happy to consider it the late Kamakura smith of good rating. I always felt good that Tanobe liked it very much, a great indorsement. The one on AOI may be equally beautiful or perhaps even better considering it was judged Juyo. If you buy it, just enjoy it for what it is. My two cents worth. Token Bijutsu English edition fold-out features a Nio tachi with mei that will be helpful, if you have this publication.

Ron STL

[Nihonto Chicken]

The most popular mainline koto schools I believe to be:

Bizen Ichimonji and Osafune

Yamashiro Rai and Awataguchi

Soshu

Yamato Taima

Yamato Shizu.

 

No Hosho Yamato?  Masame all the way!!!  Okay, I'll be quiet now.  

[paulb]

Hi Rick

I dont disagree with you. I think the problem with Hosho and indeed Awataguchi work is that examples are extremely rare. There is a fine balance between rarity adding value and something being so rare it slips below the radar. Ichimonji are magnificent (if you like Bizen work) and relatively plentiful so they have high visibility in the market. Hosho work is fanatastic but examples are so rarely seen the general market has trouble becoming enthusiatic about it.

More to do with the psychology of the market than the quality of the product.

[Darcy]

Very exceptional exception to my no posting policy to clear a couple things up.

 

0. Hosho is awesome.

 

1. There are weaker Juyo sessions absolutely, peaking at Juyo 26 where anyone and their dog could get through Juyo and things like the turtle in my profile photo here passed Juyo. There are 419 items in volume 26 and these days about 80-90 pass. In the early days the first sessions passed 30 items. It is not solid logic to conclude this means any particular item in 26 is weak, but it does mean that the weakest of the 26 + friends sessions would not pass prior to this and would not pass today. It is opinion yes, but it's a very commonly held opinion at top levels. Quote: "You have to be careful." There is nothing detrimental about Juyo 48, the questionable stuff is found +/- 3 sessions centered around 26. There is a really nice sword that was on a US website for a while that passed Juyo just after these sessions and repeatedly failed passing during these sessions. This should tell you something else, that the requirements to pass got stricter and the nonsense stopped and a blade got through that could not get through before. You have to sit and meditate on this stuff. Refusal to believe that there are any differences ignores the fact that scandals and skill ebbed and flowed over the almost 60 years they have been doing this stuff. There is still no shortage of great blades to pass but the proportions of things that have been submitted and are passing has been changing due to availability and change in thinking. Yamato blades in the first 10 sessions were only 6% of what passed, during 26 it was 13%, and after they reverted back to 10% or so. The discrepancy is from borderline stuff being let through as well as a changing opinion of Yamato blades. Shinto as well as a percentage peaked around 26 and a lot of stuff that went through I have trouble believing would pass now. A lot of Chu-jo types of things here and from the Muromachi period. There are three mumei blades that are attributed to Kozori that passed Juyo: session 26, 31 and 34. I have my doubts if we will ever see another pass. Kozori is about as weak as you can get in the Bizen tradition. Almost 30 years since one went through and those are all clustered within 9 years of each other. This shows some flexibility that is not there anymore and was not there before this. 

 

2. Nio is pretty good stuff but off the beaten path and not so popular. This is a nicely made sword. There is more wrong with it than length, it's a touch short but no big deal. The big detraction is that the horimono are ato bori. When stuff goes up at an attractive price more people need to ask themselves if it's just a great deal, special price, just for you ... or if there is a logical explanation. It can be either but usually it's the second. In this case, you tick off the marks... a bit short, ato bori, unpopular school, 

 

3. The blade is late Kamakura / Early Nanbokucho. A lot of early listings for smiths are apocryphal and we don't see the work anymore. When there are no signed examples for legendary smiths the NBTHK doesn't use them as a target for attribution unless there is a tradition to refer to (Sadamune, Go, etc.) for the template. I can't read all the setsumei but it talks about the earliest work being from Bunei (1264). They generally will be a bit more conservative then unless the work is a slam dunk match and put it to one of the later smiths as the early stuff is very rare. There is fungibility when it comes to some smith names. They stay vague on purpose, because a line may make similar work and you kind of need to know from context if they're using a name to refer to more than one smith or if they are narrowing it down to a certain smith. Sometimes it's not exactly settled if there were multiple generations or one. I don't know a lot about Nio. One thing to take home from this kind of attribution that I keep trying to tell people though is that the attribution is a quality assessment. You can't get a crappy sword to go through as Masamune, it needs to be in keeping with the tradition that Masamune is a great smith. If a sword is attributed to Yamato Shizu you need to figure out from context if it's a school attribution or an attribution to Kaneuji. If it's in the style of Kaneuji but the skill is not there then they will make it a school attribution. If it's the highest level of skill for the school they can settle it in the hands of Kaneuji. When a Nio school blade is being narrowed down to one of the better smiths of the school it means that it's one of the better available works from the school. So this is what they're trying to say primarily when they say Kiyotsuna here. Too many people get wrapped up in thinking that attributions are unquestionably opinions on an exact science. It's not. You need to really take home that the qualities of the blade will pigeonhole it into certain attributions which make sense. If you pick up a blade that looks like Nagamitsu in some regards but it's really bad, it doesn't make sense to say Nagamitsu even though you can check off the things you saw and compare it against Nagayama's text. The very most important thing is that when you pick it up that you should understand that the quality first and foremost is consistent with the reputation and tradition of Nagamitsu. So you can say Kagemitsu and it's OK or Sanenaga to some extent and you're on the right path. A Kamakura shape blade without Kamakura quality is just never going to go to a good Kamakura smith even if it will go to any Kamakura smith. So you should take this home when they take a school attribution like Nio and narrow it down to a good smith. It means upper level quality for this school. Don't get bent out of shape trying to figure out if it's 3rd or 4th generation because this is not something that can be known and even the attempt to try to sort that out will merit a chuckle if you look behind the curtains. When you get more into the core schools then it starts being easier to be specific, an example being Awataguchi Kuniyoshi, where the kantei points are very clearly defined and they can hit that nail right on the head should they want. 

 

Think back to the Kozori I just mentioned. Kozori is just not competitive skill wise with the main Osafune line. Some of these get Juyo but it's not equivalent to Juyo Kanemitsu. If they attribute a mumei blade to Kozori it means "not as good as Kanemitsu" because if it was as good as Kanemitsu then it would probably be Kanemitsu or at least attributed to Kanemitsu. But the signed Kozori work is just not as good as mainline Osafune work so this is why they set up these buckets for the unsigned work to fall into. So when you have an unsigned one passing Juyo it's either the world's best Kozori or it is a temporary lapse of standards. If it is the world's best Kozori then they would probably put it to one of the Kozori smiths of high reputation but there are not really a lot of Kozori smiths with high reputation... though someone will be better than the rest. They are for the most part fungible and an argument over which Kozori smith made a particular mumei blade is an argument without meaning as it's not possible to determine and there is no meaning to choosing one over the other. 

 

But if someone hands you a Kozori and you say Nagamitsu or they hand you a Nagamitsu and you say Kozori, even though they are both Bizen tradition blades with similar features in many levels the answer becomes really wrong because it missed the mark entirely on the skill question. The whole sugata thing as a primary classification is not entirely reliable as there are sugata and fumbari and so on that really vary a lot through the years and an outlier can always fall into another period. The archetypal stuff like a Chogi with identical width all the way through the blade and a 10cm kissaki is the kind of thing that everyone needs to nail but the kind of generic shape could go to any period and some Muromachi stuff looks just like Kamakura. 

 

 

The skill though and the construction of the blade in terms of its presentation and quality is what really makes them stand out. Nosada copied Yamashiro but nobody should mix up Nosada's copies with the Yamashiro masterworks because he didn't have the steel or the technique. He was just a genius and simulated the appearance of what they did. He didn't know how they did it but he just got some training and/or reverse engineered it as close as it can get. But by his time the Yamashiro smiths couldn't make Yamashiro work like the old smiths, this was lost in the Nanbokucho when the primary Yamashiro smiths were all making Soshu blades. 

 

A big take home that people need to focus on more is "what are they trying to say?" and to understand the limitations inherent with not having a time machine.

 

This does remind me of seeing two people react to a signed Shintogo Kunimitsu tachi which is ubu and the signature covered up, and would probably go Bunkazai if it was submitted. Both of these people are enthusiasts and one posts here. The one who posts here looked at me with a big smile on his face and said, "Awataguchi!" The other one looked at the sword a long time and shrugged and handed it to me and just went to look at other stuff. With him it didn't even register as anything special. The first guy has a great answer because though it is not the right tradition, Shintogo is anchored in Awataguchi but moreover the skill level is dead on. If you say Awataguchi you're saying, "this is the best" in a certain way and in a certain style. And Shintogo would be OK to say on an Awataguchi because you're not so far off on the style but importantly you're saying that you perceive the quality as being capable of only the best smiths to make. If an ubu Shintogo Kunimitsu fails to register any impression on you then it means probably you have to study more. 

 

Anyway this is the most important take home of looking at swords, knowing how good it is, and what you need to focus on when they make an attribution. 

 

Back to not commenting.

[BIG]

Welcome back...

 

Best Regards

[Brian]

Well, even the scarce occasional comment is incredibly interesting and enlightening.

Thanks for taking the time to share and enlighten us.

Like the turtle in your avatar, if you should decide to stick your head out again anytime soon, I am sure we would all love to hear a brief account of your recent DTI experience and purchases. Having heard of a few of the items, it would benefit all to hear about the DTI from a serious buyer's point of view.

[paulb]

Darcy

thank you as always for your detailed view and information. It is very helpful

I had not heard of the 26th Juyo being especially weak. I assume this is not related specifically to the scandals that effected lower level papers in branch offices but just seems to be the result of lowered or inconsistant standards at that time.

My reason for being pedantic is one was related to dishonesty but the other a matter of competence.

Regarding Kunimitsu I wasin the British Museum last week and one of the few swords on display in the Japanese gallery was a Kunimitsu tanto ex Compton collection. It was very simply labelled with no reference to the importance of the smith but it absolutely sttod out from all around it. I stood for a very long time admiring it. it is a truly stunning work

regards

Paul

[Kronos]

I went to the British museum last year and agree the kunimitsu stood out but wouldn't of been able to say why back then.

[Swordlook]

Darcy –

 

Thank you for breaking you silence as I have enjoyed reading this post as well as (I think) all of your archived posts (a few times mind you). You should setup an email or web base service to educate newbies... Kind of like a quasi-online Kantei service. Either people could submit sword pictures or you could pick them yourself. Charge a fee to tell them what you see.

 

When I first started trading stocks I signed up to Jim Cramer’s Action Alerts Plus website where you could watch him trade stocks. He would send out detailed emails educating you on why he was buying certain stocks, what he was looking for and just his overall market theory. Things like that are sometimes very hard to get out of books.

 

Can’t hurt a guy for trying…????

 

Ken

[Jean]

Just to add, my Ryokai passed Juyo on the 24th session. This session is one of the weakest mentioned by Darcy. I asked for a sayagaki from Tanobe sensei. It came back with this lengthy sayagaki, it seems that it was a good juyo. One of my friend bought a much later Juyo Unji. It is a bit like Nio, not totally Bizen. Pristine work, really top quality, he asked for Tanobe sensei sayagaki. It came back with the following sayagaki. He forgot to write the juyo session in a column on the right side of the Province and the smith name. The sayaki is relatively short but both are chin chin cho cho. Surprising.... Is there a meaning or not...

[Darcy]

One followup and back to silence. 

 

1. The amount of effort Tanobe sensei makes directly corresponds to his feelings about the sword in question. If the sword inspires him to say a lot he will say a lot. If there is nothing to say then it goes down to the boilerplate. 

 

2. Over time his sayagaki have evolved. Earlier the brushstrokes in the writing are very rigid and presentation is mathematical. He has evolved into a more fluid presentation as he has more time in retirement and it's become more relaxed and more beautiful as a result. Earlier sayagaki we can't necessarily say if they're short that means something bad because earlier ones he stuck more to a plan. Now it's a bit more free-form. But you can say that short MAY mean nothing to say but long ALWAYS means a lot to say and that's a good thing. Jean's example is a longer one.

 

3. This confirms what I said above that because a blade passed in 26 or its friends it's not necessarily bad. If you tossed a signed Masamune into 26 it would pass just fine. But also if you threw some Kozori crap or a burned out Tegai it could pass too when it shouldn't have. There are a number of odd things in the Juyo items but they do not seem to accept random crap anymore. The turtle comes from 26, which also has a few scrolls. But so far no really strange crap from anywhere out of 26. 

 

Anyway I'm attaching a chart for your edification, which is lacking the first 10 sessions but is a work in progress. 26 has toso counted but its friends nearby have not. Counting begins again around 35 but you can see even without toso that there was a big spike building in the 70s in terms of volume. They cut this way back in the 30s. It started creeping up again in the 40s then they cut it back again and kept cutting back for a while until 57 then they relaxed a bit. This was around the time that everyone was bitching that they couldn't get any Juyo (they couldn't). There is nothing wrong with deferring a blade's decision for another day.  But once you let it in, then it's in. 

 

The last 5 shinsa by volume let in are very small compared to anything not in the first 10 sessions. This means it was hard to get yours through and competition was high. It means if you got rejected then and it's a good sword you should resubmit. 

 

I attribute this more to standards becoming loose and then becoming a bit loose again. They start not understanding so well what "Important Sword" means. With a smith like Omi Daijo if you let in one then there are an unending series that could come along and get in. They would accept like 4 or 5 in one year because they felt they were all good swords. Now if you submit 4 or 5 probably they might take the best one or none. 

 

2 or 4 can still pass at the same time but better be Kanemitsu or something like this. Or a school. 

 

Anyway if you actually get the books and read them and study them and think about them and break them down they can tell you a lot about this stuff. There is a lot of information in the numbers. 

 

By the way here is one simple stat which tells you a lot about how the judges think about swords.

 

Juyo Token by tradition:

 

35% Bizen

17% Shinto

16% Yamashiro

11% Yamato

11% Soshu

5% Mino

2% Shinshinto

1% Majiwarimono

 

These numbers need meditation. The stats grads out there will say this is nice but what percentage of the body of work that did not pass do these traditions represent. Very likely Shinto is the large majority, followed by Bizen, and Mino, then Yamato, Majiwarimono, Shinshinto, Yamashiro and Soshu coming up last.

 

Bizen has 500 years and so many branches of schools that produce stuff. By the nature of so much production you produce a lot of masterpiece works. Yamato also we don't know how far it goes back and a lot of those Kamakura Senjuin items might be older than that. And it spreads over many centuries. Yamashiro goes back a long time but they make blades for the court for the most part and there is no huge volume production. And Soshu is just an eyeblink in time. Bang, here, gone.

 

So the volume affects these numbers.

 

Considering the low production of Soshu and Yamashiro, their presence in the Juyo combining for 25% is quite high. Any particular Yamashiro or Soshu blade by a known smith that has good quality is very likely to pass Juyo. The same cannot be said of Bizen. It is definitely not true of Mino or Yamato. Mino with its large quantities and poor showing as a percentage shows they do not really hold them in high regard and it's no huge surprise. There's just exceptions in Mino. Shizu, Naoe Shizu, Kanemoto, Kanesada and a couple others.

 

It shows you it's hard as hell to get a Shinshinto through Juyo. Shinto is getting in because there are huge volumes to choose from and the masters that do exist made a large number of swords that survived compared to older swords. If you accept one nice Omi Daijo then the next guy can say well, his went through why not mine, mine is as good. This makes a huge problem. 

 

Shinto went down as a percentage after the 70s and the large number that exist with good quality show that they tightened standards up as well. 

 

At the end of the day, it's important to read your sayagaki, to read the zufu, there is all this information and people buy these things without ever translating or reading the comments. There are secrets in there to help you understand what you're looking at. Knowing what you have is based on that information. 

 

There is a blade out there with Kinzogan mei to Masamune and this blade passed Juyo Token so the paper says Juyo Token Masamune and someone can tell you this. And the price is somewhat cheap for Masamune. If you never read any deeper then you may make one set of decisions but if you read deeper the zufu says that this is not to be taken at face value, that the blade is high quality work of a good Soshu smith. The kinzogan was not removed because of preserving some history from the Edo period and to give some credit to the attributor. But Dr. Honma didn't buy it and he put that in the comments. This is why I always translate all this stuff when I list something, so that people can understand what they're dealing with. People need to read more of the so-so stuff to see how the NBTHK reacts when something is so-so like this not-Masamune Masamune. 

 

I had a Yukimitsu years ago and Dr. Honma said that the attribution needed to be studied but he would accept the old attribution to Yukimitsu. People need to read this stuff again and try to understand what he means. Yukimitsu is a backstop for top ranked Soshu work. So if a work is not Norishige, not Masamune, not Go, not Shintogo, and not Sadamune, but is top ranked Soshu work, this is one way of getting a Yukimitsu judgment. The other way of getting Yukimitsu is if Yukimitsu made the sword. So if Dr. Honma is saying a Yukimitsu judgment needs study he's saying that this may be one of the others, because Yukimitsu's style overlaps each of these other smiths to some degree... in reality and in interpretation. So a Shintogo like Yukimitsu, you need to really look hard to see if that might have arguments of Shintogo in it. A Masamune like Yukimitsu, you need to study as well. Shizu is another backstop to Masamune but not as much as Yukimitsu is. Depending on the style then you can get a group of Norishige and Go falling back to one type of Yukimitsu. Another group is Masamune and Sadamune, falling back to another type of Yukimitsu. And then Shintogo falls back to the Yamashiro like style of Yukimitsu. When they say they need to study a Yukimitsu judgment it means that it is possibly going to go to one of these guys and if you can interpret the style of what you have on hand you can then understand what Dr. Honma is thinking. If you have very fine jihada and an extended kissaki then he's thinking Sadamune most likely. More stuff about how you need to think about attributions and "what are they trying to say". Go and Norishige and Masamune all overlap a bit, and Shizu and Masamune overlap too as mentioned. When the work is really high grade to the point of confusing as it's showing elements of Go and Masamune its probably going to go to Norishige because this is more conservative than saying Go or Masamune which is extending yourself onto a limb. 

 

 

End note: DTI is like drinking from a firehose. Everyone sees something a bit different because items get selected and pulled before you can even get there. Items you are selecting and pulling others may not even see.

 

Robert Hughes had one of the best Shizu I ever saw. The best blade at the show was a Rai Kuniyuki that blew everything else away. Tokubetsu Juyo and mint condition. I bought it in the last 15 minutes after swinging a deal that opened up my capital. I was wealthy for about 200 seconds and then poor again. But the show really hurt my brain, a lot of things to look at and evaluate and some really nice stuff. I was able to swing some good deals and get good things for my site which will come soon. 

 

The sweet spot was with blades below Juyo. If you were able to locate some of these they were the equivalent of coming out of the woodwork over here. New finds and potentials to paper a lot higher and have not been submitted yet. 

 

Everyone should get to the DTI one time, like having to go to Mecca. Just to see it if not try to find a score. If you can get down on your hands and knees (which I do here) you can see the bottom shelf that other people will not see. Too old to bend over for the most part. I'm getting too fat to do so but that's another story. Anyway there was a Juyo Bijutsuhin Go Yoshihiro on a bottom shelf and probably 90% of people didn't even get to look at it. But you can find nice little bits of kodogu that other people passed over because they didn't get down and look. There's no reason why anyone can't walk out with a nice little souvenir. It's a ton of work trying to get through everything and I am not much of a socializer so I try to break free and do my searching. 

 

One thing that I think is useful for fittings guys is to go there and see the high quality fittings because there are not a lot of examples outside of Japan. Mint condition Goto Joshin mitokoromono: 6.5 million yen. Tokuju Goto Teijo mitokoromono in sold gold (no shakudo, just gold), 12 million yen. Shingendo has always a cabinet of fittings that are kind of centered around 5 million yen and would make you want to cry. It's good to see those things for the same reason for sword collectors to see Juyo by the top level smiths. It sets your expectations for what is truly good. Seeing them in person is never the same as seeing them in books. And books don't tell you the prices. 

 

After you look at a mitokoromono that will set you back $100,000 then one that is $7k seems suddenly very reasonably priced.

 

Anyway these were found there. Goto Teijo, both.

 

[Brian]

If you consider those are, what, 5 times? larger than in real life....you can begin to understand the quality and talent involved.