paulb

Dear Joel I note that you are based in London. Can I suggest before investing in swords you attend a meeting of the Token Soceity of GB which meets every other month. You will meet a good number of friendly, enthusiatic and Knowledgeable people very willing to help you. The next meeting will be in December. In the meantime if the need to buy cant wait (and if It cant there are many of us who know how you feel) look at some of the dealers sites listed on here. tell them what you are looking for and your budget. Please avoid Ebay it is not the place to look for your first sword, there are too many fakes, criminal wanting to take your money and too many down right bad pieces. Regarding this one if it is legitimate and went for this price it would probably be ok. If it is worth a lot more there will be 100s of other people to compete with.who know more and have more money than you may wish to spend on your first sword. edit: Sorry Joel in the early hours I misssed your name at the bottom of your post

Received my copy today. As usual a well presented good quality work. Thank you as always Markus my shelves are beginning to groan under you publications. This is an excellent work for beginners and intermediate student alike. To all those asking themsleves where to start building a Nihonto library Markus' catalogue of works is well worth considering.

Dear Rodriguez The problem is the current condition doesn't give anyone much opportunity to see anything other than the shape. From what can be seen as is: 1. Shape looks to be late Edo. It is a better shape than many naginata of this period which tend to be shorter and with a deeper curve, they look more of ceremonial use, than a weapon. Yours looks like it was meant for use. Having said that I think the Hi look to be rather clumsy suggesting the workmanship is not exceptional 2. I am more concerned regarding the heavy pitting along the edge. It looks to have lost a fare amount of metal and I am not sure how well it will polish. having said the above you obviously bought it for a reason so perhaps a good starting point regarding more information is for you to share what it was you liked about it that made you decide to buy it?

thanks for the clarification Jim you are right it would take a very high level of understanding to determine that some change was meant or not meant to be there. Considering that there is an ongoing debate which resurfaces from time to time as to whether Utsuri is deliberate or accidental or whether mune-yaki was intentional or just the result of clay falling off, I think I would question anyones ability to determine whether some slight variation was meant to be there or an accident. All I think you can do is decide whther the work falls within the range known for a particular maker and then guess (and I use the word deliberately) whether some slight variation was accidental. Sorry not much help. I would love to understand the thinking behind this type of conclusion. often I find that my interpretation of what is being said is over complicated and the reality is a simple observation.

JIm I am sorry but I dont understand the question/point (sorry). To change a hamon surely requires a blade to go through the Yakiire process again. I am only aware of this being done if a blade has lost the original hamon in a fire. Echizen Yasutsugu re tempered a number of blades for the Shogun. If that is what you are referring to then there are a number of teltale indicators. If you are saying an original hamon has somehow been modified then its the first time I have heard of it and am intrigued could you explain a little more?

Francis Before spending your hard earned cash and then regretting it please stop for a while, as a first step look at some of the dealers listed here and study what they have for sale and how it is described. That at least will give you guidance as to what is genuine and what may not be. I think the vast majority start the way you are at present allowing enthusiasm to take over and rushing in after anything that looks as though it might be special/ a bargain or too good to be true. Many, including me would suggest buying books before buying swords, but if your interest is more casual and you dont want to follow that route at least look at sites of the many reputable dealers around so you can make a slightly more informed opinion about what you are considering buying.

Think I might be in danger of being a minority of 1 (not unusual) but I personally would not describe what you have shown as hitatsura. It looks like areas of ara nie. As I said I think it comes down to interpretation but hitasura should form distinctive although irregualr islands in this case it appears to be a regular continuous line of ara nie and that isnt like any hitatsura blade I have seen either in hand or illustrated. Thanks for the topic it will bring to gether a number of different ideas I think.

As always Hoanh I dont think there are hard and fast rules just interpretation of what is seen. From my own limited expereince most of the hitatsura I have seen are nioi based rather than nie. It appears as distinct milky clouds or patches on the ji ( in fact all over) whereas ji-nie shows as distinct seperate crystals of martenite. Even ko-nie is visible as seperate entities rather than a patch. As nie is strung together it forms other activity such as chickei inazuma and kinsuji.

hmm not too much help, but perhaps with the lacquer there is not much else to tell. Have you asked his opinion? or is your quote from his sales description? I am guessing once you have a sbstantial layer of lacquer over the metal it becomes incredibly difficult to know what is underneath. Maybe Ford can offer some guidance. good luck Paul

Hi Peter Fred is an extremely knowledgeable and highly regarded dealer (certainly by me) and I think I would put a lot of faith in his opinion. what did he say about it in the description? Regards Paul

thank you Guido I will fantasise for a while that it just meant non specific "good taste"

I saw this one too, A good looking work and to be honest I have never heard of Oishisa before (probably just havent looked enough) love the hada. I could almost be tempted Yesreday I saw a Shinshinto wakazashi that a friend had just bought from Tsuruta san, it was in excellent polish and a really beautiful work with a natural flowing hamon. Aoi certainly offer a huge range of quality on their site,

I think I agree it is not a typical showa blade. It looks likely to be a traditionally made sword and shows activity within the hamon and clear hada. As said above the mei is crudely cut, but this could also be a later addition. Overall I think it is an interesting looking sword.

Cant tell much from the image of the mei. The fact it has two mekugi ana suggests it has been remounted so you could be right and it could be an earlier blade. The Mei. is very crudely cut I am not sure of the second last character but the rest is Hizen (no) kuni Tada ? (I think it may be tsugu) saku. This style of "chippy" cut kanji is usually indicative of late work (including showa-To) To have a better idea it would be useful to see images of the whole blade. Regards Paul

no actually there a lot of old records recording early smiths, certainly dating from the late 16th and early 17th centuries and I think I may have seen references to some even earlier. The names of top smith were well known from an early time. In a recenttly read book I remember an expert on court etiquet writing in the 14th century stated that an ubu signed blade by ko-Bizen smiths (he named them but I cant remember who) and signed Awataguchi daito were suitable gifts for the Shogun.

Not sure if I could count as a senior member (older yes but senior no) I was pleasantly surprised to see a good number of people in Bonn and in images from the Swedish meeting that included a lot of members in their 30s and early 40s (I think) This is hugely encouraging. Likewise when I attended the Token of GB meeting earlier this year there was ao good mix. It is true that the majority of input is as you might expect coming from the longer serving members but the newer people are by no means inactive. I am greatly encouraged regarding the future of the subject in Europe but we still need to build membership in under represented countries in Europe and encourage younger enthusiasts to take part.

unfortunately when writing posts we can all be guilty of sounding more confrontational than intended, this also has to do with enthusiasm. I contiunally look at things I have written and wince when rereading them. I am passionate about the subject and it some times comes across as aggression. It isnt. John if you look at your previous post and read it at face value I think that could also appear that way. I am delighted and envious that you had the opportunity to meet and talk to artists in Japan I am sure it was a very fulfilling experience. I am equally sure they are fine and generous people however I dont doubt that in their minds you also represented a potential future customer (if not an existing one) so they viewed their time well spent in developing a relationship. You are absolutley right the world is currently a miserable place and I dread watching the news these days to see what level of inhumanity we have slipped to next. There are far more important things to deal with than how we should cope with questions on the board. However while we are here it seems reasonable to try and work within a framework that suits all, or at least the majority.

Can I suggest people step back a little and take some deep breaths? I have great sympathy for Guido's point of view. As Dirk says he has forgotten more than I know and has always been extremely helpful when ever I have asked for help. BTW I am very biased because over the years I have come to regard him along with several other very knowledable people here as very good friends. Also as a 40 year+ tax payer in the UK I can absolutley confirm that Hospital, dentists and museums are far from free. Free at the point of delivery yes but paid for none the less. Unfortunately we have had several spates of the "Whats it worth" brigade hitting the board with some story of family heirloom asking advice then posting th item on ebay as soon as they have found out what they needed. dishonesting regarding motives is gauranteed to hack people off. Some of the same get into heated debates with those who give information if it fails to live up to their expectation. In the vast majority of cases if help is asked for it is given. Sometimes the news may not be what was wanted but that is also a fact of life. I can understand why those who have committed so much time and effort in to this subject do on occassion feel abused and taken advantage of. However it doesnt stopthem continuing to help. There is a strong commitment here to promote, educate and where possible enlighten. Those of us who take advantage of that should not lose sight of the value we are receiving.

Jason I dont know if it helps but your situation is at least in part the same as mine 30+ years go. young family no money a relatively junior job and little or no contact (no internet) about the subject. The only available books were Basil Robinson and John Yumoto which I had to import. All I had was an interest. Hang in there use the resources now available and talk to people, weither in person or via technology. I have found it one of the most interesting and fulfilling things I have been involved with. I have learned a lot and met some very fine people. Hopefully along the way I have had the chance to help and encourage a few others as well. It is well worth the effort.

Hi Andreas Yes I agree with you. I think they were trying to embody the style and features rather than create a slavish copy. The Shinkai blades I have seen i have admired greatly and before going down the Yamashiro road I was a keen Hizen collector so can appreciate the points you make

A couple of points regarding comments so far Andreas wrote: "sorry, I got carried away: but I do not like the discussion "what is better koto, shinto or shinshinto" anymore. DON'T compare them. You can't compare a Go to a Shinkai. Enjoy both for what ever merits they have." Firstly comparison is not necessarily saying one is better than the other, better for what? cutting? better looking? or what?. However comparison to identify different features that may appear clearer or better defined in one or other is perfectly valid. Also regarding comparing Go and Shinkai, if there is one comparison you could make it is this one. I was always told that many of Shinkai's works were copies or at least attempts to emulate Go. likewise it is well documented that Hizen smiths DID produce copies of both Rai and Enju work. In his early days Shodai Tadyoshi also made copies of Bizen and Soshu work as well. HJ I think your view may be too broad and simplistic. Swords were certainly held in high regard as valuable aesthetic works of art not just functional cutting tools. I can fully accept for a lower level Samurai functionality far outweighed art, But appreciation of swords as fine art has existed for a very long time within the Samurai community. This is why they became used as rewards fro service and also why so many have been so well preserved. If they were only seen as weapons I suggest this would not be the case. I agree 100% with you saying which is better is a pretty much meaningless thing, however by making such comparisons it is possible to identify those features which appeal to you most. I would not buy a sword because it had a famous maker (I dont think but have never put it to the test) I have seen swords by top makers I felt were uninspiring. The cheapest blade I bought was the Shin-shnto sword I mentioned above and that is a very beautiful piece of work. Buy swords because you like them regardless of when they were made. I have seen a lot that I would love to hold for a while, it just happens that most of them are Kamakura period koto and thats just because their particular features appeal to me. From a functional point of view I can fully accept that there is no difference between Koto and later copies of them. I cannot prove it one way or the other but can believe any performance difference would be minimal. However I do think there are considerable differences in the aesthetic, does that make them better? well for me yes because the older swords show features that I enjoy and are lacking from the later works. I think part of the challenge here is that we are caught between two measures the first as a functional weapon and the second as an art object. It is true that the features that make a sword a work of art are a result of pefecting it's perfomance as a cutting weapon. But I think in these older masterworks these differences are taken to a completely different level.

Hi Arnold To be honest I havent seen enough in hand to make a valid judgement. I have seen a couple of gendaito by Sadakatsu in which I thought the shape was superb. Of the two I remember best my favourite was one he produced in itame hada rather than ayasugi which I always feel looks contrived and lacking spontaneity (totally subjective I know) But on both of them the steel seemed flat and lacking depth and activity. the hada was very tight and without fault but it really lacked any life. Shinsaka-to I have only viewed briefly while in Japan. They had the great advantage of being just as they left the smith, so you were seeing exactly what he wanted you to see. There was some very fine workmanship, impressive and magnificent shape reminiscent of both Nambokucho and Shin-shinto work but like Shin-shinto the steel seemd to lack character. As said above I have based this viiew on a very small sample and if others can point me towards examples that show something different I would be very happy to look. While I think there are some very fine works from all periods and most schools I believe that certain koto traditions produced consistently high quality work which has not been equalled by later smiths. These include the Awataguchi School, early Soshu work, Ko-Bizen and Ko-Osafune and Yamato-Shizu. Because of my own interest and that shared with other collectors in Europe I have had more opportunity to look at really good koto than anything else, so my opinions are hugely influenced by what I have studied in depth here. If I was to take Jeans lead and try and list blades I would like to add to my collection, based on work I have actually seen in hand (and assuming unlimited funds and time) I think in terms of priority they would be: 1. Soshu Yukimitsu or Shintogo Kunimitsu 2. Rai Kunimitsu 3.Osafune Nagamitsu 4. Unji 5 Shinkai 6. Nanki Shigikuni 7. Sandai Tadayoshi 8. Shodai Yasutsugu 9. Sa Yukihide 10 Kiyomaru (school) These are based only on swords I have seen in hand so there are some big names missing that I simply havent been lucky enough to hold and look at closely (but thinking about it tell me any other interest where you could physically examine work by such highly rated masters of their art?) Not sure how well this has answered your question. I think in summary if we believe that much of the activity in jigane is a result of the compostion of the raw material rather than what the smith does with it, then the skill level is close but the material isn't as good. If the smith does influence the activity then I have to conclude later smiths lack the skill of the earlier masters.

Ho Peter My path has been similar to Jean's I have reduced my collection down over recent years to focus on specific areas of interest. As a result the majority of my small collection is focussed on Yamashiro and Yamto work. I do have one Mino blade but that has more to do with where it came from than what it is. I also have a shin-shinto blade copying Rai work. So I have really focussed on the old and conservative and have greatly enjoyed the process. I did (maybe still do) believe that the absolute zenith of this art occurred in the kamakura period and originated with Yamashiro smiths. However in the past two years I have seen examples of Shinto and more especially shin-Shinto work that I would absolutley love to add to my collection. At the NBTHK meeting in Bonn in July we saw a Tokubetsu Juyo sword by Yasutsugu that stood up to anything I have seen elsewhere and was stunningly beautiful. More recently I have spent a little time looking at a Sa Yukihide blade that I thought incredible. I have no doubt these smiths were every bit as skilled as their predecessors. Therefore if the koto blades are superior then it must be related to material. Of course you also have to define what you mean by superior, if it is just in the aesthetic then it is totally subjective and has nothing to do with quality but fashion and taste at any given time. I think we need to accept that there were masterworks made in all periods. while I think most collectors do specialise in one area we shouldnt ignore the masterwork from elsewhere if it comes along. I think we should collect good swords, where and when and by whom they were made should be a secondary consideration after we have established the quality and the fact we like it. If I was to be starting again (which I am not) I hope I might be able to put this in to practice.

I am sure engineers here will give a better explanation but I think it comes down to optimising cutting efficiency and reducing weight. Introducing the shinogi enabled the smith to produce a more effective taper to the edge while maintaining the strength and rigidity of the blade. The larger the blade the more important this became. Hira sukuri works realy well on smaller blades and for different applications to long swords. I am told the most efficient cutting profile is shinogi zukuri with niku (clam edge) this can only be effectively worked with a shinogi in place.

As with many other similar fields much of what we believe about swords is based on opinion. Such opinion can be established on study and research or just on picking up on some previously held view point. If an opinion is repeated often enough it is converted in our minds to fact. Over many years I have carried numerous opinions in the firm belief that I knew about something rather than just had an opinion about it. This can cause a lot of misinformation to be accumulated over time and can create a great deal of confusion. So every now and then it is worth challenging some of my long held views to see if they hold up in the light of later research. In the hope to hear others ideas and points of view I have listed a number below: 1. I believe that in general Koto blades are superior to Shinto. This is because the raw material was made locally and had regional variations which enabled smiths to produce work which differentiated it from others and they learned how to use their local materials to enhance the quality and features of their work. In addition many of the Gokaden works that have survived were made for the higher levels of society enabling the smith to use superior materials and take longer in the manufacture. 2. As the production of steel centralised the regional differences were greatly reduced. To differentiate their work Shinto Smiths started to experiment with the production of more florid and showy hamon. This had little or at least nominal effect on performance. It was pure marketing. In addition because many were made in times of relative peace a much broader range of quality has survived in good condition whereas good quality Koto blades tend to be the top end of production. There is a view, which I think carries some weight that Shinto Smiths were as skilled as koto smiths, the differences we see are a result of a.) raw material used b.) customer requirement c.) useage during their working life. 3. Shin-Shinto smiths attempted to recapture some of the finer and more subtle features seen in works of the kamakura period. However their limitation as with shinto smiths was in the raw material available to them. Some of the characteristics which epitomise the Gokaden could only be produced as a result of the chemistry of their raw material and this was not available to shin-shinto smiths. Thus they struggled to reproduce activity within the ji such as utsuri , chickei and the like. These are broad assertions and as said are opinion (not necesarilly original but I have picked them up over the years). There are exceptions throughout history and we can all quote examples of masterworks produced in each and every era. But as a general starting point this works as an explanation to variations in quality we seen in surviving swords. I know that my views are heavily weighted towards koto swords, but I am glad to say I keep being challenged in this view by see some exceptional later work. I increasingly believe that the differences we see have less to do with individual skills but the raw material available and the demands of the market at any given time. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this?