Underrated Smiths ?

[Alex A]

Anyone feel some smiths are underrated?

 

You see some smiths listed as "Jo Saku" (fujishiro) but when you look at the work, for me, its not s good as some smiths listed as "Chu-jo".

 

Take the Bizen Shinshinto smith Yokoyama Sukekane, rated as "Chu-jo" (above average). I like his work, also his work is always highly regarded by Aoi, see below. Just wonder why hes listed as "Chu-jo".

 

https://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-bishu-osafune-ju-yokoyama-saemon-sukekane/

https://www.aoijapan.net/wakizashi-bizen-kuni-osafune-yokoyama-sukekane-saku/

https://www.aoijapan.com/wakizashi-bishu-osafune-ju-yokoyama-sukekane-saku1st-generation/

[Marius]

Some Takada school works are underrated. The school worked in so many styles, perhaps that is the reason, lack of "purity".

 

 

I have seen a Tadayuki blade with wonderful blue steel, utsuri and what have you. A work, that - as a Japanese connoisseur has said - could pass for Rai (I will add: were the signature removed and the sword made to look like o-suriage). Another example of an underrated maker:

 

Sakakura Seki Masayoshi, which could pass for Shizu.

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/sword5.html

 

I wonder how many o-suriage swords are not what the papers say? That said, they are excellent swords.

[Marius]

Oh, keep in mind that Fujishiro's system is contextual:

 

https://yuhindo.com/ratings.html

 

Where would I be without people like Darcy? 

[Alex A]

Oh, keep in mind that Fujishiro's system is contextual:

 

https://yuhindo.com/ratings.html

 

Where would I be without people like Darcy? 

 

Yes, that's what has left my mind, I do remember now you point it out, cheers Mariusz

[raynor]

I often see people quoting Fujishiro, Hawley and the Toko Taikan etc. during sales especially. Aren't any opinions given just that, an opinion? Granted more informed then the vast majority of collectors especially outside of Japan but I would think Shinsa papers is where you will get the most informed opinions since they actually get to hold the blades in question and it is not just a single individual, maybe in a seller, dealer or other position who decides the conclusion.

 

I read somewhere that there was an estimated 13000 known active smiths up until the Meiji restoration. With such a number of craftsmen there will undeniably be a huge gap from say Masamune's best work down to your obscure some days maybe drunken smith who produced subpar rushed blades during wartime, but certainly also a lot of underrated individuals.

 

As I'm still very fresh in this game I'm trying to not be blinded by big names, not that there is nothing to it, there definitively is, but rather try to look at and learn from blades individually regardless of who the work is attributed to. Are there any known examples of underrated smiths, and indications of why they are so beyond merely falling through the cracks and not be mentioned in any Fujishiro, Hawley or Toko Taikan register? 

 

If I understand correctly smiths registered by name but not by known work is given a "default" rating sometimes, which may prove very unjust in some cases?

[Hoshi]

Fujishiro was an incredible scholar. His ratings are on point. In fact it's remarkable how some of his theories and ratings have been vindicated historically, despite the fact that he did not have access to the amount of blades we have today. That said, he did go wrong on a few occasions. I know of one 'mistake' he made: Kencho Jo-Saku -> Jo-Jo Saku

[Rivkin]

Alex, I think a more potent issue is that it's impossible (and arguably unprofitable) for a smith to maintain the same quality for lifetime, and some do have noticeably greater excursions. Hasebe, Hankei? Ratings themselves are sort of East Asian thing. No one cares if Colosseum has a Unesco status, in all countries I live I have no idea which restaurants are Michelin (I suppose not the ones I am eating at). But in Japan you are bombarded with recommendations that are rating based. You have to see this temple because its Unesco World Heritage, you have to stop eating supermarket sushi since there is some super-exclusive SA-AA+ rated a year in advance reservation place you can have access to, etc.

Its a long tradition, and one can say much of Japanese Art and Poetry was purposefully arranged so that the topic and means are narrowly defined and thus all participants can be more or less objectively rated.

Another thing is that historically in Europe a merchant deciding to rate Durer Jo-Jo-Saku and Van Dyke Jo-Saku would be in no uncertain way told to mind the station of his class. In Japan if you read even Edo period documents, there is completely different level of respect towards antique dealers and their opinions/ratings.

 

With Fujishiro, there is much that reflects desirability or collectibility rather than pure quality. Muramasa is the most widely recognized nihonto name, but putting him at the same level as The Sadamune, whatever the context is, it just means the quality is not the only factor by far here.

There are also plenty of cases when a rare Edo period smith is given default rating like Chu-Jo-Saku or even Jo-Saku, and then you see his work, and its certainly Daimyo-custom-made kind of things (like a copy of famous Masamune) and is very good. He might have actually signed by Jo-Jo-saku's name from the same family almost all his life and thus had no reputation of his own which Fujishiro could have relied upon.

 

Still the ratings "sort of" make sense in many cases. With Yokoyama Bizen it looks very bright and big, but I guess the rating had in mind that its not very involved. Hada is undistinguished, the ha lacks any substructure. Its a kind of blade that would be rated very highly when it sits across the room and you see it for a minute, but myself after having it for a month its just does not offer you anything new. The expression remains very basic.

 

Kirill R.

[Hoshi]

Rivkin,

 

The ratings system are arguably complex, and I want to clarify something: Muramasa is rated Sai-jo relative to other smiths in Muromachi period. It you want an absolute rating, you have the Toko Taikan ratings. 

 

Fujishiro

Sadamune: Sai-jo Saku

Muramasa: Sai-jo Saku

 

Toko Taikan 

Sadamune: 2000

Muramasa: 700  

 

The broader point you make is interesting - the Japanese culture is obsessed with ratings of all sorts. It doesn't surprise me because they put such an emphasis on perfecting their craft, and the only way to improve is to know what to strive for, which is the role ratings play in the cultural feedback loop.

 

European fine art had all sorts of classical ratings and technical points which were somewhat objectively evaluated as part of the classical canon - this was all more or less erased in the 20th century. In part, some of the resistance against impressionists and those that came later was that nobody knew how to appraise with objectivity. This is nothing new, even Romans evaluated Greek Sculptors with some sort of Saku-ratings and grew obsessive over some of the old masters. I will add that this idea we have that all art is subjective and beauty is in the eye of the beholder is a very 20th century eurocentric perspective on Art which follows from the modernist/post-modernist treaties. It's hard to break out of one's frame of reference, in no small part because the majority of us simply refuse to categorically deny that displaying a broken toilet seat in a museum can be art. For the greatest time in human history and across culture, art has been primarily about skill. 

 

Nothing is easier than nitpicking about systems to evaluate art. For nihonto it's easy to nitpick on ratings and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our culture has a very 'on/off' appraisal of evidence (just look at science where it's all about p>0.05 everywhere and p>3 sigma in physics for X to be true). Its easy to reason that because Fujishiro had some proportion of ratings which do not reflect one's perception or some external consensus, that all his work is basically wrong. Heck it even gives you clout. You've found the flaws. Now you can extend the argument until you reach the postmodernist take on value: everything is subjective. And that's a convenient thought to hold, as it allows hubris to seep in: if everything is subjective, nobody can judge that my collection - or my tastes in general - are inferior. This is what postmodern evaluation does, it allows everyone to be a winner in the great arena of collecting.

 

Because obviously if you take a population of collectors, and you rank their collection according to Fujishiro, you will inevitably create some extreme pareto-distributed pyramid where a tiny minority of collectors sit on top of everyone else, and the vast majority sit on a few chu-saku waks. What belief system will this vast majority adopt? which one is more conducive to the projection of social status? The postmodern take or the classical take? It's just human nature in the end. 

 

A more useful way of thinking of ratings is in terms of Bayesian estimates and not 'on/off' point predictions - the mean of the distribution reflects the judgement, and the uncertainty around the judgement is the variance across that distribution. Consider that the more work one has access from a given smith, the more 'precise' the estimate and the smaller the dispersion around the distribution. Thinking in this way will allow to accept error as absolutely normal given the degree of uncertainty, while also realizing that the judgement has modeled signal which exists independently of noise. If you take this Bayesian approach all the way down, you'll soon come to intuit that to say that everything is subjective means there is no signal and that's its an untenable philosophical position. 

[Alex A]

Thanks for the replies Gents.

 

Kirill, I used Yokoyama Sukekane as an example. The hada may look "undistinguished", but then again, you could say that about a number of modern day Mukansa smiths works. My point being, its still highly skilled work.

 

Im obviously having trouble getting my head around this "contextual" idea with Fujishiro,s , I guess I just see blades/smiths, not era.

 

This Nihonto game can be a rather jumbled historic journey.

 

Ps, Muramasa is a name that often arises with my thoughts on this topic.

[Gakusee]

Well articulated, Chris. Appreciation often comes with time and study. What I liked ten years ago has unfortunately given way to other tastes and preferences - we evolve.

However, understanding contextual ratings is very important. It becomes particularly relevant when one tries to assess not necessarily the topmost schools and smiths by let us say average smiths. With those average guys we know they are not supreme, so we need to compare them to what was around them at the time. That also gives a useful perspective when estimating which swords can go Juyo or not. While H and TH are more lists to be ticked, Juyo is more contextual.

I think certain nations and cultures indeed become more focused on benchmarks of excellence, paradigms, criteria. Indeed, Japan seems one of those, where things are measured and put in neat categories. It helps them organise their thinking and life and that applies to Japanese swords and smiths too.

 

Regarding the Tokuno ratings, they are useful but are indeed one of the benchmarks, alongside Fujishiro ratings, cutting sharpness ratings, NBTHK or bunkacho ratings etc. It is also interesting to check how the ratings have changed between the two editions of Tokuno’s writings. He changed some of the top smiths ratings - eg Masamune was upped to a level where is above everyone else while before he was in the top tier but there were others above him. I think Tokuno in the 1970s and 1980s succumbed to the Soshu and Masamune obsession and elevated Masamune to the very top.

I do not agree with some of the changes in the second edition of the Tokuno rankings where Masamune was elevated at 3800 points (only one at that level) and the next one is 3500 where you have Rai Kunitoshi (was 2000 before), Mitsutada (was 3000 before), Tomonari ( in the first edition was the only one at the very top with 3500) and Kunitsuna (2500 before) and then others at 3000 and below. Anyway, one just needs to take their own view.

[Rivkin]

Kirill, I used Yokoyama Sukekane as an example. The hada may look "undistinguished", but then again, you could say that about a number of modern day Mukansa smiths works. My point being, its still highly skilled work.

 

Im obviously having trouble getting my head around this "contextual" idea with Fujishiro,s , I guess I just see blades/smiths, not era.

 

This Nihonto game can be a rather jumbled historic journey.

 

Ps, Muramasa is a name that often arises with my thoughts on this topic.

 

A lot of post-koto work struggles with hada I guess. For the ratings, my take is that they appear in heavily dealer-dominated communities. Makes it easier to sell - its rated such and such, so it costs this and that.

It is one of many things where I am glad I did not start with nihonto - I am still free to enjoy my personal tastes. They are not as much smith-based but more along the lines what does the very best of the school represents. I find this approach to be more useful personally, if just since for much of good work reproducibility of papering is low/diversity of opinions is high - Soshu blade dating from around 1340-1350 in my experience can just keep papering to a new name each time. And the spread of quality-condition for the names like Hasebe is just humongous.

 

I personally place the early Soshu (not strictly Kamakura, but generally pre-1380-90) as the first class swords above all others, save maybe Shintogo Kunimitsu who is on the level of his own in Yamashiro. A step below, in Yamashiro (very widely defined) you see some really interesting works from time to time, like ko-Aoe. At about the same level I would put Bizen's Zo and his relations. And for me that's basically it when it comes to what nihonto is all about. Nothing original about such placements, its almost a cliché.

 

The rest is quite frankly so much mix and match, it just hard to put some rating and say - Osaka is better than Kyoto. You can have uninspiring early Sukehiro (one of objectively the best Shinto smiths...) and next to it a distinguished blade by some little known 2nd generation Jo-Saku… And then you have schools like Hizen doing quite convincing hada works, but you get really impressive hamon with the best of Sukehiro. How many points each is worth?

 

In Sengaku for my taste Nosada is the most interesting one, but I do not get the argument that Tsunahiro has to be below Muramasa or even Sukesadas. The thing is that Tsunahiros produced and signed a lot and both Hikobei and Yosozaemon Sukesada signed so few they probably just used generic signatures on everything save custom made pieces. But Tsunahiro's Juyo will look quite respectably by comparison. And again with rankings there is this funny thing that Tsunahiro tanto+ almost never (or never?) gets ranked as Juyo without horimono. And then you place it next to Kanemoto, and I really have no idea why Kanemoto is considered to be on the level of Kunisada and above Tsunahiro. But he had very good marketing and still enjoys quite a following in the martial arts community. Art market I guess is never 100% only about the work itself. Some names get good recognition through mass media others don't.

 

Just personal rumblings.

 

Kirill R.

[Rivkin]

Alex, I thought about your question a little more, and I would say that while there are quite a few rating systems available and they are obviously all made by experienced people and since they are being used, one can assume they are "ok in general".

With a reasonable assumption that some of the names are elevated based on being on demand rather than being that good, or that some of the more rare shinto-shinshinto smiths could have been "default rated". And it does not tell you the spread of quality for a given smith.

 

But also, it goes back to how traditional Edo period art history functions. It is extremely genealogical. The appraisal unit is not school but individual, with little regard how certain the related attribution can be. And the lineage's founder is supposed to be great, the following generations sort of carry the spirit but are not as strongly emphasized. So all school founders - Sukesada, Umetada, "Masamune", Munechika receive substantial boost to their ratings, but if you a student of a well known smith you need to be more than just very good to be rated higher, plus in koto you might get robbed from your best works by them being reattributed to the father, and in shinto you might have been signing by him for couple of decades. 

I do feel that especially within Soshu a lot of great works were sort of downgraded because Soshu Yukimitsu, Akihiro, and many others get this "later generation" look, too close to the "founder". Same goes for Bizen, with O-Kanemitsu for example.

And with Sukekane, he "descends" from Jo-Saku Sukenaga and while it can be argued that quality-wise they are similar, the later generation effect might have plaid a role in a downgrade here. 

 

Kirill R.

[Hoshi]

Alex, 

 

How to understand a relative rating system? Well, simply add baseline of skill from each period, which you add to the Fujishiro score. If we recode Fujishiro score from 1-5, and code period scores as follow: Kamakura +3, Nambokucho +2, Muromachi +0, Shinto +0, Shinshinto +1. Now if you take a Sai-jo saku Koto smith, his absolute rating is an '8' while a Saijo-saku Shinto smith is only a '5'. This is just for illustration as there are clear issues

• Fujishiro's relative classification system takes into account sub-periods
• it's not a true relative rating system in the mathematical sense of the word. If it were the case, we would say have 10 Sai-Jo saku smiths per periods and that's it. We have many more during Koto times than later times. This is not trivial because it means there is a relative component and an absolute component to model
• The baseline offset we devised is not constant per level of smith. The offset is more pronounced the higher the Fujishiro score.

Kirill, 

 

I tend to agree with you w.r.t to the 'shadow effect' of being a 2+ gen. This is also where I see some undervaluation in the Japanese ratings. However, this is exactly the sort of 'error structure' you would expect if you devised a rating system. You need to start somewhere, with some sort of prior belief for the quality of work of someone without having access to much data, and if he comes second in the school's lineage, you'd be right more often than wrong by automatically assuming he's correlated but a notch under the founder which is in all likelihood a positive outlier. Thus, to move this 'prior' away from the baseline position that he's one notch below, you would need a lot of data and study. 

[Rivkin]

Valric, my very personal take on this - complicated theories designed to explain a simple fact that for whatever reason Fujishiro rates highly Sengaku period works. He is not charitable to Oei Bizen, where the best smiths as far as I remember still do with Jo-Saku rating, but then he gives Sai-Jo-Saku to Sengaku personas who can not be compared to either Sukehiro and Hizen Tadayoshi on one end and frankly the best of Bizen early ...mitsu on the other.

 

Maybe customers in his shop wanted swords of "real samurai", covered with smell of blood and intestines. And were ready to forgive quality/artistic issues, because its practical.

 

Just as they paid big money for Munechika because he is thought of as the oldest, not because he is artistic. Maybe for some bizarre reason he evaluated Morimitsu against Chogi, but Sukesadas strictly against their contemporaries like Fuyuhiro, this being context explanation.

 

But that's just what he did - some Sengaku ratings are unusually high. Might be just because he generally valued founders like Umetada Myoju almost automatically to Sai-jo-saku rating.

 

I on the other hand could never figure out Mishina's fascination with Kanemoto, but I guess its Kabuki-martial arts heritage.

 

Kirill R.

[Hoshi]

I also do not think there are any Oei-Bizen smiths beyond Jo-Saku, and just two smiths have any Juyo blades at all as far as I know from that time and place. Oei-Bizen Yasumitsu is perhaps on the underrated side, but it doesn't appear egregious to me like the case of Kencho. Oei gets quite close to the dark age of nihonto. Soshu dies during this time with smiths like Hiromasa, Bizen drops off abruptly, new powers settle in...such as the teacher of Muramasa who works during this time, I believe Jo-Jo Saku and probably the highest rated smith of that epoch. Perhaps from that time, the most underrated smith is Uda Kunifusa. He's one full saku above Chu-Jo Saku in my opinion. Those were dark, dark times...all the famous schools are dying or dead and would never come to be equaled again. 

 

Because Oei belongs to Koto, it is judge in relation to Koto. Whereas the Shinto smiths your describe are judged in relation to Shinto. Different periods, different baselines for these ratings. There weren't a lot of bright shining star during Shinto, so it's quite easy to take one of the 'Sai-jo crowns' there. Generalist artisans begin to be honored there, as with Myoju. Tadatsuna is evaluated with Hiromono as part of his skill factor. Kotetsu was an ex-armor maker and Hankei a gunship. Different times... 

[Alex A]

Thanks again, some excellent replies.

 

I suppose there is nothing wrong with the odd "nitpick" now and again. No disrespect to the highly Knowledgeable individuals that put the ratings together, just bumbling curiosity.

 

Kirill, interesting what you were saying about generations. Another good example may be Naotane (Sai-Jo + Juyo) and then Naokatsu ( Jo-saku + Juyo).

 

Naokatsu was an excellent smith, taught the famous forger Kajihei, but I suppose as you mention, goes back to the lineage thing.

 

I was unaware of Japans tradition with ratings, good to know.

 

Cheers.

[Jean]

Concerning Oei Bizen smiths, clearly Fujishiro is inconsistent. Taking into consideration that the best smiths of a given period are rated Saijo saku by him, The san mitsu being the best smiths of the Oei period, they should by all means be rated Saijo saku. There are of course quite a lot of blades by Yasumitsu and Morimitsu which are Juyo, Moromitsu blades are rarer. Nevertheless, compare Sukesada prices to Yasumitsu/Morimitsu prices, the difference is not in proportion of the difference of level saijo/jo.

 

In Japan, Oei Bizen smiths are rather rated jojo/saijo taking the prices they are sold. You will find more short blades (tanto/wakizashi) and the tachi when ubu are sold at a high price.

[Vermithrax16]

Throw my 2 cents in, but Ishido smiths are for the most part underrated in general. There are several shinshinto smiths that made masterworks that are outside the big 3 (or 4, depends who you are talking to) of the era.

 

Anyone can evaluate a mei, not many can do as well with level of work a blade is done in. 

[Rivkin]

Naokatsu was an excellent smith, taught the famous forger Kajihei, but I suppose as you mention, goes back to the lineage thing.

 

 

I don't particularly like or know shinshinto, but there couple of points I see there - Honjo Yoshitane was a great carver, and for me a reason to own Naotane blade would largely be in one of those huge horimono sculptures. Also some of Naotane works have a clear, well defined hada, which feels less of a case with Naokatsu. But 2nd generation Naokatsu can be exceptionally similar to the 1st, but I remember is rated less by one rank. Kind of like Sai Jo Saku Tadayoshi, Jo-jo-saku Masahiro, Jo-saku Masahiro II - a typical progression rating of reduction in rank by Fujishiro, despite that they sort of all signed for each other[?]. And here is 2nd generation Masahiro. Very fine nie that sparkles like crazy if photographed at a large angle, excellent hada in ji nie, deep black utsuri. A blade of tough fate, as I guess because the way Fujishiro ranked the smith, first it lost solid gold mounts, then it lost solid gold habaki (and for some reason also green papers) which was replaced by a wooden copy and finally sold like this. Brrr-brrr!

 

P.S. like Oei Bizen and Ishido.

 

Kirill R.

 

[Jacques D.]

Question,  

 

Are we educated enough to discuss if Fujishiro is wrong or not ? For myself it's clearly no. 

 

 

Never forget Dunning Kruger is never so far away that we think. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

[Alex A]

Question,  

 

Are we educated enough to discuss if Fujishiro is wrong or not ? For myself it's clearly no. 

 

 

Never forget Dunning Kruger is never so far away that we think. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

 

Its not about "are we educated enough", its about discussion/debate...…………...that's how we learn and advance our thinking.

 

With that philosophy Jacques, we would still be riding around on horse and cart.

 

Ps, better ways to get your point across, comes across as childish with the DK remark.

[Gakusee]

Concerning Oei Bizen smiths, clearly Fujishiro is inconsistent. Taking into consideration that the best smiths of a given period are rated Saijo saku by him, The san mitsu being the best smiths of the Oei period, they should by all means be rated Saijo saku. There are of course quite a lot of blades by Yasumitsu and Morimitsu which are Juyo, Moromitsu blades are rarer. Nevertheless, compare Sukesada prices to Yasumitsu/Morimitsu prices, the difference is not in proportion of the difference of level saijo/jo.

 

In Japan, Oei Bizen smiths are rather rated jojo/saijo taking the prices they are sold. You will find more short blades (tanto/wakizashi) and the tachi when ubu are sold at a high price.

I actually agree with Jean and think that there are great works among the leading Oei Bizen smiths. Of course, it becomes a bit murky when you compare them with a generation before like Chogi and Kencho and Tomomitsu - these are guys who created outstanding works. I do not think the Oei guys have kokuho (unlike the Soden ones) but they definitely have JuBu works.

 

Quote from Honma sensei:

 

“There are the terms ‘Ōei-Bizen’ and ‘Sue-Bizen’. The former is a favourable naming and

the latter is somehow a derogatory one. ”

[Alex A]

Kirill, Like the Masahiro

 

Naotane……. Sai Jo

 

Naokatsu 1st and 2nd Jo-Saku & Naomitsu (Kajihei) also Jo-saku.

 

Anyhow, I get why you don't like Shinshinto, I never used to either.

 

I like versatile smiths that are capable of working in different styles, bit like some of the more modern day Gassan smiths.

 

Appreciate the positive input.

 

Thanks all.

[raynor]

How come the dislike for shinshinto when they tried to emulate koto blades? Just curious.

 

On that note I've sent a shinshinto blade by a relatively unknown smith to the upcoming Tampa Shinsa, should be interesting.

[seattle1]

Hello:

"Underrated smiths"? There are several ways to define what is spoken of, individuals as in much of the foregoing, or groups. For the latter I would suggest looking into the "Ekiyo Bizen" group, running roughly from the start of Ekiyo, 1429 to the end of Kansho, 1466. that group has been furthered by the NBTHK in recent years, particularly Tanobe sensei. They transcend theOei blades which tend to reflect a rather peaceful time while at the same time the Ekiyo group tends to maintain nice utsuri which is often lost in later Sue Bizen. There also will be tachi thus catching the early transition to the mandatory uchigatana and wakizashi pairing. Well known smiths are Norimitsu, Sukemitsu, Toshimitsu, Tsuneie, etc.

Moreover I suggest it is not helpful for the new collector to have Saijo this , Jo Jo that thrown around as if it were the map, after adjustment, to elevating one smith relative to another. For newer collectors the essential task is to figure out which blade in a pile is better than the next one down. That does not come from collecting Fujishiro or other rankings as the actual variance, particularly given the effects of time and care and use of any blade. There are some really impressive Chu (no) Jo blades out there and many Jo Jo which are shadows of their original selves. That differentiating knowledge can only come from hands on study.

Arnold F

[Alex A]

Thanks Arnold, as informative as ever.

 

Il take a look at the Ekiyo smiths, interesting that you say they were made in peaceful times. Reminds me of Eisho Sue-Bizen, often read that swords made then were a decent bunch, but that takes me onto a topic we see too much of

 

As for Fujishiro,s. I don't know if anyone else feels a little stupid regurgitating other folks research, but not knowing much about how they went about it ?. I know they were polishers/appraisers, but 1500 smiths?. 

 

Maybe someone can enlighten me?.

 

Did they polish a great number of swords from each smith?, the best swords of that particular smith?, from the smiths prime. That's lots of swords to look through.

 

Take Naokatsu (sorry to keep bringing this up) as an example,i see he is JUYO rated. Now then, is it not possible that the Fujishiro family missed the best blades?. Is it not possible in this modern age we see more examples in polish than there was back then ?. From memory, pretty sure Toko Taikan has a different take on this line of smiths, Naotane, Naokatsu and Naokatsu2 pretty even, Naomitsu surprisingly ahead, but I would have to take another look.

 

I see some sellers (dare I say it) ignore Jo-saku and add another Jo. Now Jacques, this is not DK, its just another informed personal opinion on the sword/smith.

 

I don't use Fujishiros anymore. I find looking at Aoi museum et al much easier, the images are far better than Fujishiro,s, for me.

 

Be interesting what ratings the NBTHK could one day come up with, in this modern age, but a mammoth task, god knows what it was like back then.

 

As mentioned above, a lot in Fujishiro,s is validated, but there will always be questions. 

 

just an early morning ramble. cheers

[Rivkin]

I get little excitement from either Naotane or Naokatsu to be honest, if not for the horimono I would not even pick one over the other.

A very bright work that stands out from far away but dims down when looked closely at.

Here is Naokatsu, modern papers.

Hada - poor. Dense itame with almost no nie.

Ha - bright large patches of nie which are supposed to emulate things which are done with very fine (and bright) ko nie in classical Soshu. Everything looks forced as if someone drew Soshu oshigata in clay and then heat treated it.

And having done with essentially modern steel the near-perfect heat conduction just can't do fine details.

 

Kirill R.

 

[Alex A]

Will have be brief Kirill, but you demonstrate my point above clearly.

 

You cant judge a smith by one blade, or even more.

 

He worked in a variety of styles, O hada, Osaka type hada…

 

Ive seen better.

 

Cheers

[Jean]

Michael post is very interesting and is the only way to understand Fujishiro rating concerning Oei Bizen.

 

Fujishiro does not consider Oei as being Muromachi but as being a direct offshot of Nambokucho. That is why, compared to Chogi, Kanemitsu...Oei Bizen smiths are rated Jo saku/JoJo saku.

 

That is the reason why in sue Bizen you find saijo saku smiths evn if they don’t achieve the quality of Oei Bizen.

 

If someone is not convinced, I let him search the number of Bunkazai blades forged by Oei smiths (or Tokuju Blades) and the number of blades achieving these ranks starting 1430 till end of Muromachi. I remember that some Japanese scholars (cf Teryo Joji) consider Nambokucho and Muromachi being one period.

[Alex A]

How come the dislike for shinshinto when they tried to emulate koto blades? Just curious.

 

On that note I've sent a shinshinto blade by a relatively unknown smith to the upcoming Tampa Shinsa, should be interesting.

 

Some folk don't like Shinshinto, the steel is often described as bright and featureless. 

 

I like Koto blades, but often tired, the downside.