What is your personal perspective and "scale" for the acceptability of an individual Nihonto's condition/patina, verses its existence during a particular time period or area?

[DocTheRoc]

Let me preface this by saying I know I'm in a community dedicated to preservation and study, so the level of acceptance to non-preserved material may not be high. 

 

In conversations with many of you fantastic professionals, I have noticed that among the collectors and academics, there seems to be a personal scale with which one decides whether the condition of a blade is "unfortunate" and almost apologetically worth less as a result. 

 

As someone that has come into this art from a historian's and martial artist's perspective (only to draw distinction from initially appreciating Nihonto as overt expressions of art, not to express I am particularly adept at either), I am not personally put off by the patina of "use"; but I found the perspective of collectors with a more mature "eye" than I very intriguing. I am surprised, I suppose, that the data around the historical circumstances of a blade in question, such as location of its creation in relation to particular conflicts or developments in history, appear to only be a minor supplement to the overall condition of the piece instead (unless of course, it was provably owned by a famous Daimyo, for example). 

 

I suspect, in my ignorance, that it is principally because the "approach" to Nihonto can come from two primary directions - that of a purely historical perspective, or that of an art-connoisseur/preservationist (I understand there might be degrees of in-between-ness here). The student of history may have a greater acceptance, or even desire for the patina of use, as it relates to Nihonto; or look for blades from certain areas or time periods in which they are specifically interested. Whereas the collector/preservationist may have a wider scope of acceptability for timeframe and circumstance but be far more concerned with whether the blade in question received its due respect and care; thus, be in far better condition. 

 

But, as I said, I am quite new to this community and practice of preservation, so I would like your perspective on the matter. To me personally, I would be more than happy to receive (and respectfully care for as custodian) a Nihonto that may be polished beyond acceptability or has unacceptable or fatal flaws in its construction...if it's more likely to have existed and/or been used/carried within the timeframe I am particularly interested in historically. I am curious if this is a unique or immature viewpoint, or if I am not as far away from the preservation and art community as I suspect I may be. 

[Kiita]

The art vs artifact discussion is well trodden ground, and I wouldn't say that one side or another is correct, they're simply different perspectives. For the art collectors, who comprise the majority of this forum, patina, in the sense of wear, corrosion, and general out of polishness, are categorically negative because they interfere with viewing the characteristics of the sword. Even relatively light corrosion by most standards can totally prevent one from seeing hada and hataraki. Regarding provenance, I suspect that for most it's less a lack of interest and more that very few of these stories but the most famous are provable, to put it gently, so they may as well be discarded and the blades allowed to speak for themselves.

 

The historian has some potential advantages, however, as he might be, for example, as an Edo freak far more interested in a generic Shinto wakizashi, or as a Sengoku enthusiast, in a Bizen kazuuchimono or basic yari, each of which is more representative of its era, than a grand old tachi of greater artistic merit, saving him quite a bit of money. The Heian otaku is out of luck though.

[DocTheRoc]

49 minutes ago, Kiita said:

The art vs artifact discussion is well trodden ground, and I wouldn't say that one side or another is correct, they're simply different perspectives. For the art collectors, who comprise the majority of this forum, patina, in the sense of wear, corrosion, and general out of polishness, are categorically negative because they interfere with viewing the characteristics of the sword. Even relatively light corrosion by most standards can totally prevent one from seeing hada and hataraki. Regarding provenance, I suspect that for most it's less a lack of interest and more that very few of these stories but the most famous are provable, to put it gently, so they may as well be discarded and the blades allowed to speak for themselves.

 

The historian has some potential advantages, however, as he might be, for example, as an Edo freak far more interested in a generic Shinto wakizashi, or as a Sengoku enthusiast, in a Bizen kazuuchimono or basic yari, each of which is more representative of its era, than a grand old tachi of greater artistic merit, saving him quite a bit of money. The Heian otaku is out of luck though.

 

Kiita/Aaron, 

 

Thank you, and I apologize if this is a tired topic - I did do some due diligence to try and find this conversation before. I found a somewhat similar topic from almost 10 years ago, but my search could have been poor. 

 

You bring up very fair points, and things I hadn't considered (such as the "viewing quality" of the sword, which makes sense from an artistic perspective). Regarding the provability, you're absolutely right. From a personal perspective, I find the "gaps" or "potentials" in the history of a particular sword, or that such a blade may have been carried or owned by a "lower level" Samurai, to be where that interest lies; and those historical thought experiments to be interesting to ponder. It could have just as well been simply stored improperly or buried in a corner until discovered years and years later...You are absolutely correct in that I would be quite dubious of any Nihonto claiming serious parentage of high esteem - baring those with legitimate paperwork and lineage. I feel that, at least in the historical displays I have personally been to in Japan, curators seem to share your viewpoint - as I can't remember a single instance of a "worn" blade or koshirae being displayed as worth admiration or study. 

 

I believe I, personally, lay firmly on the side of historical appreciation - but I recognize that there is a certain tangible physicality to the artistic application of the object in front of you - rather than the gaps and assumptions necessary to place historical appreciation on a particular Nihonto. 

 

Where do you, in particular, lie on this sliding scale? How do you make your judgements personally?

 

-V

[Shugyosha]

Hi Vincent,

What a person appreciates as a collector, or just appreciates, is a completely personal thing. I think I veer more towards art than artefact in terms of what I enjoy so, for me, kitae ware and shintetsu showing are things that put me off. I quite like the idea that someone intended to make a weapon but also, whether through skill or a happy accident, created something beautiful. Fatal flaws are mostly a no go, though did once buy a cheap tanto with run off at the boshi because I liked the rest of it and it was, of course, cheap. 

 

So condition is a consideration for me but flashy shinto blades don’t do it for me much (even in polish) and an overdone hadori polish is probably worse than an out of polish blade showing some of it’s natural qualities (for me). 
 

Ultimately, I think for each of us, we have to work out for ourselves where the sweet spot lies between art, artefact, price and that undefinable something where an object just speaks to us and buy (or just admire) accordingly. That said, be prepared for your taste to change over time and perhaps on a case-by-case basis. The only rules are the ones you set for yourself. 
 

Apologies for the ramble. 😁

[Robert S]

Where historical patina really is historical patina, I think most collectors are interested.  The problem is that most - indeed I would say almost all - of the patina on nihonto isn't historical (except in the case of the nakago)... because the Japanese owners over the centuries weren't interested in patina and had the blades polished when they began to get marked.  Thus what we see these days is more likely to be signs of a blade that has been neglected in the 20th/21st century... which I suppose is an indicator of the changes in Japan in more recent history, but not terribly interesting.  There are a tonne of well and truly rusted blades out there which were abandoned in sheds and closets in Japan... but that patina is a real problem!

[DocTheRoc]

19 minutes ago, Shugyosha said:

Hi Vincent,

What a person appreciates as a collector, or just appreciates, is a completely personal thing. I think I veer more towards art than artefact in terms of what I enjoy so, for me, kitae ware and shintetsu showing are things that put me off. I quite like the idea that someone intended to make a weapon but also, whether through skill or a happy accident, created something beautiful. Fatal flaws are mostly a no go, though did once buy a cheap tanto with run off at the boshi because I liked the rest of it and it was, of course, cheap. 

 

So condition is a consideration for me but flashy shinto blades don’t do it for me much (even in polish) and an overdone hadori polish is probably worse than an out of polish blade showing some of it’s natural qualities (for me). 
 

Ultimately, I think for each of us, we have to work out for ourselves where the sweet spot lies between art, artefact, price and that undefinable something where an object just speaks to us and buy (or just admire) accordingly. That said, be prepared for your taste to change over time and perhaps on a case-by-case basis. The only rules are the ones you set for yourself. 
 

Apologies for the ramble. 😁

 

Hi Shugyosha/John, 

 

Not a ramble at all - honestly this whole thread is supposed to be a bit rambley. Thank you for offering your perspective! That makes a lot of sense to me, and you bring up a good point about the middle-ground calculus of interest vs. cost as well - I suppose from my point of view, many Nihonto are simply only inside of the range of price that requires me to save up for months and months (which I did do), haha; but it obviously makes sense. 

 

Also, more to the point of the thread, thank you for sharing how you personally decide and what you like/look for! 

 

-V

[DocTheRoc]

26 minutes ago, Robert S said:

Where historical patina really is historical patina, I think most collectors are interested.  The problem is that most - indeed I would say almost all - of the patina on nihonto isn't historical (except in the case of the nakago)... because the Japanese owners over the centuries weren't interested in patina and had the blades polished when they began to get marked.  Thus what we see these days is more likely to be signs of a blade that has been neglected in the 20th/21st century... which I suppose is an indicator of the changes in Japan in more recent history, but not terribly interesting.  There are a tonne of well and truly rusted blades out there which were abandoned in sheds and closets in Japan... but that patina is a real problem!

 

Robert, 

 

100% on the rust - I see what you mean. It's interesting that you bring up the blades being polished when patina developed by likely Japanese owners - because one has to wonder - would it have been better to allow that patina to develop at the time, to limit the number of polishes a blade undergoes? It seems that over-polishing is also a limiting factor on artistic "worth" - so unless a blade is kept and cared for to prevent that aging patina, I suppose there's a question to be had which is the better "history" for a blade, rusted but available for restoration, or polished too much but not rusted?

Again, this is all academic, as it depends on the individual's preference, I'm sure. 

 

-V 

[Kiita]

23 minutes ago, DocTheRoc said:

 

Kiita/Aaron, 

 

Thank you, and I apologize if this is a tired topic - I did do some due diligence to try and find this conversation before. I found a somewhat similar topic from almost 10 years ago, but my search could have been poor. 

 

You bring up very fair points, and things I hadn't considered (such as the "viewing quality" of the sword, which makes sense from an artistic perspective). Regarding the provability, you're absolutely right. From a personal perspective, I find the "gaps" or "potentials" in the history of a particular sword, or that such a blade may have been carried or owned by a "lower level" Samurai, to be where that interest lies; and those historical thought experiments to be interesting to ponder. It could have just as well been simply stored improperly or buried in a corner until discovered years and years later...You are absolutely correct in that I would be quite dubious of any Nihonto claiming serious parentage of high esteem - baring those with legitimate paperwork and lineage. I feel that, at least in the historical displays I have personally been to in Japan, curators seem to share your viewpoint - as I can't remember a single instance of a "worn" blade or koshirae being displayed as worth admiration or study. 

 

I believe I, personally, lay firmly on the side of historical appreciation - but I recognize that there is a certain tangible physicality to the artistic application of the object in front of you - rather than the gaps and assumptions necessary to place historical appreciation on a particular Nihonto. 

 

Where do you, in particular, lie on this sliding scale? How do you make your judgements personally?

 

-V

Holding a blade, or indeed any old and well used object, and speculating, imagining, where it has been and what it has done over its history is of course part of the fun, and something I have done often, that said, unless proven otherwise it's all in our heads. 

 

For me, I am too immature as a sword enthusiast to say for certain whether I reside in either camp. I have found individual swords compelling in any number of ways, as art, as weapons, as curios or artifacts. I believe, however, that one shouldn't get these ways confused. A sword with no artistic merit will never gain it no matter how famous its past owners, the most beautiful hamon in the world does not make a broken sword cut better, and a gendaito will never be a "samurai sword" (as used colloquially) no matter how well made it was. I can happily evaluate swords as artifacts or art but not both at the same time.

[Jussi Ekholm]

It depends on the item. But I am a historical guy opposed to an art appreciator. As my main interest in the hobby are ōdachi and old naginata, I am filled with joy seeing them.

 

Last summer I saw several rusty and blemished ones at various shrines and other places. To me they were much more exciting than most of the National Treasures I saw in several museums. Of course if they have been restored to full glory then they are absolutely amazing.

 

Still purely from my heart I would most likely choose a historical ōdachi over extremely amazing sword regardless of their status, or perceived difference in the skill of smiths etc.. It is quite extreme view and I am fully aware of that.

 

Even for regular sized swords I have noticed I am starting to have extremely quirky things that I am looking for or avoiding.