Attributions Are Not Black & White

[Jussi Ekholm]

I know there have been discussions on the topic and I hope my example here is not taken wrongly. I was thinking what type of title I would choose, decided to go with this one.

 

As there was a good attribution thread that featured Yamashiro and it's influences I thought I could post this. This gets into very high level territory and I am not nearly proficient enough to say anything of note regards it. As a disclaimer do not think similar thing will happen to you if are submitting/resubmitting an item. I just thought this would be fun to post and possibly create some discussion in positive sense.

 

Here in left the mumei sword passed Jūyō 21 and was attributed as Enju (延寿) then later on the mumei sword passed Tokubetsu Jūyō 6 and the attribution was now den Awataguchi Kuniyoshi (伝粟田口国吉)

 

 

Of course this is very complicated matter and there are no easy answers. I know we often talk about Enju being close to Rai but on great pieces the gap is most likely quite small. I must confess I am not a quality oriented nihontō enthusiast but I do feel it is important try to understand the quality. This most likely very nice sword got first attributed as Enju and then with more throughout Tokujū shinsa it got "upgraded" to den Awataguchi Kuniyoshi. Note that I am using the word upgrade bit tongue in cheeck in here. I know many people think Enju as maybe lower high tier - upper mid tier attribution below Awataguchi & Rai. While not as prestegious as the others mentioned Enju school had multiple historically important smiths that produced high level work.

 

Also to be noted in the end it is the same sword... Regardless of the attribution it must be very nice mumei sword. I guess what I was kind of aiming at is that there is much more to the items that just the attribution. While commercially some attributions are very desirable, I feel they carry slightly less weight when trying to just study. Still I have to bow my own head down as I feel I am very easily influenced by attributions as my own level of understanding is lacking.

 

At first I had trouble locating the counterpart for this TokuJū from the Jūyō items. So I had to go what I considered as logical Yamashiro route, first all of mumei Awataguchi -> mumei Rai -> mumei Enju.

 

Unfortunately I cannot really put the few thoughts I have on this subject in easy to understand form but I was kinda just aiming to kick off a conversation starter.

[paulb]

Thank you Jussi for an interesting example. First and foremost your initial point that papers are an attribution is absolutely right and worth re-emphasising. An attribution, especially on a mumei blade is an opinion, albeit a very learned one but it is not a statement of fact. I took a very long time to take that on board when I started studying. Regarding the example you have illustrated (which I would love to see in hand) I have listed some thoughts below.

1. I believe that Enju work at its best is as good or better than much Yamashiro Rai work. I mentioned this in the recent post on the Norikuni blade. The jigane especially is beautiful and a very tight and consistent ko-itame which would rival Rai Kunimitsu and Rai Kunitoshi.

2. Awataguchi work is best known for an even tighter hada, nashiji which is a degree smaller, more nie covered and consistent than Rai or Enju. However a number of Awataguchi smiths including Kuniyasu and later Kuniyoshi also produced work which combined nashiji with a more open itame.

3. Kuniyoshi was one of the most prolific of the Awataguchi smiths. He was thought to be the son of Norikuni and Father or elder Brother of Yoshimitsu. My perception is that his work while still of a very high standard did not reach the same level as either his father or his son/brother. Kuniyoshi was also working at the same time as the earlier generations of the Enju school who were recreating Yamashiro work with smiths such as Kuniyasu, Kunitoki and Kunisuke all working in the first quarter of the 14th century.

So here we have a mumei sword of undoubtedly high quality and Yamashiro influence dating from the last quarter of the Kamakura period. The initial assessment perhaps being a little conservative opted for Enju. On reflection when looking t it the second group either felt the quality was slightly better or that some of the features didn't fit the original attribution. For example the boshi in this blade is ko-maru where a major kantei point for Enju is that they were predominantly O-maru. This being the case they moved the attribution from being the best of Enju (my statement not theirs) to being the work of a lower tier (again my opinion not theirs) Awataguchi work. 

What this does illustrate I think is that what we should look at is the sword. Regardless of the period, school or tradition is it well made and of high quality. In this case the answer is yes the attribution and to some extent the level of papering is less important, although it will of course have a dramatic commercial implication. First and foremost it is a beautiful thing.

Another example i remember but unfortunately have no mages of was a sword being sold by a Japanese dealer. In his description he stated that "the blade was originally attributed to Ichimonji but on resubmission it was reappraised as Edo Ishido, which is unfortunate" Again the sword hasn't changed but the change of attribution probably halved the coomercial value.

Thanks Jussi food for thought in an area i spend a lot of time studying

 

 

[Rivkin]

I can only speak to my personal experience:

I've papered >100 blades, probably closer to 200 swords (did not count in any formal way). Of those re-papered (with different or same organization) something between 40 and 60. It has to be admitted that in all repapering cases I had doubts about the original attribution. These were with very few exceptions mumei blades, so I'll talk about those, with fully readable signature its just a whole different game.

 

NONE papered to the same name. Exactly zero out of 50 or so. Including blades with half intact signatures.

 

Most papered to the same school (i.e. Bizen, Soshu, Yamato etc.) if one accepts a more inclusive definition (i.e. Nio is Yamato, Unju is either Bizen or Yamato etc. etc.). There was no clear preference in terms of any particular shinsa team giving more favorable judgements. I had two decent Juyo repapered by NTHK-NPO to lesser names and with respective scores of 75 and 76, i.e. just "average-good" in their opinion.

There was a significant spread in terms of name recognition. O-Kanemitsu and a much lesser name, almost Kozori-class - but in all honesty not that different in terms of either time or work style. The worst game is Soshu. Basically every high class tanto with late Muromachi/also late Nambokucho sugata  had 50% chance to draw Shimada Yoshisuke or other Shimada name or actually something quite recognizable from Nambokucho times. i.e. if you buy really good mumei Shimada tanto and resubmit you have reasonable chance to get TH Masahiro. Uda tanto is another all-too-often notoriously weak attribution.

Pre-Nambokucho blades were often messed up. Had one papered to Aoe, Bizen, Rai and Ryumon Nobuyoshi. And if I remember correctly both Rai and Bizen attributions also had smith names. True, the papers were from different time periods, but I'll just repeat myself - green papers are by far more often Kanzan Sato rather than Yakuza papers. I think all the four judgements were neither crazy nor done in bad faith - but one was definitely weak.

 

So I am a sceptic who thinks the ability to pinpoint an exact smith name, unless one deals with an ultra-stereotypical blade by someone famous, is basically Japanese appraisers showing off. They have to do it, since their competition does it and collectors expect the name and not just (less valued) generic school attribution. If you want to stay in business you have to follow suit, even when there is honestly very little justification to be that specific. Its a small community which lives by its own rules. The problem comes when generations of appraisers change and suddenly the name you secured can be "legitemally" contested.

[Rivkin]

19 minutes ago, paulb said:

. For example the boshi in this blade is ko-maru where a major kantei point for Enju is that they were predominantly O-maru. This being the case they moved the attribution from being the best of Enju (my statement not theirs) to being the work of a lower tier (again my opinion not theirs) Awataguchi work. 

What this does illustrate I think is that what we should look at is the sword. Regardless of the period, school or tradition is it well made and of high quality. In this case the answer is yes the attribution and to some extent the level of papering is less important, although it will of course have a dramatic commercial implication. First and foremost it is a beautiful thing.

 

The sinister thing is top Juyo Enju today costs 3.5mil, unless one does Tokyo super-retail prices.

Awataguchi Juyo like that - I would say 5-7. The blade is exactly the same.

[Jean]

In fact a lot of swords are papered to a school and not a smith, Enju, Naoe Shizu....

[Katsujinken]

My overriding question, solely out of curiosity, in this context is: is the shinsa committee aware of a previous attribution when they are considering a sword? As in, when the sword in Jussi’s post passed TokuJu, did the committee know they were changing the Juyo attribution as they were making their determination? Or is the process totally blind?

[Rivkin]

28 minutes ago, Katsujinken said:

My overriding question, solely out of curiosity, in this context is: is the shinsa committee aware of a previous attribution when they are considering a sword? As in, when the sword in Jussi’s post passed TokuJu, did the committee know they were changing the Juyo attribution as they were making their determination? Or is the process totally blind?

 

Personal opinion:

Its blind at H/TH level, though sometimes it does happen that shinsa members know the blade beforehand. For example, many of NTHK (non NPO) judges are higher end dealers. Not trying to state anything bad about such practice.

At TJ you are allowed to even submit supportive documentation like Edo period's judgements, sayagaki etc. They don't want it to be blind.

 

Rebranding Enju into Awataguchi at least stays in the same "inclusive" school and time period, plus TJ Enju is something very rare, TJ Awataguchi is far less so, considering one sees one Awataguchi blade for 10 or so Enjus.

[Vermithrax16]

6 hours ago, Jean said:

In fact a lot of swords are papered to a school and not a smith, Enju, Naoe Shizu....

And some get a call out if left field, as we well know Jean. 😀

 

 

[Jacques D.]

This is far beyond our level of knowledge, personally I feel no legitimacy to give any opinion.

[jesup]

"TJ"?   I've been out of circulation so long (~20 years) the acronym doesn't ring any bells.

 

I have my own example - 3 sets of papers for a beefy wakizashi blade I bought from Sotheby's (ex-Bruce Kowalski?); one to Daido; two to Kaneyasu:

 

3 sets of papers:
   Suiken Fugunaga (sp)
       Mutsu No Kami Kaneyasu, 1644
       "Very Good"

   NTHK
      Mutsu no Kami Kaneyasu, 1624
      Kanteisho (I think; I'd need to pull the papers)

   NBTHK
      Tokubetsu Kicho (green)
      Daido (aka Mutsu no Kami Kanemichi)

I exchanged a set of emails with Gordon Robson, the conclusion of which was that the blade more likely is Kaneyasu, and that Kanemichi/Daido doesn't make as much sense, given the yasurimei:

(I wrote): It's ubu mumei; a wakizashi done in naginata-naoshi style (kanmuri-otoshi), but the shinogi goes to the kissaki much like in shobu-zukuri.  All 3 sets of papers mark it as ubu.  Ko-maru, gunome-midare in ko-nie/nioi, gyaku-sujikai (or if you prefer katte-agari at a higher angle) on both.   There's a good oshigata & photos of a Daido blade at http://www.ricecracker.com/info/articles.htm which is in some ways similar to mine, though it shows rather more/larger nie and togari, which my blade does not.  Also, every Daido hi I've seen an oshigata of goes into the nakago; mine has a very nicely rounded end just at the habachi.  Of course Daido moved to kyoto and was the father of 4 of the top shinto kyoto kaji.

However: it's clearly a good blade given the attributions it got.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/DRGLv5NwY2UFUUsH9

[Darcy]

In the case of this blade it passed within 5 years so the same people were in charge.

There is some misunderstanding above of the process.

If you go and submit something that has existing papers yes they can find it and yes they do check.

Knowing the blade's past history is important, especially with mumei blades, as the historical attributions provide a base from which to make current and future attributions. There were a lot more available to work with 300 years ago than now. So of course you want to have supporting documentation and to consider the history, especially if it's a judge like Honami Kochu.

In the case of an overturned attribution, one would HOPE that it would happen. The idea that the NBTHK is a monolithic AI that popped into existence 60 years ago fully formed with no hope or need of change is flawed. It's composed of people and those people both improve their education as time goes on and more information and history will always come out.

There is another fundamental misunderstanding about papers and attributions which I've talked about before, which is sourced in some Japanese scholarship, which is as the quality degrades the judgments can slide more and more sideways lacking any distinguishing characteristics. There is a Yoshimichi thread posted here and the blade is very characteristic so there is no other possible attribution if this was mumei, only whether or not it's genuine (I think it's ok).

As you slide down the quality scale and erase characteristic features (both together) it is hoping for something unrealistic, that everyone will agree and assess the blade identically on eyeballing it. So if you have junk, you will basically get attributed to junk and the point is that which junk it is becomes neither meaningful nor possible to determine.

Now on the higher end of things, a blade such as this Enju in question sometimes has some additional information that isn't shown on the NBTHK paper. It can have an old origami, it can have a sayagaki by Dr. Honma, and whenever it passed for whatever reason a conservative judgment was issued. I have seen Dr. Honma's sayagaki to Awataguchi Hisakuni and the NBTHK only accepted the blade as Awataguchi and nothing more. The blade was Juyo as Awatguchi Kunimitsu. So you have some span of disagreement here being sorted out, where it was Juyo at the time Dr. Honma was in charge and only settled as Kunimitsu then "downgraded" to a school attribution. Dr. Honma presiding over both sessions.

So you can sit back and wring your hands over it or understand that you have a basic disagreement and the blade was not "downgraded" by changing it to Awataguchi school. It's done only to broaden the attribution to resolve disagreements.

There is a mumei tanto attributed to Shintogo Kunihiro and when the blade's old  Honami papers were discovered it was changed to Awataguchi Norikuni. Both attributions are suitable but Norikuni looks stronger and once the old judgment by Honami Koon was found then it is only appropriate to modify the attribution.

More information SHOULD imply going back and reassessing and changing your opinion.

Only an idiot refuses to change an opinion in the face of new information or ongoing study.

So by this rule, you WANT judgments to both be conservative, and to be open to re-evaluation.

Going to the Enju again, Enju is a conservative judgment that can be used to settle an issue about where the blade stands between Rai, Awataguchi and Enju. If it has properties of all schools and it is top class it could fall into any. An Enju blade is not necessarily inferior to a Rai blade.

We do not know the state of polish or condition or history or information on the blade at the time of Juyo. We only know that at Tokuju the NBTHK had the opportunity to say den Awataguchi, Awataguchi, or den Awataguchi XXX, or Awatguchi XXX. The span of time is 5 years. They don't have to do anything or even pass it at Tokuju if there isn't any reason for it.

There are other similar cases, but as the quality goes up, the chance of this happening goes down.

Nobody should be mistaking Masamune for Masahiro but people saying Shimada or Masahiro that is acceptable. Because there isn't really any span of quality difference between those two and the styles overlap.

Now, Norishige, Go, Masamune and Yukimitsu can overlap.

The important thing is not getting mixed up between Shimada and Masamune or Norishige and Norikuni. From the first the school is the same but the quality and period are light years apart. For the second the period is close but the styles and school are far apart.

If someone wants to say Norikuni and another wants to say Shintogo, those are a lot closer and depending on polish, condition, and how conservative you are being then you go one way or another.

Last note: the entire concept of papering Hozon, Tokubetsu Hozon, Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo has built into it this concept of re-study and revision. If a blade is good enough to promote it is definitely considered open to reassessment and new opinions. If you submit it covered with rust vs. top polish then what the judge can say is going to be different. Any shade of gray in-between means you need to accept some conservatism or leeway in the judgment. But, you need to absolutely understand and accept that elevating papers is not simply rubber stamping what was handed to you. It is re-assessed. If the prior judgment was not adequate it will be open to challenge and re-attribution. As the level goes up, then the scope narrows.

So this is also something to really grasp and understand. If you have a completely lights-out Enju at Juyo, YOU need to understand that you are not at the conclusion of the story and that the judges likely understood this as well. If you have a pedestrian Enju YOU need to understand that you are at the end. If you cannot tell the difference this is your shortcoming and YOU need to improve your study.

Once you see what you are dealing with and understand where you are in the story, you can understand what a placeholder attribution is and why it's done and that sometimes it's done with the idea that it's definitely going to be reassessed and revised.

Anyone who ever got horyu should also understand this. It's not a reason to panic its a reason to send it in again because the judges on this viewing were not ready to make an assessment. If they felt it was gimei or bad for whatever reason that's what they would say.

In terms of Juyo and such as well, what is acceptable at the lower level papers is not acceptable as the level elevates, and this is because of the necessary gray areas of mumei assessment. Because you are not dealing with an absolute in the sword, completely lacking the ability to time travel, a lower level paper will have more leeway built in. So if you can get it to Tokubetsu Hozon based on its history it is maybe going to be acceptable on the balance of all available information to let it sit there as such but it can't go higher because the requirements tighten every time you go higher.

So you can maybe help yourself by looking at a paper and thinking "this is the least disagreeable conclusion at this level given this amount of study in the current condition of this sword and this amount of revision of existing previous decisions and with what we know in total in terms of the item's history and the universe of current scholarship."

And if you think that weird things do not happen in terms of associated articles with swords, I am a case in point as the shirasaya with sayagaki for a sword that I bought about 7 or 8 years ago appeared attached to an unrelated sword as an "extra" shirasaya at Sotheby's auction, and wasn't shown in the photos on the auction page but only happened to come up in about the sixth level of emails with the auctioneer. Stuff gets separated, and sometimes is found again. So something with Dr. Honma's sayagaki should definitely be considered in different light than one without. I would hope that someone might consider his opinion when offering theirs and if it causes them to reassess then good. Though in this case the sword is already Tokuju with the same assessment, in the case of the Hisakuni above I would hope that people might understand the blade to be OK as Hisakuni and not just Awataguchi knowing what his opinion was.

That should be guidance and if the blade couldn't get that assessment in the attribution column at Tokuju, I hope people would understand as being OK and to take it "under advisement" that not everyone agreed with him and it is OK to come up with your own opinion.

Edit: one thing I meant to hammer as a point is that Tokuju is the only one that is going to be considered to be impossible to revise other than for factual information (i.e. a mostly obscured character that can be reassessed later to change a date for instance). The case of that blade is a tanto that was attributed to Yukimitsu by Honami Kotoku and then polished and changed to Masamune by Honami Kochu. So you are talking about the number one and number two judges, or more like 1a and 1b. The blade was owned by Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi among others. This passed Juyo as Masamune and then Tokuju as Yukimitsu mostly because of the strong feelings of Sato Kanzan that Yukimitsu should be considered at the same level as far as I can understand it. After his passing the blade was revised back to Masamune.

Other than this exception which had of course strong past judgments in both directions and the most elite ownership: when something is passing Tokuju then it's done and the opinion being issued is done so with this consideration in mind. When you pass it at Tokubetsu Hozon and you think it can end up as Masamune then it could be done as Yukimitsu at this level because they know they will see it again and for a longer period of time with a spirited debate. This is the concept of a placeholder attribution, and to a lesser extent it can happen at Juyo.

A case in point of this is a Tokuju Yukimitsu I once had that passed Juyo with an extraordinary note that the blade was historically Yukimitsu but that this was something to reconsider and revise at a later date (i.e. after being accepted as Juyo and this put in writing). This indicates that the earlier Juyo, the thought that the attribution could be revised and reassessed with more study and more knowledge was an active thought. The blade later passed Tokuju and Yukimitsu was confirmed but my feeling is that the blade was more likely Sadamune. Yukimitsu however is acceptable and one can consider it as such and it is OK. But understanding the context and the care of the judges and that even in writing they would say this is open to reassessment helps you understand what the intention was.

In all of this, a blade should hopefully only go sideways or up when it passes through the process, if the process is working correctly. A Chogi that gets reassessed to Kanemitsu is sideways or an Aoe that gets changed to Kanemitsu is sideways to being up. But those do not indicate a randomness or an error, they indicate conservative judgments or the degree of flex that is necessary when something is based on opinions or a committee agreement.

So Enju going to Awataguchi shouldn't be anything that should break a heart or cause a pulse to race. Awataguchi going to Nakajima Rai is what is the headache and a problem.

So: remember... it's very difficult to undo this kind of thing. Once you say "Masamune" you can't retract that easily and then say Yukimitsu and the time it happened got overturned. You can say Yukimitsu and then retract that and say Masamune or Sadamune later which was what my blade was open to during and after Juyo and what happened to that tanto above in the first place.

Tanobe sensei will indeed (and recently has) looked at blades (the case in point for recently is a member of this board but I don't want to dump anything)... but he looked at the mei and pronounced it good and that the blade should be carefully polished... and that he wants to see it again after polish. He's always going to make sure that there is something held in reserve to look at it again if the state is going to change. So in this case because it's verbal he's indicating a positive result on what he sees so far but it's subject to revision after polish. The blade needs to come back and be of a quality and style (style is probably already OK) that is in agreement with the mei before he is going to feel satisfied. I think for the owner that it is going to go 100% ok but ... this is how a good judge operates.

...

Edit 2: I will throw in one other anecdote which comes from a few years back where Tanobe sensei showed me a really wonderful unpapered sword that had returned from polish and he had been studying. He said at this time that what I would say and what Ted Tenold would say is something he would consider in his appraisal.

I looked at it and I offered an opinion that it was Masamune and this to me was pretty clear from the quality of the nie in it. The hamon looked like it was 40 below zero and someone breathed on it and their breath had frozen into crystals. I said if the owner wants to sell this please let me know because I would love to have it whatever it was.

I then asked him what his judgment was...

He told me, "I don't know, that's why I'm studying it." Of course he had this thought in his mind already about Masamune but not even verbally was he going to point in that direction because once saying that he would not be able to undo it.

Again, shows the care with which this thing is done as the level goes up.

Next time I encountered the blade it was in the Juyo oshigata as Masamune then passed Tokubetsu Juyo right after that confirmed as Masamune.

In the end my snap judgment was fine for *kantei* and in hindsight it was a good call, but we need to remember always that kantei and attribution are two different things. The first is an exercise and a game and a chance to learn something. The second is ideally a careful process and even verbally Tanobe sensei in this case was not willing to say what he was thinking but was actively probing other people's thoughts, no matter how minor a character they were in the overall story, he wanted to hear what they thought.

If something comes into Tokuju as Enju and the quality and skill and inherent features of the blade cause a reassessment to Awataguchi, I look at that as the process working not that the process is faulty. At the end of the day if you are going to buy it you need to be able to look at the blade though and in your own heart accept that the judgment is good.

At the end of the day, nothing is perfect and it is still a subject matter that comes down to opinion, but hopefully educated and thoughtful opinion. There are things with papers that I don't like and other people accept without question. There are things in top collectors or with top dealers that they accept and others may throw rocks at. You need to be happy yourself with what you read and see.
 

[Brian]

Great points as always. Bears reading a few times.

[Darcy]

This is an extract from "Meito -or- What Makes a Masterpiece?" by Nobuo Ogasawara, Retired head conservator of the National Museum, Tokyo and is I think fundamental to understanding attributions. A lot of what he had to say to me was enlightening when I first read this and helped me understand and is interwoven with a lot of my comments that I make about quality and attributions including those above.

This entire article is good but I'll just take some highlights so I don't have to type the whole thing in.

 

....

Depending on who evaluates unsigned swords, a Masamune may be attributed to his son Sadamune, or a Kanemitsu to his pupil Tomomitsu. Differences of judgment are acceptable to a certain extent, but it is evidently wrong if one evaluates a Hizen Tadayoshi from the 17th century as Rai Kunimitsu from the Kamakura period at the end of the 14th century. Deliberately wrong judgments are a criminal matter, but even if it is not deliberate, anyone who gives an attribution to Kanemitsu when the work is by a pupil such as Tomomitsu or Hidemitsu will gradually lose all authority.

 

[Darcy note: he first talks about a Masamune to Sadamune (i.e. conservative) ... a Kanemitsu to Tomomitsu (i.e. conservative)... the last sentence notes Tomomitsu or Hidemitsu to Kanemitsu which is then an inflated or incorrect judgement... so it is OK to issue a conservative judgment in the right ballpark but it is not OK to take an inferior work and assign it to a high level maker, this indicates an inability to understand the quality and so ends up with a loss of authority]

 

We should consider the principles of Meito. Both masterpieces and inferior blades have always existed, and it is perhaps also not surprising if a single swordsmith may have been both successful and unsuccessful. In the course of the centuries many swords have been destroyed or lost. I think it amazing that swords have survived at all, considering their primary use as weapons, and their raw material is iron which can end up as a lump of rust. We must credit the Japanese at this point with the sense of beauty which impelled them to take such good care of their swords.

 

...

 

One should not however confuse variation with failure. When Soshu Masamune makes nie-kuzure this is intentional, but if nie-kuzure appear as a result of failures of control during tempering, then the blade can never be good.

 

...

 

There are also swords which do not attract us at all, even if the style is typical of its time and even if the jitetsu or hamon lack obvious flaws. For example a mass produced kazu-uchi-mono blade may just as plausibly be assigned to Bizen, Bungo Takada, Kai Mihara, Uda, or some other school, because the sword is of inferior quality.

 

...

 

Having realized the qualities and attractiveness of the sword, it is natural to wish to own some. The most inconvenient thing about this, I think you will agree, is of a financial nature. If we think only about economics in this way we shall end up getting cheap swords which may easily be disposed of when necessary. This is perhaps understandable, but the true collector learns to transcend faincial limitations.

 

We collect swords nowadays because we appreciate them as art objects. We do not collect them because of their excellence as weapons. Nevertheless the essence of the sword is its effectiveness as a weapon and its superiority as a weapon in expressed in the beauty of its sugata, in the brightness of its jihada, and the beauty of its hamon.

 

...

 

As I have said, the Japanese Sword may be considered as a work of art, and an object of contemplation. By contrast, I have also said that the Japanese sword is a weapon, to which one could entrust one's life. The sword is both of these things.

 

...

 

Once upon a time there was a rich merchant named Takeda Kizaemon. He was a great devotee of the Tea Ceremony., but he ran into difficulties and lost all his wealth, ending up as a groom in [the] stables. But, he retained his favorite Tea Bowl which he kept in a bag around his neck until the day he died. This bowl still exists and is called "Kizaemon Ido."

When I was young, my Sensei showed me a sayagaki. The inscription said enigmatically:

 

"Even if you were standing at the edge of the road..."

He asked whether I understood it. I had to say that I did not. he explained that "to stand at the egde of the road" means you have become like a beggar. Even if the owner were to become a beggar, he would never part from this sword.

The feeling for a Meito exists only inside us, and has really nothing to do with the works of famous swordsmiths or expensive swords. However, you must have the knowledge to understand and appreciate it. The sense or feeling attached to the swords is very important.

This is the secret when you are collecting Meito.
 

 

 

 

[Rivkin]

For some reason every discussion like that turns to Masamune.

Very personal and nonsense opinion - the idea that "it is the same as other three or four judgements" demonstrates the best how political these judgements are.

 

Never saw Norishige which slided back and forth in attribution between Masamune and Norishige. The only reason why its stated that those two are "the same" so that one could ignore abundance of early Norishige's and scarcity of similarly datable Masamune's and claim Masamune to be among the earliest Soshu's smiths. Such "sliders" probably do exist, but are extraordinary rare since Norishige is very distinctive - in both styles, though there are some rare and very late copies (1360-1380) or/and the second generation.

 

For Sadamune, his tanto tend to be highly distinguishable in terms of hada and to some extent hamon. They sometimes slide to Yukimitsu or Masamune but not too common. His daito are often poorly defined and can slide anywhere, including Shizu, Hasebe etc. etc.

Yukimitsu tends to slide to Taima but far less often to Masamune. Flamboyant and wild are not terms that tend to be associated with him.

 

Masamune's weaker daito can slide anywhere. Shizu, Yukimitsu, whatever. They are traditionally attributed and are not great to begin with.

Masamune's best and most flamboyant pieces are supposed to be comparable to Yukimitsu or Norishige - except they display a much more sofisticated nie control and wider ha. Realistically O-Sa or Go, sometimes Sadamune tend to be alternative judgements, but not Yukimitsu. Why its never stated - because they are all  late artists, and aknowladging them as alternatives would throw doubt on Masamune's status of the earliest of them all.

 

Finally, there is often an order of magnitude valuation difference between the pieces which are apparently "one and the same".

[Apercus]

This has been a great discussion. Thanks to all who are contributing to it.

[Alex A]

On 5/1/2021 at 7:56 AM, Jacques D. said:

This is far beyond our level of knowledge, personally I feel no legitimacy to give any opinion.

 

If folk like yourself spend 10, 20, 30 + years looking at swords everyday, whether in hand or online then i consider your opinion valid, even if not considered "expert"

[Jacques D.]

22 hours ago, Alex A said:

 

If folk like yourself spend 10, 20, 30 + years looking at swords everyday, whether in hand or online then i consider your opinion valid, even if not considered "expert"

 

I know mostly what I don't know, and yet I spend a lot of time studying as hard as I can.