Does Kirikomi Add To Or Detract From A Sword's Value?

[Chango]

I understand you can never go back in time and 100% verify a sword's damage was actually sustained during a historic samurai battle, but when kirikomi is pretty obviously damage from another sword like straight cuts and skips on the mune:

 

 

and can't be polished out, what is the practical effect on the sword's real value?

[ggil]

Maybe it is a matter of taste? I'm like the Kung fu panda: "with authentic battle damage!" Yeah. But then my collection is very low end. I'd imagine for higher aspiring enthusiasts it's really wouldn't matter (they would be more concerned with blade Characteristics) as long as the damage wasn't too deep to affect usefulness.

[Stephen]

hard photo to read

[uwe]

Hi Jason,

I'm not sure that your example is depicting kirikomi!?

[Chango]

I've shown this sword on the forum before; it's got quite a lot of damage:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Either it was in a serious full scale fight or somebody used it for sparring...

 

Anyway, just wondering more in general how the market sees "battle damage" on blades?

[Brian]

Battle damage might be overlooked on some swords, but it never adds anything to them. And this much damage is pretty much a guarantee that it isn't battle damage, so it would be regarded as any other flaws that need to be minimized.

[Chango]

Battle damage might be overlooked on some swords, but it never adds anything to them. And this much damage is pretty much a guarantee that it isn't battle damage, so it would be regarded as any other flaws that need to be minimized.

 

Exactly what I need to know.   I ask because I keep seeing kirikomi advertised as a "feature" on swords for sale and am questioning that logic.

[Stephen]

they look like back yard bush cutting 

[Chango]

You guys are no fun. Clearly this sword was given to John Blackthorne by Lord Toranaga and was damaged as it was being used to kill hordes of evil ninjas! Anyway I'm pretty sure the straight cuts on the mune came from another edged weapon (certainly could have been practice or just messing around too) but the chipped up blade could have been caused by anything. Back to my question...

 

This might be a bad example but say the Ishida Masamune was up for auction against another otherwise equivalent Masamune work... I guess what I am understanding is that it would likely sell for an equally high price despite having a couple big chips hacked out of the mune, mostly because it's still a Masamune.

 

On the other hand, if you had 2 equivalent average smith's blades and one had the same kind of damage, the undamaged blade would be more desirable to collectors and a sneaky dealer would hype up the kirikomi to unload it on a less savvy buyer, right?

[Stephen]

wow

[Chango]

wow

 

I see my attempt at humor has failed. 

 

 

[SwordGuyJoe]

I suppose that I answer based on what I collect. I collect swords as works of art, not the most advanced swords/weapons of their time. To that point any damage that was obtained through the use as a weapon (whether against ninjas or hedges) is a flaw to me and detracts from the value or completely eliminates the value if the "flaws" can't be removed by polishing. Collectors of weapons may think they're "cool" and adds to the value of the piece. Just not for me.

[Jean]

Easy, some romantic bloodthirsty guys set store by kirikomi thinking it adds value because it gives a flavour of authenticity to the blade.

 

True collectors don't give it a damn.

[SteveM]

I think any kind of scratch or cut in the sword should be regarded as the damage it is. Its a detraction from the sword's optimal condition. It should never be considered a plus. Unfortunately, ebay is the land where a blatant flaw can be described as a highly desirable "feature". Novices are easily lured in by stories of samurai battle, and a chip in a blade suddenly becomes a "must-have" talking point. Drives me nuts.

 

But your second post is making a false analogy, because any sword that has a documented history of coming from a major historical figure will be appraised differently from a sword that has no such provenance. A sword that has a clear history from somebody like Ishida Mitsunari or Tokugawa, takes on value as an important historical artifact, in addition to any value it might have as an art sword. 

 

So we appreciate the well-documented historical item, with all its flaws, as being something different, but related, to an art sword without such provenance. It would be the same if we had a musket from, say, the George Washington collection, with proper documentation showing he owned it during the Revolutionary War, but was now rusted and didn't work. How would you value that compared to a working musket of the same vintage, owned by some random person? They are almost two different things, even though they may have had the same manufacturer. 

 

The only place were scratches and cuts add any value to a sword is in the magical marketplace of ebay.

[Ed]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  I always call attention to Kirikomi, but leave the interpretation to the observer. If one dislikes them then they can be considered disclosed much like a flaw.  If one envisions kirikomi as "battle scars" and holds a grandiose view of that, fine by me.

 

My personal view is, If it is a great blade and has a kirikomi, I am ok with that.  POS, not so much !!

 

Edit: Kind of what Steve said above, just less eloquently. 

[Stephen]

Ed

 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Hmm, that brings up the interesting question of how a deep kirikomi on the mune would be corrected by a togi. Not at all the same as just reshaping the ha or boshi.

 

Should it be left as-is?

Ken

 

[Stephen]

Weird that was a hit the nail on the head image. I don't know how it's changed.

[Guido]

Hmm, that brings up the interesting question of how a deep kirikomi on the mune would be corrected by a togi.

 

In my experience, if it's deeper than superficial, the togishi will not mess with it - kirikomi on the mune are not considered remarkable flaws.

 

As an aside: I used to own a Ko-Uda blade with a rather deep kirikomi that still had part of the other sword's ha embedded in it so tightly, it didn't loosen/come out even after the polish. An interesting talking point, but I didn't feel it added any (monetary) value (at least in Japan).

 

Oh, and regarding the sword that started this thread: no way all those nicks come from battle.

[Curran]

In my experience, if it's deeper than superficial, the togishi will not mess with it - kirikomi on the mune are not considered remarkable flaws.

 

As an aside: I used to own a Ko-Uda blade with a rather deep kirikomi that still had part of the other sword's ha embedded in it so tightly, it didn't loosen/come out even after the polish. An interesting talking point, but I didn't feel it added any (monetary) value (at least in Japan).

 

I had been trying to remember who owned or where I'd seen that sword with a part of another sword embedded in it.

 

One of my two swords has a kirikomi the polisher left in. I like it, but think most consider it on a case by case basis. Guido's was one of the most interesting.

On the flipside, I know a high level Hizen sword collector that considers them major detractors. He doesn't mind thin skin flaws that I hate, but a kirikomi on a Juyo and he considers it dead to him.

[b.hennick]

Several years ago Bob Benson had a Norishige katana with tokubetsu hozon papers for sale for $25k It had a kirikomi in the edge. The V shape shows contact with another blade. Bob said that with the kirikomi the blade would never go juyo. Here is a case where the blade's value certainly was lowered by the kirikomi. Not only lowered but also limited. It was a good Norishige that I would have been happy to own if it didn't have the kirikomi. Simple answer to your question yes it does detract.

[Ed]

Weird that was a hit the nail on the head image. I don't know how it's changed. 

 

I was still trying to figure that out. 

[Ed]

Bob said that with the kirikomi the blade would never go juyo.

 

I wonder if that sword had been submitted and failed or if that was merely Bob's opinion ??

[b.hennick]

HI Ed:

Bob never said that it had been submitted. It was his opinion that it "would never go juyo".  He has submitted more blades than most people as he submits blades for others in addition to his own submission.

[Chango]

Thanks for all the information everyone, my question was answered and then some.

[Ed]

Bob never said that it had been submitted. It was his opinion that it "would never go juyo".  He has submitted more blades than most people as he submits blades for others in addition to his own submission.

 

Barry, Please don't take offense.  My replies are in no way directed at you, or at Bob.  

You simply wrote the words that made me want to share my experiences for the sake of new collectors.

 

I am well aware of Bob's credentials, and no doubt he is extremely knowledgable ! Way more so than most, and way, waaaaaaay more than myself.  

Nonetheless, I have been given negative opinions from a number of individuals who are/were considered some of the "best", at least outside Japan.  

 

After weighing those opinions and deciding to ignore individual opinion and submit to shinsa, in almost every instance the sword/fitting passed shinsa.

 

My point is not to discredit anyone.  My point is to explain to new collectors that opinions are just that, opinions.  

Though the shinsa team/Papers only provide an "opinion", it is a collective opinion by the foremost scholars of Nihonto in the world.  

 

I have found through personal experience to take opinions with a grain of salt. 

If you feel good about a piece, throw caution to the wind and submit it.

 

Of course that is merely my opinion, and we all know what they say about opinions. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I knew Darcy had done some statistics research on Norishige. It seems Norishige has 94 blades that are Jūyō or better. So I believe a Norishige submission would have a lot of competition in form of already passed blades. So I could understand well that a sword of his with a kirikomi might not pass for Jūyō as there are already so many blades that have passed.

 

Where as kirikomi could be almost totally overlooked when it's a question of a blade with historical signifigance. For example if there are only few signed works of a particular smith remaining then the condition will not be as important as for a smith who has a lot of signed works remaining to this day.

[SAS]

Hmm, that brings up the interesting question of how a deep kirikomi on the mune would be corrected by a togi. Not at all the same as just reshaping the ha or boshi.

 

Should it be left as-is?

 

Ken

 

My understanding is that a togi would correct chips in the ha and kissaki, but leave kirikomi as is.

[Peter Bleed]

Our discussions always  end up addressing the "art vs historical artifact" divide that is a basic feature of sword collecting. Kirikomi present clear evidence that these things were weapons -  - even if they were fabulously crafted  and beautiful.

Whichever side your are on, there are some sword cuts that are going to be more acceptable than other. I think, for example, that a koto might be forgiven a sword cut, while one in a shinto would be suspicious. And in that regard, I wonder how future collectors will treat the damage we see from time to time on WWII era gunto. Will that ever come to have cache to Japanese collectors. Or will it always remain certain evidence that the sword has been destroyed?

Peter

[Guido]

I remember seeing a Bizen Masamitsu nagamaki-naoshi katana about ten years ago with a hakobore a little above the habaki. It was in fresh polish, and left there by the togishi; impossible to tell whether it was the result of battle, or caused by something else. In any case, the sword made jūyō, and IIRC, later sold in the US.