Jussi Ekholm

Nice to hear that the event went well. I think it is important to have an event like this in Europe. As for the sword I would assume maybe because of the katakiriba it was displayed this way, and the horimono looks nice too.

Thank you for posting the lineage Uwe. I think I have not connected Kagemitsu & Yukimitsu to Fujishima that strongly as I have seen them being "other" Kaga smiths but it is mostly my mistake. The lineages are quite tricky for lot of the pre-Edo period stuff.

Fujishima Tomoshige is interesting smith. Unfortunately I havent yet seen the long tachi of Atsuta Jingū in person but I have it in several references. Similarily the JūBi posted above is now in the collection of Kyoto National Museum and I havent seen that either but have it in even more references. Now the question that I present would be who are these other Ko-Fujishima smiths? For the early generations of Tomoshige I have 40+ signed reference swords, 1 signed sword by Fujishima Tomokiyo, for others...there is possible 1 that would be of this school. Of course lines can get bit blurred.

It is bit complicated at first. As you said it is arranged by historical routes, so you will need to know the physical location of the school/smith you are looking to search for. Once you do it more and more it will get easier. For Nihontō Kōza are you using the original Japanese or the AFU translations?

You have done good research. 😊 To be honest I was pretty much clueless about this smith Awataguchi Yoshimasa, however if he potentially is 1st Kagenaga then it changes things a bit. I think also for Inaba Kagenaga even the experts have hard time deciding on generations. And the works I have recorded in references go from late Kamakura to early Muromachi. Unfortunately the only work I have seen in person is the 1402 dated tachi of Yasukuni jinja. Japanese scholars of course have the real life knowledge of actually seeing and handling these swords. While I've seen them in museums only and in limited amounts. And of course all my references are written by Japanese scholars. Unfortunately my data is purely collected and not actual knowledge. Perhaps the scholars also sometimes want to throw curveballs, so they put it to an obscure smith instead of a well known one.

Both points are of course very valid Michael. Still I think some of the old swords in Japan have been preserved extremely well even though they are very old. So in those cases I assume they are as close to original as is possible for example for the 700 year history of the sword. I am mostly referring to ubu or nearly ubu swords here, that are in prestigeous Japanese collections. Even though not my personal preference I cannot deny that for example Tsuda Sukehiro and Taikei Naotane make very fine swords. In quality I would say these swords would be much better than some old less refined things I personally like the most. I feel Shintō smiths seem to be belittled too often. It is of course bit offtopic but as I read the OP I felt I knew what was meant that Shintō is not appreciated that much. One important factor also is that swordsmiths could produce swords of varying size and shape. While most Japanese swords are very similarily sized throughout the history, you can still find variance even within the works of a single smith.

I think one thing would be to slice up the Kotō and Shintō to many smaller pieces. For example even just early Kamakura stereotype will be different to late Kamakura stereotype. Likewise early stuff from Genwa/Kanei will be different from Kanbun and then 1700's stuff will vary from that. In general I think one key thing is consistency. I think very good Shintō smiths made very good swords consistently. For someone liking old stuff it might sound sacrilegious to say that from some top old smiths you'll see even works that might not be (or might not even originally been) that good. Now I am not really one to judge quality as that is not my thing in collecting. Those above are just my thoughts that I've seen as I've visited many museums and shrines to see their swords.

You have a nice sword(s), congratulations. Now this following might sound elitist but that is not my intention at all. Just when doing research and studying items I think the ideally reference works used should be zaimei works. If using mumei works as a reference (even historically attributed and important works) there is always room for opinions and errors. Enju school has relatively many signed works by various smiths, I just checked and I should have c. 100 signed swords by them in my references. Some Enju school works are very high quality. Earlier this week I was lucky to see very good tachi by Enju Kuninobu, the Jūyō Bunkazai of Mitsui Museum. Awataguchi Yoshimasa on the other hand is compeletely different case. Seems like I have 0 swords by him among all of my references. If someone can point me to a sword by him I would be happy. That also brings us to the second thing, how can workmanship and features of the smith be evaluated when there are no, or extremely few signed swords left?

Your sword is signed 豊後住藤原輝行 - Bungo jū Fujiwara Teruyuki. I believe few generations of Bungo Teruyuki worked from c. 1650 to 1750.

I believe the signature would be 相州住神氣 - Sōshū jū Shinki. As I stated in other thread I don't unfortunately have access to my references for a long time and I think I have never heard about this smith from memory. Regardless the sword seems to be an interesting one at least to me, and will warrant more research.

Unfortunately I am away from all my references for a month. I might dare to guess it could be. 大和守氏命作 - Ujinaga. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reference examples to this particular Ujinaga smith online. But sometimes Uji 氏 & Naga 命 might look bit similar in execution to kanji on this sword when done by various smiths. Of course it is very difficult one as there are only specific amount of Yamato no Kami smiths.

I wouldn't think there is specific mm or percentage that would make the classification. If you can see a noticeable difference with eye I would say it is a high shinogi. The very thick kasane measurements are not too often seen in normal sized Kotō blades but with very large ōdachi or naginata in original form the kasane can be large. And massive kasane for some that I personally see as unusable sized.

There are guys in the forum that are very good in finer details on the blade. The Sue-Seki and late Muromachi to Early Edo could be a reasonable guess.

I think it is legitimate sword, just the condition seems rough even for me (and I can close my eyes on lot of stuff). I feel NBTHK sees this as Early - Middle Kamakura tachi. The NBTHK expert panel seems to have put Ko-Aoe as the attribution for this one. Unfortunately this Yahoo JP dealer always has small sized pictures. Would have been nice to see high quality pictures at the end of the nakago where there might be remnants of signature. This sword has also appeared at Yahoo JP in late 2022 (as I do backups on my files I could check it). Here is for comparison what I personally see as quite nice Ko-Aoe attributed mumei tachi: https://web.archive.org/web/20240921040517/https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/P-452.html Of course the price will be very different on the one for Yahoo JP one but I felt the nice one was also surprisingly "affordable". The term used in "" as the sword was still fairly expensive but I feel it was well priced for what it was and sold quite fast in 2024.

There is a huge variation between the "quality ladder" of the two attributions Hasebe is often seen as high level attribution while Esshū Mitsuyuki is very low tier Nanbokuchō attribution. I know they do need to attribute the sword to someone but these very less known smiths are pretty much as bucket where items can be thrown when there is not much to identify on. I have so far only found one signed short sword by Esshū Mitsuyuki. Now as I am bit obsessive in tracking down items, here is a fun fact. Actually the sword appraised just before this one got the same attribution towards Esshū Mitsuyuki.

Wonderful Rayhan and your contribution to the community is amazing! Huge thanks for NBTHK for allowing the old magazines to be shared. I think the English magazine ran for c. 15 years so within these magazines you will find many of the best Japanese swords as feature items.

Wonderful article

Absolutely amazing stuff again Markus I have tried to locate the ownership of blades as well as I can from publications. So far I have not found Sadamune or Gō that would be owned by NBTHK (where ownership would be written in book or on display text). I mistakenly thought that 太鼓鐘貞宗 was owned by NBTHK but it is owned by private person. It has just been displayed at NBTHK recently where I saw it last year and will see it again in their next exhibition when I visit next month. NBTHK owns at least 2 Masamune, Musashi Masamune and Ashiya Masamune as I have seen both in their exhibitions, and it is written that they own the item. NBTHK has also exhibited one Masamune that I saw last year that is privately owned, and that has been also featured on the viewing sessions. I believe many of the items brought in for viewing sessions are privately owned by NBTHK members and they share the great items as study material for the group. Then there are of course extreme rarity items like Ko-Hoki Sanekage tachi and Bungo Sadahide tachi that are both owned by NBTHK. They are very often used as reference items as I seem to have both in 15+ different references. I feel the NBTHK viewing sessions have a focus on high level items by great makers. Focus on items like these and you will get high level knowledge and will train your eye for details. There is extremely rarely obscure and weird stuff used in these sessions (at least written down). I personally like obscure weapons from less known smiths as that makes me tick but NBTHK does not appreciate that type of items highly which is of course understandable.

Some of the top end Japanese dealers do occasionally have real Jūyō Bijutsuhin blades in their inventory. However I think often they are not advertised that much in public, they buyers might respect privacy and the shops know their clients. I don't really visit swords shops in Japan as I can't buy anything at the moment. I still remember first time going into Iida Koendo many years ago and they had JūBi at their shop that they hadn't even listed on their website.

I think Moriyama-san is referring that normally when era changes in Japan, the month count do not reset. And he explained that Lunar year in Japan at that time was already at 12th month. I believe what Moriyama-san is referring that Kōka 1st year was only 1 month long period. For example when Reiwa started in May 2019 the first month of 1st year of Reiwa was 令和元年五月. I am not into these newer swords but I have legitimate signature examples of Kōka 2, 2nd month. In similar way when Kōka changed into Kaei mid year at the end of 2nd month the earliest Kaei date on swords I have is Kaei 1, 3rd month.

I think the signature is 尾崎長門守藤原助隆 - Ozaki Nagato no Kami Fujiwara Suketaka

I own the Jūyō Bijutsuhin Book collection. This Masatsune tachi is not among the 1094 items in the books. Also I think they made an error on the paper that is fairly easy to check. The paper of Yahoo Auction sword seems to have Shōwa date 昭和十六年八月二十一日. However when you check all the items in the book, the Shōwa 16 dates were 四月九日 & 九月二十四日 There are actually 11 signed tachi by Ko-Bizen Masatsune that are Jūyō Bijutsuhin. 2 of them actually passed on Shōwa 16 but they are completely different tachi to one being sold.

Here are the amount of swords NBTHK has had passing through each phase of their shinsa. The numbers are not 100% correct but in the quite close neighbourhood and they will hopefully give you lot of insight. Starting from highest tier to lowest Tokubetsu Jūyō - c. 1,200 swords Jūyō - c. 12,000 swords Tokubetsu Hozon - c. 80,000 swords Hozon - c. 125,000 swords I am quite sure there are 2,000,000+ swords in Japan. I made a post about license numbers as it is a running system and you can see it here: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/52155-naginata-naoshi/page/4/#comment-545277 The problem with running systems is that if the sword leaves the system (for example advances to tier above in NBTHK system) it just remains in the system as number even though the actual sword would not be Hozon papered anymore. Similarily if the sword returns to the system it gets issued a new number (sword gets a new license number when it returns to Japanese system, or for NBTHK shinsa the sword gets resent for Hozon and it gets a new paper and different attribution). Unfortunately these are the closest numbers that I can get. About the pass factor, I chose 2 sessions slightly randomly as they have pretty much the same number of swords sent in. And I do own books for both of the sessions so I have data on every sword passed. Jūyō 68 shinsa had 817 swords sent in to the evaluation. Out of them 66 swords passed. With my math that would be 8,1% pass rate Jūyō 25 shinsa had 819 swords sent in to the evaluation. Out of them 341 swords passed. Using the same math it would be 41,6% pass rate Pretty big difference... In the 2000's I think the pass rate has mostly fluctuated between 10-20%. There are some below that and some above that. It seems like the most recent ones 68,69,70 have all have been judged very stricly with very small amount of swords passing through.

Rayhans Hirotsugu story is amazing one and it highlights many things that go into submission and collecting at high level. Things that I and I suspect many others have not even thought about. I would have been perfectly happy with the sword in the original polish but more experienced eye saw how it would benefit from top class polish and the end result is most likely wonderful. I hate the business side talk about monetary values etc. but as this hobby is so connected to dealing items and various papering tiers it is unfortunate part of it. To me it just makes wonderful historical items feel bit commecialized like they are more common goods that are just traded over and over. However the talk and discussion about Jūyō items is relevant in the sense that it gives bit of "common ground" for everyone to the discussion. Of course we all have varying understanding about them. Many might have never seen one in hand, some might get to occasionally view them in hand (I admit for me even after 20+years in the hobby it is always a rare and exciting chance whenever I get to hold a Jūyō level sword in my own hands [and a fun fact they have all been wonderful swords, even though we might talk bit negatively about some Jūyō swords to a very average collector like me they are always very good quality swords]), and yes we do have collectors in the forum that are at the top level and for them these are the types of swords they are accustomed to. I think the best fact in NBTHK Jūyō is that the swords get documented to be used as a reference. Of course limited number of people will have access to the information but it is still one of the best resources towards high end items. It is also a good way to get the discussion going as people will at least have some experience of them. Trying to build up discussion about some shrine swords would prove most likely much more difficult as maybe only an handful of members would be aware of those particular swords. Still online access to Japanese dealer sites, lots of international people visiting DTI, many things like that make Jūyō swords appear to be more common than they actually are. I know I have done some calculations lately about total number of swords in Japan, as well as I should have fairly accurate guess on the number of Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon passed items. Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō you can just actually count as they are in the references. Jūyō item % is very tiny when you compare it to the number of Japanese swords in Japan. When thinking about Jūyō sessions one thing to look at is also the pass factor. I know few forum members excel in stuff like this, and have made amazing research on this. There is huge variance between the sessions in percentage of submitted items that pass. NBTHK does not hide this information at all, numbers of sent items and passed items are published in their Tōken Bijutsu magazines. Of course magazine is only sent to members, however recently NBTHK has published the results on their website too so everyone interested could have viewed them there. Like Franco and Colin wrote above it is extremely complicated with so many factors it goes way over my head. I have only fairly recently understood how important historical provenance also is. Of course it makes sense in the way that swords owned by high ranking people and families back in the day were quite often very high quality items.

Rayhan has made so many interesting topics lately. I have spent a lot of time going through the Jūyō items and I quite recently started what is my probably 4th time going through all the books that I have. With the amount spent I think I should be able to make some guesses what would pass but to be honest I am pretty much clueless. Part of it is my own mentality for sword appreciation being different and huge part of course is not seeing the items in person. There are of course some what I would think as "slam dunk" items yet I have heard that some of the amazing Tokubetsu Hozon items have been sent to Jūyō and they failed, and that I cannot understand as you get so many X ō-suriage mumei swords passing while genuinely rare item would be failed. As a long time NBTHK member I am still not a fan of their tiered shinsa system but it is what it is. For ō-suriage mumei items I would think the most important thing at Tokubetsu Hozon would be the attribution it gets from NBTHK. It is bit sad to say but rather than item quality itself I would be more focused on the attribution if I would think about Jūyō submission (now I have to state I have never sent an item to NBTHK shinsa at any level and not sure if I will). So as a mind game you have a nice ō-suriage mumei sword that you think is from Nanbokuchō period and you send to shinsa - then it returns as Echizen Rai (越前来). You are bit unlucky as there is only 1 mumei Echizen Rai that has passed Jūyō shinsa, so I would think you could try Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon again and see if you will get a better attribution next time. Now lets say you will get Nakajima Rai (中島来) as an attribution, then there are 64 that have passed Jūyō. There is even one Nakajima Rai that has passed the prestigeous Tokubetsu Jūyō, Nagoya Tōken World has it in their collection, I saw it there last year and it seemed to be a fine sword. https://www.touken-world.jp/search-noted-sword/tokubetsujuyotoken-meito/17432/ Then as 3rd spot in the game you might get Rai Kunimitsu (来国光) attribution you can give a big thumbs up, there are 114 ō-suriage mumei katana with attribution to Rai Kunimitsu that have passed Jūyō (yes few of them have kinzōgan etc. but that is often a form of attribution too and I don't see that relevant to prove the point). And 21 of them have went on to pass Tokubetsu Jūyō. I have been very lucky to see in hand the amazing Tokubetsu Jūyō Kunimitsu of Samurai Museum Berlin and also a very stunning Jūyō Kunimitsu last summer in Kawagoe sword meet where multiple NMB members were attending. Yet I have seen few in museums that to me don't seem all that impressive. Now those specialized in fine details in swords might say that there is no way that attributions would vary so much. I think yes and no, as the fine details are not really my thing. Sometimes I just find myself wondering why something gets an attribution it gets, and wondering if trying the process again would change the outcome. I also believe that people in Japan and even internationally who are "in the circle" for Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō swords know if certain items have been sent for example Tokubetsu Jūyō before. Unfortunately I am not and will not be as those swords are beyond my means and also not often the main type of swords I try to focus my research on. The fact is that once the sword has passed Jūyō shinsa it is a Jūyō sword. Of course all of them are not equal. I would personally think that the only Jūyō sword of a smith Y would be more important piece than 1 out of 100 mumei attributed swords to smith X. However I think the vast majority will think the opposite way, and people want to get more and more items by these same prestigeous smiths. As some may know I have tendency to track swords at bit obsessive level. Now I looked and I have documented 19 swords for sale at Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon level that have since passed Jūyō (one has also passed Tokubetsu Jūyō). Here is one example by Kanemitsu. I personally like the shape and size but that is my thing. I remember discussing this back then with several people and nobody was that impressed about the sword. https://web.archive.org/web/20201031200433/https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/KT332646.htm https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/KT332646.htm Here is pretty nice one, rare Bungo smith and dated to 1451. It passed in Jūyō 67, I just don't feel like taking out books and taking pictures of them as it has already taken so much time to think and type this post. https://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/A21591_S1283_PUP_E.html This Uda Kunifusa attributed one also passed session 67. https://web.archive.org/web/20210621170603/https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/N-564.html This Hatakeda Sanemori attributed one passed Jūyō session 65 and Tokubetsu Jūyō 26 https://www.aoijapan.net/katana：kinpun-mei-gold-powder-hatakeda-sanemori/