Good Schools - Bad Schools And Pricing

[Jussi Ekholm]

Well I was first thinking about posting some of this into the first sword thread but I came to my senses as this is not something first time buyers who are just getting into the hobby need to really think about. Well I've been spending almost all of my free time lately by just browsing sword prices just for fun, so here are few thoughts. All my research is mostly focused on pre-1450's as that is where my own intrests are, and my own research about prices is an ongoing work in progress.

 

I was reading the Pass Factor blog post by Darcy and it made me think a lot. Of course Darcy focuses on top tier level and passing from jūyō to tokujū which will be always unobtainable for me but it can be used for lower tiers as well. The smith/school (or attribution to one) matters really a lot when you get into more expensive stuff. Here are some thoughts about that.

 

For example out of 5 Yamato schools Hōshō and Senjuin are the "high tier". As crazy as it sounds as the differences between Yamato schools can be very small but if the attribution in paper reads Hōshō rather than Shikkake it will have a positive effect on pricing.

 

Darcy was surprised by Unji counts at jūyō and that made me think as all the Ukai group swords I've seen have been really good. While it might not be "top tier" group they have made many excellent swords that have gotten jūbu & jūbi designations. And by just browsing my own lists for Ukai group, most of them are jūyō with some TH and Tokujū. I haven't yet come across a Hozon Ukai sword, I am sure there are some around but their overall designation level is high.

 

Some thoughts about Rai / Enju / Ko-Mihara. For Rai it seems to be mostly jūyō followed by some TH and few Hozon. My data has most of mumei Enju attributions having TH papers followed by jūyō and with some Hozon mixed in. I will follow that up with Ko-Mihara attributions, which have mostly TH followed by Hozon and few jūyō mixed in. So it is easy to see the desirability gaps between these 3 schools.

 

It is also easy to see how cherised Aoe is. Most (almost all) of the mumei attributions to Aoe in my data have a jūyō designation.

 

I hope this might spark some chatting. I'm not really good at making opening posts.

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Swords and pricing is often a Devil's brew as so many "secret ingredients" find their way in. The Yamato pair of Hosho and Senguin is particularly interesting as they are the most atypical of the Yamato with the exception of the masame trait found so strongly in Hosho. Could the high regard for Hosho simply be because it is the example of "the major Yamato characteristic" and not found commonly elsewhere in the group, or might it relate to the cutting ability of masame in general?

 Why should high regard for Unkai be surprising as they were directly and initially influenced by Yamashiro before Bizen? It is interesting that Rai and Enju are both highly regarded, they are connected in development of course and I wonder if Enju might not rate higher if that connection were not less blatant? Mihara suffers somewhat for being thought of as sort of an Enju clone, however their masame presence is controlling.

 In terms of paper attributions and awards there has to be some important role attached to the social status and ranking of the groups that patronized the various working groups of smiths. Smiths may have sought out important customers, that certainly was so when the early Shinto smiths moved to the castle towns, but event in Koto times the patronage of politically and royally connected must have had an impact on Yamashiro prices and, by extension, their relative rankings which have been somewhat persevered through time. Similar factors would have had an impact on the high ranking of top Soshu makers.

  The foregoing are just ramblings, but of more interest to me would be any information on the relative value differences between the "good", "better" and "best" deceased smiths within a given historical period, and how those relative price differentials compressed or expanded as various criteria of assessment displaced one another through time. To take the broadest slice one might expect that during times of warfare top cutting groups would fetch high relative prices, whereas in Genroku "flashy" smiths might be preferred, and all of that priced accordingly. Such determinants would effect older groups moving along as well as groups of the historical moment. I wonder if you Jussi, or if anyone else has every noted any such data? Rankings, but not relative price data, at a moment or over time, gets a lot of attention in our literature. Relative prices must loop back on ranking assessments, though we treat price as derived from rankings and not the other way around. Both factors must play a role.

 Arnold F.

[Jean]

In fact, it is quite simple. The closer to the source, the higher the value. Yamashiro =>Awataguchi=>Rai=>Enju/Nakajima Rai.

 

Unrui school is a mixed of two schools so less value than Rai, but I agree with Jussi, I have seen fabulous swords by this school.

[PhoenixDude]

link to article?

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think you are meaning the Pass Factor article? Here it is: https://www.nihonto.ca/ha/?p=439#more-439

 

Markus wrote really nice article Sword Prices, Origami and Samurai Income. Briefly summarizing the average income of lower ranking retainer was about 12,000 copper coins per year. some examples of paid sword prices Inoue Shinkai 45,000 copper coins, Tsuda Sukehiro 30,000 copper coins, Kunisuke, Yoshimichi, Tadatsuna 21,000 coins. Later time Suishinshi Masahide 30,000 coins, Taikei Naotane 20,000 coins. Markus used an example from 1619 where Hizen Tadayoshi charged 100,000 copper coins from high ranking Samurai (who raised money 4 years to afford that sword).

 

For sword appraisals as I've seen people often are not happy with the position NBTHK has today, well during Tokugawa rule Hon'ami family had monopoly on sword appraisals. They issued the appraisal values for swords in kinsu. And Markus explains in the article how kinsu can be converted to ryō that can be converted to copper coins.

 

Markus has an example Hon'Ami appraisal paper (1721) for Yamato Shizu, valued at 30 kinsu - 1,200,000 copper coins (if I did the calculations correctly). This sword has modern tokujū designation and is the sword on the pg. 118 in Ausgewählte Japanische Kunstschwerter book. In the book it is written that the sword belonged to the Maeda clan in Kaga.

 

Darcy had this https://www.nihonto.ca/fukuoka-ichimonji/Fukuoka Ichimonji jūyō that has Hon'ami appraisal (1712) for Ichimonji valued at 100 kinsu - 4,000,000 copper coins (I am really not sure if you can compare these to Edo smith prices at all)

 

Markus has in his webpage article a jūyō tanto to Nobukuni which has Hon'ami paper (1701) evaluated for 6 gold pieces - 240,000 copper coins

 

Lower ranking retainer averaged 3 ryō per year which converts to 12,000 copper coins. Where as in the article Markus gives average net income for Hatamoto being around 150 to 300 ryō. 600,000 to 1,200,000 copper coins. So I think it is safe to say that it would have been very rare for lower ranking person to own a top tier sword.

[Hoshi]

I wonder to which degree ascribing these extremely high coin value to swords was an indirect way of 'printing money' for the Tokugawa. It's not clear at all to me that these honami estimates would reflect the real selling prices at the time.

 

These 'monetized' swords could be used as an effective way to reward a vassal without spending valuable currency. Some sort of 'sword bubble' purposefully done in order to spare treasury and land, similar to the way fiat currency has been issued by central banks. This is further corroborated by the inflation in sword value we observe over the years from the Honami appraisal. We have no market data from the commerce of old swords during the Edo period as far as I know. Only gift exchange lists. This means we should take these multi-million estimates with a grain of salt. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here comes part that might irk some dealers and high end collectors...

 

I have been planning for few days to write a post about "prestige" "air" etc. what term you want to use, and it's involvement in sword price. This is actually quite difficult concept as swords are one of a kind art objects. And I personally feel that the pricing gets lot lot tougher and more fickle the higher up you go in rarity & value.

 

We all have probably witnessed what we personally consider as overpriced items. And item being overpriced is in my personal opinion easier to spot at lower level. For example if a sword has ko-Uda attribution it will not be in the " most desirable" class even though it would be jūyō or with very nice koshirae. Now this is where I might go against the common "norm". As it is often said that buying the best quality one can afford is the best investment wise etc. I will say low-mid class swords are much less fickle when it comes to pricing. Therefore in my opinion they make a safer investment than top tier swords. Of course they do not have the profit potential of high class stuff either.

 

Yes high & top tier swords are of course in different league in terms of prestige but they also have lot more "air"/leeway/potential profit, whatever you want to call it in their price. In some cases this is perfectly understandable but there are lots and lots of swords that get a lot of prestige that I do not yet fully understand. Those who know me better, might know that I like signatures a lot. As to me signature carries a lot of prestige. However some mumei sword carry prestige that overrides many lower swords that have signature in the eyes of art collectors. As a historical collector it is for me a slightly difficult concept to grasp. As on these cases with some mumei ō-suriage swords the attribution carries a humongous prestige.

 

Also to note the the higher you go the more fickle the pricing will be. There can be big drops or raises in prices. Because at this level items are rare one of a kind items. But like I said pricing will be lot more fickle, 10-20% price drop for example will be a lot more cash than same level price drop in item 10x lower in price.

 

Then there is a case when item is so rare it might be pretty much unobtainable otherwise, then it pretty much does not matter where you put the asking price. As if someone will want to buy that they will have to get that piece. Examples might be something like signed Awataguchi pieces, signed ko-Bizen etc. For example I saw a Gojō Kanenaga tachi at Taibundo (same sword was sold in the USA some years ago), I understood it was rare but had to made research to really understand how rare it is. I believe only five signed Kanenaga tachi remain, 3 jūyō, 1 jūbi & 1jūbu, so the chance to own a signed Gojō Kanenaga is pretty much that sword...

 

Would be nice to hear some more thoughts about the subject.

[BIG]

I do not see a "prestige" in buying a "good, nice" sword. Otherwise you have " a glow in your heart " ( like that phrase, thank you Piers) and of course be proud to own it for hopefully some decads.

Personal evolution, education is a target you do not explain as a newby, but will happen when you seriously join the nihonto path.

So you have to wait for your sword ? Not bad at all to wait for your tachi...

 

Best

[Jussi Ekholm]

Oh I guess my line of thought didn't come out very clearly as I meant the swords themselves have "prestige" when collecting at high level. I guess "desirability" would be a better word to use. As I saw discussion thread about bitcoins where Darcy had made a blog post (just skip the bitcoin part and focus on nihonto pricing as it is very well written) https://www.nihonto.ca/ha/?p=507#more-507

 

Darcys writings are always nice to read and they of course blow mine away. However as I live in different world than him it would be really nice to friendly headbutt with him on these things. I agree with him most of the stuff he writes/says but would be fun to argue friendly some small points back & forth.   

 

When you read his post you can see that even high end dealer will easily agree that there is big fluctuation in prices at the high level. Of course if you think someone who has money to spend say 50k€ to a sword is not on his/hers last pennies but you could easily say the value could very well fluctuate between 40k€ and 60k€. So that is a huge risk/profit potential. Where as for a very basic sword you could say 5k€ and it fluctuates between 4-6k€. The range is similar in percentage but monetary losses/profits are small.

[Peter Bleed]

Japanese sword collectors can follow one of two paths. They can either follow the establishment standard, do things the way they should (ie, the way prescribed by social leaders). OR they can strike out in a direction of their own choosing. We can either accept the great myths of sword collecting (e.g. the Gokaden) and study the standards of established authorities OR we can foolishly pursue categories that we happen to find interesting.

Japanese society really likes fitting in. Japanese are not comfortable with conflict and disagreement. Successful Japanese have generally learned the social rules and followed them. The post WWII generation of "Non-Japanese collectors" followed different social rules and depended on rather incomplete information. That generation - and style of sword appreciation - is now passing. It is being replaced by "World collectors" who depend on well organized markets that are generally controlled by - or at least sensitive to - Japanese leaders. In this situation, serious collectors need to understand which categories the leadership approves of. These decisions are social NOT rational. If you want to collect like a Japanese, all you have to do is learn the rules, find a comfortable  social position, and trust your  leaders. They will tell you what is good and bad.

Peter

[Rich S]

Peter my friend, I guess I'm not a social collector (or even very social). My rule for collecting swords, tsuba, knives, etc. is simple:

Collect what you like, but like what you collect :-)

 

Rich

[Jean]

Rich,

 

You have stated the thing as it should be: collect what you like, and above all, like what you have collected

[Peter Bleed]

I, too, agree completely with Rich. Of course we should collect what we like and understand.

The point I was trying to make is that market trends about "good" or bad" schools are social decisions.Individuals can decide what they like.  If you want to buy swords that will do well on the market, you have to follow the tastes of major collectors, dealers, and taste makers. If you follow your own tastes you might have a great time and find some bargains, but investment values might be hard to predict.

Schools that command high prices will be those accepted as the "preferred" ones. Many of the leading collectors and dealers operating out side of Japan now seem very  sensitive to market trends and the tastes of the NBTHK shinsa teams. They really like Juyo certification - or better. These are the standards that define "good schools". It is standards like this that let "authorities" say that there are NO seriously collectible Shin-shinto. I mean please!

Peter

[Surfson]

My experience has been a bit of a hybrid.  When I started collecting swords, I had practically no assets to invest, so any collection that I would build had to be based on "sweat equity".  I put ads in local newspapers like the Penny Saver or Baltimore Sun, I put ads on diner placemats (really!), and then I hustled.  I would get phone calls, drop what I was doing, drive to see what was on offer, and buy swords that I could get at a very good price.   I would sell nearly every good sword I got because I couldn't afford to tie up my funds, but slowly started to build my personal collection with the profits (if you want to call it that).  I have some assets now and don't need to buy and sell to build a collection, but I still do some times since it can still help me to build my collection.  For example, I bought a mint Yasukunito, even though I don't generally collect gendaito, because I knew it was way underpriced and eventually I would find a friend or other collector who would really want to own it.  I ended up trading it for a magnificent set of koshirae that I truly love, and it is now firmly in my collection.  I had friends that wanted to buy it, but hung on to it until the right trade came along.  I still can't resist swords that I know would be easy to sell or trade with a gain for this reason - they can be trade bait or help to build resources to buy the swords that get tucked away.  So I do sometimes buy things that I don't like, or at least don't collect, when they are very inexpensive because I know that others do.  Finally, I think it is very important for collectors to learn how to sell swords as well as to learn how to buy them.  Both require practiced skill and plenty of mistakes, but once learned, can be the key to building a wonderful and truly satisfying collection.

[Hoshi]

I don't buy the whole postmodern nihonto argument. For (some) modern art, OK. Valuation is based on purely social considerations. I also think that for some of the wabi-sabi iron tsuba, we're veering towards the modern art criteria as well... - but that's another topic.

 

There are standards of quality for sword. Tiers of craftsmanship. If something cannot be reproduced today because the technique has been lost, that says something about manufacturing difficulty (and hence, skill) and not social appraisal. Craftsmanship is a preponderant factor in determining quality, which factors into desirability heavily. Nobody can copy norishige today. Naohide/Kajihei was the last to come close. If the top experts in Japan tell you this work and that work is of supreme quality, its not the same thing as some haughty New Yorker Art critic vaunting the qualities of the latest Klein Monochrome for sale on Christies.