Top 10 Swordsmiths In Japanese History

[Gakusee]

7 hours ago, Ooitame said:

One thing I consider is consistency in quality e.g. Masamune vs Norishigie. So Masamune would not be in my top 10. Also is style variety e.g. Bungo while not consistent in quality, they were able to master many styles. I have purchased only two Nihonto, the stated above and an amazing showta Nagamitsu; before the polish and more so after as it looks Bizen in hada activity, sughata, and hamon activity. I only wanted a diasho and have achieved my goals. Both are great swords in my personal opinion after handling many blades. I believe many collectors prefer the older well known names, but greatness can be overlooked or unappreciated if older is the best mentality. To each their own but greatness spans and the top ten is hard to quantify given the vast time span of Nihonto making. As an example, I can not remember his name, but a (shin?)shinto smith made excellent Soshu works/utushi. 

 

Maybe a top ten by nengo would be better.

Eric

 

It is perfectly legitimate to have Etchu Norishige in your top 10. The interplay of layers in a well executed matsukawa hada is fascinating and I also find it beautiful - something that late imitators or Uda could not achieve. 
 

Please however note that Norishige actually has more inconsistent blades than Masamune. Simply because his experimentation with different steels did not always work. When it did, it was beautiful. But sometimes the blades are uninspiring. 
 

Regarding Masamune, that is a very complex topic. It is very likely there are blades attributed to him that are by others (eg top Yukimitsu or Kaneuji or Go). Then you have the issue of the few remaining tanto - the hosho blades with a very different workmanship and preservation to the glorious long blades attributed to him. Thankfully, we have three standard zaimei tanto left that support the workmanship and signature. I am excluding the only signed long blade,  meibutsu Kinoshita Masamune, as that mei is not treated as genuine but it also went through fire etc. 
So, yes, there is variability across Masamune but remember that Daimyo and shogun loved attributions to Masamune and some of these got fabricated. 

[Alex A]

For me, too much enthesis on top swordsmiths shadows those that are as good or better than those in the limelight.

 

All personal opinion, and limited knowledge/experience can only take you so far.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Shugyosha]

It's all academic - I might be lucky enough to see a work by one, doubt I'll ever hold one, know I'll never own one.

 

 

[paulb]

I think one reason we get hung up on this is that compared to other art the very best in Nihon-to is Almost (and I use the word cautiously) within reach. When we look at a Rembrandt or Vermeer we know the the price tag is an unimaginable amount of money. For a top sword however the price is in the realms of a good house, car and a few other bits, but at least it is a number we can relate to. 

We (I) no matter what I did could ever hope to hold a top rate old master in a collection of paintings. It doesn't stop me buying, appreciating and enjoying lesser work that I can afford. Studying top work helps you appreciate the features you are seeing in lesser pieces and to understand the process better.

[Alex A]

I will just give one example, my own opinion and want to make it clear im no expert (as not wanting to upset Jacques)

 

Constantly read over the years about Tadayoshi but in all honesty, i would rather own a TOP NOTCH blade in the style i like by a lesser known in that school, Tadakuni.

 

Seen enough online and in hand over the years to form that personal opinion, and thats all it is.

 

Thats just one smith, pulling out a list that covers every era i would find impossible.

[Bazza]

44 minutes ago, Shugyosha said:

It's all academic - I might be lucky enough to see a work by one, doubt I'll ever hold one, know I'll never own one.

Of course, this is an endless discussion, though I enjoyed it immensely as our luminaries engaged their pens, and as I mentally ran through those swords I have been lucky enough to find in some 55 years searching in my own 'paddock', the highest ranked being TokuHo!!  The thought that occurs to me is this - if I found such a work as Shugyosha posits, say o-suriage mumei katana and not in the best condition, would I recognise it for what it is????  Seeing the recently discovered Norishige in my own hands I'm more confident in saying yes, maybe.  I then wonder what I might have missed along the way due to inexperience and lack of knowledge and condition in the blade and sold off to fund the next find out of the woodwork?

 

Having pondered all this, I'm with the small fry, but wouldn't be interested in studying and collecting anything else, not for the World...  My experience so far led me to recognise a bedraggled Shodai Sukehiro katana, an equally bedraggled possible Mutsu no Kami Tadayoshi wakizashi, and all this may yet be preparation for a forthcoming discovery - if I live long enough!!

 

As John Yumoto once closed a letter to me more years ago than I  care to remember 'Gambatte kudasai'.

 

BaZZa.

[Baba Yaga]

4 hours ago, paulb said:

I think one reason we get hung up on this is that compared to other art the very best in Nihon-to is Almost (and I use the word cautiously) within reach. When we look at a Rembrandt or Vermeer we know the the price tag is an unimaginable amount of money. For a top sword however the price is in the realms of a good house, car and a few other bits, but at least it is a number we can relate to. 

 

When I bought into the hobby in 95 the Yen was $1.12. Today it's .77 and falling. The top swords will be safe from the Japanese crumbling economy, but the lower end ( most collectors) prices will fall. Restoration prices have been the same for 20 years that I know of. I'm into exporting, so I understand the international supply chain issues. Come October we'll see how low, low is. Then again, I bought my son Pokémon Japanese cards when they first came out and they're sky high.  

[WillFalstaff]

Can of worms: opened! 

 

I hesitate to alter the original question any further just because it broke the dam of knowledge so well. 

 

One thing glaringly evident are the cultural differences in how to evaluate smiths. I do think "museum grade" is a red herring here.

 

I think my gaijin brain wants a methodology of ranking that goes against the historical grain of generations of Japanese experts. I just don't feel settled by hearing something like "you can't compare two schools" or "some were okay, some were not; but he was a famous smith".

 

Maybe I need to make something like this:

  

 

Then I need basic elements to judge a work by (just off the top of my head):

-execution of Hada (tight, uniform)

-execution of Hamon (consistent nioi-guchi, clear ha-buchi)

-sori (does it lend well to other aspects of the blade?)

-kissaki (size/shape matching sugata and sori)

- . . .  

 

 

Above all, I think a great smith needs to have shown consistent production of fine blades.

[Jussi Ekholm]

It has been bit of a rollercoaster thread, feels bit difficult to jump in after weekend of very interesting discussion on various aspects. I am really not sure on how we got to how lacking western collections are from top 10 lists but it is interesting twist.

 

There are some amazing items in Europe, USA and various parts of the world outside of Japan that I am aware of. Of course to me it is only logical that the best items are in Japan, and hopefully will never leave Japan. While probably they were not members at NMB, there were some absolutely stunning items in the collections of few late NBTHK members in Europe and USA. Unfortunately I never saw those items (at least yet) in person but I believe those collectors were held in high regard by Japanese sword folks too. I've been fortunate to see few very good items in European collections, and hopefully more in years to come.

 

Now those that know me, might know that I put much value on verified signatures compared to mumei items of higher preservation and possibly quality. I feel that verified signatures remove uncertainty that attributions often have. That is the reason why I chose that the smith has at least 20 verified signed items in order to select him to my personal list on page 1. I think my own personal view is that I find it strange that some of "the best" smiths did not have their signatures preserved, as some of "the lesser" ones did. I know Nakahara divides opinions but I feel in his book the chapter "Problems with unsigned blades" he raises many good questions on mumei blades of top tier smiths. Thought provoking for sure but I can follow his logic, and as I have amassed thousands and thousands old swords on various sources, the pattern becomes somewhat evident, some smith have lot of verified signed works and some have very few even though they have lot of items attributed towards them...

 

Darcy had extremely analytical approach on things, and I think he did amazing work. I feel data like Jūyō or Tokubetsu Jūyō results are among the best data we can have. Of course there are difficulties in trying to get different results from that data.

 

There are also problems with extreme rarity. Is Senjuin Nagayoshi among the best smiths as I know only 1 work by him and that is Kokuhō, or does the fact that it is signed and dated (1366) ubu ōdachi of 135,7 cm preserved in Ōyamazumi Jinja have something to do with it too... It is tricky with various designations, Kokuhō, Jūyō Bunkazai, Jūyō Bijutsuhin, Tokubetsu Jūyō, Jūyō, and all others too... Some swords get some desginations by having different features and history. For example a friend in Japan took me to Edo-Tōkyō museum when Sakamoto Ryōma special exhibition was running, as he is her favorite samurai. There were collection of swords owned by him on display, they were not something I would see extremely interesting but they were of great historical importance having belong to one of Japan's most beloved figures.

 

Now it is interesting time currently as latest Tokubetsu Jūyō results should be dropping soon. Then we can debate on how NBTHK did on selecting the items for this session. (I know I still love that huge Shikkake naginata that passed a while ago and opinions clash with some collectors over it, which I feel is only a good thing)

 

Unfortunately I have not met Hinohara Dai but I always enjoy reading his thoughts on NBTHK magazine. In the latest May issue, he made some very interesting points about studying top tier items in Japan (I was not aware of the changes over the years). I will share it as a quote as I feel it is fitting to this thread.

 

Quote

At this time, I would like to talk a little bit about looking at highly ranked katana such as Kokuho and Juyo Bunkazai.

 

Kokuho and Juyo Bunkazai swords represent the best of all swords. They have exceptional styles, excellent workmanship, and an overwhelming presence when actually looking at them. They also have interesting origins and important past owners and stories, and they are very special among the many Japanese swords we have. The opportunity to appreciate some of these blades is a dream for sword lovers.

 

After the war, we had more chances to look at these masterpieces. From Showa 20 to 50 (1945-1975) at the NBTHK Teirei Kansho Kai meetings held in the NBTHK building, at each branch kansho kai meeting, and at national conventions, many of these highly ranked swords were shown.

 

Besides the NBTHK, other sword groups seem to have done the same kind of thing. When I was about 40 years old, I used to have many opportunities to examine highly ranked blades. If I think about this, it was easy to do that, and was a good time to readily find opportunities to examine such blades.   

 

However, after about Showa 60 (1985), due to concerns about the protection of important cultural properties, classified blades were no longer made available for appreciation or study meetings, and that continues to this day.

 

Today, looking at highly ranked blades is only possible when looking through glass panels at museums or in an art gallery sword exhibition. Many people likely feel strongly that “I wish I could handle this sword”. I cannot deny that looking at blades in their glass walled cases is convenient for the owners of these swords, and relatively easy to permit when compared to the difficulties of allowing people to actually handle these swords. However, I think the opportunities to examine these swords in their glass walled cases can still be very beneficial.

 

I would like to offer another thought about this in the next month’s issue.

 

[Nihontocollector752]

I feel strongly on signed swords as well, as it is with any art a signed piece is always a very coveted item because it is certainly by that artisit and marks a great starting point. With swords that are mumei and attributed to a tradition or school, this is acceptable but when they start attributing mumei swords to smiths it should be looked at as a mark of quality and craftsmanship rather than saying, definitively by this "person".

 

On what makes something a museum grade (Japanese museum grade for the Nihonto subject) i think it is about provenance, yes, historical significance, yes. But most importantly, it is the fact that this smith was the first to establish a critical archetypal style, in the art world perhaps refered to as their own genre, medium, etc. When you stand infront of the Sanjo Munechika Mikazuki you'll very quickly see why Sanjo Munechika is a definative top smith. Many smiths came after him in Yamashiro and they have thier archetypal primary and the rest follow suit. 

 

Bizen is the best, by far and has many archetypal primary smiths that paved the road for so many other styles after them.

 

Similar to Ko-hoki, the Soshu smiths were influenced by Bizen, Yamashiro, Ko-hoki, etc so you cannot just jump to a mumei Norishige Katana without mentioning his influences first. 

 

Then there were trail blazers in every time period Shinto had some, Shinshinto very few but if they were great then they were the absolute best. And so on and so on.

 

But as with all arts we should top 10 the primary, the root and go from there (just my opinion). And when establishing the root, then pick the swords that are confirmed by them and add on what makes them even greater, provenance, historical significance, etc. 

 

We all to often jump straight to monetary value. This is not always true. You can have a Hozon Kiyomaro, in bad shape and flawed, it will still command a heavy price tag, unreasonably. But, that is just the way the market is for Kiyomaro. And if you have a juyo Kiyomaro in his pinacle, archetypal style with no flaws, with provenance and history you need to be ready to pay the same price as some jubi or better. But why is the same not true of his older brother? Some would argue his brother was equally skilled and was after all said to have trained in smithing before Kiyomaro and indeed taught him. But Kiyomaro emulated the Soshu masters, primarily Chogi and surpassed their skill (so it is said). Legends go on and on. 

 

It is easy to make a top ten list if your mental capacity can identify every famous sword over a millennium, quantify them, give them attributes and say why. But we cannot because we are not computers that retain all that knowledge and even if we put our vast NMB knowledge together, we are going to end up arguing about the top ten till the end of time, and, we will still be wrong according to the Japanese schools of thought on this subject. 

 

Masamunes top ten have changed over time, moving Norishige and Yukimitsu to be his contemporary counterparts rather than his students, etc. 

 

Who was Masamune anyway and like Shintogo, didn't he specialise in just Tanto primarily and did he really only have 10 students in his Kaji....really only 10? I think not

 

Who taught Masamune? This is documented as Shintogo Kunimitsu and before him Kunimune and Sukezane, influences from Ko-hoki and it is what Soshu did with this influence that put them on the map, a new style, medium, genre. 

 

You want to do a top ten list and exclude Ko- Hoki Yasatsuna? The primary of Japanese swords themselves,  it cannot be a top ten list then surely. 

 

The Japanese can do us one better, they literally have a top 5 list, lol,  The Tenka Goken or 5 swords under Heaven. Is Masamune on that list? No, but Yamashiro smiths are, Ko-Hoki, Aoe are, Miike which we simply dismiss from our western lists. But not all of these are 5 under heaven because of their price (priceless i should say) or skilled craftsmanship but a complete all around museum grade definition (Japanese museum).

 

Can you attain a Ko-Hoki Yasatsuna, absolutely you can if you can afford it, if it is allowed to leave Japan and if you know someone who can get it for you. Same for Sanjo, Aoe, etc. Will they be the 5 under Heaven, NO! 

 

Money should not have anything to do with this list of Top Ten. Unless the ask was Top Ten most expensive Japanese swords, we can definately do that list. The Sanchomo would be on there immediately. 

 

Don't talk about Juyo this and Juyo that, there are Hosho Juyo for 45K and Hosho Juyo for 70K plus.

 

There are Kunimune Juyo for 50K and for 200K plus. 

 

KIYOMARO JUYO for close to 1Million USD plus. And Hozon for 35k plus.

 

Stop saying buy the sword not the smith, to attain this you must have seen every consecutive sword by this smith and pinpoint the primary and the archetype and the pinacle and then look into your bank account and decide to commit or walk away, this is true of a koto or Gunto. Just say, buy the best you can afford and go from there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gakusee]

So, we talked about this a bit earlier in the thread: rarity of certain smiths and paucity of existing examples would skew the statistics. Also, aberrant examples (such as shrine o-dachi) could be useful but certain such swords would be included in kokuho/jubu/jubi counts more as historic curiosities and donations by historic figures. 

 

However, perhaps there is a reason some smiths' blades have been preserved more than other arcane and obscure smiths: they were deemed historically and artistically important by the men of power and decision-making throughout Japan's history, the emperor, shogun and daimyo. And often such blades were the pinnacle of craftsmanship, ie the best or the most important for cultural reasons.

 

So, very controversially, I am going to focus on the utmost best in the nation of Japan, namely kokuho and jubu swords and smiths. Arguably, there are TokuJu swords which are at least as good as JuBu, and perhaps better, but they might not necessarily have the historic or cultural pre-eminence of their JuBu brethren.  The NBTHK guidelines stipulate that Juyo swords are approximately equal to some JuBi and the TJ - to some JuBu in terms of quality.  However, with Juyo, we are going to contaminate the analysis by including prolific smiths of certain quality and craftsmanship but whose quality and importance are not deemed by the nation of Japan to merit their inclusion in the pantheon of the best. 

 

So, some raw numbers for those who love crude data among you. I tried to stop at the top 10, but there are many shared spots and in the Olympic spirit of shared podium space, I had to include those with the same %. 

As a bonus, in brackets after the smith I have included the Tokuno 'Toko Taikan second edition' absolute rating of the smiths. The highest number/ranking is Masamune's, second is Tomonari's (alas, I can live with this as in the first edition is was the reverse :), etc. 

 

I could criticise the analysis below until the camels come home.... However, it paints a rather compelling story about the smiths perceived to be the 'top 10 in Japanese history' (nota bene the semantics of the original poster; not 'my top 10', not 'top 10 by workmanship', even though it is likely this to be the case, not 'top 10 cutters', not 'top 10 makers of the most beautiful blades', etc).

 

Well, I think I have dedicated enough time to this topic and shall recuperate with the family. 

 

Top smiths Kokuho (Tokuno rating)	Kokuho	% Kokuho	JuBu	% JuBu
Bizen
Ko-Bizen Masatsune (-)	6	5.5%	21	2.7%
Fukuoka Yoshifusa (3000)	5	4.5%	8	1.0%
Osafune Nagamitsu (2800)	5	4.5%	29	3.7%
Saburo Kunimune (1800)	4	3.6%	7	0.9%
Osafune Mitsutada (3500)	3	2.7%	16	2.0%
Ko-Bizen Tomonari (3500)	3	2.7%	9	1.1%
Osafune Kagemitsu (1500)	3	2.7%	16	2.0%
Soshu
Masamune (3800)	9	8.2%	19	2.4%
Sadamune (2700)	4	3.6%	15	1.9%
O-Sa (2000)	3	2.7%	9	1.1%
Shintogo (1800)	3	2.7%	13	1.6%
Yamashiro
Rai Kunitoshi (3500)	5	4.5%	18	2.3%
Yoshimitsu (3000)	4	3.6%	14	1.8%
Rai Kunimitsu (1800)	3	2.7%	24	3.0%
Aggregates
Awataguchi	6	5.5%	40	5.1%
Fukuoka Ichi	10	9.1%	53	6.7%
Ko-Bizen	11	10.0%	62	7.8%
Bizen	45	40.9%	313	39.6%
Yamashiro	19	17.3%	168	21.2%
Soshu	25	22.7%	109	13.8%
Yamato (incl. jokoto)	10	9.1%	50	6.3%
Overall total (blades)	110	100%	791	100%

[Nihontocollector752]

That is an amazing round up! Thanks for the data, this is very special information especially pertaining to this threads subject and i hope NMB appreciates this. If one might ask for one more favour from the books you used to extrapolate (not being lazy, i really haven't the books or the language skills to do this sort of list) but are Ko-hoki on the Kokuho or JuBu? Sorry for making more work

[WillFalstaff]

Excellent, Michael! I knew you couldn’t resist! 

Great reasoning and deduction. Using examples in Japan is a great foundation. 

[Gakusee]

1 hour ago, Nihontocollector752 said:

That is an amazing round up! Thanks for the data, this is very special information especially pertaining to this threads subject and i hope NMB appreciates this. If one might ask for one more favour from the books you used to extrapolate (not being lazy, i really haven't the books or the language skills to do this sort of list) but are Ko-hoki on the Kokuho or JuBu? Sorry for making more work

Ko-Hoki is there with 2 Kokuho and 12 JuBu, mostly Yasutsuna, but also some Yasuie, Aritsuna, Kunimune.
Did not make the cut of top 10 as there are overall only two Kokuho, while the top 10 guys each have 3 or more. The two Kokuho Ko-Hoki are one Yasutsuna and one Yasuie (so technically that is 1 per smith and not 2, so again - not included). 

And herein lies the gist of all of it: Yasutsuna has 5 JuBu, but these were not deemed  good enough to be Kokuho. You can almost say he was not as good as Ko-Bizen Tomonari or Masatsune (which sounds too subjective, sorry), but probably is as their Kokuho to (Kokuho+JuBu) ratio is higher than Yasutsuna’s. However it is also true that not enough blades of his exist to be definitive about it. He was rated at 2500 by Tokuno. 
 

As I said above, treat all of this as directional and with the necessary caveats. However. it is also pretty well supported by Fujishiro’s ratings and Tokuno’s ratings (eg you can focus on those with 2000+ Tokuno rating, which is an extraordinary high hurdle and you get to roughly 80-90 smiths). Those with 3000 and above are 10 and include most of the Kokuho list ranked ones (excl Sadamune and Nagamitsu) in the post above plus two Awataguchi guys - Hisakuni and Norikiuni. 
 

So, among these let us call them 15 smiths you will have the top 10 smiths one way or another. 

[DoTanuki yokai]

The appreciation of Japanese blade did not begin with „wow this looks cool“, what we see today as good quality is what made this swords good weapons. 
I think that numbers and statistics do not change quality neither can I see the value of this approach.

 

[Nihontocollector752]

I think the fact that that swords, Japanese or otherwise were established as good weapons well before a millennium ago, so what's your point exactly. With the advent of steel bimetallic blades being used worldwide we shouldn't simply say yeah these are considred the best because they performed the best, any sword in the right hands will be a great platform for battle, it's no good having a fresh Masamune Tachi that sits on a wall rather than on a daimyos hip. Fact is these are considered the best because the men who made them had done what only a handful of craftsmen before them managed to do, make excellent, flawless, dependable blades. They unlocked the chemical, mechanical and artful aspects of their medium. You can have the same appreciation for any bimetallic blade of such age made by masters of their given geography. 

 

The statistical approach works well because it really does show what the Japanese considered worthy of preserving, they are preserving the spirit of the men who made these swords and statistically the results give good all rounded collectors viable pathways of exploration, appreciation and specialisation. 

[Jacques D.]

All kokuho here : 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Treasures_of_Japan_(crafts:_swords)

[Jussi Ekholm]

I am enjoying this topic a lot For years I've been gathering data and here are some numbers I currently have on signed swords for those top tier smiths that Michael listed above. These are all items I have in my references. I'll try to create a table that is easy to read. Hopefully this will spark some discussion too, and show what I was hinting in my above post about number of signed items by smiths.

 

 

Smith                 Total items      Signed items   (Gakumei & Orikaeshi)           Attributed items

 

Bizen

 

Masatsune      70                        58                        (11)                                                  12

Tomonari          30                        25                        (0)                                                    5

Yoshifusa          45                        38                        (1)                                                    6

Mitsutada        62                        32                        (2)                                                    30

Nagamitsu       269                      184                      (8)                                                    85

Kagemitsu        135                      115                      (5)                                                    20

Kunimune        100                      84                        (3)                                                    16

 

Sōshū

 

Kunimitsu         69                        67                        (0)                                                    2

Masamune      101                      10*                      (0)                                                    91

Sadamune       87                        0                           (0)                                                    87

Sa                        81                        42                        (0)                                                    39

 

Yamashiro

 

Yoshimitsu       57                        52                        (0)                                                    5

Kunitoshi*       285                      164                      (9)                                                    121

Kunimitsu         240                      130                      (5)                                                    110

 

* Some of the signed Masamune are retempered and for few the signature might be up to debate

* I combined both Niji Kunitoshi and Rai Kunitoshi to this entry

 

Sorry that the numbers don't align when I copy the info from Word.

 

[Baba Yaga]

5 hours ago, Nihontocollector752 said:

 With the advent of steel bimetallic blades being used worldwide we shouldn't simply say yeah these are considred the best because they performed the best, any sword in the right hands will be a great platform for battle, it's no good having a fresh Masamune Tachi that sits on a wall rather than on a daimyos hip. Fact is these are considered the best because the men who made them had done what only a handful of craftsmen before them managed to do, make excellent, flawless, dependable blades. They unlocked the chemical, mechanical and artful aspects of their medium. You can have the same appreciation for any bimetallic blade of such age made by masters of their given geography. 

 

 

They are the "best", because a handful of self appointed "experts" in this venue say they are. Everyone else falls in line and agrees. It's visual, not performance tested with todays Tech.  Art is subjective, it is, what it is.  

[paulb]

Quote

They are the "best", because a handful of self appointed "experts" in this venue say they are. Everyone else falls in line and agrees. It's visual, not performance tested with todays Tech.  Art is subjective, it is, what it is.  

Quote

 

As said when I put my own list up it was based very much on my own biases and preferences. I also have never made any claim to expertise, self appointed or otherwise. I Am also fortunate enough to know most of those who have offered ideas and assessments based on available data. Again I am confident that none of those individuals would claim to be experts. What they are doing is quoting publications and information written over several hundred years and including Fujishiro, Honami Kozon, Homma, and Tanobe Michiro ( are you calling them self appointed experts?) If we cannot use the knowledge of these very learned gentlemen to further our understanding then where do we look? I am not sure why this discussion is creating such aggressive responses. in the main it has been very informative and interesting. I am not sure why it is necessary to start ciricising those who are offering analysis and insight

 

[saipan59]

4 hours ago, Baba Yaga said:

They are the "best", because a handful of self appointed "experts" in this venue say they are. Everyone else falls in line and agrees. It's visual, not performance tested with todays Tech.  Art is subjective, it is, what it is.  

Well said. The Nihonto field (and perhaps other fine arts) includes a large dose of favoritism, money, politics, ego, bias, etc. The top experts would become mostly irrelevant if objective measurements were the criteria. The experts are good at kantei (I must assume), but there is never a way to PROVE that they're reliable, especially in the determination of shoshin vs gimei.

 

Related:

My first trip to Japan in 1985, I knew almost nothing about Nihonto, but I had a couple of blades. I brought a photo of the signed nakago of one. When I visited the NBTHK museum, I asked an attendant if there was someone I could show my photo to. She fetched a fellow from a back room. We had a big language barrier, but I asked him to write down in Japanese whatever he could tell me about my blade. After returning home, I would ask my Japanese language teacher what it said. He wrote a nice paragraph praising it, and said it was maybe 200 years old. Later on that same trip, I visited a dealer in Tokyo - he spoke some English, and I showed him my photo. He immediately said "Ah, Showa Kanewaka" - he was not impressed... A year or two later I had learned enough to know that he was correct, of course.

So, the guy at NBTHK told me what he thought I wanted to hear, and even wrote it down.

 

Pete

 

[saipan59]

4 hours ago, paulb said:

I am not sure why this discussion is creating such aggressive responses. in the main it has been very informative and interesting. I am not sure why it is necessary to start ciricising those who are offering analysis and insight

Hopefully it is all "civil discourse", but I think it's valuable for relative newbies to hear about the realities (my opinion?) of things like "expert", "best", kantei, kanteisho, polishing, legendary cutting ability, ninja, seppuku, "museum quality", etc. These are all things that are often distorted in various sources, especially online. This is why I was cynical about "top 10" in my reply at the beginning of this thread. Fortunately, this thread has included good info such as some proposed ways to measure "top 10".

 

Pete

 

[WillFalstaff]

On 5/17/2022 at 5:24 PM, saipan59 said:

Hopefully it is all "civil discourse", but I think it's valuable for relative newbies to hear about the realities (my opinion?) of things like "expert", "best", kantei, kanteisho, polishing, legendary cutting ability, ninja, seppuku, "museum quality", etc. These are all things that are often distorted in various sources, especially online. This is why I was cynical about "top 10" in my reply at the beginning of this thread. Fortunately, this thread has included good info such as some proposed ways to measure "top 10".

 

Pete

 

 

This is the good "blowback" of this post. We're not just addressing the difficulties of grading, but also the other factors that would otherwise take years to hear and internalize when it comes to the nihonto world (at least to us, westerners) and the filtering of the associated jargon. 

[Hoshi]

Aggregating statistical information from different sources (Tukuno, Fujishiro, Pass factor, Kokuho counts...) is the wisest path. One must keep in mind their sources (monetary values of observed sales, historical appreciation, NBHTK's pass factor, ministry of culture...) within their particular historical context and access to source material.

 

None of us here have sampled enough blades to come to approximate the statistical distribution of excellence.

 

We have seen only bits and pieces of the elephant, here and there. Some of us more, others less. But in the grand scheme of things - nothing compares to what some established scholars have handled through history.

 

Stay humble and keep an open mind. 

 

[Rivkin]

I guess one can judge painters by how many are at the MET, though thankfully people seldom go down this path.

Accepting the taste of J.P.Morgan's generation might be not a bad thing. The worst is one also accepts without trial or doubt the knowledge of past generations.

 

Yasutsuna was supposed to be the founder of nihonto with Amakuni. Every signed piece of his was seen as the treasure among treasures.

If Tomonari is a "top smith", it is worthwhile to revisit the question if it is one or three (two, five) generations. No dealer will ever consider this, since every Tomonari he sells is THE famous Tomonari. 

Masamune jutetsu... Enough said as it is.

Nihonto dealers don't want things to change. They sell certainty. Many if not most, surprisingly, can't kantei at any level and can't work without papers.

A silver lining I guess is personally I would gladly take the very best signed by lesser known ko Aoe name over any representative-average of either Tomonari or Yasutsuna. The best of lesser Sa does more for me than the worst of spectacular names. Imposed strict hierarchy - this name is great and this one just a single line in every reference book has some advantages.

 

I've met plenty of Nakayama's students. Its a very niche specialty, a mixture of strict postulates and suspicions. They have a strict table of how they judge blades, with nioi-guchi appearance given a top priority. They do tend to have a good eye for anything unusual, but on the whole it can be weird.

 

Yes, the unsigned portion works a bit like magic. Tons of signed Bizen pieces, except in Ichimonji daito. Tons of ubu Mino works - except the earliest. And its not like late Kamakura blades are that different sugata-wise from Oei.

 

 

[Gakusee]

14 hours ago, Rivkin said:

I guess one can judge painters by how many are at the MET, though thankfully people seldom go down this path.

Accepting the taste of J.P.Morgan's generation might be not a bad thing. The worst is one also accepts without trial or doubt the knowledge of past generations.

 

Yasutsuna was supposed to be the founder of nihonto with Amakuni. Every signed piece of his was seen as the treasure among treasures.

If Tomonari is a "top smith", it is worthwhile to revisit the question if it is one or three (two, five) generations. No dealer will ever consider this, since every Tomonari he sells is THE famous Tomonari. 

Masamune jutetsu... Enough said as it is.

Nihonto dealers don't want things to change. They sell certainty. Many if not most, surprisingly, can't kantei at any level and can't work without papers.

A silver lining I guess is personally I would gladly take the very best signed by lesser known ko Aoe name over any representative-average of either Tomonari or Yasutsuna. The best of lesser Sa does more for me than the worst of spectacular names. Imposed strict hierarchy - this name is great and this one just a single line in every reference book has some advantages.

 

I've met plenty of Nakayama's students. Its a very niche specialty, a mixture of strict postulates and suspicions. They have a strict table of how they judge blades, with nioi-guchi appearance given a top priority. They do tend to have a good eye for anything unusual, but on the whole it can be weird.

 

Yes, the unsigned portion works a bit like magic. Tons of signed Bizen pieces, except in Ichimonji daito. Tons of ubu Mino works - except the earliest. And its not like late Kamakura blades are that different sugata-wise from Oei.

 

 

Kirill

There are clear ways to differentiate between the different Tomonari generations and signatures. Both workmanship and signature script, chiselling and formulation. It is all about scholarship and delving deep enough to know what is what. The information is there, the narrative in the setsumei is there, both NBTHK and Ministry of Culture (which confers Kokuho and JuBu) talk in their descriptions about the smith and generation. So your argument I am afraid is invalid. Yes, there were several generations of some famous smiths but we know which is the shodai, kodai etc 

 

Furthermore, on Yasutsuna. There are plenty of signed blades by him: 17 Juyo (of which 2 promoted to TokuJu), 5 JuBi, 5 JuBu, 1 Kokuho. So, your sweeping statement of his blades being treated as treasures is not supported by the NBTHK (low NBTHK pass factor of J to TJ) and also out of 10 potential government-appraised blades (across JuBi and JuBu) only one was promoted to Kokuho (the Dojigiri).
 

Please don’t get me wrong - I really like Ko-Hoki, think they are under-appreciated by the nihonto community and believe in the greatness of Yasutsuna. However, the evidence points to him not being regarded as the pinnacle or treasure you purport - neither the Japanese government nor the NBTHK have promoted Yasutsuna or recognised his blades with the highest attestation. 

Let us please not confuse personal tastes (“I would gladly take a ko-Aoe or Sa….” type statements) with what is regarded by Japan as the best or most valuable, treasured, precious, etc. I am also not saying these top 10-15 smiths are my personal top 10-15 (even though the list would be pretty similar). I am trying to expand the knowledge of the community and demonstrate with facts what is what. 

[Rivkin]

Its amazing how much is known regarding the matters so arcane, especially in the realms outside of specialized literature...

 

[mas4t0]

Does it matter whether the categories are strictly correct, or only that a useful taxonomy is established?

 

A taxonomy describes, names and classifies things based on shared characteristics and helps us categorize, organize and communicate information more clearly and efficiently. 

 

The benefits of the taxonomy stem from the information embedded within the data structure itself. It's far more useful to group animals by taxonomic rank (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species) than to group them by their colour.

 

We can identify an unknown animal as a beetle based on phenotypic traits  without ever having seen a member of that species before. A very brief glance will tell us that it's an animal, an arthropod and an insect (from the order Coleoptera). This taxonomic information contains a lot of embedded information.

 

Without any prior experience with this species, we can guess with high probability that it has undergone complete metamorphosis and was previously an egg, a larva and a pupa before reaching adulthood. We also know with certainty that it can't asexually reproduce and many other things that I won't bore you with.

 

That got quite entomology heavy, but I'm sure you can see the parallels to sword kantei. I'm much better at insect identification than I'll ever be at sword kantei, but it is the same process and the taxonomy is doing most of the heavy lifting in both cases.

 

My point being that the taxonomy is of great value regardless of whether or not it is strictly correct (whether in a historical or genetic sense). It also greatly increases repeatability and reproducibility of judgements, I guess it's debatable whether it increases reliability or only increases consensus.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I was hinting the lack of signatures by Masamune & Sadamune earlier, as I cannot really understand this part of Sōshū tradition. And no I am not saying they didn't exist or anything like that as I feel it has been researched and established well enough. I just put historical things above artistic things and I admit I have hard time understanding how many generally finest items in Japan are mumei ō-suriage katana. Of course add in history, tradition, legends etc.

 

I admit I have only seen one Masamune (with kinzōgan attribution) through glass at Tōkyō National Museum, and haven't even seen a sword attributed to Sadamune in person yet. I am trying to find a logic why Masamune and Sadamune didn't sign (well Masamune obviously did sign some), as you can find at least 67 signed Shintōgo Kunimitsu pieces and then again for Hiromitsu 30 and Akihiro 23 signed ones (at the lowest number I am quite sure there are some more [*edit* I just looked at Jūyō results that I am still missing the books for and for certain there will be 7 signed Kunimitsu, 10 signed Hiromitsu and 4 signed Akihiro that I still don't have in the list as I lack pics of them]). So why 2 of the allegedly best Sōshū smiths did not sign their work?

 

I've read some book entries about Masamune and Sadamune lately and I feel that Japanese experts have often tendency to explain things in complicated matter. In Nihontō Kōza there was this quote in regards to when no signatures of these smiths made some people doubt their historical existence (quoting the Afu translation). "This is, of course because they do not understand from the heart the masterpieces of Sōshū jōkō." Also the descriptions of jitetsu, hamon features etc. are sometimes as poetic as they can be.

 

One important thing is, how many Japanese experts have seen all (or at least majority) the signed examples? I was very surprised when I read Nihon Kotō Shi by Honma Junji that he described Ōsaka nagamei Masamune by being listed only in the old books, so apparently he hadn't seen it, as he stated no dated work exists (in the late 1950's to early 60's). I will list all of the signed ones I am aware of down below.

 

Tachi - 正宗 (mei questionable) (retempered) - Kinoshita Masamune 木下正宗 (Private collection)

Wakizashi - 正宗 - Torii Masamune 鳥居正宗 (Tokugawa Art Museum)

Tantō - 正宗作 - Daikoku Masamune 大黒正宗 (Private collection)

Tantō - 正宗 (burned) - Noborikudari ryu Masamune 上下龍正宗 (Tokugawa Museum)

Tantō - 相州住正宗 / 嘉暦三年八月日 (1328) (retempered) - Ōsaka Nagamei Masamune 大坂長銘正宗 (Tokugawa Art Museum)

Tantō - 正宗 - Fudō Masamune 不動正宗 (Tokugawa Art Museum)

Tantō - 正宗 - Honjō Masamune 本荘正宗 (Private colletion)

Tantō - 正宗 - (Tokugawa Art Museum)

Tantō - 正宗 - Kyōgoku Masamune 京極正宗 (Imperial collection)

Tantō - 正宗 (mei questionable) - (Location unknown to me)

[Rivkin]

Its much weirded than it looks!

The last dated blade by Norishige is around 1330, Shintogo Kunimitsu is from 1331, Yukimitsu at 1338

Then you have Sa at 1341, Kinju around 1346, Akihiro at 1357, Hiromitsu from 1350s, Nobukuni at 1358, Hasebe at 1346, Tagaki Sadamune at 1351.

It is almost never admitted but also signed Shizu Kaneuji are very late - either o kissaki, or oshigata dated to 1350s, except one oshigata which is probably 1345. Yamato Shizu is also 1350s and 1360s.

 

Generally you have reasonable number of signatures from 1300 to 1330. A lot after 1345-1350.

Almost nothing in between.

Go, Masamune, Sadamune and every other Soshu smiths of the period with a few exceptions like Sa has no signed works from this period.

You can sort of understand the daito issue, since when it says "there is a known signature" it very often means there are signed tanto, at least for a lot of pre-Muromachi smiths.

But many Soshu people are tanto makers (Sadamune, to the lesser extent Masamune), and in nihonto history unsigned tanto are a weird exception but tanto makers who did not sign their works at all are basically unknown - except for Sadamune!

 

It might just be that the signatures were erased. Edo genealogy was very much shifted backward with Masamune conducting his grand teaching in 1310. So Kinju, Hasebe, Hiromitsu and most others had actually first generation which was active like 1310-1340. Which does not match the dated signatures at all. Might be some Masamune had dates like 1340 which is not unreasonable but if he was to be son of Saburo Kanemune who was supposed to be like 1250s smiths in Edo books, Masamune would be pushing close to 100. And without Saburo Kanemune you have this weird thing that all Kamakura smith are either "Hiro" or "Kuni" or "Mitsu" reflecting the two main families there, and only Masamune and Sadamune are aliens.

 

Plus all these unsigned 1330-1345 names are to an extent similar. Masamune can pass as Go, can pass as Sa, very few calmer ones can pass as Sadamune. Might also be than once the style was recognized, the names were erased if it was Masamune-level. There are records of some of the blades in Dmitry's book like a blade with Uda attribution became Go meito after new appraisal - and its not an isolated story, at some point Uda Kunifusa was not seen as sorry excuse for papers as it is today, but it was potential Go material if resubmitted.

You would not have to alter too many signatures actually. Taking 1300-1330 as guidance, for 1325-1350 you would have at best 20-40 signed pieces, almost all tanto.

 

I do heavily believe in existence of Masamune-Go-Sa and Sadamune clusters in terms of attributions, but it feels the highest quality works are from 1325-1345, not 1300-1320 as previously thought, the quality is sky high but the real names might have been a bit different.