Gakusee

Alex, that is strange. I have the opposite impression - standards are tightening, especially at Juyo and Tokuju levels. Even for ToHo, sometimes items need to be submitted twice. It is logical that if Juyo standards are tightening, so should the level below, ToHo. I personally think that it is a misperception about how the criteria are being applied by the shinsa panel and how we, outside of the NBTHK, interpret the criteria that causes the biggest issue. As collectors we tend to have a bias towards the blades we own, since we own them because we like them. Sometimes that subjectivity clouds our objectivity.

It of course ultimately depends on how good it is (general quality, workmanship, state of preservation) and whether it comes with bells & whistles such as provenance, shumei, etc. The Senjuin Mitsumasa that passed is over 80cm, the other Senjuin 75cm and the last one was 64cm (ie short). I am personally surprised that they passed so many examples of one group (3 Senjuin, 3 Aoe etc - these are not rare groups like some others….). This last shinsa was a bit bewildering for a number of reasons.

May he rest in peace. His website started me off

Please excuse the crude translations below as they are machine translations which I have minimally redacted. 1. Nowhere in the NBTHK rules or purpose etc does it say they should certify or opine on gimei swords. They are focused on art swords and in general the Hozon rule below stipulates “correct”, ie legitimate/ genuine/acceptable, mei for those swords that should be signed in order to pass a certain level. So any and all expectations beyond their rules are not justified. Now, informally one could probably receive some guidance from them, if one knew the right people and right processes. In fact, I was in such a session where one of the shinsa panel explained in Japanese to my accompanying friend what he thought about my sword and why it had not passed ToHo shinsa and stayed at Hozon. That paragraph below is also informative: “Signed works that are challenging to authenticate based on inscriptions and style or unsigned works with indeterminable authenticity may be labeled as "pending." “ So they adhere to their rules and in fact lately the criteria are being enforced tightly (many submissions, few passes) and limits on the numbers of swords to be submitted at Ho/ToHo level are being implemented. 2. Paz: no, Masamune would not sign as one of his students. The master or teacher would sign with his name but will not “lower” their status by signing with a student name. At best, you have a master signing jointly with a student (this being the topmost recognition of the quality of the student work and most lavish praise a master could confer). So going back to point 1 above, the NBTHK concern themselves not only with quality but also authenticity (to the extent they can establish it), importance, historic significance, merit etc. It is a composite and multifaceted approach. —————————————— Purpose of the organisation (machine translation): The purpose of the association is to preserve and release valuable swords as arts and crafts, and to contribute to the preservation and improvement of technologies such as the production and polishing of Japanese swords as intangible cultural properties, as well as swords and equipment, and to secure materials necessary for sword making. We will conduct research and appreciation guidance on this and contribute to the spread of Japanese culture and the protection of cultural properties. Criteria for various levels of certificates: Hozon Swords from various eras and schools, not limited to the Edo period, with correct inscriptions (mei), or even unsigned ones that can be identified by era, country, and lineage. Swords falling under the previous criteria, allowing for minor wear or scratches on the cutting edge while still being suitable for appreciation. In the case of repairs on the cutting edge, they should not significantly compromise the aesthetic appearance. Works by swordsmiths from the Meiji era onwards must be signed and of excellent craftsmanship. Blades that have undergone re-forging are deemed unacceptable, except for renowned swordsmiths' signed works from the Nanbokucho period. In such cases, re-forging (yaki-naoshi) may be accepted if noted, and if the blade has high historical and minimal wear characteristics on the cutting edge or tang. Signed works that are challenging to authenticate based on inscriptions and style or unsigned works with indeterminable authenticity may be labeled as "pending." Tokubetsu Hozon Exceptionally well-made and well-preserved swords among those already Hozon. Among the aforementioned, certain types are not eligible for approval: (1) Re-forged blades, unless noted for historically significant works from the Nanbokucho period. (2) Unsigned works from the Muromachi and Edo periods, except those recognized as superior in preservation. Juyo Subcategories of Tokubetsu Hozon swords, meeting the following criteria: (1) Exceptional craftsmanship and preservation, comparable to nationally certified important art objects (JuBi). (2) For works from all eras, including those from the Nanboku-cho period, unsigned works are eligible, and for works from the Muromachi era onwards, a tang with a signature is generally required. Tokubetsu Juyo Exceptional swords within the Juyo important swords category, distinguished by outstanding craftsmanship, excellent preservation, and extremely high historical and artistic value.

Yes, well done for discovering and taking a chance once it and the great outcome of a top smith and signed on that!

I have promptly received a set from Ray. These are extremely impressive: well-made, extensive and pertinent (ie, the kanji combinations are relevant to the cards, be it nengo or mei, in the most frequently encountered combinations). Very well done Ray for collating this set.

Dear Bob Thank you for your generosity and kind posting, patience and perseverance with these two wonderful threads. It has been a magnificent journey into tosugu. Best wishes, Michael

Used to be but not any more really …. Darcy explained well why…. One needs to be very knowledgeable, the blade and paper cannot have left the U.K. for 45 years (ie not resubmitted); the owner must have lived in oblivion for the last 45 years; the paper was not issued by a regional branch, etc etc = quite a few conditions for the Kicho etc paper to have the slightest chance. Small, obscure smith and not a high-end item that never left back to Japan or never had been resubmitted to the peregrinations NTHK shinsa coming to the US or U.K…..There is some small possibility but that has diminished so much over the last few decades.

No, not yet. Also waiting.

Excellent initiative, dear Yurie, and it should be a beautiful month to visit. If I could, I would like join, work engagements permitting.

What I find bewildering is that NY and London have competing auctions within a few days of each other. In this way Bonhams is cannibalising its own outcome and should have spaced them further apart.

Acid enhanced in a very unpleasant way.

Another excellent post, Jussi! As we know, dealers sometimes deliberately obfuscate their descriptions. Such ambiguity as to the precise generation or period usually raises hopes in the potential buyer. It makes reading the original / NBTHK documentation so much more important.

Well done, Okan

Good sword as others have said but the kitae and style are not Muramasa and the sayagaki also does not follow the usual format of a Kunzan sayagaki and also the kao looks odd.

Hmmmmm…. Lots of alarm bells with that one. please look up genuine Muramasa nakago and genuine Kunzan sensei sayagaki.

I would venture into Showa (or Meiji) territory but I am a complete amateur when it comes to armour…..One would need to look at the kanamono and other details. Perhaps Uwe or Luc or Andy can chime in. There are a few katchu people on this forum.

Robert You click on someone’s avatar or nickname (top left of each post) and that takes you to their profile. In there you need to click on the “message” button.

Hi Robert, As it happens, I am going to be in Amsterdam this coming Tuesday afternoon and have a few hours to spare. If you are up for it, we can grab coffee somewhere central and continue the conversation and analyse your sword if you are up for it. My library is almost entirely digitalised and always with me…. Boards like this are usually the beginning of a journey….. Always pursue your own knowledge and research, taking tips from people but going to sources such as the NBTHK, NTHK, Tanobe sensei and his fellow students of Kunzan sensei and Kanzan sensei (there are still another 2-3 alive apart from Tanobe sensei), the Japanese national museum and so on. Please find attached your requested sword.

Ok, when a sword is that old, frankly +\- 50 years will not matter. So, what you are delving into is whether it is end of Heian or early Kamakura. What exactly are you trying to establish? The NBTHK have been very clear with their Ko-Naminihira attribution. Ko-Naminohira per the Japanese authorities originated at the end of Heian. Nisshu mentions Yukiyasu and that smith name persists for a while but if he meant a lesser Yukiyasu than the shodai, he probably would have specified nidai, sandai or even kodai etc. So chances are that he meant shodai Yukiyasu. Whether it is by that smith or not…. Well, one authority (Nisshu) thought as much. Clearly the quality must be sufficient for him to make that call. The current NBTHK panel could not narrow it that much but attributed it to Ko-Naminohira. In Japanese culture you need to learn to live with the lack of absolute certainty, some duality, some fluidity. Look at the sugata: there is some koshizori. Then the blade straightens a bit in the upper part. These are characteristics of end of Heian and early Kamakura usually. In mid/ late Kamakura more robust shapes emerged and also the upper portion of the blade (monouchi etc) acquired a bit more curvature again. Have a read of this first attachment here. It is an excerpt from an NBTHK magazine article about a specific Yukiyasu blade. But it talks about the school and also the stylistic features of the smith (NB, compare to your own sword…) As to Nisshu, I do not think anyone on this board has the authority or knowledge to question him or contest his judgements. He was a “living national treasure” polisher and someone the Japanese government thought highly enough of in order to entrust him with the most precious of physical national-treasure swords Again, have a read of this excerpt below (second image) from Markus’s Honami book. Please , overall, read thoroughly about the school, Yukiyasu, Nisshu, sword periods etc in order to form your own view. What I have attached thus far in this thread should be a headstart for you.

This is clearly Nisshu sayagaki - his calligraphy is my favourite among the sayagaki writers. What I cannot understand is why he is mentioning something like Juyo Bunkazai at the bottom of the sayagaki next to his signature. Jussi has made the appropriate comments. This is an old blade and sometimes it is not clear what is late Heian and what is early Kamakura. Here the sugata is consistent with “no later than early Kamakura” assessment. I would recommend that you go with the ToHo certificate evaluation. The Nisshu sayagaki attributes it to Yukiyasu. THE Yukiyasu was the son of the Naminohira school founder and a famous and respected smith. He has various top level blades. Several generations bore that name however. So, unless there is further attribution to a specific period, one can probably assume Nisshu thought highly of the blade and could have attributed it to the shodai. I recommend that you pay for the services of someone fluent in Japanese like Markus or Steve to have the sayagaki properly translated. Read about the Naminohira school and Honami Nisshu, look at your blade and compare it to published and signed examples. Draw your own conclusions now that you have two attributions. Also, if you find somewhere to X-Ray the tang, it might reveal more of a signature. This has been done before. And in facf, just for fun, I attach images of the same Ko-Naminohira Yukiyasu with two Juyo papers. The earlier one only describes it as mumei Ko-Naminohira. Around 20 years later it was resubmitted and somehow they deciphered the mei or it had been scanned / X-rayed and now the signature had been partially read.

I echo the above. Impeccable speed, packaging and state of the books. Thank you, John!

Yes, that is funny. Have not heard top-notch for a while.... I guess he has switched from his own arbitrary use of saijo saku, jojo saku jo saku etc. Importantly, his use of saijo is different from the Fujishiro use.

Thank you, Jo.

Mostly agree. However, want to flag that you can return items if you want to but will have to swallow a 30% - 40% reduction in the price you have paid. It is simple mathematics to get the dealer to recover them to the previous position (where they bought at previously to sell to you)