NTHK NPO scores

[Rivkin]

Papering to Yushu defeats in my opinion the advantage of NTHK - turnaround of a day to judgement sheet and papers in a month, compared to the whole long NBTHK story.

I also did notice that 78 and 81 point blades were Edo period and in like new condition. The 76 point Juyo needed new polish in places.

I also observed that everything papering above 76 had signature, but according to others this is not certain.

 

There are few cases where attribution means lower quality per se. Takagi Sadamune collected quite a few problematic Sadamune blades, especially between 21 and 31 Juyo shinsas.

But Enju and Rai are really different schools, not as much as Mihara and Yamato, but...

Enju hada is very different from Rai. Its not as dense, its broader, blacker. In the most extreme case it approaches Naminohira-Houju type with broad black lines.

There is also plethora of Rai features, whose presence largely disclarifies any possible bet on Enju. While there is some intersection between the schools where the quality argument can be applied, its not that prominent. There are great Enju blades; there are very mediocre Rai ones.

I once mistook Enju for Echizen Rai in a competition (and I honestly would have difficulty distinguishing the two in quite a few cases), but I don't remember mistaking Enju for Rai per se, though from time to time I do make beginner's mistakes. Hada-wise compared to the main Rai school they are just not that similar.

 

Quite a few early Soshu collectors are rich, smart and careful with attributions. Very careful with whatever the current NBTHK position is. Very much scared and sceptical with Masamune name in particular. There was an interesting blog "koto fanatic", unusual English language exercise by a Japanese, and it did caught some of the early Soshu issues quite well.

 

Kirill R. 

[Gakusee]

Well, Kirill, my point about Yushu and higher NTHK levels was their extreme rarity. I ascribe this to the fact that really superb or old/precious blades automatically go to the NBTHK as a medium for papering instead of being submitted to the NTHK.

Now, why would that be? Could it be that people impute a relatively higher weight to the NBTHK paper marketability or perceived reputation, or that indeed the NTHK puts such preponderance on condition (including signature) that they under appreciate the older treasures? Kirill mentioned that even Juyo received middling 70s scores when in fact Juyo is supposed to be Yushu level blades. So there is clearly a disconnect in standards there (abstracting ourselves from the pure opinion-related differences in attribution, which often arise too for those who decide to paper a given blade by both organisations).

 

The Koto fanatic blog was indeed enjoyable. He kept going until 2018 when he ran out of steam. People lose interest educating others or become busy with other things. Understandable.

Soshu is indeed a lake of treacherous waters that one needs to tread very carefully. I agree there were a lot of inflated attributions by pressured Honami and the scarcity of signed blades causes people to be sceptical. But there are enough historically passed down Soshu blades (that were shortened and Honami documented that) which knowledgeable people can extrapolate from. Unfortunately most are not accessible to us.

 

I beg to differ a bit on Enju vs Rai as there are many Rai with underwhelming hada or qualities (mostly second tier like Kunizane or similar) that probably could be confused for Enju. Overall Enju is a bit inferior, that is true, with its hada not quite the nie-sprinkled tight koitame perfection of a top-condition Kunimitsu (for reference, Dr Sawaguchi has one of his Juyo currently exhibited in the last Juyo shinsa exhibition - to me that is the Rai benchmark and was much better that any of the other Yamashiro Juyo exhibited including the Awataguchi).

The point about colour is a highly contentious one and one cannot speak about colour differences unless the two blades being compared are next to each other. This jigane being dark or that hada being darker can only be stated if the blades are in the same location with same lighting.

[paulb]

Sorry Kirill but I disagree more than a little about your statement re Enju vs Rai. I do not believe one can make such generalisations for any comparison. I have seen some very ordinary Rai blades, not only by second teir but even by such greats as Rai Kunitoshi. I have also seen stunning work attributed to Enju. The Best Enju blades I have seen could be easily mistaken for good Rai work (initially one I haver studied in detail was thought to be by Rai Kunimitsu). The telling difference was generally  the boshi which in Enju pieces tends to be O-maru. Other than that the jigane, hamon and shape were very much in line with what would expect from good Rai work. I agree with Michael regarding colour it can only really be judged in comparison with something else.

On the other side I have also seen some very plain and ordinary Enju pieces that didn't come close to Rai. In schools that span decades there is not a one size fits all assessment. Variation in quality within a school can often be as great or greater than between different but related schools.

[Hoshi]

  Quote

 

 

The Best Enju blades I have seen could be easily mistaken for good Rai work

 

There is a substantial overlap between these schools, and an attribution to Enju can mean different things. It can be a quality assessment "lesser Rai" in the absence of defining traits. And in general Rai is better. But there are exception in which the Enju piece is at Rai-level in terms of its Jigane, hamon, and other characteristics, and goes to Enju because of the Boshi. It's a case-by-case basis and each blade needs to be evaluated individually to figure out whether the judgement is a quality call or a school call. 

 

Repeat this over time that the best Enju work gets absorbed into Rai, and the bad Rai get sorted down into Enju, and you end up with attribution-as-quality, notwithstanding the exception based on the defining traits.   

 

Back to the NTHK, I would be interested in learning about blades which have scored highly as well. 

[w.y.chan]

Its been said NTHK papers state the actual smith not just the name but of which generation while the NBTHK does not. However I've seen in more recent NBTHK papers that confirm the smith who made the blade by stating the full name in addition to the partial name written on the tang. 

[Gakusee]

Yes, it is true the NTHK gives more detail. They give you the worksheets which have commentary and mention key characteristics around hada, sugata etc. But I am really curious about Yushu blades.

[Rivkin]

I spoke with couple of people mass submitting to NTHK NPO as well as had a phone call with someone who is a part of the organization. Obviously there are people far better informed at this point, and the statement below is NOT TO BE TAKEN as official information, as its not in their materials that we all see, so it is just a rumor, but:

 

As part of regular shinsa (don't know if it includes the US shinsa, but it might), NTHK NPO no longer assigns scores above 78 to blades. Also, the score of 78 is capped to no more than 5% of submissions.

 

Kirill R.

[Surfson]

That's interesting Kirill.  I have submitted over two dozen blades to NTHK-NPO, and my most common scores have been in the range of 74-78.  I have been disappointed not to exceed 78 and take great comfort from this rumor..... Cheers, Bob