NTHK NPO scores

[Rivkin]

An advice or personal experience on NTHK NPO paper scores is appreciated, especially its upper portion.

My take is that:

Below 70 - major condition issues

70-72 - an average blade by chujosaku smith, or a more ambitious sword but with condition issues.

75-76 - TH analogue. This being said, I once had Juyo scoring 76 when submitted to check if there is an alternative name.

So I guess this range includes a number of good blades, but with some detriment (mumei etc.).

 

77 - very rare, kind of 76 in nice condition.

78 - this is an island of sorts, as both 77 and 79 are rare. Good blades of average name smiths.

81 - more or less straightforward Juyo pieces. Signed ubu kamakura. Uncommon.

 

I don't have any experience with their Yushu etc. so any information is appreciated.

There are used to be posts that NTHK (NPO?) sort of grades each smith on its own curve, but I did not find it to be particularly holding in my experience. 

 

Kirill R.

[Ken-Hawaii]

Kirill, I assume that you've seen Darcy's post on NTHK (https://yuhindo.com/ratings.html), but here it is, just in case:

NTHK

The oldest sword organization, the Nihon Token Hozon Kyokai⁶ splintered into two groups after the death of Yoshikawa Koen sensei. I am not so familiar with the new groups or the relative merits of either so will decline any comment on the schism. The NTHK rating system is obtained by grading a sword on a points scale, which represents the quality of work overall and within the context of the body of work of a smith. This point total is not disclosed except on the worksheet, but this total is mapped into one of four ratings:

1. Shinteisho - 60-69 pts - Genuine
2. Kanteisho - 70-84 pts - Important
3. Yushu Saku - 85-94 pts - Very Important Work
4. Sai Yushu Saku - 95-100 pts - Supreme Important Work

It is said that if the NTHK has any uncertainty in its attribution of a sword being genuine, it will "pink slip" the sword. This does not necessarily mean that the sword is not authentic. It is a rule of inclusion, not exclusion. That is, if a sword has NTHK papers, the NTHK is sure it is genuine. Unsure swords will not receive papers, as well as swords that are clearly and certainly not authentic in their opinion. Information about their decision is available on the worksheet that can be obtained from the submission process. On these the NTHK lists the generation of smith and Nengo, while the NBTHK often does not have this information on its papers.

[Bugyotsuji]

Recently I bought a sword with an NTHK Kanteisho, and a much older folding letter of guarantee. Each person I showed it to had a different take on it, something different to say, so after quick consideration I have now sold it at a considerable loss. Fingers burned.

 

Fingers burnt. Lesson learnt? Do not trust the paperwork as much as the blade itself. Mei can be faked, and so can any kind of paperwork.

 

End of.

 

(Apologies to Kirill for thread drift.)

 

武士に二言なし

[Rivkin]

Yes, but are the theoretical numbers they provide real?

I was trying to "experience-based" look at it, and to me it seems that the real range is between 68 and 83, i.e. I never saw a blade rated outside it, if Yushu shinsa is taken as a separate matter.

In this range I am quite certain of the following:

68-69: problem swords.

70-72: average blades

75-76: good blades, which apparently can/could go Juyo with a slightly different attribution, but in general are not expected to do so. 

81+ solid Juyo.

 

Would this mean 78-79 sort of like blue papers NBTHK used to have? And there is I guess still a caveat that they give 78-79 to good shinto and shinshinto blades which however can be not a prime Juyo material (waki).

 

I saw very few 77, 79 and 80, and suspect these are basically rare variations of 76 and 78 groups accordingly.

 

Kirill R.

[16k]

Also of interest, this chart from the Japanese Sword Index. It’s pretty old as it predates the NTHK/NTHK-NPO schisms so I don’t know if it still valid. Besides, having different criteria makes it like comparing Apple and oranges.

 

 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Going back over my records, I have to agree with Kirill that "real-world" NTHK ratings fall right in the middle. My lowest was 71 for a blade I was sure wouldn't get papers, to 76 for a quite-nice blade.

 

Have any other members gotten NTHK kanteisho above or below these?

[b.hennick]

I got 78 points for a daisho koshirae that they published. Not for a blade.

[Vermithrax16]

Maybe someone can show an example, but I have only ever seen these papers with 70-78 ratings. Seems amazing everything winds up in that range.

[Jussi Ekholm]

As the points are not given anywhere other than the worksheet isn't it bit useless for anyone not sending the sword personally? I must admit I am not too familiar with NTHK(s) as organizations but I know they have some people with great knowledge in panels.

[16k]

Jussi,

 

That is what I thought too, but when I got my papers from the 2019 Tampa Shinsa, à copy of the worksheet was also included, so maybe it happens more than we think.

[Rivkin]

Worksheet for NTHK is a must. Besides the score it can contain comments that don't go on the paper (uncommon).

 

Kirill R.

[Ken-Hawaii]

That's right. I got the worksheets for all three of mine, with comments (however cryptic) on all of them.

[raynor]

Glad some people getting their 2019 Tampa origami, I'm still waiting on mine with radio silence since October last year.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I know if you are sending through an agent etc. you will get the worksheet with the sword but when eventually swords end up back in the circulation it most likely wont have the worksheet. I know some that have been through recent NTHK shinsa in US by dealers still have the worksheet but I haven't seen pictures of the worksheets in any Japanese sale listings for NTHK items (maybe they might be included but I'd think at least someone would post a picture of one in sales ad). And even here in the western world it seems the worksheets get lost eventually (maybe seller don't want that to be added to the sale, maybe he doesn't think anything about, maybe he had lost it etc.). So as that number does not really get publicated anywhere I feel it is slightly irrelevant unless you are the one sending in the item but if you are sending the item it gives nice additional feedback.

[raynor]

Others correct me on this if I am wrong but Shinsa scores does not seem to be an extra hidden layer indicating the quality if an item as much as a number the judges put together to guide wich paper gets issued. Ie. an item getting say 70 or 78pts does not neccessary mean item with 78 is blanket higher quality then item with 70, since apparently NTHK assign points equally to tang and rest if the blade, etc. So one part of an item when judged might rise or drag down the overall score, for example a sword having a very well preserved nakago might rise the number?

 

Might they not also blanket sheets with the passable score only on sheets to avoid such speculations etc, wich could serve to detract from the origami itself?

[Gakusee]

Jussi, the score sheets I have seen used to contain the name of the owner. The Japanese are very sensitive about that usually, so I am not surprised these ”get lost”. 
 

Furthermore, having talked to a lot of people in Europe and Japan, the NTHK papers seem to be truly and unreservedly commercially accepted only in the US. Elsewhere there is unfortunately much less receptivity and acceptance of the NTHK. One dealer in the UK 6-7 years ago even did not want to take my sword because it had only NTHK papers. But even that blade with its 2 NTHK certificates, one for the blade and one for the tsuba, had miraculously lost the score sheets before crossing the Atlantic over to me. 

[Bugyotsuji]

Michael, recently in London I was assured by a prominent member of the Token (during a discussion of increasing numbers of 'Horyu' from NBTHK) that the NTHK papers are recently more reliable(more authoritative?) than those of the NBTHK. He gave me some reasons from his experience that sounded plausible. I must admit that my judgement was swayed by that discussion, but that I have since stepped back into my old position of a healthy measure of reserve.

[Gakusee]

Piers, I just want to make sure the distinction is crystal clear between NTHK perception (they are good), availability of knowledgeable people (there are some experts there and definitely better than us, laymen) and commercial reality (but actually commercially in Japan and Europe people prefer the NBTHK).

 

Also, out of memory, my items were in the mid 70s point range.

[Bugyotsuji]

Absolutely yes, Michael, but you gave me an opportunity to say something that I wanted to get off my chest! 

[Apercus]

I submitted an unsigned tanto in Tampa that received 80 points, I guess I should try and translate the text.

 

Shannon Hogg

[Rivkin]

I submitted an unsigned tanto in Tampa that received 80 points, I guess I should try and translate the text.

 

Shannon Hogg

 

Thank you very much, this is the feedback I was looking for. I assume its NTHK non-NPO? I never submitted anything with them, because of purely personal issues, so I can't comment at all on either their numbers or their judgements.

81 on NTHK-NPO - highest personally seen.

As a prospective, saw 2 NBTHK Juyo papered with 76 and 78 points respectively with very similar attributions.

 

I do like NTHK NPO shinsa, first and foremost because they are accessible (a month to paper in Japan, compared to half a year with NBTHK unless you manage to match the schedule/visits exactly). Second they strive to be more detailed in their appraisal.

In my personal experience if NBTHK issues papers to say 10 Kozori names, NTHK papers to three times that number, i.e. often issues papers to much lesser known smiths which NBTHK will never begin to consider for a mumei blade.

Thrice I had NTHK issuing much higher names compared to NBTHK. Twice I had NTHK issuing significantly lower names than NBTHK. 

 

There is a very clear pattern - NBTHK is very conservative with things like Soshu tanto, papering quite a few of clearly good pieces to Shimada and Uda, without even adding a name. At the same time, NTHK strives to involve a number of provincial Etchu and Echizen names in its early Soshu judgements, so Norishige can suddenly come back with an almost unheard of Nambokucho period Echizen smith.

 

I have to state a personal opinion - within the last decade regarding NBTHK, it is often that the judgement appears as too generic and made in much haste.

 

Kirill R.

[Ken-Hawaii]

That's very useful info for those of us who don't send blades to shinsa very often, Rivkin. Thanks.

[Valric]

The problem with multiple standards of certification is straightforward: 

• Submit twice
• Discard the lower attribution
• Profit

I suspect this is why dealers in Japan generally regard these alternatives with mistrust. Imagine if they all played this game, the mess it would be. This is why personally I would also be suspicious of a different provider of Kanteisho if there is not an accompanying NBTHK kanteisho, and would be a no-go in Japan in particular where such an occurrence (Big name + NHTK kanteisho) would raise immediate red flags. 

 

So it seems the natural equilibrium of commerce has converged to the NBTHK as the norm to avoid this wiggle room. 

 

And in my opinion for good reason, because the NBTHK has not one, but four opportunities to revise its judgement. This means that bad calls get the opportunity for revision provided the blade is good enough to advance. This also means that attributions at the highest level are more reliable - and generally more precise - than attribution at Hozon. 

• Hozon will typically be more conservative in judgement, with a greater use of 'buckets' where one needs to read between the lines.
• Juyo sees the bulk of the refinement in attribution. This is most often where a bucket can be further specified into something more specific, or a bad call overturned. 
• Tokubetsu Juyo: This is the final chance to set the attribution to the best idea and as such it's a big burden of responsibility.  

[Rivkin]

Its kind of deep theory approach. The practice is more along the lines that it is unheard of attribution changing, especially substantially, when H is resubmitted to get TH.

Such change would mean the recepient parading around sword clubs in Japan, triumphantly showing the papers with "I told you when I got the H, the shinsa was wrong with the first judgement, what a bunch of fools". Tokuju is a thing in itself etc.

 

The more important issue is that the judgements are seldom random, but as there are plenty of names with either no signed examples, or massive multi-generational production with almost nothing dated or signed with details, in both cases the matter of attribution reflects a specific school of thought.

NBTHK today will not paper any wide-gunome Muramasa. NTHK, green papers, Honma and Kanzan sayagaki - did or do. Who's right in this case - how to judge. Its not like there is a Muramasa tanto somewhere that is known for certain to be specifically the authentic second generation. A very big portion of famous Muramasa daito and even a few tanto are made in such a style (suguha etc.) that the only reason they are accepted is because they were well regarded even during the early Edo.

 

Similarly NBTHK attributes a lot of koto to Shimada, Uda and Fuyuhiro. Disproportional to the number of such signed blades in the existance, and with little evidence there is a very similar blade somewhere that is signed by any of such school. An indirect conjecture based on date/style.

NTHK NPO likes Gassan Chikanori for every high contrast hadamono. You almost never see this name being used by NBTHK. They would more likely brand the northern-looking hadamono as Houju for the early Muromachi and maybe Fuyuhiro for the late Muromachi.

If you give a Muromachi daito with wide suguha with some nie and mokume-itame hada to NBTHK they will churn up some Sue Bizen name. NTHK more likely will say Mihara. Who's right - these schools do cross each other in this style in Muromachi period.

And with the early Soshu its really everyone is on his own. Plenty of very high end collectors will not 100% or even 80% trust anything by NBTHK at all levels, even reaching as high as Tokuju. Nor would they trust NTHK. Its more often than not is down to one's personal preferences what exactly to call a top unsigned Soshu daito from about 1340-1360. 

 

Kirill R.

[Valric]

 

 

The practice is more along the lines that it is unheard of attribution changing, especially substantially, when H is resubmitted to get TH.

 

Ambiguously worded. While I agree that I haven't personally heard of a change from H to TH, changes do happen at Juyo and TJ. It means the judgement is converging to a better idea after deeper study. There is nothing to gloat about. 

 

 

 

 

NBTHK today will not paper any wide-gunome Muramasa. NTHK, green papers, Honma and Kanzan sayagaki - did or do. Who's right in this case - how to judge. Its not like there is a Muramasa tanto somewhere that is known for certain to be specifically the authentic second generation. A very big portion of famous Muramasa daito and even a few tanto are made in such a style (suguha etc.) that the only reason they are accepted is because they were well regarded even during the early Edo.

 

Exactly my point above. Go the the NTHK if you want Muramasa judgement on a wide-gunome blade. Use that wiggle room to extract maximum cash. 

 

 

 

Similarly NBTHK attributes a lot of koto to Shimada, Uda and Fuyuhiro. Disproportional to the number of such signed blades in the existance, and with little evidence there is a very similar blade somewhere that is signed by any of such school

 

Because these are judgement of quality first and foremost, Uda means "below Norishige student" on top of meaning Uda. Shimada means "low quality late soshu" in most cases. Now you have exceptions to this once you get a judgement at the smith-level for Uda, e.g. Uda Kunimitsu means Uda Kunimitsu, outstanding Uda smith who even has a blade at Tokuju. 

 

 

 

If you give a Muromachi daito with wide suguha with some nie and mokume-itame hada to NBTHK they will churn up some Sue Bizen name. NTHK more likely will say Mihara.

 

I'm not convinced of this, but assuming it is the case - it could simply be because the NTHK uses Mihara to communicate a certain standard of style and quality, while the NBTHK uses Sue-Bizen. It's not like these works follow an archetype, there is a lot of fungibility at the lower levels. The lower the attribution, the wider the error-bar. 

 

 

 

Plenty of very high end collectors will not 100% or even 80% trust anything by NBTHK at all levels, even reaching as high as Tokuju. Nor would they trust NTHK. Its more often than not is down to one's personal preferences what exactly to call a top unsigned Soshu daito from about 1340-1360. 

 

My Shizu is a Masamune. I made a HUGE bargain on this one. The NBTHK is just plain wrong on this. They also made a typo on the paper and added "Naoe" before Kaneuji. Thankfully my sword-sensei knows the truth because he was initiated to the secret Honami methods through the scrolls of the late Chosiki. You wouldn't imagine how much I paid for it! 

 

Jokes aside, there are many foolish rich people who think they own gold when they own lead because their ego prevents them from appraising the situation objectively. Now, there is wiggle room between Yukimitsu, Masamune and Shizu for some swords which can fall into the middle, like a very notorious tanto, but on the whole - the majority of the corpus is very well differentiated, to say it's a matter of personal preference is a wild hyperbole... 

[Rivkin]

The problem is not someone making money or not, the problem is how to attribute things where we don't really have a solid understanding of what are the absolute, unquestionable works of the Master against which everything else needs to be compared.

The position of not recognizing a specific type as Muramasa, which is recognized by others, is unfortunately a judgement call. Its not something that can be proven or even given a really solid argument. 

 

The problem with the early Soshu is not that people suddenly discover Masamune, if a blade was not considered such during the Edo period, the chances of it suddenly getting this attribution are mostly imaginary.

The problem is first that Masamune is still ill defined so there are plenty of Juyo or Hozon or Jubi or whatever Masamune owners who are convinced Shizu, or Hasebe, or Naotsuna, or Go would be more appropriate. Its interesting that Kamakura names - Yukimitsu and Norishige actually seldom come up in this context. There are still questions whether Masamune can be all three - a Kamakura smith, and a great smith, and a smith with unique features in his work. There are solid arguments that one can obtain a reasonable and consistent definition of "real" Masamune, but one of those needs to be relaxed.

Second is that there are too many blades, they are not tremendously different from each other, and almost nothing is signed.

So you have something that is well defined by features (no, its not about quality only, there are quite a few Norishige in decent condition that should never be Juyo) - Norishige, Akihiro, Hiromitsu, maybe Go, Chogi, maybe even Sadamune. And you have Masamune, Hasebe, Shizu, Tametsugu, Naotsuna where things are kind of shaky. It goes down to personal preference whether someone believes the oshigata from Edo book that says Tametsugu was Mino smith and was related (teacher of?) Kinju-Kaneyuki and thus whole bunch of works in such style go to him. Etc. Etc. Its not about money, its about too many attributions being based on pure judgement calls, guesses and information from Edo publications which might or might not be accurate, because the blades shown there do not exist today, and well all those publications did show plenty of authentic Amakuni works.

With Shizu versus Naoe Shizu when it comes to Nambokucho blades it is almost purely a personal preference. One person will say - it has ten togari in daito, too much to call it Shizu. Another will say - I call Naoe only with twelve togari or above.

Early Soshu is difficult and never absolutely certain. Just the nature of the game. Those who want certainty, they do collect Edo or some respected Osafune lineage. Or one can accept NBTHK papers of specific color as absolute. Does resolve a lot of headache.

 

Kirill R.

[Gakusee]

Well, the truth of the matter is that some Yukimitsu and Masamune are fungible as Yukimitsu was a very top smith. There have been blades which flipped between Masamune and Yukimitsu as they progressed through the ranks. That is understandable as they both studied under the same teacher and followed the same techniques and experimentation (Awataguchi hybridised with Ichimonji).

 

Also perhaps some of the Masamune are top level Shizu Kaneuji. So, if we stick to the above three conditions you mention, perhaps one can relax the unique features/style point. Top level works are just incredible in the clarity of their jiba or the elegance of nie and the fineness of hada. Just that some stylistic expressions might yield as a best answer either Masamune or Yukimitsu or Masamune and Shizu or Sadamune vs Masamune etc.

Also, some Masamune, while clearly very good, leave you scratching your head and wondering..:.either he had an off day or the blade must be tired from polishing and lost half of its glory. But many other Kamakura smiths’ blades could also exhibit such sub-par or tired condition, even when signed.

 

So, overall there, I concur with the proviso that attribution is first and foremost an appraisal of quality (eg, top early Soshu vs late/mediocre work or top Yamato versus so-so Mihara) and secondly a conjecture to the most likely / most convincing smith.

 

On the point of Muramasa, the gunome hamon you mention is not really pure gunome that goes all the way consistently. It usually is some gunome in some sections which then transitions into notare or togari. While the Muramasa (shodai) has some of his lineage in Mino, his works were richer than the [language warning!!] boring pure gunome. Now, they are not some amazing pieces of outstanding art but they could cut well, due to his marginally higher-than-usual carbon content. I delved a lot into Muramasa in my earlier days, even getting Sato’s Muramasa book and various Muramasa exhibition catalogues, my observations are based on several hundred oshigata or photos observed. Have to say, though, that in his yari (I had a Nidai one), his style relaxed and was less stereotypical mirror image and formulaic gunome-togari mix. Please note that above I have converged the Shodai/Nidai discussion into one and have ignored Sandai/Kodai discussion.

[Rivkin]

I can only offer my simple and personal opinion:

Soshu, Yamato and Mihara are different schools. The differences include the type of hada, position of shinogi, and usually hamon, though there is a subset where hamon's features can intersect. Most of the distinctive traits distinguishing each school from the other are not really quality related - there are great Mihara hada examples and there are many so-so Tegai ones.

 

Yukimitsu is cited in books as alternative for Masamune, but the last three decades this alternative seemingly went one way - some green paper period Masamune were reclassified as Yukimitsu. If there is an opposite ereclassification from this period it would be interesting. As the best Masamune and the best Yukimitsu are not particularly similar.

 

Kirill R.

[Valric]

 

 

Soshu, Yamato and Mihara are different schools. The differences include the type of hada, position of shinogi, and usually hamon, though there is a subset where hamon's features can intersect.

 

Soshu to Yamato can be quality gradient for some smiths, for instance in the case of Yukimitsu, especially the work with medium to high shinogi. The best work will go to Yukimitsu, and the lesser work to Yamato Taima. The cross-fertilization between Yamato and Soshu is even more pronounced in Yamato Shizu vs Naoe Shizu. It's not just the hamon which intersect. 

 

Ultimately it takes knowledge to differentiate between an attribution as a statement of quality, and an attribution based purely on defining characteristics. For instance, Enju generally means 'lesser Rai' but in some cases, the blade may be 'Rai-level' in Jiba and feature a defining Enju boshi which will put it at Enju with the quality of Rai. 

 

Yukimitsu is cited in books as alternative for Masamune, but the last three decades this alternative seemingly went one way - some green paper period Masamune were reclassified as Yukimitsu. If there is an opposite ereclassification from this period it would be interesting. 

 

 

Something tells me its the same high-end collectors with green paper to Masamune and Juyo papers to Yukimitsu which will come to say 'high-end Soshu is all subjective and a matter of personal preference' - not the other way around. Strange how things flow in one direction only 

 

I've yet to see a collector show me a proper Masamune and whisper "you know, this is really Tametsugu...NBHTK is wrong..." 

[Gakusee]

A broader question/request.... I have seen and handled numerous Juyo and above blades but have not seen in person any Yushu, or let alone Sai Yushu blades. I have heard from more knowledgeable people that NBTHK rewards more highly historical importance and significant smith craftsmanship while the NTHK recognises more highly the condition and state of preservation, alongside quality too.

 

Does the community here have NTHK Yushu + blades and what are they / what is the commentary / what score? Appreciate this is invasive and intrusive, and therefore people might not feel like sharing.  

 

Thank you