Need For Sayagaki?

[Gordon Sanders]

Hi guys,

 

I just received word that my Kinmichi katana received Tokubetsu Hozon

 

My Kinmichi wakizashi has both Tokubetsu Hozon and Yushu

 

What is the value of getting a sayagaki created for each, and does it matter who does it?

 

Thanks for your valuable opinions?

[Grey Doffin]

Hi Gordon,

Well done saya-gaki will probably add more value to your swords than the saya-gaki will cost you (as long as the swords are already in Japan) so I think it makes sense if you can get a qualified person to agree to do it.  Of course, it makes a difference who does it.  I know Mr. Tanobe, who recently retired from the NBTHK, does saya-gaki and does it very well.  I don't know who else does; anyone know?

I think a saya-gaki done by someone without Mr. Tanobe's standing in the community would be a mistake so choose wisely.

Grey

[Fuuten]

Considering the papers are already achieved, how much use is the sayagaki then?

Like if its unpapered but has sayagaki that can be confirmed to be authentic script by for instance someone like Mr. Tanobe, then i would see the real value surfacing, but now what more is there to learn? I'm wondering really how much value its adds in a case where a piece has more than one origami..

[DirkO]

Axel, it adds value because usually (not always, especially not on lower level swords) it gives more detail about the period and workmanship in the blade. I think it was Darcy who said that the more effort Tanobe-san puts in his sayagaki, the more valued the sword is. And if he puts chin-cho (or chin chin cho cho) well.... then you have a beauty. So let's say you have a sword with Hozon papers but Tanobe says chin chin cho cho, you can expect to pay Juyo price for that.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Highly recommend getting a sayagaki done by Mr. Tanobe, if possible. Mr. Tanobe's calligraphy alone is worth the price of submission, imo.  As already mentioned the additional information can be invaluable as it not only confirms the paper, but at times mentions additional detail about the sword from the eye and thoughts and knowledge of a real expert. An expert who has in all probability looked at not only many examples, but the very best examples of a particular smith's work. And how nice is it that that information is with the sword. 

[Jean]

Sorry Dirk but it s not exactly the case. Talking about Tanobe's sayagaki, Darcy said that the length of the sayagaki depended of his appreciation of the blade. It did not mean that a shorter one indicated inferior quality. I have posted 2 juyo sayagaki, one very long to Ryokai and one quite short to Unji, both are chin chin cho cho.. In other words, this expression means that in case of house on fire, these ones are to be saved first. All the last Juyo sayagaki I have seen were chin chin cho cho, whatever their length.

 

A Tanobe's sayagaki is a plus or an indication in case of an unpapered blade or hozon blade. Depending of its length it can get higher papers but no Juyo paper is guaranteed. I have never seen a non juyo blade with "chin chin cho cho" comment.

 

If the blade is already papered Th, it may indicate that the blade is of high quality but do not imply Juyo level...otherwise it is highly decorative.

[Gordon Sanders]

I did forget to mention that the katana that just received the TH also has a Fujishiro Kanteisho (if that means much)

[Jean]

It does not change anything

[DirkO]

Thanks for clarifying Jean, I stand corrected.

[BIG]

Gordon, some thoughts about...

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/16159-sayagaki/?hl=sayagaki

 

May be Darcy gives advice...

 

Best Regards

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Sayagaki tend to be value adding in several ways, and if papers are lost, stolen or destroyed and if Juyo is mentioned in the sayagaki, that can be very helpful in securing a re-confirmation of the original paper. If you have a Yushu saku blade then a sayagaki from either Yoshikawa sensei or Miyano sensei, depending on the issuing NTHK group, would be really nice. I don't know if either does sayagaki but the late Yoshikawa Koen did and they are quite wonderful.

 A market inference alone should point you to getting one as Tanobe sensei is quite busy with demand for them.

 By the way the Fujishiro kanteisho are much respected, at least by me.

 Arnold F.

[Darcy]

Sayagaki...

 

1. There is a nice utilitarian aspect of the fact that it lets you know what's inside if you have a good number of blades.

 

2. I think the calligraphy is beautiful and it looks very nice on display. If you're lucky enough to have koshirae and can put them on a stand side by side it's very complimentary. 

 

3. It's nice to have the thoughts and comments of Tanobe sensei on the blade as an independent observation and confirmation of what's inside over and above the papers. 

 

4. People do lose the papers. It's hard to lose a sayagaki. So it's kind of a backup plan for the sword if you're in it for the long haul, get hit by a bus, and your heirs end up with your swords and no descriptions of anything were left for them. 

 

5. It's another judgment and some people can and do disagree with a paper from time to time,  so if you have multiple judgments it does help to slam dunk the answer.

 

About his commentary... 

 

"Chin-chin cho-cho" is an ongoing topic.

 

The history on this is that some people started noticing a correspondence between this phrase and Juyo blades and started thinking it was a code. People always want to think there are short cuts. It started going around that this meant that it was somehow above Juyo. Bob Benson talked to him about this and I talked to him in person about it some years ago.

 

The "if your house is on fire, this is the thing you should grab before you leave" is indeed something he has said about chin-chin cho-cho. 

 

But he will say this is what Juyo means as well. 

 

He also says he likes to mix things up so if he doesn't say chin-chin cho-cho, it doesn't necessarily mean that the blade is inferior to one that does have it (though it could be). He will use various phrases or indicate through the commentary that the blade is special without referring to a stock phrase. I think that chin-chin cho-cho mostly comes into play when he thinks that the blade is a good Juyo, he's not sure what else to say other than to just state that it's very special,  and it also helps him balance out the two columns of commentary with just the right amount of space used.

 

He also has a particular taste in blades... he likes very much very dignified koto blades. So his tastes will run to Heian and Kamakura Yamashiro, Aoe, Ko-Bizen and Bizen Nagamitsu, Sanenaga, Kagemitsu... blades that are very noble. More flamboyant works I feel are not to his taste, he will prefer I think Yukimitsu working in Shintogo style to Yukimitsu in Masamune style. This is not so much from what he has said to me as what he has shown me that he is working on that are discoveries and how he has responded to blades that I've had in for sayagaki and shown him.

 

He also likes Shinto Satsuma.

 

But anyway back to chin-chin cho-cho, it needs to be understood as a rule of inclusion. If it's not there it doesn't mean anything necessarily but if it is there it means he is praising the blade. Chin-cho may be there and from what I can understand it's not necessarily different from chin-chin cho-cho though it's not doubled up. 

 

What I settled on after all the years was trying to understand the context of his comments. When I had a strong feeling that the blade was outstanding at Tokubetsu Hozon or Juyo and felt like it could go to Tokubetsu Juyo, and have brought him the blade it has come back with very long commentary and detail. In a couple of rare instances, he has run out of room on a full length blade and has gone to the other side of the saya. This has no chin-chin cho-cho or anything like that in it. But the effort and detail show his state of mind when viewing the blade.

 

On one of these he took pains to compare the blade to a specific Tokubetsu Juyo blade. If he is doing that, the effort and detail of thoughts I felt was a lot stronger than tossing in a chin-chin cho-cho at the end.  

 

In comparison, a "commercial" level Shinto work that was a decent blade but nothing special, just won't have the detail because he really doesn't have anything to say on it other than that it's authentic. If you send in a standard blade you're going to get back a standard statement that the blade is authentic, signed and comes from a certain period, and nothing more. 

 

Here are examples of his commentary and I think that it's good for understanding the subtext.

 

1.

 

This blade was once a signed naginata of this smith which was shortened in the Muromachi period by Osafune Sukesada who added this information via a kiritsuke-mei. Kunimune worked in a flamboyant choji-based hamon, and in a gentle suguha-based hamon mixed with some Aoe characteristics. This blade belongs to the latter category and matches very well a tachi of Kunimune which passed Tokubetsu Juyo at the tenth shinsa. The deki is excellent and the work is very tasteful.

 

2. 

 

It is shortened and unsigned. The period is Nanbokucho.

 

3.

 

The blade has an o-suriage nakago but which bears a kinpun-mei attribution to this smith by Hon’ami Tenrai. Tenrai was an expert from the Mito branch of the Hon’ami family who was active from the Meiji to the Showa era. The blade shows a suguha-cho that is mixed with saka-choji and saka-ashi and layers of linear utsuri can be seen as well as a jifu-utsuri. In combination with the sugata, we do not only recognize the characterstic features of the Aoe school from the end of the Kamakura period but can agree that the attribution of this masterwork to Yoshitsugu is spot on.

 

4.

 

The blade is o-suriage and unsigned but the jiba shows the characteristic features of Rai Kunimitsu and the deki is highly dignified. Chin-chin cho-cho.

 

5. 

 

Although shortened and unsigned, this is judged an excellent work of Norishige. The jihada and hamon clearly show his characteristics. Chin-chin cho-cho. 

 

The last two are typical chin-chin cho-cho examples. He has not gone on at length but the smiths and the work are excellent and Juyo and he has rounded them out with chin-chin cho-cho for highest praise and left it at that.

 

But the examples in 1. and 3. though lacking chin-chin cho-cho are clearly not inferior when read. The detail and effort made are consistent with the blades being very important. Example number 3 is only Tokubetsu Hozon but I think it will easily pass Juyo and potentially go higher. Example number two is something that if you get one of these you know that you don't have to submit it to Juyo. 

 

Another example might be where he will say something like: The nakago is ubu and bears a seven character signature. The period is later Edo and this is the work of the second generation. 

 

I think in these cases when he veers more into subjectivity of any sort, whether that is a lot of effort or by putting in the standard praise words, it's because he likes the blade a lot. When he chooses not to offer the subjectivity then by omission you can classify where the blade stands.

 

This is why I say chin-chin cho-cho is a rule of inclusion: there are multiple ways of getting to that point, so if it's not there, it doesn't mean that the blade is at a lower level than one he's said it on. When you're completely lacking anything with subjectivity and it's just a short recitation of the facts, then this is something that is equivalent to Tokubetsu Hozon with no chance of going any higher. It's a worthy blade or else he wouldn't do sayagaki at all.

 

So the fact that he has put a sayagaki on it means that the blade is above Hozon qualifications. It used to be that you needed to have Tokubetsu Hozon to come to him and ask (not sure how that got established but that's what I was told, when he was an employee of the NBTHK he didn't want to be a separate independent judge). Now that he's retired he will make his own judgment without it being papered.

 

If he's gone off the beaten path somehow with his comments, then my impression is that the blade is equivalent to Juyo. If he has gone excessively off the beaten path then you have got something very special.

 

Whenever he has gone into long detail, I've found that the blade is one of these strong dignified works -or- the blade is unusually and particularly precious. The canonical example is the sayagaki that he put on Ralph Bell's Hiromitsu tachi which is the only signed tachi left by the smith. This is as follows:

 

The blade is dated Bunna two and signed and is thus the only signed authentic tachi of Hiromitsu I know, although there are many signed tanto and ko-wakizashi extant. Thus it is a extremely precious reference piece and also very precious because it shows us that Hiromitsu bore the honorary title Saemon no Jo. The blade has a very dignified sugata and a perfectly healthy jiba and must so be regarded as one of the greatest masterworks of this smith. It was once a heirloom of the Echizen-Matsudaira family, is published in the Imamura-oshigata, and was once designated as Juyo Bijutsuhin.

 

So, we know the level of this blade is clearly one of the most important blades in the world. There is no chin-chin cho-cho or anything like that, but the pattern is the same as the first and third examples above. He has gone into detailed commentary and for me, I think that this then is the template for the kind of thing that has affected him on a personal level as someone who loves swords and not just as a judge authenticating a piece. 

 

It's my opinion then that if anything is to be taken as a short-hand "code", it's to simply example the work that he's done and make a call about how much effort has gone into it. Chin-chin cho-cho is just a way for him to say that the work is really outstanding but he hasn't been triggered to go into one of these long commentaries. Maybe it is just really typical and so typical that there is nothing other to say than "it's really really great!". Intellectually I think it is probably equivalent but my gut feeling though is that the examples of long commentary shows his emotions better than the praise words because the praise words, though they mean something very significant, are standard and the full context is inspired. 

 

 ...

 

Additional thoughts are that he will sometimes have a data nugget to throw in that you cannot find anywhere else. I found out that the Nidai Hasebe Kunishige's personal name is Rokurozaemon and I cannot find that piece of information anywhere else. Or, if the NBTHK could only settle on something like "Ichimonji" then he may clarify and do his sayagaki to Fukuoka Ichimonji. There is an ebb and flow with the NBTHK judgments that change as the judges change over the almost 60 years of Juyo... where some they may be happy to be very specific and in other times you can see they took a turn for the conservative and it changes like the tides. Some commentaries, like recently, they go into a fair amount of depth but half of it is cut and paste boilerplate for the background of the smith and school... it's still a lot better than a lot of the late 60s early 70s stuff where they in some cases put just one or two sentences into the commentary. Just depending then on the year something went through, you could get radically different approaches to what is an effective commentary and judgment from the NBTHK. They will not be varying in terms of the ultimate goal, which is to give a judgment that they stand by, but they will be of different utility as a learning tool because when they go terse and conservative they don't really throw you much of a piece of meat to sink your teeth into.

 

So this is another nice thing to get for sayagaki because ultimately he is a scholar and a teacher and you are receiving his opinion.

 

If the NBTHK could only settle on a vague statement: Awataguchi or Ko-Kyo or Ichimonji or Hasebe, and he has clarified that to Kuniyoshi or Gojo Kuninaga, or Fukuoka Ichimonji or Hasebe Kunishige, this is useful for us as a learning tool. It's a judgment, his judgment and it is worth whatever you respect him for. 

 

And you never know what you're going to get out of the process, you just ask if he will do it, he will inspect the blade and then let you know if it's possible. And if it's possible you thank him and wait to see what he's going to write. If you're lucky he will confirm what your feelings are on the blade somehow. If you're not, he won't and then probably you will have some head scratching and study to understand why (or maybe you will never understand). Or maybe you will find out that he liked it a lot more than you thought he would. 

 

So in conclusion you just want to remember that you should really get these things translated and so to understand his thoughts and how he arrived at the sayagaki. It isn't reasonable to expect him to do a Hiromitsu style sayagaki like on Bell's on your every day Tokubetsu Hozon shinto piece. If he offers anything subjective at all on a shinto piece then that is really good for a shinto piece. You need to put that in context that he has seen 10 quintillion equivalent polished Jo-saku shinto swords in his life and he is not going to leap out of his chair for the next one. That's what makes these long sayagaki something special then or even chin-chin cho-cho, because he's singled it out after seeing so many and it should give some context to the blade. Because in some of these cases the blade is really unique.

[Guido]

Great post and excellent explanation, Darcy!

 

About that his sayagaki equal/are only found on TH: Mr. Tanobe did a few sayagaki for hozon level blades, even while still working for the NBTHK. I saw a few, and here's a good example that I used to own (by NBTHK standards [even back then], this blade would never get TH because it's Muromachi and unsigned):

 

[Jean]

I have had several blades hozon with sayagaki from Tanobe sensei. He does not care about NBTHK level papers when doing sayagaki. For him what is important is the blade. I even own a blade with a sayagaki which was made by him before the blade papering.

[Brian]

If ok, I'd like to add Darcy's post to the FAQ under a sayagaki section.

[Rivkin]

I would say that the need for sayagaki arises when one either tries to sell the blade (commercial) or if the blade displays some unusual characteristics, which warrant a personal attention (scientific).

 

With NBTHK you get a judgement of somewhat anonymous nature, performed under time and other constraints. I personally had the same blade papered by different shinsa to Shimada, Fuyushiro and ko-Gassan. Insignificant sue-Koto smith and way above average of the Sadamune school. It is not extremely unusual. But there are a few people, whose personal opinion is trustworthy, especially if it concerns a specific topic they personally researched over the years. Really good specialists tend to also have really strong personal preferences. One can spend a lot of time studying Goto, but know little more about iron then the information readily available in books.

 

My personal approach in the field which I know well (and quite removed from nihonto), is to always write in the opinion explicitly. based on comparison to which examples, therefore deemed canonical, the estimation is being made. This is highly uncommon. My speculation is that one of the "not so nice" reasons why such small effort is being avoided by most, is because in many cases the ones writing their opinions want them to appear as a result of some secret knowledge and arcane sensitivity to higher spheres, unchallengeble and therefore valuable apriori. Inserting justifications transforms it into the realm of logic and knowledge, and allows the recipient and others to openly doubt it.

 

Finally, I can relate a story written up in one book on appraisals. A Master was asked to write his opinion on an object. Upon examining it, he sighed that it is a rather typical forgery. Well, it comes with a certificate from a true authority, grinned the owner, producing a writeup - signed and sealed by none other than the Master's himself. Look at the signature, was the reply. For many decades, I no longer sign like this - precisely because of such certificates.

[seattle1]

Hello:

 This has been a long and educational thread with lots of interesting input, however I think that too much weight ought not to be given to the length of written sayagaki or even to the elaboration of its content. Tanobe sensei (Tanzan) is an outstanding and highly respected scholar and his comments and opinions are always of interest and value, however the lengthy examples, somewhat positively correlated with the time of their writing in his career, are perhaps a particular personal trait of his as much as anything. Other respected scholars who have written sayagaki have often been much more terse in all examples. Homma Junji (Kunzan), for example wrote a number of sayagaki and the examples I have seen have tended to be short and to the descriptive point and they are certainly value adding. The weight was in his willingness to certify a blade in that way, and that alone was sufficient. Drs. Homma and Sato (Kanzan), the latter also writing many sayagaki on the shorter side, were the two co-founders, I think it would be fair to say, of the NBTHK.

 Arnold F.

[GrozaB]

Arnold, how about Honnami Koson? His sayagaki usually short and stight to the point. And, IMHO, Honnami sayagaki adding lots of value

[seattle1]

Hello Oleg:

 I did not mention Hon'ami Koson as I was staying within the group closely identified with the NBTHK which had been the focus of the thread. Koson is controversial as it seems, for reasons not entirely clear to me, though he certainly had substantial stature prior to WWII and he had a number of well know students including Albert Yamanaka, John Yumoto, Murakami sensei of the Toen-sha, and I believe Nakayama Kokan if memory serves. I have never had a sayagaki by Koson though I do treasure one of his kinpunmei on an Enju Kunitoki. I have had a couple of sayagaki by the late Yoshikawa Koen who is very much respected by many who knew him, quite a number being in the US. His sayagaki were somewhat brief but he did add some textual additional information that was not just descriptive. Kajihara (Kotoken)  the polisher also did sayagaki, some in the US and Canada, and I believe he might also have been a student of Hon'ami Koson. Frankly the neatest sayagaki are by the smith himself and there are a few gendai smiths who did that, so in that sense they are really from the horse's mouth. I believe there are some shinsakuto smiths who do that as well, and as such they should be looked at just like the inscribed boxes of ceramic artists, painters and the like, and as Darcy says about swords, they're very complementary.

 Arnold F.

[Darcy]

I have had several blades hozon with sayagaki from Tanobe sensei. He does not care about NBTHK level papers when doing sayagaki. For him what is important is the blade. I even own a blade with a sayagaki which was made by him before the blade papering.

 

 

I wrote that he will do them without papers now since he's retired, but previously you would need to run it by the NBTHK first. 

 

This is what I was told and it makes sense to me that while working for the NBTHK he had no desire to step on their toes. He of course would be involved in the attribution at the NBTHK and this is more of a formality than anything else. 

 

But now I have had one myself with his sayagaki and no papers that I sent in after for Tokubetsu Hozon, and the Jubi Akihiro that was found two years ago in Tampa went in and got his sayagaki but no NBTHK papers (as of the time, now I don't know, but I suspect it will quickly run through Juyo and Tokuju). 

 

On Guido's Muromachi blade with the sayagaki and on this subject here, there isn't a written set of guidelines and he's not a machine, it's more about not bringing him a weak blade and asking him to make a sayagaki for it. He can and will say no and hopefully someone bringing something in is smart enough to not put himself or Tanobe sensei in that situation by knowing if something is good enough to ask about. Similarly you wouldn't want to take a blade in with no chance of passing Juyo and ask him if he felt it was a candidate for Juyo as he'd be in the position of trying to politely explain to you that the blade is not good enough to bother submitting without it being embarrassing or insulting. It's better to have at least passing familiarity and understanding of what it takes to go to Juyo so that there is some foundation for the question. If you have the concept right in your head he'll say it's either worth a try at least (which means probably you're not going to get it but you might be lucky) or he'll say you must submit it (which means you will likely get it within a submission or two). In no case is it ever a guarantee.

 

In the past as mentioned I was told by someone who knows much more than me that the blade should be the equivalent of Tokubetsu Hozon, and the sayagaki then implied that it was if it was not already holding the paper. I still agree with it though Guido's blade is ruled out technically my assumption would be that the blade itself has artistic merit enough that Tanobe sensei agreed to do the sayagaki in spite of that and so it speaks well to what the blade is. But it's his criteria and not mine and his decision when to be flexible and not mine, I can only relay what I've been told and what I've seen.

 

The ultimate point is that this isn't a service for hire, it's a request and he can and will turn it down if he wants. His criteria have to be in alignment with the blade having a sufficient level of quality and his judgment accurate enough that he is OK with the idea. And I've had him really look over blades that already had Tokubetsu Hozon papers and study them and then look at me and say, "Yes, I'll do it." 

 

In related details:

 

There is not a huge gap between Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon the way there is when you move up to Juyo and then up to Tokubetsu Juyo. 

 

I wish I knew the number of Tokubetsu Hozon blades that exist. The serial number is over one million now. So, I will have a look at data and try to figure it out in this post.

 

I recently concluded that some blades I gathered up in Japan had to come from an old cache because they were surprisingly high level smiths to not be noticed, the papers were all recent, and there was some rust marks that were identical on all the blades and this is being addressed now. Those that didn't have the rust showed signs of hasty touchup and quick to market. One had a somewhat busted up koshirae which is being repaired now and another had signs that the saya had been switched which I think someone did as a quick solution to fixing a saya in disrepair. I am just checking the papers now and they all seem to have gone in around the same time and a couple of them actually seemed to be side by side given the serial numbers which seems to confirm my suspicion. 

 

Serial numbers are: 

 

Heisei 27-8-17 = 1,004,267

Heisei 27-7-14 = 1,003,894

Heisei 27-7-14 = 1,003,897 

 

So I got those very soon after they came back from papers.

 

From these we know they are at least doing 3 a day... but it looks like over the period of one month they processed somewhere on the order of 400 items. If this holds true for a year and holds true since the papers started (big assumption) then we have about 25 years of 2,500 to 5,000 per year or about 62,500 to 125,000 items. Slightly older papers seem to go to around 150,000 on the serial number so may be in sequence starting with #1. Possibly in the first couple of years there were a lot more being processed as people exchanged older papers rapidly and they weeded out the fake blues and greens.

 

It seems to be at some point not too long ago, within a year to a year and a half ago, they reset the serial numbers and started at 2 million for tosogu and 1 million for swords. 

 

Overall then I am going to guess that there are around 175,000 Tokubetsu Hozon items out there just based on the serial numbers and what they have to say.

 

Juyo there are almost 14,000 items, this I know as I've counted them.

 

Tokuju there is 1,094. Also counted.

 

I could be off by a few because... counting has human error in it.

 

If my number for Tokubetsu Hozon is right, and I think its a fair estimate, the relationship of TH to Juyo is about 13:1, and the relationship of Juyo to Tokuju is also about 13:1 ... which ends up being around 7.5% in each case and this may confirm the TH estimate. Also it may indicate that they're actually trying to keep these ratios in line and thus how many Juyo or Tokuju may go in any given session ...

 

If the relationship of Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon were the same then there would have to be 2.3 million and I don't think that's the case. That would mean that Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon is more of a slightly horizontal move vs. the vertical moves to the major papers.

 

My own opinion is that the vast majority of swords that got Hozon went on to get Tokubetsu Hozon or otherwise could. If I were to completely guess I'd think that the percentage would be around 85% rather than 7.5%. That is pure speculation. 

 

I think though that it should be obvious to anyone with a passing familiarity with swords that any given Hozon blade should be able to make it to Tokubetsu Hozon. 

 

Knowing what will go to Juyo requires more knowledge than just being able to look at a blade and know it's a good blade. Or even a really nice blade. Juyo means Important and in order to know what's Important you need to be able to know what's not. This means it's a relative thing, one of seeing the big picture and it is a much wider set of understanding than just knowing hey, this one is nice, which is an immediate and should be an objective evaluation and a relationship between the observer and the individual item. 

 

So Juyo becomes something very different. And this is also why it is very hard to predict. I brought in a sword recently for Tokubetsu Juyo and showed Tanobe sensei and he said it should pass, unless there was a rival that appeared. He said the boshi was at issue for Tokubetsu Juyo qualification, that is it was good enough on a whole that it would pass but should one appear with a better boshi then that one would pass and mine would not. These are not reasons to consider if a blade will or will not pass Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon but it matters most at Tokuju and somewhat on Juyo. A rival won't push you out of Juyo contention but four certainly will (now at least... but not in Juyo 26).

 

If a rival shows up and steals the spotlight, the thing to do is submit again and maybe you shall steal someone else's spotlight the next time. Which brings to light a notion that IF you do submit to Juyo or Tokuju and IF you don't get it, you need to really go and study what DID get it and hopefully it will enlighten you as to why (or it may make you frustrated and angry to see what did pass). 

 

I felt that the last Tokuju session that went through was actually not as good as the last JUYO session with a lot of blades that I was left weeping on the floor moaning, "Whyyyyy.... whyyyyy...." But this may indicate my lack of understanding. Trying to unravel this riddle entirely is something I've been playing with for a decade and it may not be entirely knowable.

 

Anyway the point of this exercise using the numbers is to illustrate that Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon is a minor bump compared to the major bumps of no papers -> Hozon and then the major papers of Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo. A good blade should be assured of Tokubetsu Hozon. 

 

Because I feel this way I will often just submit to Hozon. And the NBTHK used to let you submit to Juyo from Hozon so there was no reason to pay for a Tokubetsu Hozon paper if you thought it was just a temporary stop on the way to higher papers. My Kanemitsu was flawless and beautiful and I felt it it papered to Hozon then it would be assured of Juyo. I never submitted it to Tokubetsu Hozon. I had a Norishige which was similar and it never went to Tokubetsu Hozon either but went Hozon to Juyo and passed on the first try. 

 

I think the NBTHK now is trying to widen the gap somewhat by making the qualification to Tokubetsu Hozon a bit harder and they ruled out some swords passing Juyo that could have passed before (which raises the upper bar on Tokubetsu Hozon). And they made TH a required stop on the way to Juyo. 

 

All of this I think is a good idea. Because they seem to be four grades of paper and previously though they had these different names they were really levels 1a, 1b, 2 and 3. 

 

Exceptions are always important to think of because technically a major flaw will prevent a sword from achieving Hozon unless the blade is something very special otherwise. Similarly that major flaw will weed out a lot of those from passing Juyo though in very rare cases a blade can get through Juyo with an otherwise fatal flaw (I don't have a good reference on hand to prove this point though so take it with a grain of salt).

 

There is a 60-62cm Rai Kunitoshi katana with very beautiful jihada and shumei that has I think Tokubetsu Hozon papers and will not pass Juyo because there is no boshi left. This was given a pass to TH based on the exquisite workmanship and the high level of the person who produced it. I have seen a papered Chikakage with no boshi... this was a long time ago and I think it was signed. I can refer to at least one skeptically en-boshi'd Ko-Hoki Yasutsuna. Some of the oshigata on some of these Heian blades have boshi so thin that they appear to be a human hair's width and in these cases I think that one can suspect that they may indeed be off the edge and some dignity preservation is going on for the blade because otherwise being ubu and signed and a thousand years old may have something to do with it going to Juyo. The situation would be intolerable at Tokuju though.

 

So all of that is meant to say: even if your blade won't pass Tokubetsu Hozon due to a technical limitation, if he accepts it you can feel that it got an honorable mention equivalent on artistic grounds. 

 

[Darcy]

 

With NBTHK you get a judgement of somewhat anonymous nature, performed under time and other constraints. I personally had the same blade papered by different shinsa to Shimada, Fuyushiro and ko-Gassan. Insignificant sue-Koto smith and way above average of the Sadamune school. It is not extremely unusual. But there are a few people, whose personal opinion is trustworthy, especially if it concerns a specific topic they personally researched over the years. Really good specialists tend to also have really strong personal preferences. One can spend a lot of time studying Goto, but know little more about iron then the information readily available in books.

 

My personal approach in the field which I know well (and quite removed from nihonto), is to always write in the opinion explicitly. based on comparison to which examples, therefore deemed canonical, the estimation is being made. This is highly uncommon. My speculation is that one of the "not so nice" reasons why such small effort is being avoided by most, is because in many cases the ones writing their opinions want them to appear as a result of some secret knowledge and arcane sensitivity to higher spheres, unchallengeble and therefore valuable apriori. Inserting justifications transforms it into the realm of logic and knowledge, and allows the recipient and others to openly doubt it.

 

 

 

This raises some additional points which are important. 

 

To clarify I think you probably mean Fuyuhiro and the Soshu school (tradition) respectively for Fuyushiro and Sadamune school. 

 

This is something that I have spoken about with people who are trying to tell me about say a certain mumei Bingo "masterpiece." My own opinion was that this is a contradiction of terms (though indeed I will admit that there certainly must be some, I was trying to make a point). 

 

In some ways, a mumei and otherwise anonymous Enju that does not have enough about it to put to a specific smith is a way of saying that the blade is very much like Rai, but is not good enough to be Rai. In a way, when you say Rai Kunitoshi or Rai Kunimitsu you are saying that this is very best work for the Rai school. When you say Rai Kuninaga you're saying that this is very good Rai work but maybe it is a little bit less than best. 

 

Those can still pass Tokuju. So can the mumei Enju. But if that Enju is truly good enough and is one of these blades that people keep saying, "it really looked like Rai" then ... if it really did it would pass *as* Rai. Something that is so similar as to be confused with the original is in essence identical to the original. If I found a process to make fake gold that was so good that for all possible scientific ways to test it was indistinguishable from gold, it would in effect be gold. Because all of those tests are how we define something *as* gold. 

 

If the blade is truly indistinguishable from Rai for quality and style: then it will be attributed as Rai. 

 

People get the cart before the horse and think that attributions are a time machine for going back and figuring out who made it. And they are not... though there may be a 90% overlap. I can guarantee you that there is going to be a Rai Kunimitsu that was really made by Rai Kunitoshi and a Rai Kunitoshi that was really made by Rai Kunimitsu. 

 

There is a Tokuju Osafune Nagashige that was earlier in its life an Osafune Nagamori. It was probably considered his masterpiece and on submission to Tokuju, with more knowledge, more understanding, more time, it's been reattributed. Some blades are in an ongoing tug of war in the expertise as Yukimitsu or Masamune. What camp are you in? Honami Kotoku - Kanzan Sato, or Honami Kochu - Tanobe Michihiro? Pick a side and then the blade can be what you want it to be. 

 

When there are not enough signed blades the question of attribution is a really hard one and it needs to be understood first as a classification of quality. I try to hammer that with people that if they admit a blade in as Yukimitsu for instance it means something really significant above and beyond Juyo, it means recognition as very top level Soshu work. If you have a very special Senjuin then it may go to Senjuin Yoshihiro or Ryumon Nobuyoshi, in some way it will be singled out. 

 

There is a corollary to this. 

 

And that is on the low end of the quality scale there is not enough meat on the bone in order to truly get something to digest. In this way you get the Fuyuhiro or Shimada. I have written about those that they are ways of saying it is a Soshu-like blade. Ko-Gassan would be further out but the Ko-Gassan work with the quasi-ayasugi hada is one step removed from matsukawa-like hada or some Soshu work. So it is on the really outer edge. 

 

All of this then should tell you what the blade is and I think you understood it quite well from what you were saying. 

 

It's a Muromachi period Soshu-like blade of middling quality and not enough going for it features wise to give a clear and reliable and repeatable attribution. It needs to be understood that Fuyuhiro and Shimada and Odawara-Soshu and Shitahara are all different aspects of the same thing and really there is not a huge difference between saying one or the other. 

 

Knowing when this is is something that takes some experience. My first shocker in this regard was a blade I found with a kinzogan mei to Heianjo Nobuyoshi. He is maybe the origin of the Muramasa line. It was a really nice blade. I was told the kinzogan was not accurate so it was removed. When papered it came back as Ganmaku.

 

I had to look that up. 

 

Condell did this submission for me and after I talked to him about it saying I don't understand.

 

He told me (I paraphrase): you need to understand that something like Ganmaku is a bucket. If the blade is not sufficiently knowable and distinguishable on its merits to something higher then things get very fuzzy. Based on its quality and its style it will fit into several buckets and the judge will pick the one he feels is most likely. And that is how you got Ganmaku on this blade. 

 

Ganmaku in this context probably meant something Mino-Soshu like and middle to late Muromachi period. They really want to say basically this as I wrote it. Collectors won't accept it though. They will say, be more exact. So ultimately the judge will make his gut call. It's up to you as a student to level up your knowledge to know that when it's mumei it's very hard and there is a fuzz factor. They have spelled it out in the literature. 

 

Unless the thing appears to be made by God or his disciples, and is screaming with quality and tell-tale signs of the highest levels of craftsmanship then these lower ranking schools need to be perceived as fungible. They need to be taken in context and to be understood to mean what they mean. 

 

This is all on a case by case basis because a Ganmaku could actually be screaming at you: I am a Ganmaku. 

 

Kaifu is another that is just going to mean quasi-Soshu influenced Muromachi blade. 

 

Each time as you take one step away from the center point of these tradtiions the edges blur and the picture becomes less clear and it should be more acceptable to understand the overlap. 

 

Nobody should mistake Yamato Hosho for Soshu Masamune. These are the archetypes that exist at the center and cast their light far and wide. Shimada and so forth exist at the perimeter in the shadows where it is clear where the influence is from but it is not necessarily clear what or who made the blade, though the period should be at least agreeable. 

 

Now, the reason they don't go into depth on something that isn't Juyo is just for the reasons you mention. It would be like listening to a modern art critic go on about the brushwork and the emotions and statement the artist was making on an abstract painting and then to be told it was made by an elephant or a chimp.

 

They save the statements for the archetypes. 

 

Past the archetypes you get into the fungible shadows and they are not going to be in the position of going deeply into the merits of this mumei Shimada to have it contradicted next year when some judge says its Fuyuhiro. It can and does happen already at the Juyo to Tokuju level when some judgments are overturned. It is far more likely to happen in the shadows though so it is a pointless exercise.

 

That brings is right back around to the subject of sayagaki where if there is nothing to be said, Tanobe sensei won't say anything other than to say it exhibits features of the school and the period is X. Those are objective truths.

 

Fuyuhiro does exhibit features of the Shimada school and vice versa. They are fungible and ultimately mean the same things so you're safe.

 

When you get into confirming someone else's attribution of Aoe Yoshitsugu who has fairly unique work and you call it a masterpiece then you better be prepared to stand by what you've said. In the case of this blade, reviewing the few signed works it does look like a slam dunk and everyone can high five on the statement. That level of quality and skill and the unique features of the school and this time period make this possible. It is an archetypical work which allows the statements to be made. 

 

Attribution is the first and most important statement about quality. 

 

Understanding the quality of the blade is the first and most important item about making kantei. 

 

Having the opportunity to find unpapered blades, study them and submit them and get answers back is very good context for understanding all of this. But understanding it is essential context for knowing what attributions and papers really mean. 

 

Ganmaku and Kaifu mean something different than Ko-Mihara and Enju which in turn mean something different from Senjuin and Rai which in turn means something different from Masamune and Awataguchi. There is subtext there that is available for the taking to tell you what is going on. The more you study it the more forgiving you will be for the Kaifu to Ganmaku to Shimada attributions because you will understand what they're trying to get at. And at the highest level you will understand the tension between Masamune and Yukimitsu, or Awataguchi vs. specifically Awataguchi Kuniyoshi which start to take on tones of religious differences vs. acceptable fungibility. 

[Guido]

If a rival shows up and steals the spotlight, the thing to do is submit again and maybe you shall steal someone else's spotlight the next time. Which brings to light a notion that IF you do submit to Juyo or Tokuju and IF you don't get it, you need to really go and study what DID get it and hopefully it will enlighten you as to why (or it may make you frustrated and angry to see what did pass). 

 

I felt that the last Tokuju session that went through was actually not as good as the last JUYO session with a lot of blades that I was left weeping on the floor moaning, "Whyyyyy.... whyyyyy...." But this may indicate my lack of understanding. Trying to unravel this riddle entirely is something I've been playing with for a decade and it may not be entirely knowable.

 

 

That's a very important aspect to know, hard to digest, harder to accept, and extremely hard to comprehend (if that's even possible).

 

I used to own a very good Aoe blade, and Mr. Tanobe encouraged me to submit it for jūyō. It failed. I asked him "why" when I picked it up at the NBTHK, and he told me to look at the three Aoe that had passed. I have to admit that all three were a notch above mine, and two of them made tokujū a year later; maybe the third was never submitted, or failed, but IMO it was right up there in quality with the other two, i.e. better than mine.

 

He told me to re-submit. I almost threw a tantrum, and wanted to shout out "that's unfaaaiiiir!" Why on earth would my sword fail jūyō if it was of the quality level - just because the three other swords were of tokubetsu jūyō level? Jūyō is jūyō, isn't it? Is this some kind of game where the rules change arbitrarily?

 

I was so frustrated that I sold the sword. Two new owners later it was again submitted for jūyō, and it passed. In all fairness, it was probably a borderline case to begin with, but I never understood why swords of one shinsa are compared to each other, and not to the general consensus of what constitutes jūyō quality.

 

So, if it's any consolation, Darcy, you're not the only cry-baby out there.

[paulb]

As always gentlemen a very interesting discussion and some useful information. I was interested in Darcy's reference to a blade being awarded TH papers to Enju if stylistically and/or quality wise it wasnt quite Rai.

I have written several times about an Enju wakizashi which I believe to be of exceptional quality (Ihave bought it twice )

I have looked at very many Rai and Enju works in recent years and am convinced in my own mind that the only reason this wasnt papered to Rai Kunimitsu is it has an O-maru boshi. This view was in some ways confirmed by the feedback it recieved from several highly respected dealers at one of the US shows.

I think there are several points which scream out in the above posts;

1. To be sure (as you can be) of something papering at a highlevel it must conform to what the judges would expect to see. variation will attract an alternative or a qualified attribution (i.e. Yamato Shizu or Den yamato Shizu)

 

2. In the West we (me) tend to think of papering as being a linear scale and if it ticks the right boxes it will pass. The idea that success is effected by competition on the day seems alien to our way of thinking. But it has been mentioned on several occassions and Guido's experience confirms it.

 

3. I think the interpretation of Sayagaki is extremely interesting but wonder if we do not risk misleading ourselves by trying to second guess what is behind the statement.

[Rivkin]

Thank you, Mr. Brockbank, for a long and informative reply. But being a troll, my motives were somewhat more sinister - to highlight that the situation in nihonto is unlike any other antiquities.

There are people who do not collect early Rembrandt believing it to be rather naive and lacking individuality. There are those who shun his mass produced portraits, believing that such are indistinguishable from "Rembrandt school" (which in its own is often interpreted as a collective term for Rembrandts of lower overall quality). There are those who believe only his latest work to be true masterpieces.

But any half-decent collector of Rembrandt would be surprised if you tell him:

1. You got to submit your piece to a committee staffed by people you don't know and with no clear publication record on Rembrandt specifically. It might be that there is a person there with a great track record and who saw almost every canonical Rembrandt out there. It might be that he is out sick and replaced by Rafael guy.

2. They'll look at it for a duration between 5 and 50 minutes without consulting more than 2-3 general publications.

3. They will issue a definitive judgement whether the piece is genuine or not, and whether its Rembrandt or his school.

4. If they don't like it, you are expected to burn out the Rembrandt signature.

 

He would be even more surprised to learn that his Rembrandt should be rated. Each advancement in rank requiring it to be repacked, shipped to Amsterdam and accomponied by a hefty fee. And unless it earns rank 4, it cannot be hang in a half-decent museum.

 

Outside nihonto, nobody talks like "I've got two rank three swords and possibly will get rank 5 on a sword which failed before, but the competition was very strong, and I was encouraged to resubmit". Even in the country where colleagues encourage you to visit city X because "it has 6 buildings that are UNESCO World Heritage" - it is a weird abnormality.

 

Now part of it is because some sword people are really good and can make good judgements under such extreme conditions. Part is because swords were produced in numbers and a good smith can be very consistent in his work and therefore - identifiable. But part is - abnormal. And sayagaki is what you typically get in other fields - you personally approach someone with established record and they write their own opinion. Sometimes it takes them a year to do so. Often the opinion will be "it matches canonical A and B, but it also has C. Why - we don't know, but can speculate that it might be a later work than A, or actually done by a known student of B. There is a similar work found in ..., with similar concerns".

 

Regarding the two swords I mentioned; in the first case its clear that the work is northern and has some Yamato and Soshu characteristics. Then I can guess that small dot-like tobiyaki were pushing one team towards Wakasa; in another case they paid more attention to hada and classified it as ayasugi, i.e. ko-Gassan. I saw quite a few Shimada judgements coming out recently, so maybe its a new "Koto default judgement" for NBTHK - kind of like many suspect Bungo to be used for Shinto work. I also had the same blade appraised as Uda Tomotsugu etc. Its northern, there are elements of Yamato, elements of Soshu, but the combination is unusual. If I were to submit it again, I'll probably get other attributions, but probably in the same general region and sometime between Oei and Tembun. Shimada vs. Sadamune's student - that's the range which borders on what is hard to accept. In the first case somebody really hated the blade, in the second - really liked it.

[BIG]

Rivkin, please sign your posts !

 

Best Regards

[Brian]

I believe it is Mr (K?) Rivkin, so the current signature is ok  

Careful with the "troll" analogy though, as we welcome intelligent debate and discussion, but not so much trolling. So far I see passionate debate, and am ok with it. Just hoping we don't cross over into something more "energetic" when discussing what can be a subjective topic.

 

Brian

[Jean]

Probably one of my last blades. I thought that after the Topic about achieving my Gokaden collection, I was through collecting Nihonto, then I found a blade I could not resist, it was exceptional, first time I saw a signed tanto of this school and this smith. I submitted it to Tanobe sensei for a sayagaki and he was happy to do it.

[Guido]

Jean, are you sure you posted the right photo/sayagaki? That looks completely different from his usual wrting style ...

[Jean]

Hi Guido,

 

Quite sure, as it took our buddy Bob more than a couple of hours to bring it to Tanobe san and get it back and this despite the fact that he is moving within a week for his sabatic year and that he lost precious minutes to picture it and e-mailed them to me.

[Gordon Sanders]

Probably one of my last blades. I thought that after the Topic about achieving my Gokaden collection, I was through collecting Nihonto, then I found a blade I could not resist, it was exceptional, first time I saw a signed tanto of this school and this smith. I submitted it to Tanobe sensei for a sayagaki and he was happy to do it.

Translation? :-)