sabiji

I don't want to be unfair, but I can still remember discussions here about what chikei actually are – and somehow we couldn't agree on a common denominator. It's completely normal to be able to communicate well with each other when you have roughly the same level of knowledge. But it's not easy to pass on knowledge to learners. It's a very individual thing, and you have to know your students very well in order to help them progress effectively. I need to know what they see and understand, and they need to be able to name it. Otherwise, I might as well be talking to a doorknob (excuse the exaggeration). Of course, a lot also depends on the personal point of view of the “teacher.” Just as an example: here, the advice was given that (o) suriage and mumei are acceptable for blades up to Nanbokucho. Then blades from Kamakura or Nanbokucho, offered by Japanese dealers, are posted here by newbies asking for advice. “Uuuuhh, hands off! Tired, ground down, etc...” Answer: “But why do these blades have Tokubetsu Hozon if they are obviously junk?” The advanced age of the blade and the fact that it still displays many characteristics typical of its school may be the reason for the NBTHK. But for a beginner, this is very confusing. On the one hand, a perfect blade is recommended, but on the other hand, others are able to overlook obvious flaws and appreciate the brilliance of the work in question. And that's not far-fetched. An outstanding work by a very important master was on display in Berlin in May (and still is). And yet I have experienced a disparaging opinion based on its imperfect preservation, and that from someone who has been collecting for more than 40 years. Today, I can only shrug my shoulders, but how would I have understood something like that 30 years ago? I would like to know that myself... My best advice to newcomers: if you want to understand something, you have to question it. Don't expect to be spoon-fed, but develop a healthy urge to explore. Nothing comes from nothing. And if it's just about the financial aspect: don't forget the wakizashi! Here you can find excellent, signed works by well-known smiths, sometimes at a fraction of the price of an average katana. And by the way: there are a number of sword smiths from the early Edo period who produced almost exclusively wakizashi. Others, on the other hand, produced almost exclusively katana, so a wakizashi from a particular sword smith could be considered relatively rare. A wakizashi is therefore nothing to be ashamed of. But you don't have to follow my advice. It's not that important. All the better, because then you can't snatch them away from me...

And one more thing about the “good old days” and how they romanticize things in our memories. As luck would have it, I recently had the opportunity to see two objects again that I had remembered for perhaps more than 25 years. And I was very surprised by my own reaction. On the one hand, I was really bitterly disappointed by a katana in en suite koshirae, which I myself had praised to the skies in my memory. On the other hand, I was able to see again a blade belonging to an old friend, which I had not appreciated at all at the time. Today, for me, it is the best Ko Mihara I have ever held in my hands. Well, let's wait another 25 years. We change too.

I don't want to start again with the old story of how things were 30 years ago and how they are today. Those who have been around long enough know that. But in my subjective experience, the opportunity to engage in a fruitful exchange of knowledge with other serious enthusiasts has improved significantly. There is a high level of willingness to share one's own knowledge, but also to make the objects in one's own collections available to others for study. I think the last NBTHK-EB meeting in Berlin in May this year is a particularly good example of this. I hope that the willingness and commitment of these enthusiasts will spread to many others in the long term. In this respect, things are changing.

Too bad, I'm afraid I know that blade...

It is always advisable to check the Japanese website to see which exhibition is currently on display. This is because when exhibitions change, the museum is always closed for about a week.

I'm not Hoshi, but consider this your homework assignment. Of course, everything depends on the availability of signed and dated works for comparison. And since these are often scarce, it is sometimes impossible and remains in the realm of theory and speculation. Collect all Norinaga Setsumei and Oshigata from past Juyo sessions for study purposes. In the future, take every opportunity that arises to study Norinaga's signed or attributed works with your own eyes. Then, over time, you will go from being someone who asks questions to someone who is asked questions.

That's good! The translations of Setsumei and Tanobe-Sensei Oshigata make things a lot clearer. Incidentally, Tanobe-Sensei does not embellish anything, and I think this Sayagaki makes that clear. As Ray already wrote, the Sayagaki was written considerably before the Juyo Shinsa. The Sayagaki is rather discreet and contains a cautious recommendation to examine the blade more closely so that one will find characteristics of Norinaga in particular. This could be seen as a very diplomatic hint to potential Juyo judges. Writing a sayagaki full of praise (to put it exaggeratedly) makes more sense after passing the Juyo session. Before that, it could be rather counterproductive. As for the setsumei, I agree with Hoshi's comments. You seem to have a very good sword. Study and enjoy it!

Overrated, underrated, significance in relation to other Yamato schools, popularity—these are all market-related questions. As someone interested in Yamato swords and a potential buyer who already owns such a sword, I would be interested to know how my blade ranks in the context of Shikkake in general, and for Shikkake Norinaga in particular. What characteristics lead to an immediate Norinaga attribution, and how does the craftsmanship of my blade compare to other works attributed to Norinaga? And would this particular blade fully meet my expectations and requirements as a Shikkake work, or would it be advisable to wait for a more suitable sword? Passing a 2023 Juyo session for a 64 cm Mumei O-Suriage Shikkake seems to speak for its importance. What does the Setsumei explicitly say? Unfortunately, the PDF for the Sayagaki is no longer available, and Tanobe-Sensei doesn't seem to have written much either. Is there any information available about Tanobe-Sensei's comments in connection with the creation of the Sayagaki? That can sometimes be very interesting and insightful.

Just like the normal design, only the other way round. It must have significantly more curvature when unhardened.

Interesting! I can't promise whether it's a similar situation. But I had a Josun-length tanto, wide and strong and unfortunately unsigned, which was ubu-ba along the entire length of the blade. The edge was certainly 1 millimeter thick. I'm still not sure whether the piece was still Shinshinto or much younger. Since I could not really assign the dagger stylistically to a school of late Shinshinto, I never got rid of the suspicion that it is a work of the early Showa period. The hada is a very dense ko-itame, and the hada is a suguha with ko-choji, ashi and ko-ashi in nioi-deki. The tanto was mounted in a very simple shirasaya and I am sure that the dagger was never sharp, but was deliberately left blunt or ubu-ba. Why? I do not know. But a very experienced friend said that the material thickness on the cutting edge would be an advantage if it was hardened again (at the customer's request?).

You would be doing an injustice to the poor Shinto blades in general. Masahide, Suketaka, Tsunahide, Masashige initially simply followed the trend of demand in the Osaka Shinto style of Tsuda Sukehiro or Terukane. Blades with wide Yakiba and Nie-Deki high-temperature hardening are simply more brittle. Swordsmiths already knew this back then, they weren't stupid either. Take, for example, such Ara-Nie monsters from Mizuta Kunishige or Tameie. They made up for it with material. A mizuta that is not strong and broad across the average is not a good mizuta ;-). Incidentally, mizuta blades were extremely popular with the Ako-Ronin. Or take a look at Satsuma. Masayuki and Motohira were contemporaries of Masahide. Did they follow Masahide's nioi-deki depression? Satsuma, of all people, with her jigen-ryu, which is based on powerful blows? The result is powerful blades with pronounced hamaguri-niku. It's a tactic to promote a product by badmouthing others. That is marketing. In the end, Kiyomaro proved with similar tests and a good portion of bad boy image that (his) Nie-Deki Soshu-Utsushi can withstand more than some Nioi-Deki blades from Masahide students.

The connection between Shintogo Kunimitsu and the Awataguchi school is one theory. The other theory is Kunimitsu's descent from the Taema school. I have to admit that I like the latter better. When I had the honor of holding a Kantei of THE Yukimitsu (Tokubetsu Juyo) in my hands in Berlin in May, Taema inevitably came to mind. However, the blade was a chikei monster, covered all over with needle-sharp chikei, which in turn brought the blade in the direction of soshu. I found it interesting in retrospect that in Junji Homma-sensei's remarks in 1970 about this very blade, Taema also came to mind, at least as far as Sugata and Hamon were concerned.

Well, I obviously made a mistake. I didn't want to start a fundamental discussion about the Mino tradition here. I just wanted to show that there are important reasons for the emergence of certain traditions (or renaissances), which need to be examined. It should have decisive (also distinguishing) characteristics, as well as a fundamental influence on a craft, so that specific characteristics and peculiarities are passed down through generations. In all traditions and renaissances, there are certain schools that have periods of prosperity, which often only maintain a certain level of quality for a few generations and then disappear into insignificance. This can be mirrored in a renaissance such as Shinto. And as others have already written here, it would make sense to divide Shinto into several phases, as each phase is subject to certain conditions and characteristics. Everyone can decide for themselves how they want to divide them up. It may be legitimate to date the beginning of Shinto in textbooks to around 1600. However, if you take a closer look, you cannot avoid including the Momoyama as the actual foundation of Shinto. And that brings us back to the topic. So when it comes to the transition from Koto to Shinto, we should look at the Momoyama period. The consolidation of Shinto is certainly from the Keicho via the Kanei to Meireki/Manji. If you are more fascinated by High Shinto, you should look at Kanbun to Enpo. And if you want to know why Shinto loses its power, you need to look at the period from Genroku and onwards. That's my opinion.

I don't see any tradition in Mino-Den that is qualitatively inferior to the other 4 traditions. Since Mino-Den has its roots in the Nanbokucho, but only really defined itself in the middle Muromachi, it is difficult to compare it with Yamashiro or Bizen. The emergence of the individual gokads is based on certain cultural, economic and political backgrounds and are products of their time. They are reflected in the stereotypical demands of the clientele, such as Yamashiro = court nobility, Bizen = warrior nobility, Yamato = the Buddhist monasteries' claim to worldly power. All three of these social pillars were also the largest landowners in the Kamakura period. (Although originally only the tenno owned land. But the tide was already turning in the middle of the Heian period to the disadvantage of the imperial court). But these shifts in power are the reason for the emergence of traditions such as Bizen and Yamato. The emergence of the Mino is a reaction to an impending conflict between Go-Daigo and the supporting warrior clans against the Kamakura Bakufu (Kemmu Restoration) and an immediately following “counter-revolution” by Ashikaga Takauji, which led to the Nanbokucho conflict. Who knows, if the Southern Court had gone somewhere else, and another province had proved to be more strategically ideal, there might have been an Ettchu-Den, or Echizen-Den. Shinto itself is a renaissance of existing gokaden, especially the soshu-den. The cultural epicenter of Kyoto is crucial for this, as is the fact that the soshu-den was particularly popular under Toyotomi Hideyoshi and the Honami. This renaissance began in the Momoyama period. Renaissances of certain styles had already occurred before: Bungo Takada copied Bizen and Aoe, the Chikuzen Nobukuni Bizen, Kanabo, as a true Yamato blacksmith, worked more in the Bizen style, etc. However, during the Momoyama period, Kyoto was the benchmark in all areas of art and crafts, such as fashion, painting, ceramics, literature, tea ceremony, but also kodogu and swords. Some lords sent their swordsmiths directly to Kyoto (Horikawa, Mishina), while others were satisfied with their Smiths learning from the students of the Horikawa or Mishina masters. For others, it was enough that their swordsmiths at least drew inspiration and jumped on the stylistic bandwagon. What is truly typical of Shinto, the "standardization of characteristics" already mentioned here—the development of Shinto tokuden—only appears in the following generation of swordsmiths. A notable difference between shodai and nidai is often a much denser kitae. Kunisada and Kunisuke, for example, were a link in this effect. They are actually considered Horikawa students, but they were too young for that; they were more likely students of Horikawa Kunitomo. The hada of their blades soon no longer exhibited typical Horikawa characteristics. But the same applies to the following generations of Mishina smiths. The Momoyama-Periode-smith, Wakasa kami Ujifusa, often still displays an extremely Minoesque hada with plenty of nagare. His son, Hida Kami, already knits his hada much more tightly. And Sandai Bizen kami, with his ko-itame, is fully in line with the trend of the High Shinto period. From the Kanbun period onwards, one can find a dense ko-itame in Kyoto, Osaka, Edo, Owari, Echizen, and so on, as well as a hamon that is essentially based on Nie.

The position of the signature is interesting. I think the blade is much older. Since I am more closely involved with Mino-Den, I can at least say that this peculiarity of positioning Mei over the Nakago-Ana in Mino at Uchigatana is more common in the second half of the 15th century. I once owned a katate uchigatana with this feature and a date from the Bunmei era (1469-87).

This is far too complex a topic to be dealt with simply. The Koto-Shinto transition, however, is directly related to the artistic, cultural, and aesthetic "pressure wave" with Kyoto as its epicenter from the Tensho onward. Art was produced in many areas for a new elite interested in artistic and aesthetics. Utsushi of the Soshu-Den style was very popular for blades. Schools like the Horikawa and early Mishina set the tone for a swordsmithing renaissance, which soon spilled over into the wealthy trading city of Osaka. I believe that what would later be considered significant for the Shinto character was first developed here in Osaka. Everything else, of course, is also subject to the economic/social developments up to the Genroku period. But this differs fundamentally from the period around 1600. But that is again a very complex topic. Only the term "economic boom" during the Kanbun period makes me chuckle. What economy?

Without question, this blade has already lost some material, but it will also have been quite slender in its origin. The ryumon has a high shinogi, the motokasane specification only says something about the strength of the blade to a limited extent.

Looks like a Tobiyaki to me. You can see it on both sides. On one side like a stain, on the other like a tama.

somewhat abbreviated: 1-12-9 Yokoami, Sumida-ku, 130-0015 Tokyo

If the rest of DEN Kunizane is exactly the same as in the photos, my decision would be absolutely clear...

A complete photo of the entire blade and nagako would be essential to evaluate the sugata. It is difficult to draw conclusions from photos of small sections alone. It could be a sue-koto blade. Finding tanto in a reasonably healthy condition is not so easy. If the nakago is ubu, but the blade seems to have lost some material through polishing, there may be difficulties with the habaki and the material thickness of the nakago. For me, the “hada anomalies” are possibly due to unclean or too cold welds, and thus simply rough weld seams. Within the “weld seam islands” there are no structural changes or color differences caused by material with different carbon content, i.e. Shingane. That's why it doesn't look like tsukare to me. The little bit of Nioiguchi that I can recognize looks very Shimari and looks like very compressed Nioi. The hada also looks quite dense. That's not really typical of sue mino, even though it can be common: Kanabo, Sue Mihara, Bungo...you'd have to see more for that. The repair of the nakago ana is not unusual. This is often done with copper or sometimes with iron. It's hard to tell from the photos what kind of material it is. It looks a bit like lead.

There will be another study evening at the museum in July on the subject of the two great yet contrasting characters Kiyomaro and Munetsugu. But I will try to see how the sword was displayed and described before that. It's always easy to throw around superlatives, but the past Berlin NBTHK-EB meeting can be described as exceptional simply by the number of juyo and tokubetsu juyo on display (11 juyo and 5 tokubetsu juyo out of a total of 23 blades on show - if my memory is correct).

Katakiriba. One side is Shinogi-zukuri, the other side is Kiriba-Zukuri. This is quite common in early Shinto blades, especially Nanbokucho-Utsushi. The best known are the Sadamune copies of Sho- and Nidai Yasutsugu in this design.

9 sun 2 bu according to the Hozon's length specification, i.e. approx. 28.00 cm. I wouldn't have thought so, the tanto looks smaller from the photos...

It is very possible that the damage occurred during transportation. I wouldn't write it if it hadn't happened to me. A few years ago, I bought a katana from a US sword dealer who is beyond reproach here. The tip of the kissaki was broken off by 3 mm when I unpacked the sword at customs in my home town. The kissaki was intact in the sales photos, as was the shipping packaging when I collected the sword from customs. However, the package had already been opened once by customs, namely when the package arrived at the destination airport in Frankfurt/Main. So if the seller is absolutely trustworthy, the tip was intact when packed, then damaged when unpacked, but the package was intact, there is not much left... Apart from that, I have already discovered fingerprints when I received another blade that would never have been sent to me by a Japanese dealer. And I'm not talking about ebay here. @MaxT, that doesn't necessarily apply in your particular case, but you can never rule it out completely.