Auction Sword - Worth A Look

[Vermithrax16]

Koto sword with dimensions that are good, hada is well done, polish is excellent. Worth a look. I am looking:

http://www.sword-auction.jp/en/content/as17462-%E5%88%80%EF%BC%9A%E7%84%A1%E9%8A%98%EF%BC%88%E4%B8%AD%E5%B3%B6%E6%9D%A5-katana-mumei-nakajima-rai

[Surfson]

Nice sword.  For some reason, this Rai branch school doesn't bring big money.  There was a "Echizen Rai" katana (same as Nakajima Rai) in full polish with NBTHK papers and Tanobe sayagaki at the Chicago show a couple years ago (I think that Mike Yamasaki had it), and I think it went for under $7K.  This sword has a nice hada, including some masame that you like so much! 

[Vermithrax16]

Nice sword.  For some reason, this Rai branch school doesn't bring big money.  There was a "Echizen Rai" katana (same as Nakajima Rai) in full polish with NBTHK papers and Tanobe sayagaki at the Chicago show a couple years ago (I think that Mike Yamasaki had it), and I think it went for under $7K.  This sword has a nice hada, including some masame that you like so much! 

Well, you can just say I am predictable, I would take no offense

[Guido]

It is indeed a nice sword, but unfortunately shortend to a degree where so much of the original shape is lost that it looks kind of stubby.

 

Echizen Rai 越前来 is not the same as Nakajima Rai 中島来: the Echizen Rai school was founded by Chiyozuru Kuniyasu 千代鶴国安 - who was a student of the Nakajima Rai smith Kuniyasu 国安 - and joined by Rai Munemitsu 来宗光.The main body of work of the Nakajima Rai school was produced by Kuninaga 国長 (shodai and nidai).

[Surfson]

Thanks for clarification about the two parallel offshoots of Rai, Guido.  It is still my impression that their swords don't bring as much as their predecessor mainline Rai smiths.  It's hard to attribute that just to age differences, but I have no idea why collectors are less interested in these Rai branches.  If you agree about this view on collectibility, can you comment as to the reason?  

[Surfson]

Jeremiah, I share your affection for masame nagare hada!

[Guido]

Not really parallel - Echizen Rai came later, it's an offshoot of Nakajima Rai, which is an offshoot of mainline Rai.

 

IMO, Echizen Rai isn't of the same quality as Nakajima Rai (generally speaking). OTOH, good Nakajima Rai is often better than lesser mainline Rai. Let me give an example: if you submit a Nambokuchō mumei sword that shows typical Rai traits, but isn't up to the quality of the top Rai guys, you might get either Nakajima Rai (i.e. Kuninaga), or Rai Kunizane; personally, I would be happier with Nakajima Rai.

 

Although the above is just my personal opinion, it's often reflected in the pricing of the respective schools.

[Vermithrax16]

Not really parallel - Echizen Rai came later, it's an offshoot of Nakajima Rai, which is an offshoot of mainline Rai.

 

IMO, Echizen Rai isn't of the same quality as Nakajima Rai (generally speaking). OTOH, good Nakajima Rai is often better than lesser mainline Rai. Let me give an example: if you submit a Nambokuchō mumei sword that shows typical Rai traits, but isn't up to the quality of the top Rai guys, you might get either Nakajima Rai (i.e. Kuninaga), or Rai Kunizane; personally, I would be happier with Nakajima Rai.

 

Although the above is just my personal opinion, it's often reflected in the pricing of the respective schools.

Good info Guido, thank you. I think the price reflects what you are saying. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here is some data to back up what Guido was saying before.

 

Nakajima Rai is a good attribution and direct Rai Kuninaga attribution is a great one for a mumei blade. Where as Echizen Rai / Chiyozuru attribution is not as good for a mumei blade. Now mumei blades are real pain for an amateur like me and that is one of the reasons I will value signature so highly. Some minor differences in perceived details might change an attribution to one way or another. At least that is how it seems for an amateur collector, mumei blades require lots of skill to fully be appreciated where as historical significance of signed pieces is so easily identifiable.

 

Here is info from my small database of stuff sold by good dealers in the past years. I put my project on pause for a while as there are too many swords out there, as I started already to cut some of them out as I get swords & schools that interest me more and more. Of course the numbers are still way too small to draw any serious conclusions but it will at least give some hints.

 

Nakajima Rai

5 mumei Rai Kuninaga - 4 Jūyō / 1 Tokubetsu Hozon

5 mumei Nakajima Rai - 2 Jūyō / 1 Tokubetsu Hozon / 2 Hozon (this sword will be 3rd Hozon)

 

Echizen Rai

6 mumei Echizen Rai - 1 Jūyō / 2 Tokubetsu Hozon / 3 Hozon

10 mumei Chiyozuru - 1 Tokubetsu Hozon / 9 Hozon

 

And as Guido mentioned Rai Kunizane for comparison too

6 mumei Rai Kunizane - 3 Jūyō / 2 Tokubetsu Hozon / 1 Hozon

[Surfson]

Here was Tsuruta San's comments:

 

Special feature:The founder of Echizen Rai school is Rai Kuniyasu who is a descendant of Rai school.
He moved to Echizen province and made swords mixed up Rai school 
and Echizen blackish active Itame-hada.
This school is also called Nakajima Rai.

 

If I understand Guido's comments correctly, Chiyozuru Kuniyasu branched off of the Nakajima Rai line to start the Echizen Rai line.  And if Tsuruta is right, both lines have a common founder, Rai Kuniyasu (I assume this is the Nakajima Rai referred to by Guido). I would assume that after the branching off by Chiyozuru, the two ran in parallel?  

 

Finally, in terms of value, and given swords of similar quality, I take it that Mainline Rai > Nakajima Rai > Echizen Rai.  Sorry for my lazy approach, not digging into the books, but I am on vacation now and have no access.  

[Guido]

::sigh::

 

Mainline Rai
Kuniyoshi → Kuniyuki → Kunitoshi (niji) → Kunitoshi (→ Kuninaga 1)

 

Nakajima Rai
Kuninaga 1 → Kuniyasu 1 (→ Kuniyasu 2)

 

Echizen Rai
Kuniyasu 2 → etc.

 

And of course all three ran kind of parallel for some amount time - a school didn't exactly drop the hammer immediately after the other started. But that's just semantics. To spell it out: Mr. Tsuruta's (or one of his staff) explanation is a little ... hmmm... "confused" ...

[Markus]

Hi Bob,

 

Check out my Rai genealogy here:

 

https://markussesko.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/genealogyrai.pdf

 

Lilke Guido said, Tsuruta's staff got confused. Kuniyasu did not branch off from Nakajima Rai but a level above so to speak, after Kunisue. 

[Guido]

Check out my Rai genealogy here:

 

Markus, that genealogy is quite different from your book "Genealogies and Schools of Japanese Swordsmiths" (and what you wrote elsewhere) and other sources I know of - is it based on some new research I'm not aware of?

[Markus]

Guido, it is insofar different as I realized that a mere master-student-relationship-based genealogy can be kind of skewed sometimes so I tried to focus more on family ties. When going along with my Kantei series, I tried to go once more through all the references and update accordingly, so this might be a reason for differences as well. What I had not incorporated before in my genealogies book but do so with the series is Tsuneishi's Nihontō no Kantei to Kanshō. Actually quite an excellent book which I didn't realize reading it the first time many years ago but it has very good info.

[Markus]

General info: These "updates" are a reason why I am not going to turn my Kantei series into any monetary venture (as many suggested I better do). In other words, the Kantei series reflects my most recent research and will always be free because it is so to speak backed by the support I have received from readers like Guido who actually buy my books. 

[Surfson]

Thanks to both of you for addressing my naive comment and questions.  The genealogy provided by you both is just at the top of the Nakajima and Echizen lines it seems.  I will have to pick this up again when I return and have access to my books.  And Markus, I do count myself among those with a big "Sesko collection"!  Cheers, Bob

[Guido]

... I realized that a mere master-student-relationship-based genealogy can be kind of skewed sometimes so I tried to focus more on family ties.

 

Both at the same time would be great, because smiths often adopted/taught students who were more promising than their biological sons. However, I guess this would make a very confusing chart, I myself wouldn't know how to tackle this challenge.  

 

Anyhow, I hope I'm allowed some unsolicited praise: in recent years I go more often to your publications than to the gold standard "sensei isn't to be questioned"-books  . Keep up the good work - 頑張って！

[Jean]

And, as used to say Afu Watson, Gambatte!!!

[Vermithrax16]

Sesko books and latest updates are my #1 references.

 

As such, this one went unbid. Still a nice sword.