Rivkin

Very personal opinion: If it looks like Chinese its Chinese is something that excludes tremendous percentage of Japanese paintings etc. which are one to one copies of Chinese items. Sino-Tibetian is a term seldom used in arms and armor for a number of reasons, one of them is that Tibetian is often thought as a part of Mongol culture and overall more a recipient rather than an originator. Yes, there are considerably more 19th century Tibetian objects preserved than anything of truly Mongol association, but it brings yet another point: comparing with internet based photos will force one to study often 17th century Japanese Namban tsubas against almost exlclusively 19th century and at times 18th century continental items. As much as there is continuous effort to pull the dating on the continental side further into 17th and possibly 16th century, the attempts seldom hold. The problem is then is that when one compares Tibetian, Chinese, Japanese etc. etc. items limiting oneself to 15th-16th century and earlier items certain things might become much more accented: what was the original foundation of the style (which typically leads one to acknoledge that its Chinese, and whether in Tibet or somewhere else the elaborate Chinese designs replaced rather utilitarian tsubas actually quite late... 14th century is a possibility) and what are the differences in execution (they tend to be much more apparent on early work). Overall continentals did not really like to fine cut the iron and usually you can see that the nature of cuts and the density of cuts on a tsuba taken from a Chinese sword will be different (though also extremely similar) compared to what one can buy from yahoo Japan. One can then say - its just a normal fluctuation between makers and its still Chinese. Its possible. I don't believe it. I think its in 99% of cases is that Japanese imitations were done on a massive scale and that's why we find by far more of such tsubas today on a Japanese market, while 99% of what we find on a Chinese market is rather different. But the answer could never be provided with certainty. These are unsigned items in purposefully made in a distinctively China-based style.

Have difficulty reading the yasurime and there is no overall sugata, but it looks like early shinto kaga.

Its hard to make a judgement without sugata, but what is shown is no earlier than Momoyama, and possibly as late as Showa. Rust on nakago and sugata can do the reveal here. The signature itself is near irrelevant. Acid polish.

I actually forgot about the thread. You are correct! Congratulations!!!! The wavy hamon itself with poorly seen jigane triggered NTHK attribution to Yoshii. NBTHK did the attribution to Uda. Now the question is - what Sayagaki does attribute it to???

I will even add that in absolutely every single arms and armor field I always ran into the same three problems: a. People always try to replace the need to work with a large, hard to reach dataset of more or less well understood items (signatures, provenance, archeology etc.) by Opinions. Very soon everyone repeats the same story and is convinced its true - because everyone repeats it. By comparison dealing with dugouts, museums and so on is just painful and difficult. There are hundreds of items described as "made by Armenians from Lviv" etc. etc. simply because someone published an article noting a similarity of motifs - without knowing that the motif in question was used by basically everybody. I know half a dozen people who did considerable study on Continental guards and none of them was ever approached by any of the nihonto's "thinkers". Indeed, why bother. One can instead look at the webpages in perfect comfort and say "I think its Chinese". And that's the reason I genuinely dislike these people. b. Somehow everyone is always convinced that an expert can produce a certain understanding of what the item is... I never saw a medieval objects for which signatures are unknown and whose purpose is utilitarian to be datable and attributable with absolute certainty. People don't want a story, they don't want a sliding scale, they want certainty. Which in reality can't exist. 3. The devil is in details. From space all swords look alike, and all motifs are the same. Everyone did dragons, and everyone copied Chinese now and then... The only way to dig deeper is basically write a book. 20 pages showing solidly identifiable continental types, 20 pages showing signed or otherwise solid Japanese types - and then deal with the stuff in the middle, which most likely will be more of a guess. There is no substitute for that. Its a delusion that someone is smart enough to just look at a tsuba and say "Well, I thiiink its Chinese and John agrees, and he saw many things"... Our opinions don't matter. "There was a lot of trade so they must have bought Chinese guards" - does not matter. Its so indirect it does not amount to anything. Either one does all the steps - establishing the goalposts, identifying the features, providing the timescale and then say "here how I personally define these ...", or its just a confusion.

The point is very simple - I have exactly zero interest in opinions of prominent or less so Chinese dealers who buy 100% of such tsuba from yahoo Japan and then attribute them with certainty as "early Qing" or "late Ming". Why so old? Why Chinese?? there are very many examples still on Chinese blades, found in the ground or with solid provenance to the Continent. They do exhibit significant differences against these. Yes, the style is definitely continental, and the boundary between Chinese and Japanese works in the style is admittedly shaky and hard to be drawn with absolute certainty. But the fact is that whether a sample is Chinese or not in my mind can be ascertained (with high uncertainty) only by direct comparison with solidly established examples from Chinese (blades, earth, provenance). The one you pointed out in the last message might be on the fence and there is a possibility its quite uncommon but still Chinese example. Even more "maybe" - second on the right, first row. The rest are - identical work is not at all common in any continental sources, but yahoo Japan is flooded with them. I am even less interested in McEhinney's opinions. I am sure he is a social guy and thus considered an expert in something... Maybe even Vice President at NBTHK-AB? "Sino-Tibetian" does sound Academic, but I have to admit seeing even fewer more or less similar Tibetian examples. Tibetian dragons is soft metal is something even more remote.

I would argue these are all Japanese knockoffs. Certain they were bought in Japan, used in Japan also.

Unfortunately its not uncommon in Japan to get into problems just because someone got a whiff-feeling something "inappropriate" or "potentially illegal" goes on. Which often comes up when "weapons" are involved. My experience was that the best thing is to give an address of someone in Japan with a message that it needs to be send to an "expert on the matter" who will then deal with it. "Convincing" by matter of arguments can work but can also be surprisingly difficult. What did work at times is appealing to "expert" or "government" opinion. By the same token a person is being fearful of violating some often semi-unknown to them regulation, they'll fear violating the rules as set by experts or authorities.

with such photographs - impossible to tell anything. Zero effort camera phone shots. I don't want to start the "paper war", but opinions issued by post-Yoshikawa NTHK (non-NPO) have certain... hm... qualities to them.

Passionate discussion, but... I am not Japanese. I am used to definitions involving abstract adjectives. Japanese language on the contrary is being noun heavy and operates with nouns which are not as generic or abstract, but also vaguely defined and will be called by different names - by different experts and books. For a while there was a very popular notion that most of what we call itame is really ko-mokume and should only be called as such. There is simularly considerable width of what is defined as uzumaki. Some insist it is essentially matsukawa like hada where the contrast between the "rings" is very high, and its first and foremost characteristic of shinshinto Soshu like Naotane and Ikkansai Yoshihiro. Others add to the list the earlier examples of high contrast mokume hada: Shitahara, Nobukuni, Hasebe and Akihiro. Others will say no, the earlier one is proper matsukawa not uzumaki, the difference being its chikei based. "Zanguri hada is a shinto trait". Masame suddenly becoming "nagare" when one talks of better blades. Etc. etc. etc. Naotane's work does tend to include mokume in most styles. His Bizen is much more mokume heavy right in the center compared to most other interpretations. that is assuming the definition mokume=burly, concentric, tree rings like patterns. His Soshu often opts for imitations of Norishige-ish school (Go as a usual suspect). Different publications do use different language when describing those. Don't be afraid to be white and use generic adjectives.

Zenjo school looks like Ryokai. Ujifusa/Ujisada is more Mino-Soshu. Wide hamon, lots of nie, not a lot of masame, below the shinogi but relatively large featured itame-mokume hada, hamon can be very periodic gunome but can be Sadamune-sh notare. Nie handling is the key to distinguish better works. They made a lot of tantos, signed ubu daito are uncommon.

Nihonto is one of the most difficult to fake media in existence. The papers on the other hand can both be influenced and are constantly fluctuating in quality. I can't stress enough one very personal advice - should you rely on sensei or papering authority, if you have a Major papered blade already - use it first. Submit it to shinsa. Show it to the expert. If they look at mumei Juyo or Tokuju and say its a nice Muromachi Mino or sue-Bizen work (which is a default response), you know who are you dealing with. Reality check: you don't have to throw their way something genuinely curved, like super-shortened and a bit atypical Rai Kunimitsu. Most authorities do fail on a daily basis with even a simple to read Juyo, more so if its submitted by a mumbling American idiot. Get "Larry the cable guy" outfit out and do some practical testing.

There are people with a lot of cash who collect. They like blades that cross all Xs - long, signed, famous name, high papers. Ready to pay huge premiums for that. I personally would not see Naotane as great in all gokaden. He had difficulties with utsuri. His Yamato and Yamashiro are forced and artificial compared to Kiyomaro and Kiyondo. People don't think about Kiyondo as a great Yamato smith, but he was good from what I've seen. Naotane's Soshu in my mind takes second place to Naokatsu. Naotane likely signed a lot of student work. etc. etc. etc.

When in doubt say shinto Ishido??

Continuing on the previously enjoyed subject, this is a blade that was kindly offered for me to photograph... there are three written opinions. The last time the different opinions were hitting roughly the same spot. Here they diverge into different schools and somewhat different periods. I also believe - two of them are plain wrong. The thing which is important here is that the first paper (NTHK) was issued in a very old polish. Jigane was probably hard to see in places but hamon was still very well detailed. Then it got through Mishina san's polish, which often gives you really vivid hada whose blackness is a bit exaggarated. I personally really like him on hada-heavy blades, but some people say the vivid-fresh appearance then often throws judges into later periods. Admittedly, its a risk. But I rather have a vivid blade. I think NBTHK when judging this blade after the polish did not really inspect the hamon (somehow), and made a judgement based on sugata and hada alone. Then came Sayagaki (Mr. T.) who took painful and unusual step of openly contradicting NBTHK... and I (my kantei: me - sensei!) think rightly so, taking both hada and the hamon into consideration. Boshi has hakkikake look with very short kaeri. So what are the three judgements?

NBTHK: Yamato Senjuin (Kamakura). Sayagaki: Senjuin, alternative is Yamato Shizu. Honami Tenrai: Yoshihiro Honami Koson (needs more research to verify 100%): Etchu Senjuin Yoshihiro, late Kamakura.

Everything publicly placed on sale will be sold. "Gaijin tax" is often people not willing to accept that in order to be given the first choice they need to be the most attractive option. All huge first class collections are formed by one trick - one needs to announce he will pay 125% of what's the next guy can for the first grade stuff. And keep his word for 10 years. Its not gaijin tax its a price of entering the market. The gaijin issues are more direct but also much more situational. There are some things Japanese dealers should not offer gaijin. Its difficult to be on the board of a major company or have a silimar position and collect nihonto. There are things you legally can own and move even out of the country, but chances are it will be years before you get the papers. Etc. etc. etc. I am fine with that: I am far more bigoted than 95% Japanese, and at least Japanese are polite; a charge by the crowd of crazed Tokyo gaijin experts leaves no prisoners by comparison.

Mr. Saito and Sokendo have been two organizations working extensively with foreigners and selling high grade items. Obviously dealers are doing what they do to make money, and Japanese are very courteous in general. But no, foreigner collectors are generally feared and not liked, the higher the level the more there is pushback along certain channels.

Top collections are usually split into "riff-ruff" which is send to an action often way before the person's demise and the "core". Its bought as a whole by a really (rich) high end collector. Selling the top stuff awhole at one auction is risky. It can be the event of the century, with super-prices, or can be so thoroughly slandered by the dealers on a "secret-secret" forum, it gets 30% of the real value. If its a high profile auction, you'll see dealers staying late before the auction arranging who bids on what - and for a "regular" auction its just too much bother to force such agreement. But if its a really great event, then no agreement will help. They'll bid in person but also by phone etc..

Honestly don't know where this is all going... What is being advocated - an expert opinion unchallengeble except by a diplomized expert is not science, its a religion. Unfortunately, it is reflective of the modern academia and society in general; I've been doing this weapon thingy long enough to repeat the statement - every community is covered on all sides by passionate people who have Zero personal collection (whether they prefer sai-jo or sai-sai saku) and very meager understanding, but insist that somehow Only through them the river of "real knowledge" flows. They can't comment on a blade, but they can write pages about how one should comment on the blade, collect, study and live in general. Yes, many dealers are like that too. They are also very moral and always of very particular political hue. Hint: not nazis. Well, actually in Russia they are all fascist-Putinist, but its an exception. I long lost interest in what can or cannot make Juyo. I never submit myself. But I buy almost exclusively in Japan. I can say with certainty that 95% of decent blades I've encountered had strong indications they have been in major collections some time in the past. Its hard-ish to find a really good blade which is not Juyo. You have to invest time and skill, and get lucky. Sometimes such blades come with disagreements which resulted in ultra-conservative judgement. I do believe late Kamakura and Soshu (not Masamune though) were the absolute peak of the nihonto. This being said there are a lot of taste-based differences. I don't like Bizen and most of Rai. I don't appreciate most really old blades - ko-Bizen leaves me passionless and so is most Heian. Most Rai Kunitoshi is boring and I have no idea why Hizen Tadayoshi is so popular. I have almost zero interest in Muromachi, but admit some Oei and Tensho blades are cool. Yes, on average Juyo blades are substantially more attractive than non-Juyo ones. I can't argue with that. But I am a dumpster diver and should stick to proletarian venues. No, budo people are not interested in nihonto. Is it really a bad thing? Japanese people are not interested nor are understanding of Japanese traditional things. That's surprising, but one gets used to it. They are enamored with ryokans, pagodas, stone gardens and lacquer utensils. Graduates of art history department in general do not recognize the name Kano right away. They don't recognize the name Muqi at all. they can't pickout Sesshu if they see one. You have people knowledgable in such stuff spread thin through all venues of life - and many of them are absolutely not happy if foreigners collect swords. Tosogu is "sort of" fine though. Unless its top quality. Yes, nihonto is way more secretive than most other collecting venues. People don't see gaining much from discussing what they have. Admittedly, they are being very Japanese about this aspect... Well, they have papers already, what more can they learn. You see often the only thing people discuss with commitment is their blade which "should have been TJ". Its going to stay this way for a long time.

Would gentlemen excuse me a silly joke: the one in books has an extra hole.

In Sadamune you start seeing now and then a string of ara-nie towards the mune, but he is a calm one. With Go its very much tobiyaki/ara nie heavy.

Let’s do the reveal! As I said earlier, please cut me some slack – its easy to act as sensei when one runs the kantei and has all the cards, but still explanations should be given – and they should come with an exclamation its just a personal opinion. There are a few ways to judge this blade. Sugata locks you into either Kamakura-earliest Nambokucho or very late Nambokucho-early Muromachi. In hand the lack of niku and the balance point suggests Kamakura, but this is subjective. Its heavily nie-based so its either Yamato or Soshu, with some exceptions. The coarse jigane in shinogi-ji comes up as very long lines, and that’s a sign there is long masame there as well. Lets go Yamato route, its easier and faster. Possibility 1: Not much comparable in early Muromachi, so accept the notion its Kamakura. Kamakura Yamato by definition should be first and foremost considered as Senjuin. Possibility 2: Its Yamato with midareba. By definition it can only be Senjuin. That’s actually what the sayagaki argues. It can be added that nioi choji-like midare in Yamato is also exclusive Senjuin traits. Lets go Soshu route, its also fun. It does look like Satsuma, but nioi-guchi is seldom Satsuma’s strong point, it tends not to do nioi based midareba covered by nie and sugata is quite off. But its an important note, because Satsuma was particularly inspired by Go and Norishige. In the same way if we would say its Horikawa, we mean it looks like Sadamune. We can also right away check that nie 1cm wide and 20cm long endulating “belt” is either Yamato Shizu or Etchu, its Extremely uncommon everywhere else. So in Soshu route there are not that many practicing first class tight itame (often referred to as Awataguchi hada) with bright broad nioi-guchi and nioi/ko-nie hamon covered by nie towards habuchi. Most Kamakura lineage is strictly nie based, for example. The three options here are Sa, Naotsuna and Go. Some Mino Kanenobu are nioi based but nioi-guchi is weak and jigane is large featured. Naotsuna tends to have large featured jigane, more mokume. Sa is a good option, I felt. His itame hada is excellent, but he did not do much masame-nagare and ara nie away from hamon is uncommon. If you look at his kinsuji you don’t really see transition to masame. In fact, Awataguchi hada with nagare, bright broad nioi-guchi and nioi/ko-nie hamon covered by nie towards habuchi, plenty of ara nie and occasional use of “nie belts” in Etchu fashion is a textbook definition of Go. You can find the exact wording more or less in “Connoseurs”. Re: Nabeshima Go meito and many other examples. So what’s wrong with calling it a Go? First the boshi is not typical for Soshu, Go’s in particular tends to be much wider, its can be called “yakitsume” but its wide. Sugata is a bit different, the sori is larger, the tapering is larger than what you usually see with Go. There is arguably stronger presence of masame-nagare, nie within the hamon forms really nice clouds, but overall its presence is more… sort of “stout”. It has substantially more Yamato character to it. Here one can remember that there Senjuin Yoshihiro smiths from Echizen province, with signed examples, and Go Yoshihiro is often considered to be one of them. So the commentary of Honami Koson (which might be my confirmation bias, I really need to study the issue much more!) was that its Kamakura period’s Senjuin Yoshihiro, possibly the father of Go. This in turn should bring us to the question – what is the so called Senjuin school? As I mentioned, its not advised to be placed in judged competition except Ryumon Nobuyoshi. The attribution to particular names is impossible; there have been attempts to write up different subschools but they all run into problems that there are plenty of nijimei examples which are papered Senjuin but which are not consistent namewise with “Shigehiro school” etc. Its also largely attributed in a negative fashion: really old blade with Yamato features which is not Yasutsuna or Kyushu-mono. How did we come to this? To an extent we have to thank the “five Yamato traditions” for that. When the classification was created Tegai Kanenaga and Hosho smiths were considered almost mid-Kamakura, and Taima was also referenced in Kamakura genealogies. When it became apparent that Taima, Shikkake and Hosho were very short lived, Tegai did not really begin until 1300 – still the “five traditions” were kept. So you have a bizarre case that Yamato Shizu is not considered a mainline, while Taima does. Even more bizarre case is that while every Soshu tradition is “shadowed” by its Yamato counterpart, all of these counterparts actually can be found in Kamakura period’s Senjuin examples. Here is mid Kamakura “proto-Taima” in tight itame with nie splashed all over. The quality varies, but towards 1270-1310 you start seeing extremely high end Senjuin. Awataguchi hada, nie laced throughout; the best ones do tend to come to old attributions to Echizen Masters like Go and Norishige. But they are different: the forging style can vary a lot within the blade, more comfortable with pure masame sections, more comfortable with chouji midareba or nioi ko chouji based hamon. The signatures are sadly lacking, but it can be ascertained as Echizen Senjuin – a precursor to Echizen Soshu.

Its nothing profound or important, but anyone notice anything unusual re typical reference materials?

Feels like we should do at least a partial reveal here... Yoshihiro. Honami Tenrai. Now any guesses on the qualification by Honami Koson (supposed, comparing to oshigata is always a bit iffy) and what the NBTHK papers/sayagaki say?