What exactly determines the price of a nihonto?

[Ikko Ikki]

Hello NMB, 

 

One big question I had for the hobby pertains to the price of nihonto and what exactly constitutes their prices.  How exactly are they determined?  I know what something is worth is a subjective matter and for something to be sold, that subjective opinion has to be a shared one.  But, for example, what are some things that seperates a $8,000 Tokubetsu hozon from a $28,000 Tokubetsu hozon?  Because with such a price difference, they seem like they should be in their own category.  Does the NBTHK/NTHK or other organizations determine the price and tell you after their judgement?  Or does it always come from the seller?  

 

Is age not a very relevant aspect to nihonto?  I know I shouldn't compare the two because they are very different, but here in the west, if a 700 year old sword is found, even if is in an unrecognizable condition, it is still a priceless find.  Contrast this to a kamakura era sword I saw that was advertised for only $300.  It had many areas of rust and damage, but it's still a ~700 year old sword that may have a whole history to it.  Swords from whoever made it (it was mumei) and swords from the kamakura era will never be made again so shouldn't there be more appreciation for a sword that old?   I know Japan preserved their old swords much better than Europe did and high supply = low price, but it is still a piece of history.  

 

One thing that does make sense is that longer blades seem to trend higher in price than shorter ones so typically, I'd see katana be more expensive than wakizashi, and wakizashi more expensive than tanto.  I think that makes perfect sense since the longer the blade is, the harder it is to craft (I assume) and it uses up more tamahagane, which there is only a finite amount of.  But gimei are also made of tamahagane.  And while they are not the smith they say they are on the tang, it doesn't mean it is a poor quality blade or that it can't perform well in combat.  So why is it significantly lower in price?  It may still function just as well or close to a more renown sword, and is made from tamahagane.  But because the signature is inauthentic, it is entire realms cheaper than an appraised sword? 

 

Another point on how function also doesn't seem to play a big part is the abundance of super short katana I've been seeing.  So many Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon katana have these very small 60cm blades.  From what I know, that is about the minimum length to be considered a katana.  I don't know of any schools that teach such short katana like those nor have I seen any kind of demonstrations or sparring with them.  They usually are around ~70cm in blades length which from what I can tell was the legal limit for much of the Edo period and is why so many pre-Edo blades are now suriage/O-suriage.  My point is, outside of a specific contexts like home defense in the tight corridors of a traditional Japanese house, how practical would those short blades be?  Sure it may come from a distinguished swordsmith, but in a duel with an opponent who has a 80-90cm blade Ubu tachi with equal skill, the guy with the near-wakizashi-length blade will likely lose, so how much would that be worth really?  Does it serve its purpose as a sword that well anymore after being nerfed that hard from shortening?  Is it now just a highly refined piece of steel, far removed from its original purpose?

 

I'd like to hear any and all advise, criticisms, or just any thought really on this subject.  Please be patient with me since I am only starting to get serious about learning about nihonto.  This long post started when I saw this 68cm blade Katana from the Kamakura era (~1317 they said) with no visible blemishes (to my inexperienced eye) and a Tokubetsu Hozon certificate and it was only about $6,500!  From everything I've seen up to then, that sword sounded like a total steal, so I just started thinking and realized that my perception of what nihonto are worth is probably way off of from what most collectors/sellers is.  So I'm just putting this out here so I can get a better understanding of why things are priced the way they are and what more experienced people look for that I may miss. 

 

Thanks for reading all of this,

Connor

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

It is very complicated subject and sometimes the asking price can be whatever the seller decides it to be.

 

In ideal world the sword should be the deciding factor for price. However things like apprasing organization, who the dealer is etc. will of course affect the price. Likewise the perceived value & rank of swordsmith to whom it is appraised to for mumei items for example. If you get a desirable attribution from NBTHK the price will go up, get a lower tier one you might have difficulties in getting a good price. As it currently stands NBTHK appraisals have a huge impact in the market. You get attribution to a top smith for a mumei blade, it will be very valuable with just Hozon certification. Then another mumei sword with lower attribution even if it would have passed the Jūyō shinsa it might not be at the same level in pricing.

 

Here are few items to show some differences

 

Hizen Tadahiro is a very famous smith, here are 3 sword by him, all 69-70cm. Prices are 1M 2M 3M yen and all the items are Tokubetsu Hozon by NBTHK. I do not know much about Hizen as I focus on early stuff but I know which from these three I would personally pick up if price was not a factor.

 

https://www.aoijapan...kubetsu-hozon-token/

https://www.aoijapan...kubetsu-hozon-token/

https://www.aoijapan...kubetsu-hozon-token/

 

Here is the mumei Jūyō vs. Tokubetsu Hozon to show bit what I was talking earlier. Jūyō Senjuin is 3,5M yen and Tokubetsu Hozon Ko-Kyōmono is 8,5M

 

https://eirakudo.sho...katana/detail/289562

https://eirakudo.shop/084932

 

Truth to be told I do not like either of them that much. There are dozens of much cheaper items that I would rather take than either of those two. However it is just variation in appreciation and possibly my lack of fine refined taste.

[Jacques D.]

I don't like to talk about the price of a sword, but as I sometimes deal for collectors, here are my criteria (NBTHK papered swords only as i don't trust other oraganisations)
Sugata = length, width, kasane.
Blade condition (number of polishings probably received)
Reputation of the smith (jo, jojo, saijo saku)
Period of the smith's career during which the blade was forged (all smiths had a period when they were better)
Quality of workmanship (most difficult to determine and only blade in hand)

Once all these elements have been verified, we negotiate - there is never a fixed price.

[Gakusee]

Excellent responses from Jussi and Jacques.

The reality is that some schools and some makers command premium prices due to inherent quality or historic reputation/associations. That is where the connections you imply  (older=higher price, longer = higher price, higher paper = higher price) very often break. 

 

I will also add other factors influencing price apart from maker, quality, condition and modern papers:

- historic provenance (especially to important figures and if supported with some evidence)

- Honami certificates and valuations (particularly early Honami such as Kochu, Kojo etc - later the origami lose a lot of their credibility)

- kinzogan/ginzogan or saidanmei (describing tameshigiri) - again by reputable appraisers/testers

- often, excellent koshirae, particularly if paired with the sword in the Edo period (as opposed to modern match)

[Bugyotsuji]

Excellent thread. To some extent the price/value will depend too on the individual dealer and his or her reputation. 

[Benjamin]

Can I had sayagaki by reputable appraiser ?

[dyn]

I think nobody mentioned one of the important factors: zaimei vs mumei. A signed nihonto can be worth a lot more than an unsigned one attributed to the same smith. But again it depends on the exact sword. Age is also not necessarily the sole determination of price even though koto is generally more valued than shinto because I would gladly take a saijo saku shinto over a mediocre koto.

 

For your example of 8000 tokubetsu hozon vs 28000 tokubetsu hozon, we could compare something like a signed rai kunitoshi tanto like this one (approx 28k) to a cheaper katana (approx 10k) by a later member of the same school. As you mentioned, they are both Tokubetsu Hozon. Basically I think papers only help value at the bottom end. What that means is if you have a cheap juyo it likely won’t be less than x (maybe 15-20k) simply to being juyo. But with a more famous smith (Rai Kunitoshi is one of the best Koto tanto smiths) it would be worth far more than a bottom line juyo even with worse papers. 

 

Basic answer is, it depends on the exact sword, who made it, what type of signature it has, when it was made (whether it was during a smiths peak or not). There’s a whole bunch of things that determine value and i’m sure I’ve missed a bunch myself. I’m only getting into this hobby.

[Franco D]

The price of a sword may depend on the knowledge of the buyer or knowledge of the seller. Buyers who are unsure of themselves may end up passing on a great deal. At the same time that unsure buyer may end up overpaying. Or even worse, a buyer with a lack of knowledge and or experience may end up buying a sword that they should have never bought to begin with regardless of price. On the flip side, sellers, including dealers, may know what they have and offer a piece at a fair price. They may also seek too high a price hoping the right customer comes along. There is also the case that the seller/dealer doesn't know or at least didn't realize exactly what they have/had. When it comes to nihonto there is too much to know. For many collectors where pricing is concerned, in the end are happy to land somewhere in the middle (breaking even) or close to it when everything is said and done. 

 

 

Edited September 6 by Franco D

[Schneeds]

There's also the additional layer of external factors such as market fluctuation, general economic trends, and currency exchange rates.

 

A niche market like this is highly susceptible to these at the lower and middle range of the buyer's market. 

[Franco D]

7 minutes ago, Schneeds said:

There's also the additional layer of external factors such as market fluctuation, general economic trends, and currency exchange rates.

 

A niche market like this is highly susceptible to these at the lower and middle range of the buyer's market. 

 

When it comes to nihonto collecting patience is a must. Sometimes years may pass before the right piece (right market) at the right price presents itself. As we collect it is also important to realize when it is time to let go. 

[Lewis B]

34 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

When it comes to nihonto collecting patience is a must. Sometimes years may pass before the right piece (right market) at the right price presents itself. As we collect it is also important to realize when it is time to let go. 

Very true. Took 8 months before I found my first blade. My second blade which I found a couple of weeks ago in Japan, is Yamato Senjuin per recent NBTHK papers, (although it has had a long time attribution as a Soshuden masterwork and was part of the Sozan Tsukamoto museum collection as such). Tanobe is writing the Sayagaki so I'm curious what attribution he gives, as its not classic Chu Senjuin. Possibly Ko Senjuin given the hada, hataraki and sugata. The blade, registered in 1966, has an interesting history which appealed to my collecting sensibilities. I tell myself my 3rd blade will be purchased in Japan next year when I attend the DTI. Patience is a worthy trait when it comes to collecting Nihonto.

[lonely panet]

Ubu, imho is always a valuable point.  original shape is important.  

but honestly i should be talking at this table as im just a peasant compared to the educated peaple talking

[Pierre F]

Thanks Connor for this subject.

 

After reading the answers, my understanding, is the modern origami organisations is not  the "holy grale" for valuation of a sword.

Gakusee talked about the "early Honami such as Kochu, Kojo etc.."

 

I read recently about the List of Wazamomo, and I was thinking it could be a criteria comparable with the early honami, because apparently the publication of this list was in 1797. Not for the swords itself, but as a reference of  swordsmith quality.

A was very surprised after discovering this list that there is nearly nothing on the forum about it. Could it be a reliable criteria (one of many) for the quality of a swordsmith ?

Apparently one of the criteria of this list is the "cutting" ability of the swords so maybe this criteria it focus on this specific functionality ?

 

I'm sorry about this question but I thought the answers could be interesting while staying in the original subject.

 

[John C]

I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more emphasis placed on simple demand or provenance. There are a multitude of factors that can determine whether or not a particular sword appeals to someone. But unless you have multiple people interested, it won't carry much value. A simple steel dagger may not fetch much, however King Tut's meteorite dagger might realize millions due to simple demand and provenance. Likewise, two equally rated Masamune may fetch premiums, however if one had been owned by an emperor, I suspect it would be worth more to someone.

 

John C.

[Tsuku]

1 hour ago, Pierre F said:

After reading the answers, my understanding, is the modern origami organisations is not  the "holy grale" for valuation of a sword.

Gakusee talked about the "early Honami such as Kochu, Kojo etc.."

 

The judgements of the early Hon'ami – Kōtoku, Kōjo, Kōchu, etc. – are held in very high regard, but they are also rather rare and often falsified. So blades purporting to have these old origami or kinzogan-mei must be studied carefully. The best case would probably be an old Hon'ami attribution that is specifically supported in modern NTBHK papers.

 

1 hour ago, Pierre F said:

I read recently about the List of Wazamomo, and I was thinking it could be a criteria comparable with the early honami, because apparently the publication of this list was in 1797. Not for the swords itself, but as a reference of  swordsmith quality.

 

The wazamono came from the 5th generation Yamada Asaemon, who were the executioners and sword testers retained by the Tokugawa shōguns. The majority of swords subjected to tameshigiri testing in the Edo period were recently made. The old Kamakura/Nanbokuchō masterworks had survived through the Muromachi era and didn't really need to be tested, everyone knew that they could cut. As a result, the wazamono list cannot be taken as a real "reference of quality." (Try looking up the Kamakura/Nanbokuchō saijo-saku and see how many of them appear on that list!)

[Ikko Ikki]

17 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Hizen Tadahiro is a very famous smith, here are 3 sword by him, all 69-70cm. Prices are 1M 2M 3M yen and all the items are Tokubetsu Hozon by NBTHK. I do not know much about Hizen as I focus on early stuff but I know which from these three I would personally pick up if price was not a factor.

 

 

 

Is that golden inscription indicative of an impressive tameshigiri cut?  I imagine that plays a big part in the price of that 3M Yen one.  Also why does the polish on each of them look different?  Does this happen at different stages in polishing, or will it look different depending on who it gets polished by?

 

 

 

 

Also thank you all for the replies.  They have been really insightful.  From what I can tell, the smith/lineage that made the sword (or the one that it is attributed to) seems to have the most say in the price, but it also largely comes down to the seller.  This may be a question for another thread, but I'll just ask here: what does the NBTHK even look for/how is the type of shina paper determined?  I have a bit of homework to do on this "Honami" thing that keeps getting mentioned.  Can anyone explain what that is?  From what I can tell from the comments, it was an old type of grading system for nihonto, but that's about all I can gather so far.  Is it related to the wazamono grading system?  And the saku ranks refer to the swordsmith not the swords, right?  

 

Thank you,

Connor

[Tsuku]

1 hour ago, Ikko Ikki said:

Is that golden inscription indicative of an impressive tameshigiri cut?

 

There are other kinds of inlaid gold inscriptions (generally, kinzogan-mei), but yes, this is a saidan-mei which records that the blade cut through a body at the chest on a particular day on Kanbun 6 (1666).

 

1 hour ago, Ikko Ikki said:

From what I can tell, the smith/lineage that made the sword (or the one that it is attributed to) seems to have the most say in the price, but it also largely comes down to the seller.  This may be a question for another thread, but I'll just ask here: what does the NBTHK even look for/how is the type of shina paper determined?  I have a bit of homework to do on this "Honami" thing that keeps getting mentioned.  Can anyone explain what that is?  From what I can tell from the comments, it was an old type of grading system for nihonto, but that's about all I can gather so far.  Is it related to the wazamono grading system?  And the saku ranks refer to the swordsmith not the swords, right?  

 

A blade, just like anything else, is worth what someone else will pay for it. I don't think there is any real "formula" by which one can compute what a given sword is worth in an objective sense.

 

NBTHK papers swords in four levels and a blade has to go through them in order. They have some defined criteria: here they are. The first two, Hozon ("worthy of preservation") and Tokubetsu Hozon ("especially worthy of preservation") are more "mechanical," in that if a blade meets the criteria, it will pass. Juyo ("important") and Tokubetsu Juyo ("especially important") are more like competitions; a blade is competing not only with the other works of that smith, but with the other blades submitted to that session. It is not unusual to have an excellent blade fail because a slightly better one was submitted, etc. The selection process can be a bit inscrutable and lead to some head-scratching... so nobody can give you a list of the things that will certainly guarantee Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo in any meaningful or realistic way.

 

The Hon'ami were an old Japanese family that had a historical connection with sword polishing and appraisal. They held this role for the Tokugawa shōguns. Markus Sesko wrote a fantastic history of the Hon'ami that goes into a great amount of detail. Sometimes the Hon'ami just appraised blades (writing the results on wooden tags or origami), sometimes they also gave them values (daizuke), sometimes they left kinzogan-mei on the nakago of blades. The greatest Hon'ami appraiser is Kōtoku, of whom we have very few blades left and only a tiny handful that can be privately sold — the rest are important cultural property and cannot leave Japan. The next two most important are Kōchu and Kōjo, and we do find blades with their records still intact occasionally. As I mentioned earlier they are often forged so you need to validate them carefully.... Later on the Hon'ami judgements became a bit more suspect in a sort of grade inflation.

 

Wazamono was an Edo period ranking of swords and then swordsmiths for sharpness. The saijo-saku ("grandmaster"), jojo-saku ("very high skill"), jo-saku ("high skill"), etc. ratings are for swordsmiths and come from Fujishiro. The most important thing about Fujishiro is that his ratings are also by period. That is, you cannot say a saijo-saku smith from the Kamakura era is comparable to a saijo-saku smith from the Muromachi period, like Magoroku Kanemoto. Kanemoto was a great smith and a standout for his time, but he is not playing the same ball game as Hisakuni, Tomonari, Masamune, etc.

 

Hope that helps.

[Franco D]

When buying or selling a sword don't forget to factor in the condition of and the quality of the polish into the price. 

The cost for a new polish alone will quickly add to the price of the sword. An excellent polish in itself may increase the value of the sword and make it worth paying a premium price. On the other hand a mediocre polish may have the opposite effect. Speaking of which, a new polish doesn't necessarily translate into being an excellent polish. So much to know, so much to learn. 

 

 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

 

As I've already said, the wazamono ranking is irrelevant. For a start, a single sword was and all the smiths haven't be tested, especially the best from the Kamakura or Nanbokucho periods. This classification is not part of my criteria, just like the saidan mei, which adds nothing to the intrinsic value of the blade. The same goes for sayagaki, which are not free of charge, therefore are not really objective.

 

[Brian]

Shinsa is also not free of charge, so I guess it's not objective either.
 

[Jacques D.]

Brian

 

Doesn't talk about what you don't know, shinsa is shinsa, sayagaki is sayagaki. Shinsa is an expert panel, sayagaki is just a favorable opinion. Tanobe will give you a sayagaki for a gimei sword, but that same sword won't pass the shinsa test.

[Schneeds]

1 hour ago, Jacques D. said:

Brian

 

Doesn't talk about what you don't know, shinsa is shinsa, sayagaki is sayagaki. Shinsa is an expert panel, sayagaki is just a favorable opinion. Tanobe will give you a sayagaki for a gimei sword, but that same sword won't pass the shinsa test.

There is a world of difference between generously highlighting a blade's positive characteristics and condoning deception.

 

Do you have any examples to point to for that claim?

[Lewis B]

2 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

Brian

 

Doesn't talk about what you don't know, shinsa is shinsa, sayagaki is sayagaki. Shinsa is an expert panel, sayagaki is just a favorable opinion. Tanobe will give you a sayagaki for a gimei sword, but that same sword won't pass the shinsa test.

Are you saying Tanobe will just ignore the mei and give his impression and opinion of the blade at face value? I see nothing wrong with that. A genuine Nihonto is worthy of considered opinion no matter what is chiseled on the nakago. Now if he was reading the mei and giving the same attribution then I can understand the consternation, but I have no evidence he has ever done that. Tanobe's sayagaki carry more weight from what I've read, particularly at TH and below level. 

[Franco D]

On 9/6/2024 at 5:20 PM, Pierre F said:

I read recently about the List of Wazamomo, and I was thinking it could be a criteria comparable with the early honami, because apparently the publication of this list was in 1797. Not for the swords itself, but as a reference of  swordsmith quality.

 

On a number of occasions I listened to RSG members, our friend the late Arnold Frenzel in particular, talk about the fact that during the Edo period swords were not only tested to determine their cutting ability, but also tested to gauge their integrity. Oddly enough, one RSG member who had a wonderful papered signed Shinshinto period sword with a gold cutting test, learned that the sword had a hagire, but only after it was put to stone where it surfaced during the foundation stage of the polish. So, while cutting test swords generally demand a premium, there is another side to be aware of.

It's never easy!

 

[Jacques D.]

1 hour ago, Schneeds said:

There is a world of difference between generously highlighting a blade's positive characteristics and condoning deception.

 

Do you have any examples to point to for that claim?

I don't have any specific examples, but I've seen sayagaki on mumei (suriage) swords attributed to this or that swordsmith, even though the juyo had a different name. That said, a sayagaki is in no way a certificate of authenticity. Anyone can make one

[Brian]

Yeah, but we don't give them all the same respect, do we?
 

[Gakusee]

12 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

I don't have any specific examples, but I've seen sayagaki on mumei (suriage) swords attributed to this or that swordsmith, even though the juyo had a different name. That said, a sayagaki is in no way a certificate of authenticity. Anyone can make one

 

16 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

Brian

 

Doesn't talk about what you don't know, shinsa is shinsa, sayagaki is sayagaki. Shinsa is an expert panel, sayagaki is just a favorable opinion. Tanobe will give you a sayagaki for a gimei sword, but that same sword won't pass the shinsa test.

 

Jacques,

That is not a valid statement in reference to Tanobe sensei writing a sayagaki for a gimei sword. He does not do that. At minimum, he would recommend gimei removal. Jacques - how do I know that? Well, I have been there personally in that situation…..If you have not experienced it first-hand and have no evidence, why are you making allegations?

Firstly, he does not often disagree with the NBTHK. Quite the opposite, in the vast majority of cases, he agrees with them and his sayagaki supports the NBTHK certificate. 

Secondly, sometimes he goes a step beyond the NBTHK and attributes the sword to a specific smith within the school the NBTHK has appraised. 

Thirdly, the NBTHK itself changes its mind (between polishes, between separate shinsa) so why would Tanobe sensei not be allowed to have a different view to what is stipulated at that particular time on that specific certificate? Yes, occasionally, often privately, he might have a slightly differing view.

Finally, as we know well, even experts disagree. There are swords which receive different attributions when submitted to the NBTHK and NTHK or even the same sword which went to different hands (eg Nisshu, Honma, later NBTHK certificate etc). 

Yes, sayagaki work is paid for but that does not impinge on its objectivity. Juyo certificates are also paid for. Private medical care is also paid for, etc etc. 

Please let us not contaminate this valuable thread with accusations of monetary benefit outweighing objectivity or whatever insinuation is being made.

 

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. 

[Jacques D.]

 

Quote

Finally, as we know well, even experts disagree. There are swords which receive different attributions when submitted to the NBTHK and NTHK or even the same sword which went to different hands (eg Nisshu, Honma, later NBTHK certificate etc). 

Is spoke only fot the NBTHK as i don't trust others organisations

 

My personal experience, I had a sayagaki made by Tanobe san for a wakizashi I owned. The kissaki on this waki has a major flaw (inclusion) and yet the sayagaki attests that the workmanship is excellent. Tanobe san has found a way to make ends meet, and you mustn't idealize him too much - he's a bit venal. Nothing to compare with shinsa's fees

 

 

[Gakusee]

17 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

 

Is spoke only fot the NBTHK as i don't trust others organisations

 

My personal experience, I had a sayagaki made by Tanobe san for a wakizashi I owned. The kissaki on this waki has a major flaw (inclusion) and yet the sayagaki attests that the workmanship is excellent. Tanobe san has found a way to make ends meet, and you mustn't idealize him too much - he's a bit venal. Nothing to compare with shinsa's fees

 

 

 

Thanks for this illustration, Jacques. I cannot see the text well - where does the Rai Kinmichi sayagaki say that it is with excellent workmanship?
But even if we disagree on evaluations of excellent / very good / good/ adequate / poor as these are qualitative evaluations, we are somewhat deviating from the view expressed earlier of attribution objectivity. 

Sometimes, I  also do not understand how certain swords are evaluated as excellent, when I see jigane that stands out and rough hada. But the NBTHK and Tanobe sensei say excellent workmanship etc. I take it as a lesson that perhaps that smith could have hadatachi or whatever, or the “brightness of the jiba” is more important than tightness of jihada, or the “clarity of the hamon and consistency of nioiguchi” are more significant than what I perceive to be an exciting hamon (ie niesuji and hataraki within) etc etc etc and that I need to learn more. This has happened also at various times when I have visited the TokuJu shinsa and seen some of the swords elevated to that level and scratch my head. 

However, this has nothing to do with Tanobe sensei. Also you raised the issue of sayagaki being paid and I am raising a parallel example - Juyo shinsa also being paid. The NBTHK has also made a way of “making ends meet” by charging fees for their shinsa. In fact, some sceptics are being increasingly concerned by the very varied and bewildering behaviour of the last few shinsa, with rejections of swords which are far superior to those actually being passed at Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo level. But that’s a discussion for another time and I am not sure I wish to go into that on this public forum and disseminate speculations or inside knowledge. 

In principle, I agree that we should not idolise individuals and seek several opinions and do our own homework. Also, it is normal for retired people to also undertake “consultancy” services the world over. So, taking as many educated opinions as possible is always the best approach. 

[Matsunoki]

2 hours ago, Gakusee said:

Also you raised the issue of sayagaki being paid and I am raising a parallel example - Juyo shinsa also being paid. The NBTHK has also made a way of “making ends meet” by charging fees for their shinsa. In fact, some sceptics are being increasingly concerned by the very varied and bewildering behaviour of the last few shinsa, with rejections of swords which are far superior to those actually being passed at Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo level. But that’s a discussion for another time and I am not sure I wish to go into that on this public forum and disseminate speculations or inside knowledge. 

Blimey Michael, that’s going to get peoples’ attention!  We aren’t heading towards another “green paper” crisis are we?

 

My knowledge of Shinsa procedures is minimal as I am not a “papers man” but I have heard whispers about a drop in the expertise of panel members etc…….