Gakusee

I have no idea what the above is supposed to mean. There are plenty of signed Ichimonji daito - both with smiths’ own names (Yoshifusa, Norifusa, Sukezane, Nobufusa, etc etc) and with Ichi only. And that is for Fukuoka Ichimonji. Then for Yoshioka you have of course various “ichi” but also various “Suke-“ smiths. Now, of course there are more mumei and “ichi” blades than there are named ones but that is because of suriage and also because at the end of the day, it was a workshop and the “ichi” brand was sufficient.

Kirill There are clear ways to differentiate between the different Tomonari generations and signatures. Both workmanship and signature script, chiselling and formulation. It is all about scholarship and delving deep enough to know what is what. The information is there, the narrative in the setsumei is there, both NBTHK and Ministry of Culture (which confers Kokuho and JuBu) talk in their descriptions about the smith and generation. So your argument I am afraid is invalid. Yes, there were several generations of some famous smiths but we know which is the shodai, kodai etc Furthermore, on Yasutsuna. There are plenty of signed blades by him: 17 Juyo (of which 2 promoted to TokuJu), 5 JuBi, 5 JuBu, 1 Kokuho. So, your sweeping statement of his blades being treated as treasures is not supported by the NBTHK (low NBTHK pass factor of J to TJ) and also out of 10 potential government-appraised blades (across JuBi and JuBu) only one was promoted to Kokuho (the Dojigiri). Please don’t get me wrong - I really like Ko-Hoki, think they are under-appreciated by the nihonto community and believe in the greatness of Yasutsuna. However, the evidence points to him not being regarded as the pinnacle or treasure you purport - neither the Japanese government nor the NBTHK have promoted Yasutsuna or recognised his blades with the highest attestation. Let us please not confuse personal tastes (“I would gladly take a ko-Aoe or Sa….” type statements) with what is regarded by Japan as the best or most valuable, treasured, precious, etc. I am also not saying these top 10-15 smiths are my personal top 10-15 (even though the list would be pretty similar). I am trying to expand the knowledge of the community and demonstrate with facts what is what.

Well, Paz, not sure but always worth trying. i am not certain whether he will come to the regional ToKen Society study day in Ditchling on 25 June. If he does, it might be an idea to drop it in person.

The only person in the UK I know of, who does sayagaki (mostly for his own swords), is the honorary president of the To-Ken Society, Clive Sinclaire. His sayagaki are of course not of the same stature as Tanobe sensei’s, but still Clive is very knowledgable and a published author on the subject of Nihonto.

Alex - what do you use? I am curious to learn new practices. In my cleaning regime, if I receive a blade that is coated with very old and viscous (likely choji) dried up oil, I clean it with PecPads and Cleanex like tissues, then isopropyl and look at the blade. After enjoying it, I apply mineral-only oil I bought from Fujishiro sensei and put it away. For the next time I look at it, I clean the mineral oil firstly with Cleanex and then with Japanese microfibre cloth (very delicate and soft) and then view the blade. Occasionally I clean with Pec Pads. I tend to hold it with a microfibre cloth (the Etsumi brand). But I have never viewed microfibre as abrasive to metal. At the end of the day it is a blend of polyester and polyamide, both soft and pliable substances vis-a-vis iron.

Even that polisher admits that uchiko effectively polishes and abrades the surface over time. That will of course affect the finishing polish. And all the blades I have seen cleaned with uchiko so far have had scratches from the application. Including my own when I did it :)

Ko-Hoki is there with 2 Kokuho and 12 JuBu, mostly Yasutsuna, but also some Yasuie, Aritsuna, Kunimune. Did not make the cut of top 10 as there are overall only two Kokuho, while the top 10 guys each have 3 or more. The two Kokuho Ko-Hoki are one Yasutsuna and one Yasuie (so technically that is 1 per smith and not 2, so again - not included). And herein lies the gist of all of it: Yasutsuna has 5 JuBu, but these were not deemed good enough to be Kokuho. You can almost say he was not as good as Ko-Bizen Tomonari or Masatsune (which sounds too subjective, sorry), but probably is as their Kokuho to (Kokuho+JuBu) ratio is higher than Yasutsuna’s. However it is also true that not enough blades of his exist to be definitive about it. He was rated at 2500 by Tokuno. As I said above, treat all of this as directional and with the necessary caveats. However. it is also pretty well supported by Fujishiro’s ratings and Tokuno’s ratings (eg you can focus on those with 2000+ Tokuno rating, which is an extraordinary high hurdle and you get to roughly 80-90 smiths). Those with 3000 and above are 10 and include most of the Kokuho list ranked ones (excl Sadamune and Nagamitsu) in the post above plus two Awataguchi guys - Hisakuni and Norikiuni. So, among these let us call them 15 smiths you will have the top 10 smiths one way or another.

So, we talked about this a bit earlier in the thread: rarity of certain smiths and paucity of existing examples would skew the statistics. Also, aberrant examples (such as shrine o-dachi) could be useful but certain such swords would be included in kokuho/jubu/jubi counts more as historic curiosities and donations by historic figures. However, perhaps there is a reason some smiths' blades have been preserved more than other arcane and obscure smiths: they were deemed historically and artistically important by the men of power and decision-making throughout Japan's history, the emperor, shogun and daimyo. And often such blades were the pinnacle of craftsmanship, ie the best or the most important for cultural reasons. So, very controversially, I am going to focus on the utmost best in the nation of Japan, namely kokuho and jubu swords and smiths. Arguably, there are TokuJu swords which are at least as good as JuBu, and perhaps better, but they might not necessarily have the historic or cultural pre-eminence of their JuBu brethren. The NBTHK guidelines stipulate that Juyo swords are approximately equal to some JuBi and the TJ - to some JuBu in terms of quality. However, with Juyo, we are going to contaminate the analysis by including prolific smiths of certain quality and craftsmanship but whose quality and importance are not deemed by the nation of Japan to merit their inclusion in the pantheon of the best. So, some raw numbers for those who love crude data among you. I tried to stop at the top 10, but there are many shared spots and in the Olympic spirit of shared podium space, I had to include those with the same %. As a bonus, in brackets after the smith I have included the Tokuno 'Toko Taikan second edition' absolute rating of the smiths. The highest number/ranking is Masamune's, second is Tomonari's (alas, I can live with this as in the first edition is was the reverse :), etc. I could criticise the analysis below until the camels come home.... However, it paints a rather compelling story about the smiths perceived to be the 'top 10 in Japanese history' (nota bene the semantics of the original poster; not 'my top 10', not 'top 10 by workmanship', even though it is likely this to be the case, not 'top 10 cutters', not 'top 10 makers of the most beautiful blades', etc). Well, I think I have dedicated enough time to this topic and shall recuperate with the family. Top smiths Kokuho (Tokuno rating) Kokuho % Kokuho JuBu % JuBu Bizen Ko-Bizen Masatsune (-) 6 5.5% 21 2.7% Fukuoka Yoshifusa (3000) 5 4.5% 8 1.0% Osafune Nagamitsu (2800) 5 4.5% 29 3.7% Saburo Kunimune (1800) 4 3.6% 7 0.9% Osafune Mitsutada (3500) 3 2.7% 16 2.0% Ko-Bizen Tomonari (3500) 3 2.7% 9 1.1% Osafune Kagemitsu (1500) 3 2.7% 16 2.0% Soshu Masamune (3800) 9 8.2% 19 2.4% Sadamune (2700) 4 3.6% 15 1.9% O-Sa (2000) 3 2.7% 9 1.1% Shintogo (1800) 3 2.7% 13 1.6% Yamashiro Rai Kunitoshi (3500) 5 4.5% 18 2.3% Yoshimitsu (3000) 4 3.6% 14 1.8% Rai Kunimitsu (1800) 3 2.7% 24 3.0% Aggregates Awataguchi 6 5.5% 40 5.1% Fukuoka Ichi 10 9.1% 53 6.7% Ko-Bizen 11 10.0% 62 7.8% Bizen 45 40.9% 313 39.6% Yamashiro 19 17.3% 168 21.2% Soshu 25 22.7% 109 13.8% Yamato (incl. jokoto) 10 9.1% 50 6.3% Overall total (blades) 110 100% 791 100%

Eric It is perfectly legitimate to have Etchu Norishige in your top 10. The interplay of layers in a well executed matsukawa hada is fascinating and I also find it beautiful - something that late imitators or Uda could not achieve. Please however note that Norishige actually has more inconsistent blades than Masamune. Simply because his experimentation with different steels did not always work. When it did, it was beautiful. But sometimes the blades are uninspiring. Regarding Masamune, that is a very complex topic. It is very likely there are blades attributed to him that are by others (eg top Yukimitsu or Kaneuji or Go). Then you have the issue of the few remaining tanto - the hosho blades with a very different workmanship and preservation to the glorious long blades attributed to him. Thankfully, we have three standard zaimei tanto left that support the workmanship and signature. I am excluding the only signed long blade, meibutsu Kinoshita Masamune, as that mei is not treated as genuine but it also went through fire etc. So, yes, there is variability across Masamune but remember that Daimyo and shogun loved attributions to Masamune and some of these got fabricated.

Kirill, it seems to me this is is starting to become somewhat personal, I am afraid. Your oblique references to what I have talked about (eg, the British Museum, “someone knows someone”, Darcy’s methodology of defining greatness and your picking holes in it) are very clear. Your passive-aggressive criticisms might impress certain people who are perhaps at the outset of their journey. Let me please address your statements. I do not wish to digress or pick up an argument but you are clearly provoking here…. Firstly, your dissection of Darcy’s blogs. The man at least devised a method and theory. Furthermore, it is a method, not an axiom. There are assumptions and some shortcuts but it is an acceptable approach. What is your counter-proposal? It is easy to criticise from afar. Also, as you are fascinated with Soshu, I understand why it is difficult to accept that Bizen can be as good or greater….Signed you say, so that eliminates Soshu (sigh) and means it is Bizen at the front (sigh, sigh). Next, many on this forum do not want to talk publicly about their collections and discuss what they own. Various reasons: why would they indicate their wealth and economic capacity? Why should they invite unwanted attention, eg from forumites, people who know them or burglars? American collections: what is your issue with them? You need to realise that the great collections of the past (rich daddy’s boy Bigelow, great doctor and pharmaceutical innovator Compton, etc) were built when Japan was an impoverished third-world country far behind the developed Europe or US, so the wealth of the West could amass Japanese treasures for peanuts. Furthermore, the great beneficiary of, let us kindly call it, “expatriating” of Nihonto was of course the occupying US army and the US. However, in the 1950s-1980s Japan advanced so much economically that their country, their collectors, their purchasing power aggrandised to such an extent that they started coming over to the West and acquiring their treasures back. They became a superpower second only to the US back then (still currently their economy is the third largest in the world) having risen from the poverty and destitution of WW2. So, whether coming to auctions (remember Tsuruta coming over for an auction and buying ‘that’ Kiyomaro?) or travelling around the USA, sleeping in motels or people’s sitting-room couches and unearthing blades (Kurokawa), they did come over and repatriated a lot of what was rightfully theirs. Nowadays, there are still great Nihonto collections in the US. The issue is, as far as I am aware, it is not billionaires in the US who collect Japanese swords, and the bigger collectors in the US definitely don’t have the obsession or financial means of the three Japanese billionaires with the largest Japanese swords collections in their own home country. Another fact: apart from economic disparities between when the great American collections were built vs poor Japan, these collections were also mostly built before the NBTHK and NTHK were established or flourished. These and other Japanese organisations have improved education and expanded knowledge domestically (hence you don’t have extensive theses or literary contributions from Europe that can be ground-breaking or beat the Japanese literature) and promoted the appreciations and ownership at home too. British Museum: the main benefactor was financier Robert Wylie Lloyd, while field marshal Festing was a high-level collector as was Sir Frank Bowden…. Anyway.As I have said, they have 400-500 Japanese swords and perhaps I was a bit harsh when I said 10-15 of “museum top quality” as only the KoAoe, KoBizen and Fukuoka Ichimonji of Juyo standard (and often with daimyo sayagaki) are at least 10. Then, you have some decent Shinto, the Shintogo tanto (which is Juyo). I can’t remember the Muromachi and Shinto names in the collection. So, the total of great blades is probably closer to 20. There is no Masamune in the BM, it is in the V&A. It is indeed a high-level Soshu blade, which could be at least a Yukimitsu. Has some chance at Masamune. It has a kinzogan by the 12th Honami head Kojo (with attribution to Masamune), whose attributions are usually upheld by the NBTHK. I do not even wish to go into the subject of how many Juyo swords the members own. There are $15k-$20k Juyo swords and $150k-$250k Juyo swords. So, the person who bought the $250k Masamune (unlikely at this price) or Sadamune or Tomonari et al in your books perhaps runs behind the person who bought a few Naoe Shizu, some Yamato Senjuin, some Tadayoshi, but has 15 Juyo? There are Hozon graded swords, or even unpapered (but sort of “hidden” or secret) within Japanese collections which are more valuable (economically, historically, etc) than even Juyo or TJ swords. But I agree on one point with you - the Japanese love secrecy and sometimes prefer their swords not to be published in some Juyo Zufu that also includes the name of the owner or submitter.

People often assume that 'museum quality' encompasses all of: 1) rare items 2) high-end items as in made by top or famous smiths 3) well-preserved items 4) with high-quality workmanship and 5) sometimes (not always) with rich history or provenance. Well, most museums might have one or two that meet all these criteria but unless the museum specialises in swords (eg the NBTHK museum) or samurai arts or is a daimyo/samurai family museum (eg Tokugawa etc) or is a shrine, when it comes to swords it is more likely the vast majority of their items do not meet all criteria. For instance, in the UK, the V&A has probably two-three swords I would put in that category, the BM probably 10-15 (out of 400-500), Leeds Armouries probably 3-5 and so on. So, I know (non-Japanese) collectors whose entire collections meet at least 4 out of the 5 criteria above, hence better than your average 'museum quality'. And that is fine and understandable as most museums, as George pertinently described, might wish just a sample to represent a particular culture, ethnic group or historical period.

At least one that I recognise, perhaps two, not sure about others.

Oh well, c’est la vie. At least you tried. But as you say, the blade has been judged as Kozori by both organisations (Kozori is not a judgement I would doubt on a green paper) and given the hadadachi, ohada craftsmanship, this is a solid call.

Interesting Brano, very interesting..... The mei is probably there but under the corrosion. With optical equipment sometimes it is possible to identify the degraded mei - eg Xray or something By the way, the sayagaki is by Kanzan Sato and not Kunzan (Honma Junji). Also, there were some recent threads about what kinsuji is and what - sunagashi. Your blade has some pretty powerful sunagashi.

Worthwhile reading and re-reading a few times. Every now and then I re-read his blog posts..... He touched greatness as far as nihonto are concerned and was very, very highly regarded by Tanobe sensei himself, great dealers/collectors such as Kurokawa san, Takahashi san, Saito san, Iida san, even Sawaguchi himself etc. Few of us on this board were lucky to be friends with him and also be fortunate enough to be custodians of some of the blades that he found.....

Oh, well, I miss Darcy and his rigorous and data-driven approach ..... https://blog.yuhindo.com/pass-factor/#more-439 https://blog.yuhindo.com/2017/09/

Jussi, unfortunately people do not like to commit….and they don’t seem willing to travel…if you aggregate the European groups and hobbyists, there will be enough. But we are split across different countries. These events need to be marketed a year in advance and then with intense campaign 6 months prior. This had a very short notice period. I am also disappointed as I was hoping for an European conference and show. The US are blessed with a track record and culture of such shows.

George, thank you for posting the ken. If you notice on the ken, the claws and the lines are perfectly symmetrical and well formed. There is harmony and symmetry and straight, smooth lines with equidistant lines from the shinogi. Look at the horimono of the OP's blade and observe how the claws are (not talking about depth of incision but direction, smoothness, harmony, continuity). Compare their position to the shinogi, how they look when you compare left side to right, etc. I believe we jointly need to develop our eyes to notice such details when evaluating blades. Anyway, I suppose we are delving a bit too much into that and I did not wish to sidetrack the discussion. Apologies.

Gabe, look at the ken horimono and how it is executed. Look at the symmetry, consistency of lines, straightness or not, etc…All of it indicates a non-Kunizane. And that is fine, provided that one does not go into this in the belief that is a genuine shodai Kunizane which is implied by the inscribed date….I think we ought to take a sober look at the facts and accept the blade for what it is and what is not.

Barry, I think that narrows the path too much for most people and in fact most are likely to omit the smiths deemed best by experts (eg NBTHK, NTHK, NBSK, Fujishiro, Tokuno, polishers, Honami, etc), history (shogun, daimyo, lords, various historic books such as Kyoho Meibutsucho etc ) or the Japanese government. I mean, how many of the members have handled a Masamune or Tomonari or Umetada Myoju or Kiyomaro etc? Then, how many have handled several of these to ensure that the opinion and view is consistent and indeed whoever they have chosen is consistently the best. "Best" is also such a subjective term and can encapsulate e.g. : most functional (again, how do you define and prove), best looking (for some best looking is flashy and for others- quiet), most expensive, highly regarded by a specific sub-set (see some above), the ones with the highest number of highest attestation certificates (Juyo+TJ+JuBi+ JuBu+kokuho), the ones with the highest proportion of top attestations (eg most kokuho+jubi+jubu as proportion of juyo and above), etc etc. Perhaps we should have phrased this as 'favourite' rather than 'best', or one's 'own top 10' (I think this game was played here 5-6 years ago or so?).

Theoretically there could be a second generation, and Kunzan/Kanzan mention this in passing. But the smith is not that well studied. Kunzan/Kanzan mention a Rai Kunizane tachi in the Ise Jingu shrine (so likely still zaimei). But here, I am sorry to say that the sword does not look healthy, the horimono is not good,.....hopefully you did not pay too much.

Just a few caveats: very very few zaimei shoshin blades by Rai Kunizane (and only shorter blades). Secondly, even Kunzan sensei and Kanzan sensei in one of their Koto volumes of the Koza say that the pieces which can be absolutely believed to be by him are hira zukuri wakizashi and tanto only. Thirdly, the only long blade oshigata I have access to (Tsuchiya oshigata) has tachi-mei. The short blades are indeed signed on the same side as this blade.

Connoisseur’s is very good at teaching high level info about schools and smiths. It is best for grasping periods, period changes, broader schools dynamics, etc. It is a great volume but as you get into more obscure or second and third-tier smiths, you need something more comprehensive like Koza (many volumes) by Kanzan or Markus’s Swordsmiths…

Paz, time to invest in Sesko’s swordsmith book and Nihonto Koza…..

Thanks, I echo what Barry said. Great experience and hopefully one I shall partake of in the future too.