Rivkin

Being an ignorant man, and with reactionary attitudes largely preventing Juyo submissions, I still _guess_ the actual passing is more challenging than 10%. Ubu, signed, Kamakura has probably 99% passing rate. Suriage but still long, Ichimonji - 80%. Katana Kiyomaro - 50%? So at each session after those things are auto-papered, then starts the real competition between still very good blades, but which are better in life than on paper. Fighting for the remaining spots. What kind of chance an absolutely stellar nidai Hizen Masahiro has? Kirill R.

And while we are at it.... Continental chokuto do tend to have one ana and much later they go to two... But sometimes you get this uncommon suriage thing, and even though likely only one probably functional at any given time, it is kind of fun. Kirill R.

Yes its a bit weird, and it was I guess attributed thus as nagomaki naoshi. Regarding the red lacquer, very many people fear it, but I never saw anything disastrous with it. Its actually quite expensive to apply, and was quite often done to temple blades, usually yari and such. One has to guess that while today when publications talk about kogarasumaru they are talking about the one in Tenno collection. But by late Edo there were 16 kogarasumaru, and no less than 4 kusanagi all owned by major temples with supposed provenance all the way to the source. They had quite a lot of blades, especially some temples. Kirill R.

Yes, it is, but I've got only two mekugi coming with it. Kirill R.

There are two mekugi coming as a set. Could it be some weird reuse of a tsuka? I don't have the blade unfortunately, so no proof, but I don't think so. Kirill R.

Personal opinion: Tamahagane requirement applies to post-1935 or so swords, i.e. military patterns and post WWII production. For anything earlier, the historical-artistic value is assumed. You can get a registration for a European 19th century smallsword. You can get a registration for a 19th century Japanese sword where on nakago its written that its made from a Russian anchor. Or something made in 1914 from a steel of such and such Japanese company to commemorate something company-related. The boundary between "can get registered" vs. "illegal to own" is thus somewhat vague when we start dealing with swords made in 1920-1930s. You do see plenty of diplomatic smallswords sold with broken off blades, and then you see identical models with blades fully intact. On the artistic side, once you get to using steel which has very high thermal conductivity (extremely homogeneous and low grain size), including that between folding layers - the ability to form complex patterns in both ji and ha is impacted significantly. Its going to be a good sword, artistic it will never be. Kirill R.

Nice! My personal vote would be on Muromachi. Kirill R.

Sure, on Sunday. I will even boost the suspension - the ana are wide on one side and narrow on the other, and there are still two conical wood mekugi inserted in them. Kirill R.

No, that works in some countries with daggers. But continental chokuto had either iron or copper, not wood mekugi and went from one to two relatively early as well. Kirill R.

I own one (Momoyama) and owned a few. Kirill R.

No, its not a Kotetsu. Don't take my word on it, especially based on a photograph. But it is not a high quality sword. Jigane varies randomly, hamon is in nioi save for some sparkles of nie here and there. Kirill R.

Will be honored to! Unfortunately the list is still ambitious. I am doing reasonably well with Muromachi and Edo, except for the following: Umetada, Horikawa, Kotetsu. Which are badly needed. Also, the photos of Inoue Shinkai, Sushinshi Masahide, Shodai Hizen Tadayoshi, Shodai Yasutsugu are not the best and if there is an opportunity to photograph other pieces it would be great. The biggest issue comes with pre-Muromachi, since the diversity of blades within apparently the same school or even maker is staggering. So even though I have quite a few examples of what is listed below, they do not really reflect the schools well enough. Katayama, Fukuoka, Yoshioka Ichimonji, Hatakeda, Ko Bizen are badly needed. The ones I have cover only about 20% of the wealth of expression that exists there. Also badly needed are Rai works not in suguha, and Awataguchi (I do have Shintogo though, but there is never enough Shintogo). Aoe is badly needed. Would benefit from better Enju, Echizen Rai, Ko Hoki, and Sadamune. Also my Chogi photographs are of not very representative blade (lots of tobiyaki). Would benefit from really good ko-Mihara. Overall anything good pre-Muromachi helps a LOT. There is a reasonable representation of Soshu as is, but if there are good blades they will always be included. In the publication its owner's choice regarding whether he wants the pictures identified as coming from his collection, or a more general acknowledgement in the introduction. Kirill R.

The goal maximum (which can prove to be unreachable) is to produce a photo essay of 200 blades covering the entire history of nihonto from chokuto to gendai. Of those 50-80 will be masterpieces, and the rest - typical period items. Some very average, some quite advanced. Right now I have about 300 photosets from which I can select 70-90 items for the publication. I figured with 600 good photosets will give me the desired 200. But that's very approximate, since I am still missing specific schools and names that need to be filled if the work is to be reasonably complete. About 30 items, mostly quite rare cases, but in the worst case I have lower quality photographs for about half of them. Some dislike my photographs, but I do believe in them and the technique is simplified to be reasonably quick... The only thing that remains is getting the actual items. Kirill R.

I am on a constant quest to collect photographs of J and TJ. For a good collection - will fly in, do the pictures, the owner gets the photographs, can shoot about 30-45 blades in 2 days. I need about 600 blades photographed to do good selection for a photo-album, have about 300 as of now. Kirill R.

Well, I'll do a completely contratian and possibly ignorant opinion. Such metallic koshirae with Tokugawa's mon are considered in some circles to be Ainu type. There are Edo period examples which are quite expensive and very rare, there is one in TNM. Quite a few were made during Meiji and could be/are touristy... But they are not terribly common (i.e. you see one or two for sale per year) and do cost money. The scrimshaw koshirae is completely touristy and non-traditional (unlike this one), and yet you similarly see them maybe twice a year and they do cost money. There is a type of Ainu koshirae made of carved wood, which is made in Hokkaido even today and is very cheap. Kirill R.

The answer I feel is to buy whichever you like. There is a caveat that while Aoi has quite a few deals, no Tokyo shop is going to be the best option in 200-300k yen range, but on the other hand Aoi has a solid selection of "complete packages" with koshirae, which seems to be what you are looking for. This being said, its unlikely to have any blade of substantial importance in this price range. You might get a better deal at a sword show, but not by a great margin. No hidden gems, no concealed frauds among the items you identified. Kirill R.

I think this one would be very hard showato vs. gendaito determination, but I would err on the side of gendaito. It does not have stamps. It has well formed and pronounced kaeri, most showato don't. The hamon while in nioi and of a typical showato strictly periodic sine wave-like gunome type does show variation in brightness which is more attuned to gendaito. So its roughly in between of the two cases. Kirill R.

Ok, so we jump from an unsigned unpapered shinto to signed papered koto… why? Do you like koto? You are ready to pay significant premium for having the signature, knowing that most likely with this price range it means Muromachi name of mid to no significance? Kirill R.

For Soshu dating issues I would compare first the kamakura sugata Masamune tanto as well as his tachi with smaller kissaki, with emphasis on hada's quality and presence of Masamune kantei features and second - Masamune with substantially larger kissaki (Musashi Masamune etc.), and various tanto of substantially larger proportions, including the hocho series. For expected condition of Kamakura pre-1300 blades, attached is a fragment of period's major blade with major papers. Kirill R.

Tsuka looks new, but with old fk (not paired), tsuba, saya, not sure about menuki. The blade is in very tight itame with rather bright and very characteristically looking hamon... Probably shinto, say around 1630-1640. Remote second chance - shinshinto. Bizen imitation. It is bright, but 5k pound is just a tad ambitious here. There is some question regarding the polishing quality also, but its not a deal breaker here. I often read about hitting the books, but was never able to see this theory actually working. But after one studies extensively 1,000 or so swords with the help of a few books and hopefully someone who can give advise on how to look at swords, some understanding does tend to settle in. Out of the three components (books, advisor, blades) books are the solid third place. If you are looking for similar blade with a much better investment potential, I would consider signed early Ishido school works (Korekazu, Mitsuhira, etc.etc.), maybe trying to pick up something that has pronounced utsuri - these blades sometimes are very good and very much undervalued today. Aiming at a higher price point, Chounsai Tsunatoshi is also a good choice if you are looking for a bright Bizen Ichimonji imitation. Kirill R.

I found answering this question harder and harder as one gets more into collecting. All books say Kamakura, however this is influenced by the Edo period notion of Kamakura being vastly superior to anything associated with Ashikaga usurpers and thus quite a few Soshu masterpieces are traditionally attributed not based on sugata, but based on tradition. If one is looking for deals and likes Soshu, than Nambokucho hands down is the best era. Lots of hard to judge works with random shinsa attributions where one's bet can pay off in the long term - or not. Kamakura proper (pre 1300) pieces tend to be tachi, and they tend to be already recognized for what they are and Juyo+ unless having serious issues. And most are very tired. There is late Kamakura, 1300-1333, which probably should be treated separately from the rest of Kamakura period, and is very interesting in many aspects, but does require very significant numbers to access the top quality. But it has some of the best artistic works. Other than that pre-Tembun Muromachi tends to be good and relatively cheap, and Momoyama has also quite a few good pieces that can be had for relative peanuts. Almost nothing of substantial value was made between 1515 and 1570. If one likes shinto look, then Kambun masterpieces are great, but they will cost you full price. I very personally would argue that by comparison early shinto masters beginning with Umetada are while very rare, greatly over-valued. The best Sukehiro or Inoue Shinkai towers over Kunihiro and Yasutsugu. But in Kambun period there were also mid-name masters who did substantial works once in a while. And condition of everything Momoyama and later will be a substantial improvement over pre-Tembun. Shinshinto is thing of itself. I personally like only Satsuma school and what stylewise closely relates to its Soshu works. Some people prefer the period's Bizen works. Kirill R.

The problem of nihonto is not papers A versus papers B. The problem of nihonto is that a typical collector with either 0 or 50 years of experience is a proud owner of two blades, complimented by command of some Japanese. So the "Study" and "Research" we hear so often about means translating a paper and maybe some portion from some book. Accordingly, any discussion also boils down to what does a paper say, how good is its color, and what some book says about the name in the paper. Kirill R.

Very hard to guess from photographs alone. Just looking at them, the nakago does not look shinshinto, and the default attribution for Dotanuki pieces like that one tends to be something like Tensho or more likely Keicho. Maybe they saw something in the work that was shinshinto-ish. Very great chance submission to NBTHK will not result in absolutely any new information whatsoever here. The papers yes, will be issued - to Dotanuki. Maybe, and I very seriously doubt that, with an addition of say, later generation. With a country school like this one, simple attribution to den is usually sufficient. They will not care that much whether its Edo or Muromachi, frankly there is not much of collectability differential here. Were this a big name and they would feel the work is not by a particularly famous first generation, they would do a courtesy of maybe adding an exact era or generation, or at least saying a later generation. I doubt it will be the case here. If really good photos are made we can try to guess here what was the trigger, but it can be an attribution issued with not much certainty. Otherwise, it is a general-name-Sengaku-smith blade. Can't be judged by name. Can't be judged by attribution. There are Bizen Kiyomitsu that are absolute and irredeemable garbage and there are very few that are very good. Has to be judged on its own legs. Kirill R.

That's what I thought, but the lines of weight versus length clearly diverged at Momoyama. Sharp transition. This being said, when I just used Shinto sword that copied old Soshu, their weight was comparable to the earlier ones. While shinshinto very still generally quite heavy. Kirill R.

Alas, I was away from the internet for a while. Without any personal involvement in the green paper days, I however do have generational experience with art and antique collecting, in part by being responsible for some collections I can't store, sell or even enjoy on a regular basis, but still getting slapped with some related bills. The field unfortunately is corrupt. A business based completely on opinions, and opinions which are unlikely to be prosecuted even if found to be financially motivated, and on top of that - the kind of business where even if attribution is solid, the price can be determined only within an order of magnitude. A painting from the Olympia Fair will cost half at Christies, and another half of that on ebay or local auction. Add to that a maximum of maybe 10-30 serious players, who all know each other, and all developed strong sympathies-antipathies over the decades. 85% of issues are always between "the work of big name" and "the work of big name's circle", which can have easily 3 zeroes difference in value, but sometimes a less obvious quality distance. 13% of issues are between "later copy" and the "original". Both involve a significant chunk of cases which cannot be clearly resolved. Yes, the work is very strong, but the condition is just so much better than anything seen previously from the artist. Or it all matches the expected, but there is this cat in the painting that really sucks and no, it was not painted in. The separation of roles can help with attributions, but only to an extent. First, there is a whole bunch of fields which are so small, the greatest guru is also the greatest collector and thus the greatest buyer/seller. All roles expert. It gets somewhat easier in larger fields, but without clear government investment into Academic positions of junior rank, without clear state guidance the separation will never be of any efficiency. Second, issuing paid opinions always corrupts. Because the important things are never clear cut, and you don't want to err on the side of caution too much because then people will use experts who don't. But then you don't want to be too optimistic all the time, because then you'll make a few obvious mistakes and competitors or those who got bad papers will put it on the internet. During the early 1900s there was this big movement to make museums into fee-based appraisors, and now they are heavily discouraged against anything like that - and there are plenty of biographies detailing exactly why. What worked in Europe is publishing catalogue raisonne, which puts the entire argument and body of work into open, and then the whole issue "what is Masamune" gets at least some clear and visible boundaries. Also - until 1970s you were expected to write serious opinions on art in actual journals, detailing your arguments. And yes, it would be bizarre to be an expert without actually discovering something new and writing a book. You kind of were supposed to see the person's arguments on paper before accepting them. And yes, typical paid expert opinion on a major work is 10-50 pages long. Yes, lost of it is water to crank up the fees, but its still definitely not a single line statement. Nihonto is sort of two thirds along the path from "all roles expert" to something like 1900s European attempts of creating museum commissions to issue papers. So some of nihonto scary stories, like the tanto publication are from "all roles expert" time. And well, there are plenty of fields where "all roles expert" is the way to go, it just tends to end either with great success or resounding failure. Which brings us to the green papers. Or my VERY personal and VERY erroneous take on them. Aside from things so abnormal, the question was whether NBTHK will retain its respectability (papering of fake gendai "copies" of Edo period masterpieces), the major issue was actually of access. There were people who could contact the estimeed members and present to them the item together with the supporting documentation, make their case, and then solicit their advice. Things considered Masamune for the duration of Edo period had a considerably higher chance of being secured as such. Is it wrong to do so? In fact any art commission of today with require you to submit the item's documented history. The chances of attribution to X will increase very significantly if the item was dealt with by galleries known to specialize in X. It is not seen as an issue at all, on the contrary getting "out of the woods" work accepted by today's art critiques is quite difficult. The problems which are specific to nihonto, and which were never resolved, is that first of all not a lot of people have this kind of access. A few can present their case, most can't and are not supposed to. Second, a lot of Edo appraisals were bizarre to the greatest extent possible, with Soshu, Masamune and Sadamune being the most obvious benefactors. So you do see that in many cases green papers give you the answer copied from Edo paperwork personally presented by the owner. Like unsigned, but attributed to Hasebe Kunishige (why not Kanenobu?). The new papers are trying to build a greater distance from Edo appraisals. But they are also sometimes erring very much on the side of caution for items submitted by the general public with no access. Hence a lot of attributions to very general and widely stretchable schools (Uda, Shizu, ), which are becoming even more stretchable as stuff gets piled into them. Kirill R.