kantei for quality

[paulb]

unfortunately James it isnt that simple.The monitor would need to be calibrated to the camera, the printer to the monitor and the paper profiled to the printer. then of course there is the prolem of the finish of the paper, gloss, matt or something else,the presence or not of optical brightening agents and the stability of the ink. (maybe carryng a sword and an orange is not such a bad idea :D )

[b.hennick]

Hello James:

I intend to publish here once it has been published in the JSSUS Newsletter. You should consider joining the JSSUS as there are many good articles in our Newsletter. Membership helps to fund our translation of work from Japanese to English. The Sue koto two volume series is an absolute bargain.

[Kronos]

Thats wonderful, I eagerly anticipate reading it Barry. I am considering joining the JSSUS in the future but I don't think it's for me until I have a certain level of connoiseurship and have had more time with blades in hand.

[Grey Doffin]

That's right; best not to read anything until you know everything.

Grey

[Kronos]

That's right; best not to read anything until you know everything.

Grey

 

It may of come across poorly, what I meant to say was that I simply have too much to read and learn so there simply wouldn't be enough time in the day to add to that currently and I can only fit a certain amount of information in my head before it explodes.

[edzo]

Dear Barry, I know that I am not qualified for such “quality” kantei points but had the following thoughts;

1. Should the model be limited to a school, tradition and period of a blade?

2. If you had an early Yamato masame hada blade with a small ware kizu which you might expect to find, would that be a negative?

3. Would you develop a point based model with variables and weights?

Ed

[b.hennick]

Hello:

We did not limit the blades to one school or time period. We did have two groups of three swords each. The first had a suguha hamon the seond anythig but suguha.

The point of the quality kantei was to judge quality not timer period or school. I agree that judgement is influenced by period. For example many Koto blades are O suriage and that is fine for them. Shinshinto blades that are o suriage is a problem. There are so many Shinshinto blades that it is reasonable to expect them to be signed, dated and ubu. As far as a small ware onan older blade that is probably not going to count much as a negative comared to shintetsu on a Shinto Hizento.

This is a qualitative asssessment not a quantitative so no rating scale and poitn values. I think that you would agree that some value hada over hamon or shape over other things. So it becomes difficult. I think that all can agree that a good shape that coincides with period of manufacture is a requirement. So a Kanbun Shinto blade should be fairly straight where as a Kamakura blade is not usually or expected to be straight.

There is a lot to consider and think about. Thanks for the comments/quesitons.

[b.hennick]

Hello patient messageboard members. I just received my JSSUS Newsletter today and as promised here is the article on Kantei for Quality. The next post is on how we actually did hte kantei at our sword club. All comments are welcome.

Judging quality in Japanese swords

Barry Hennick and Chris Leung presented at the J.C.C.C. Token Kai Feb. 18, 2012

 

Some material for this article was taken from both a handout prepared by Arnold Frenzel for a presentation at the Rochester Sword Study Group September 25, 2004 and from a thread on Nihontomessageboard started by Barry Hennick (2012) with the URL of:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12083

 

Introduction

 

Chris Bowen (2012) writes:

“A daunting task!

First, you need to define what you mean by "quality". Quality from an artistic standpoint? Technical standpoint? Both? ” and later “I have often heard that expressed as "nothing sticks out" or draws attention to itself.... Actually it has a basis in the quality of the heat treatment and thus is a form following function type of thing.”

 

Tom Helm (2012) put it this way:

“Saeru I believe is the word, which can mean clear, clearly or skillfully done. The idea that the smith had absolute control of his material and that shows throughout the work.”

 

Albert Yamanaka in his Newsletters expresses the more traditional viewpoint:

“…smiths did not set out to make beautiful swords. The beauty was incidental and the cutting ability, the foremost characteristic of the prowess of the Japanese sword, was the goal. It follows that the major factors in a quality kantei will reduce to those things that promote efficient cutting…”

 

A good quality work should be a healthy blade that reflects the better/best work of the smith.

With these ideas in mind the following seven features can be used to identify the better, from the good, from the poor.

 

The Positives

 

1. SUGATA/Shape

It is difficult for a high quality sword to have a poor shape. There is no one right or best shape as the shape of a sword depends on its period of manufacture and its use during that period. Shape is what leads us in kantei to the jidai (period of manufacture). For an excellent discussion of shape see Sam C. Saunders (2001).

 

Chris Bowen (2012) writes:

“well balanced and well proportioned. Nothing draws attention to itself. This illustrates the smith’s skill at working the steel and his artistic sense of balance and proportion.” Later he puts it this way: “nothing sticks out”.

 

Lower quality swords will perhaps show, chips, loss of fumbari, shinai (wrinkles caused by bending), reshaped kissaki, poor polish, over polish, loss of niku. It should be noted that a blade may be suriage or o suriage and still maintain a good shape.

 

2. KITAE/forging of the steel

The kitae points to the smith’s ability to work the steel, to purify it. It also refers to the quality of the steel itself. Some Schools are noted for their steel e.g. Awataguchi and Hizen. If the kitai is high quality there will be no forging flaws. The colour of the steel is also determined by the steel and forging. This is one of the most difficult properties to determine. It will be considered next.

 

3. JIGANE/JIHADA/ grain pattern

Colour of steel is difficult to discern. According to Yasu Kizu (1974) one should look at the kissaki for the best view of colour. He positied:

“Blue is ideal…Blue with a tinge of purple is ideal as such blades are the most finely forged and have the least impurities…Awataguchi, Rai, early Soshu and some Bizen.

Blue with a tinge of yellow - the surface nie is yellow or golden with glossy dark hair-like chikei … Awataguchi, Shintogo Kunimitsu and early Soshu.

Blue with a tinge of white – middle class, Rai, Oei era Nobukuni, late Soshu, Bingo Mihara, Bungo Takeda and Nambokucho era Mino

Blue with a blackish colour – lower than middle class, most Northern work – Kaga, Etchu, Uda, some Southern work (Kyushu), Kotetsu and Kiyomaru (I don’t understand why Kotetsu and Kiyomaru.)

Almost black with a tinge of blue – low class similar to above but includes Shinto Echizen

Black or dark grey with a tinge of red yielding a hard or brittle feeling, - low class – all mediocre smiths mostly Shinto and Shinshinto, Naotane (I do not understand why Naotane??)

Black and dark – the lowest class, poor quality, commercial steel and or lack of forging skill – Shinto and Shinshinto.

Jigane whatever its type (mokume, masame, itame) should be tightly knit. Some groups are more open such as later Hosho, Koto blades with ayasuji hada, Shinshinto Hankei and perhaps Yamato Kanabo.

 

The colour of steel is best seen when comparing two blades. It is difficult to see colour with one light as the eye adjusts for the spectrum produced by that light and sort of fills in the blanks. Some lights have a yellowish caste, others a greenish caste. You can often see this in digital photographs that then need colour correction. If you have two or more blades to compare then you can say that one is bluer than the other.

 

Morning sunlight in a south facing window that is diffused because of passing through a light window covering shows colour in the truest light. The polisher uses less nugui on the kissaki and thus influence colour the least there.

 

 

4. HAMON/YAKIBA/Temper-line

Chris Bowen (2012) wrote:

“Hamon clear, bright, consistent, without discontinuities and unevenness; pattern should be consistent in shape and height and be fairly similar on both omote and ura; no flaws; nie and nioi consistent in size. These point to the smith's skill at even heat treatment of the blade. It also speaks to the quality of the steel as it is not possible to get a first rate hamon with second rate steel.” And later:

“When the yaki-ire is done properly, the hamon and habuchi will be even and clear throughout.”

 

Arnold Frenzel (2004) wrote:

“Yakiba – bright, crisp and well-defined temper lines, the hamon proper, are ideal. Some blades are naturally more diffuse in the nioi-guchi area, and as a rule that means lesser quality. If a blade has nioi or nie or both, the density of the distribution and the size of the particles should become thinner and smaller moving towards the ha.

Hataraki or activity is wonderful, more likely seen on blades done in nie-deki. Hataraki should be confined to the hamon and within the yakiba in general. Though there are exceptions to that restriction, Shinto Satsuma being an obvious exception.”

 

Tom Helm commented (2012):

“I love Satsuma swords for all their features, and some of the attitude they transmit. However some teachers point out that the unevenness of the nie, the fact that it grows large and clumps up in places, would not be desirable on other blades.”

 

Arnold Frenzel (2004) continued:

“The particular pattern of hamon is matter of tradition and to an extent the time of manufacture. All hamon are either suguha based or midare based, and like flowers or colors, and it is impossible to say one or the other is associated with better quality. It is said that suguha takes a more skilled smith as any error is in refractory clay or heat tempering is impossible to disguise. I have noted that blades that rate as cutting well to be made by smiths who tended to do sugha, but I have not looked into this in detail.”

 

Nakahara (2010) page 45 states:

“The quality of either a choji or kata-ochi gunome hamon is decided by the condition of the nioi-guchi, based on factors such as consistency and the clarity of the ha-buchi (the line at the upper part of the hamon delineating it from the jigane of the upper blade.) … there are many people out there who do not seem to understand this, and are judging the quality of swords by only their personal preferences.”

 

Nakahara (2010) also writes about the relationship between hada and hamon. He makes the excellent point that Shinto era swords break the “rules” of the Koto era in that they put any hamon with any hada. Look for consistency when examining hamon. This feature is a good sign of quality.

 

 

5. BOSHI/temper of the point

Chris Bowen (2012) wrote:

“Boshi (well shaped- no falling boshi; even, relaxed, natural; nie and nioi consistent in size). It is frequently said that this is the critical part of the sword and the hardest to make well. The smith's skill at both forging and heat treatment are visible here.”

 

Arnold Frenzel (2004) wrote:

“…careful study of the kissaki is important and often done too quickly or even skipped over. A boshi should not look exaggerated; it should complement the hamon… Koto blades tend to have more activity in there boshi, Shinto, particularly those based on suguha patterns will be less complex.”

 

6. NAKAGO/tang

Chris Bowen (2012) wrote:

“Nakago (well finished with crisp, even yasuri-me; well cut mei that has fluidity and power…). A skilled smith will never make a sword with a poorly done nakago.”

 

Arnold Frenzel (2004) continued:

“A good smith will finish a nakago with scrupulous care, and it follows that suriage, particularly if knowingly done for the work of a top smith, will be done with care. On an ubu blade, yasurimei will be very carefully done, and if keisho, which are usually Shinshinto, the keisho will very naturally complement the yasurimei below it. If the blade is signed, a nice “pillow” left by the chisel while not directly reflecting quality is highly valued.”

 

A nice dark patina that is appropriate to the age of the blade is a necessary mark of a quality blade. A high quality blade will have a high quality tang. If all but the tang is studied when the tsuka is removed revealing a poor tang, the disappointment will quickly show.

 

Mei must be well placed. The characters must be in a straight line. The position relative to the mekugi ana is also important.

 

7. BALANCE – from the user’s perspective

John Stewart (2012) wrote:

“Balance, determinable mounted only and the most important in the functionality of the sword (after all if it is a clunker albeit artful it will be the death of you)”

 

Mino blades were favoured by samurai because they had balance, did not chip or bend or break. We must remember that although we consider a quality sword a piece of art it is still foremost a weapon. It must retain that functionality which is often seen in the balance of the blade. A tachi has to balance as a tachi, a katana as a katana. The straight blades of Kanbun Shinto era have the correct balance for their intended use – straight lunge.

 

When considering negatives that detract from a blade, one must also consider the age of the blade. Shinto and Shinshinto blades will have little room from “problems” while Koto especially old Koto blades can have at least some negatives and still be considered a high quality blade. For every negative considered below, as is usually the case, in the study of Japanese swords every generality has at least one exception.

 

Negatives that detract from the quality of a blade include:

 

1. Sugata:

Saiha – alters shape usually increasing curvature. Kissaki reshaping – yokote moved back or an O kissaki may become a chu kissaki. Shinai (wrinkles) caused by the bending of a blade are a detractor. Polish leading to loss of niku in Koto blades and poor repair may lead to waviness or dips. Saiha blades may have excessive or unnatural curvature. Fumbari is often lost when a blade is shortened as it occurs in the few inches above the machi. Shortened blades can still have good shape!

2. Kitai:

Kitai ware – blisters or delaminations should be avoided. Shintetsu – core steel showing through – although common in some Schools – Hizen and Rai – this too should be avoided.

 

3. Jigane/Jihada

There should be no shintetsu showing through the jigane/jihada. Blackness and dark colour of steel indicate a poor jigane as does unevenness in hada pattern. Tight knit is usually preferred, but, there are exceptions such as Norishige and Hankei. Saiha may have “oiliness” in the ji.

 

4. Hamon/Yakiba

Kuzure is the term for broken nie line, hamon, mura for fading. Generally the hamon should not touch the ha. Note that Muramasa often had his hamon touch the ha. It seems to be a trait of Muramasa rather than a detractor. Weakness in the hamon that leads to fading is a problem. Saiha can result in a blade having a hamon that atypical of the original smith’s work. A tell tale sign is mizukage – a line at a 45o angle near the hamachi rising above the hamon.

 

5. Boshi/Kissaki

Arnold Frenzel (2004) “Some can be awkward, the kaeri too long, and it is an area likely to have various serious ware.”

In battle it easy to damage a kissaki. Most kissaki have enough hard steel that they can take reshaping and still have a hamon visible. A hamon that is very close to the edge will be most probably a sign of a damaged and reshaped kissaki.

 

6. Nakago

Arnold Frenzel (2004)

“A nakago that is thin relative to the blade, indicating economy in manufacture, makes one wonder where else the smith might have skimped.”

 

A slim nakago or one of uneven width from the centre-line may be an indicator of a removed mei.

 

Chris Bowen (2012) stated:

“no forging flaws visible; edges eased so there are no stress risers”

 

Overly rusty tangs certainly detract from a blade. Misshapen tangs or reshaped tangs (such as those to fit a Russo-Japanese War mount) are detractors. These are fatal for getting papers in a Shinshinto sword.

 

7. Balance

Blades whose balance makes them hard to hold are poor blades. Shinto blades tend to be point heavy but that seems to be acceptable.

 

8. Polish

Chris Bowen (2012) wrote:

“Of course many of these points are dependent on a quality polish for proper evaluation. That is why it is often said that a bad polish can kill a sword....”

 

One poor polish may ruin a sword as the waves made to remove rust must be flattened removing a lot of steel. Shape can be corrected but the blade may look like a shadow of its former self.

 

9. Mumei or gimei (not truly negatives)

Some unnecessarily reject mumei (some of the best Koto blades are o suriage and therefore mumei). Some gimei are excellent swords and they may paper after the mei is removed. Do not reject a questionable mei until you have had three shinsa failures. Be cautious looking at ubu mumei swords especially Shinto or Shinshinto ones. Shinto should be signed and preferably dated. Shinshinto should be signed and dated.

 

10. Paper and no paper (not truly a negative)

Entry level papers or no paper is not that significant as the blade may have been in a Daimyo’s collection or never submitted for papers. Be cautious of provenance and whose opinion issued the paper. (See Darcy Brockbank (2008) for a discussion of papers and rankings. Some paper may be forged or worthless. Papers issued by different sword organization or individuals have different criteria. Sayagaki are pretty to look at and add value to the sword but need to be signed by a recognized authority. Even then they are not equivalent to a paper. There are cases where a blade was made to match an old sayagaki. Let the sword speak to you. Check using the criteria studied today.

 

Conclusion

Judging quality takes time and practice. You may favour the style of work of one School over another. Some like Bizen (They are the most popular Koto blade submitted to shinsa), some like Hizen (They are the most popular Shinto blade submitted to shinsa.). High quality work should be appreciated by all even when the style is not your favourite. Unfortunately some collect papers rather than swords. If you can recognize a high quality blade then what paper the blade has is far less important. Collectors may see very expensive blades with low level papers and relatively inexpensive blades with high (juyo) papers. When looking to buy – look for quality. Please keep this as a guide to help you along the journey we are all on. The better swords that you get the better swords our club will get to look at.

 

 

References

Brockbank, Darcy (2008) Smith Rating system < http://www.nihonto.ca/ratings.html>

Hennick, Barry (2012) Nihontomessageboard thread – contributors included in that thread mentioned in the article were Chris Bowen, Tom Helm and John Stewart view at URL: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12083

Frenzel, Arnold (2004) “Quality kantei some considerations” Rochester Sword Study Group handout.

Nakahara, Nobuo (2010) Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords a Collector’s Guide, Kodansha International, Tokyo

Saunders, Sam C. (2001) “Shape and Cutting Efficiency: the Unique Nihonto Curvature” JSSUS Newsletter Vol. 33 # 7 page 20-30

Kisu, Yasu (1972) “How to go about judging a Japanese blade” Japanese Sword Club of Southern California (Nanaka Token Kai) Talk #47 March 1972.

[b.hennick]

Here is the introduction on how we used this with our club.

Kantei for Quality – a method for presenting material in a sword club by Barry Hennick (barry@hennick.ca)

Recently Chris Leung and I did a presentation for our sword club – the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre Token Kai (J.C.C.C. Token Kai). Our aim was to help the members to better understand what is meant by a quality sword. This introduction is to help you understand what was done at our meeting. It will be followed by the handout given at the meeting.

We started with a discussion on what does quality mean in Japanese swords. Members of the audience provided the answers and we expanded on them where needed. Table A had three swords that were all ubu, signed, papered wakizashi with suguha hamon (Hachidai Tadahiro, Rai Nobuyoshi and Dotanuki Masakuni. The tsuka were left on the blades so that no-one could read the mei. Table B also held three ubu, signed, papered, wakizashi with non-suguha hamon (Nidai Masahiro, Sukehiro and Muramasa).

The group was divided into two teams based solely on in which half of the room they were seated. Their task was to look at each blade, rank the swords from best to worst and to discuss with the aim of reaching a consensus. A simple data sheet was provided for this. After both teams completed their discussion they switched to the other table. One blade was chosen “best in show”. Each team selected a spokesperson.

The spokesperson for each team took turns discussing their team’s consensus. First the suguha blades were considered. Chris Leung then talked about each blade and information was provided on ranking as given by Hawley, Fujishiro, and the Meikan.

This was repeated with the second group of blades. The handout was provided and the group got a chance to look at the blades one more time. Several other swords were set out for them to test their skill at judging quality (Omi Daijo Tadahiro, Yamato Senjuin, Horii Taneaki).

The only thing missing from the previous two posts are photos. See the JSSUS Newsletter Vol. 44 #3

[edzo]

Thank you very much for your time and effort Barry and that goes to Chris/others as well

[Jean]

Waiting for JSSUS issue to read the Article, with pictures

 

Thanks a lot Barry

[Brian]

Nice one Barry. Also awaiting my copy to read the article with pics.

 

Brian

[runagmc]

Barry, thanks for the article. It's thorough and very well put together, so...

The polisher uses less nugui on the kissaki and thus influence colour the least there.

 

To add to the above, usually the final step for a traditional polish is narume, or the final polishing of the kissaki, which removes much of the color of nugui on the kissaki...

[cabowen]

Nice job with a difficult topic Barry...Glad I was able to be of help....

 

The only thing I would perhaps state differently is the following:

 

"Lower quality swords will perhaps show, chips, loss of fumbari, shinai (wrinkles caused by bending), reshaped kissaki, poor polish, over polish, loss of niku. It should be noted that a blade may be suriage or o suriage and still maintain a good shape."

 

I would not characterize lower quality swords in this fashion, rather this describes used and abused swords, which really has no correlation with quality....

 

Again, nice work....