Schools Of Appreciation

[Hoshi]

Hoping to get a conversation going on the topic of Schools of Appreciation. 

 

Often books written on Nihonto are in my view quite dull, no risk and read like academic lexicons. I've combed through a few now, and what I notice is that there aren't many opinionated treaties on nihonto appreciation. The two that stood out so far are Facts and Fundamentals which everyone here knows, and the Nihonto Newsletter. Both push a very different story on what to value, and why we should value it. 

 

Yamanaka (Nihonto Newletter)

• Soshu preference: Bizen steel looks weak. Soshu were a technological revolution at the time and surpassed all other swords. Thus we should value them more because of their functional advantages. 
• Jihada premium: The best sword has 'uroi' jihada, which looks deep like looking in a frozen pond in winter. Only a few masters achieved this uroi jihada, and most were Soshu school. It's important to value this quality as it reflects the functional soundness of the steel.
• Archetype of perfection: Sansaku 

Nakaraka (Facts and Fundamentals)

• Bizen premium: Bizen has been the top sword producing province. Hon'ami's emphasis on Soshu is convenient to print money because most Soshu works are mumei and thus conducive to attribution inflation.
• Signed and Ubu premium: Suriage was performed for attribution inflation. There is far less certainty in attributions compared to what is assumed in Kantei-sho and what you think. 
• Consistency of the Noie-guchi: Consistency of the Noie-guchi is critical because it honestly reflects the skill of the smith. It must not be too deep, or too shallow (basically it needs to emulate the work of top bizen smiths). 
• Archetype of perfection: Top Bizen (Mitsutada, Nagamitsu, Kagemitsu...)

 

Note: When I write premium, I mean above market average. Everyone values signed and ubu or a beautiful jihada, obviously. Moreover, I do not put both on equal footing: The Yamanaka school of thought goes back at least to Hideoyoshi. While some of Nakaraka's conjectures ought to be taken with a grain of salt, I am fond of his 'economic' explanation to explain out puzzling details in the history of Nihonto. Greed is strong.  

 

Now, my questions are: 

• Are there other schools of appreciations? if so, what do they place their premiums on? 
• We're all at least superficially familiar with Hawley and Fujishiro. If you were to extract what these old treaties value above the market average, what would it be? And do they differ from each other, or from the Hon'ami canon? 
• Are there other opinionated treaties worth reading with a translation available?
• Where do you stand presently? And what attribute is in your view fundamentally underappreciated, and why should we pay more attention to it?

[Jussi Ekholm]

One major style/school to appreciate would be Yamashiro (I know we have our Yamashiro fans on board).

 

For Yamashiro especially Awataguchi and Rai have most prestige.

 

Darcy made interesting research a while back and you'll see who came out on top of the top tier designations: https://yuhindo.com/ha/the-top-ten/

 

I am listing swords down as my hobby for fun and education and listing top stuff will make you learn new things. Here are some probably bit lesser known schools/smiths that are quite highly regarded by NBTHK and Japanese government bodies.

 

Hasebe (Yamashiro)

Taima (Yamato)

Takagi Sadamune (Ōmi)

Kanro Toshinaga (Ōmi)

Katayama Ichimonji (Bitchū)

Kamakura Ichimonji (Sagami)

Bizen Saburō Kunimune (Bizen)

Unshō (Bizen)

Hōjōji (Tajima) [Even though it's somewhat bucket attribution]

Inaba Kagenaga (Inaba)

Yukihira (Bungo)

Naminohira Yukiyasu (Satsuma)

[Hoshi]

Hi Jussi,

 

Thanks for the reply. You make me realize I wasn't clear at all in my initial post.

 

By school of appreciation I don't mean smith schools to appreciate, but systems to judge the importance of nihonto. For instance, Fujishiro, Hawley, Wazamono ratings, are systems to judge the quality of the work produced by smiths.

 

It's more obvious in Nakaraka vs. Yamanaka because these two disagree and suscribe to two different schools of thoughts on what constitutes a great nihonto. It's clear that 'Uroie' is a way to appreciate certain for of Jihada typical of Soshu, and to a lesser extent Awataguchi. Or that the emphasis on the consistency and depth of the Noie-guchi and Utsuri are aesthethic criteria mainly aimed for the appreciation of Bizen. These are both opinionated criteria which seek to have an objective grounding - not simply because it's 'nice' - but because they purport to reflect functionality and skill. 

[Rivkin]

Very-very personal and erroneous view.

I would start by completely discarding "functionality" argument since it was never proven by anyone at all. Most Shinto blades have substantially less slag and smaller grain size compared to Kamakura masterpieces. It consistently comes up in analysis that compares the two. They also don't have fukure or ware 5 inch long, as some of the masterpieces.

The whole argument about technological superiority, differential heat treatment and lamination making Japanese swords uniquely great was first advanced in late 1920s, 1930s - and according to it all swords in Shosoin were at the time re-classified as Japanese, since they all have these features. 

 

Regarding Bizen versus Soshu, how many first grade blades in great condition are out there? 200? maybe 100? Hasebe is a great name, but they produced many blades (big factory), including those having basically the crudest hada one can find. Their better works sort of "pull up" bad blades with this name one sees on sale every year.

One seeks in Soshu something lying between Masamune/Sadamune and Hasebe/Hiromitsu/Akihiro, but also the best work in this category and in the best condition. It will look absolutely stunning. It will quite possibly have ware and maybe even fukure.

There are quite a few who believe fukure to be kantei feature for Masamune (against say attribution to Norishige or Soshu Yukimitsu).

And then most likely the blade one finds will be not be for sale for any money. Enjoy it for half an hour and go away.

 

A major ware in Bizen is unusual, the quality is by far more consistent, the aesthetic is more repetative, can be less ambitious, with often not distinct hada, but great utsuri and impressive flame-like hamon. Soden Bizen can have both more ambitious hada and brighter ha, but it sort of style on its own, different from both Ichimonji and Masamune movements.

 

With Yamashiro+ there is Shintogo Kunimitsu who is great, a few comparable other examples, ko Aoe can be impressive, but the rest are very hard to understand by people like me, tired, beaten up, simple, dim stuff that still makes it to Juyo and up. Especially in 1970s there were quire a few Rai, Mihara and the likes securing higher papers.

One thing however - for all its supposed greatness, very few historically tried to repeat this style. Nosada was great in it, there is Hizen in Edo period, and almost no one to speak of in shinshinto or gendai. It had a very narrow window of popularity, at which point even Kyoto masters started to look first at Ichimonji and then to Soshu for inspiration.

 

Kirill R.

[Hoshi]

Hi Rivkin,

 

I gather that you value consistency in production. I've heard that Soshu-den is at higher risks of kizu due to the more extreme production methods as well, and that it was particularly difficult to make with Bizen ore. It makes sense in a way, since Bizen had a lot to lose from bad QA. 

 

If we are to put a premium on schools for their production consistency I would tentatively propose something like this:

• Shinto Hizen early generations: with their leading Suguha-based product. 
• Rai industries: Completely wiped out Awataguchi. Encoded smith ID on the blade brand on the tang for QA. Saved on production costs by using thinner of skin steel, ensured consistency for demanding clientele. 
• Osafune Bizen: for the reasons above. 

In fact this raises a good question: if you were to rate a smith, would you rate it on

 

1. his average output

2. his max - the best sword he ever made

3. his best (let's say the 10% top work)

[Jussi Ekholm]

I did understand your original premise but I didn't have anything of value to add to that. While it might be academically boring pretty much all Japanese sources agree of greatness of some specific schools and traditions. I cannot really say which % comes from historical appreciation, quality, functionality, other significance. It is logical that good traditions and schools were valued in their own time and are valued now.

 

However like Kirill earlier I do not subscribe to Kamakura swords being functionally superior to other swords even though the era is usually considered as pinnacle of Japanese sword making. That functional superiority is somewhat romantic ideal. In general I'd dare to think that there is not a huge difference in performance between various schools or periods as long as shape and size are similar. It might be blasphemy to say that in the end they are just swords, and they are made quite similarily. Lots of things are not scientifically proven, and you can see the same amongst modern sword users today. If you look at forums where modern swords are collected and used for martial arts purposes you'll see varying opinions about cutting provenance of some brands for example. Some like aesthetic features of some over the features in others. It is quite opinionated.

 

I sold my Yamanaka Newsletters a while ago so I cannot really comment on his views. Nakahara says quite many interesting views in his Facts & Fundamentals, I think it is good and makes you think. I cannot comment anything on Shintō swords as I don't focus on them but here are few thoughts about earlier swords.

 

You'll see the same schools and smiths in various sources achieving the high ranks. Fujishiro Saijō-saku and Jōjō-saku smiths will have very strong presense in NBTHK Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō. Likewise they will pretty much have highest valuations in Tōko Taikan and Hawleys. You'll see common source books like Nihontō Kōza, Nagayama's Connoisseurs etc. focusing on great smiths and traditions and only have short passages on mediocre smiths. When museum collections are exhibited you'll usually see the works of the great smiths presented.

 

I am on the boring train, as I think we should try to understand why the majority of Japanese scholars agree on greatness of some things. That will advance our own learning. Still personally I value original shape and size over the quality. Ōdachi are my secret pleasure, when I encounter pre 1600's ōdachi in books it is a great moment for me. Large battlefield weapons are just historically important in my mind and I can forget quality aspect when dealing with those.

[Hoshi]

Disagreement is more interesting than agreement. You can agree because its what your teacher always said and that's the most logical thing to do in most case. But disagreement is more interesting because when it comes from experts, one can assume that they have well-articulated reasons to do so. The problem with Hawley, Taikan and Fujihiro is that they didn't work with the same data, thus disagreement may simply stem from the lack of exposure to certain smiths. This is why I was focused on modern views, where the data is arguably the same for everyone. In fact, we should now upgrade Fujishiro in light of NBTHK judgements, but that's another topic. 

 

If I understand you well: 

• Premium on preserved shape, and especially instruments of war (as opposed to court-carried EDO period conversion) because they preserve their battlefield intent, and thus possess greater historical value. 
• This means that more broadly the Jussi school of valuation puts emphasis on maximally preserved Naginata, Nagamaki and O-Dachi. It's interesting because except for the O-Dachi (barely any left at all), even well preserved and barely modified Naginata/Nagamaki blades are valued below Katana, and this shows at Juyo and above. For you they should be valued a notch above because they are instruments of the battlefield. 
• However, O-suriage large shape ex-O-Dachi from the Nambokucho era, such as Chogi would be overvalued for you because they do not preserve length/shape of their original military purpose. 

Thanks for sharing that's an interesting take. 

[eternal_newbie]

In fact this raises a good question: if you were to rate a smith, would you rate it on

 

1. his average output

2. his max - the best sword he ever made

3. his best (let's say the 10% top work)

 

Assuming we're speaking about historical smiths, for me it would be option 3 - the max best sword could have been a fluke, a gassaku or daisaku, or even made using different steel to the norm and thus cannot be used as an accurate benchmark. And for the average output, I don't begrudge anyone for doing what they have to in order to make a living - sometimes the client just wants something quick, cheap and effective. Even smiths today do it; there was a website a few years ago that sold an Ono Yoshimitsu blade that he had made for his own iai practice - it's very, very different to the fantastic stuff he usually puts out for his art swords, but I don't think it should drag down his overall 'appreciation rating'.

[Gakusee]

Well, schools of thought in Japan are often influenced by the same old books and traditions. But the body of evidence has been expanding in the last 100 years with better documentation, various swords emerging and being added to the canon.

So, I would not recommend arguing too much with Kunzan, Kanzan, Fujishiro or Tanobe sensei.

 

And in fact, Fujishiro and his interpretations/ beliefs have been vindicated quite a bit in recent studies (as in one vs two generations etc). So I would say his “system”’of appreciation and recognition is one to observe alongside other benchmarks

 

Someone had said that when you study and study and study and explore all the schools then you go back to the paradigm - KoBizen.

So in response to Kirill and Yamanaka:

- the top KoBizen forging (Tomonari and Masatsune) is tight and skilled (Kanzan mentions those and Awataguchi as the paragons of skilful hada)

- the view about wetness being a Soshu thing and also Soshu forging at very high temperatures achieving nie, etc - again, half baked truth. KoBizen forged in konie and nie and that is where Soshu learnt from. Observe the best KoBizen and you will see it “looks” Soshu. In fact, at a Kurokawa san I saw an amazing KoBizen blade that one could mistake for a Masamune or Sadamune and he smiled and said that indeed many people made that mistake. Also, the 96cm JuBu Tomonari is reputedly one at which Masamune marvelled and tried to emulate

 

So, there is no straightforward answer but a compilation of sources, beliefs and interpretations. However, Darcy Brockbank had written a very good article about the best schools - there is little point plagiarising his points but centuries of shoguns and daimyo selecting (ko)Bizen, Soshu and Yamashiro to treasure and preserve cannot be wrong

[seattle1]

Hello:

It is an interesting question introduced by Valric as it invites us to infer from the literature what is hot and what is not so to speak, and by mentioning

Yamanaka and Nakahara, separated by many years, it is almost as if one is invited to think of a progression of lesser to greater truth. Most collectors today

have probably never seen a copy of the Newsletters and he has been deceased since the early 1970s. Albert Yamanaka was a student of Hon'ami Koson, in his day

he was, along with others, such as members of the unknown today Chuo Token Kai,a very influential sword scholar, particularly in the pre-war era. After the war

circumstances changed dramatically with the fortuitous connection of Dr. Homma with Col. Cadwell and the eventual creation of the NBTHK. Yamanaka was distinctly

not a friend of the NBTHK as can be seen in his writings. He was not an iconoclast, just a man in the Hon'ami tradition and if one can infer anything it is that

his writings reflect their point of view. I could be wrong but I believe that Nagayama Kokan's Connoisseur's book is in that same tradition.

When it comes to Nakahara his terrific book reflects him alone and it has been criticized by many because it lifts the curtain on all the many little tricks

that were once more or less known to those who knew but were not into telling. That won't get you invited to join the country club.

I think evaluation criteria are highly subjective and they will evolve not in any scientific or experimental way, but by who is the master of ceremonies at the

moment, and clearly that is the NBTHK. It follows that those above who have tried to devine their preferences demonstrated from shinsa awards are on the track

that matters for now.

Arnold F.

[Peter Bleed]

This has been an interesting - if also challenging - thread. I collect shinto so I am largely outside this discussion. Essentially, I can define my interests and desires in light of rather easily understood social and historical trends. I do NOT have to consider the aesthetic preferences of "authorities". Now, if I lived in Japan, i think I would enjoy the company of a sword community. I also think I COULD learn the categories and characteristics they recognized. I have all the major books that have been discussed here (and many more) so I suppose that I sort of DO understand the categories and standards addressed in this thread. Approaching sword collecting in these terms  OUTSIDE OF Japan and without easily accessible sensei is, for me impossible.

Peter

[Bazza]

... Approaching sword collecting in these terms  OUTSIDE OF Japan and without easily accessible sensei is, for me impossible.

Peter

Not forgetting to mention a considerable amount of discretionary money, the bane of most collectors I meet including myself!!  An average hakujin collector just has to do more with less...

 

BaZZa.

[Rivkin]

 

• Shinto Hizen early generations: with their leading Suguha-based product. 
• Rai industries: Completely wiped out Awataguchi. Encoded smith ID on the blade brand on the tang for QA. Saved on production costs by using thinner of skin steel, ensured consistency for demanding clientele. 
• Osafune Bizen: for the reasons above. 

In fact this raises a good question: if you were to rate a smith, would you rate it on

 

1. his average output

2. his max - the best sword he ever made

3. his best (let's say the 10% top work)

 

The question on why some smiths signed the blades and some did not is an interesting one, and my personal take is that it has to do with how production and weapon ownership was regulated under ritsuryo versus later systems. Bizen became important enough early on to directly pay taxes in kind to the central government and probably (Heian and Kamakura texts include almost no documents directly regarding the smiths) had some level of autonomy that most government-bonded and estate craftsmen did not.

 

An artist is valued by 10% of his best work. Pre-modern craftsmen including famous painters, save hobbyists like Leonardo, all had to churn up a lot of good to average "school" work to keep them fed, and even Renoir accounts for 4000 paintings, out of which 3500 can be bought for under 200K each and are unoriginal (you see a lot of them in Japan and other post WWII collections), and about 100 will go upwards to 100 million.

The problem in Japanese scholarship is that average works are typically taken from the master and given to later generations. In the past it was not unusual also to assign a prestigious name to a better piece with a simple argument that "X was very good and fully capable of copying the work that would normally pass as Y".

 

The counter-problem is that there was a significant sugata change from Kamakura to Nambokucho - and because of that you constantly have clash of "experts", some papering much later pieces to Masamune based on their features and quality, while others insist on sugata-first approach and then in Kamakura Soshu there are simply no "small names" that one would send worse pieces to - the absolutely worst you can do money-wise is Norishige, which is obviously still one of the best names (and the one that is actually signed and dated).

 

Another big issue is that Tenno, Ieyasu's and Toyotomi's items were never really reappraised, unlike weapons and art pieces of Europe which were all skeptically reevaluted between 1900 and 1950. So there are plenty of museum meito which are very strange for the names they carry. Kogarasumaru, Kusanagi, Fudo Masamune to name just a few, but the list is very long. 

 

Plus there was also a huge "realignment" of collection descriptions that happened between 1550 and 1650, at the end of which any decent Soshu work had a chance of being Masamune. 

 

Still nothing wrong with collecting gendai. Actually quite a few pieces there outshine the better shinshinto and even most Horikawa's work. I really appreciated an event hosted by Chris and Joe that had I feel couple of such tantos that were so good that one would probably have to go all the way to the heights of koto to find better ones - and even then the aesthetic would be so different, it is all debatable.

 

There are books that claim that chokuto was the real pinnacle of Japanese craftsmanship (which I feel is very strange), there are some who really like ko-Bizen hada, others will argue that nothing beats Norishige's hada, which however aesthetically is absolutely the opposite of ko-Bizen, ko Aoe and the rest of the "dense" type.

For myself it is all debatable, and not really "expert-enforceable".

 

Kirill R.

[Hoshi]

Many interesting perspectives expressed here, thank you. I'll sum up a few things. 

 

Michael cites the 'Eternal Return to Ko-bizen theory'

• The work of Ko-bizen masters ought to be valued above the the other great masters, because if you study long enough, this is what you will come to appreciate most. The question that comes to me immediately is what exactly do you appreciate more? This is interesting. I would also welcome a source on the matter. 

Kirill states that attribution is quality in mumei blades, this is an important point which Darcy has insisted upon many times. Tier 2 smiths with Tier 1 work had their signatures erased to be attributed to Tier 1, and so on and so forth. This became especially egregious during the mid-eda Hon'ami era where inflation took place and Tier 3 could be promoted to Tier 1, etc. Just as gold coins were devalued by reducing the gold content while keeping the weight constant. Attribution as quality means that we basically have things like Masamume (T1)->Norishige (T2)->Tametsugu/Sanekage (T3)->Uda (T4) or Masamume (T1)->Shizu Kaneuji (T2)->Naoe Shizu (T3+) depending on the Soshu-flavor. NBTHK cleaned the house, mostly, except for Museum, Shrines and other confines out of reach. 

 

Corollary to this is that remaining signed Soshu work which are not T1/T2 are likely to be lower grade production for the smith. If a T2 smith produced a T3-level tanto, you want to preserve the signature because it wouldn't go back up to T2 if it was erased. I don't know the extant of this. In any case what this all tells us is that the database of signed piece has been heavily corrupted, and the distribution of work quality we observe isn't representative of a smith's true distribution. This actually is a strong argument to rely on sources which predate the inflationary crisis. 

• While ancient sources have less data available to them, they do not suffer from the data corruption of later sources. 

[Rivkin]

 

Kirill states that attribution is quality in mumei blades, this is an important point which Darcy has insisted upon many times. Tier 2 smiths with Tier 1 work had their signatures erased to be attributed to Tier 1, and so on and so forth. This became especially egregious during the mid-eda Hon'ami era where inflation took place and Tier 3 could be promoted to Tier 1, etc. Just as gold coins were devalued by reducing the gold content while keeping the weight constant. Attribution as quality means that we basically have things like Masamume (T1)->Norishige (T2)->Tametsugu/Sanekage (T3)->Uda (T4) or Masamume (T1)->Shizu Kaneuji (T2)->Naoe Shizu (T3+) depending on the Soshu-flavor. NBTHK cleaned the house, mostly, except for Museum, Shrines and other confines out of reach. 

 

 

That unfortunately will depend on the year in which NBTHK papers are issued. One of the issues with green papers is that in 1970s they would give a sword with Oei sugata papers to Masamune provided it was historically known as such and the features/quality where suggestive of such attribution. Justification sometimes was that sugata changes could have been gradual, with some production still done in conservative form, while other swords were already made in Nambokucho style.

With so few period blades dated it is something that can be theoretically considered.

 

Today's (post 2005) shinsa is scared of big names and any feature suggesting the blade is post 1345 with great likeness sends it to the lower tier. From Go you go to Tametsugu, or you can even get thrown all the way to Chogi.

Which in turn is considered "lower" in part because until recently the best swords with such sugata would still be Masamune or Sadamune. 

And if it is as late as Oei sugata, then you are really "out of luck", since they simply don't have big Soshu names for the period - so even the first class blade (yes, they are quite rare with this shape) can be assigned "Naoe Shizu". 

 

Regarding Honami papers, pre Kachu generations are both seldom found and are a big boost to sword's price, but …. their scholarship is always a big question. 

 

Kirill R.

[Peter Bleed]

Most theories of sword quality and evaluation ratings were developed by dealers. That is, men who made their money SELLING and SERVICING swords. Most of the men who BOUGHT swords, on the other hand, wanted good weapons, i.e. blades that would preform well. Their challenge was assessing quality.How do you know that a sword will preform well?

Around the world, blade makers developed techniques for demonstrating quality. I love the European approach of "Warrenting" blades. That means, it says right there, that if this blade breaks, we'll give you your money back.LOL! Many smiths around the world also developed systems of proof marks that a soldier could see as evidence of skill and testing and - thereby - effectIveness.

What Japanese smiths developed was very careful attention to shape and - especially - tempering. These were supported by both careful polishing and regular testing. These practices let Japanese smiths SEE was they were doing AND it let swordsmen SEE qualities they could consider when buying swords they were putting their survival on. The individuals who organized these observations - and developed all the vocabulary we use - were the guys who formed what we're calling "Schools of Appreciation." They invented terminology. They observed evidence of effectveness. They saw features that let swords cut. etc etc.

The goal was not "ART" or aesthetic assessment, It was - at least intitially, aimed at helping warriors make life and death assessments.

P

[Rivkin]

For the "functionality" argument, there is an observation. Nambokucho to Mid Muromachi Japanese sources are extremely rich in statisticss about how many people where killed-wounded by which weapon - as reports with these details where submitted with great frequency.

 

At the time the greatest masters were nearly all producing tanto as their most valuable specialty. Some exclusively produced tanto and almost no daito. Yet the first soldier killed in battle with tanto is recorded only close to Onin war.

Basically the entire Nambokucho not a single person was killed in battle with a tanto (another big surprise - naginata did not fare much better). Quite a few were drowned, stoned, burned, most were shot with arrows or chopped with swords.

 

None killed with a tanto - which nevertheless was the most prized blade. So it must have been artistic from the very beginning.

Europeans are practical. They produced grey, cheap, practical weapons.

 

Kirill R.

[Peter Bleed]

You make very good points, Kirill. It could be that daito did not survive well. And how come there are no (well so very few) Shinto tanto?

Peter

[Hoshi]

Tantos survived because they were seldom used in battle compared to Daito. If you look at famous Daimyo collections, it's clear that the Daito is the most valued item, followed by the tanto, naginata and shortsword. More or less in that order. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and luxury kyoto smiths such as Yoshimitsu who have only tantos left may well have produced a plethora of Daito which were all destroyed or lost. 

 

I would be interested in reading the sources on battlefield casualty. During the unification of Japan, it has to be firearms > Ashigaru Yari > everything else insignificant, and prior to that it's most likely Arrows > Battlefield weapons (Naginata, Nagamaki, O-Dachi). 

 

Chogi as an attribution is rare unless it's slam dunk chogi because the archetype is so recognizable and the NBTHK is conservative compared to Hon'ami. I think it goes something like this: Chogi T2 ->Kencho (T3) /Hasebe (T2.5), depending on the flavour of Chogi. If it's big shape but 'Den-ish' it goes to Hasebe, if it's slamdunk soden-bizen but hamon is offtrack it goes to Kencho. Chogi prices and Norishige prices are close. Chogi is the nambokucho archetype and was emulated in Shinto times, and then by Kyomaro. Highly valued. This leads us to another attribute which can be valued to certain degrees by different schools of appreciations.

 

There is a simple and parsimonious way to value functionality if we take the resistance of the blade. All else being equal, it correlates with the strength of the shape. The Nambokucho geometry simply has more meat to it and is thus more resilient and 'battlefield optimized' although cumbersome to carry in court and requiring significantly more strength to use. On a symbolic level, nambokucho shapes are more masculine and evoke violence.  

 

• Strength/Masculinity premium: blades with nambokucho suguha evoke strength symbolically and are robust mechanically