seattle1

Hello: Excellent Moriyama san! I had heard it "might" be Showa 26 or 27, but this is the first substantive actual document I have seen. I had been curious as I had heard that in the first year priority was given to Temple, Shrine and former Daimyo family collections. Thank you. Arnold F.

Hello: By agreement of the San Francisco Treaty the US Occupation of Japan effectively ended on April 28, 1952. Swords were registered, doubtless by domestic initiative, either somewhat before or starting that year, which was Showa 27. Many swords were to be registered but not all swords were registered during the first year; rather they were invited or required to be presented according to Government selective criteria. I am curious about the criteria and about the year. I have not been able to get this information from open research sources or from anyone who might know for certain. I have been told 26 or 27, but the reporter of even that information was quite unsure. Does anyone know about these things? Thank you. Arnold F.

Hello David: I'll do both by PM later this weekend when I have a moment. Arnold F.

Hello David: It would be very interesting if you were to send good front and back photographs (he is not on the net) to Bob Haynes and ask his opinion of your new Nobuiye, and then let us know his response. Arnold F.

Hello: Thank you Peter!!! I have the catalog, but most of the images are new. Looking at that material from 50 years ago should remind us that what we know today of swords and tosogu wasn't discovered just yesterday. Arnold F.

Hello: I believe that it can be too casually dismissed that the blade might not be either o-suriage or that it has had a mei removed. I continue to be spooked by such chances in situations like this after having read, multiple times, Nobuo Nakahara. Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords: A Collector's Guide, trans. by Paul Martin (Kodansha International. 2000). The blade looks too nice overall not to have been signed. Arnold F.

Hello Andres G.: It is an interesting thread that you have prompted. At one level, a very unhelpful one, an answer might simply say it is all in supply and demand. What you are asking is really and primarily for the deconstruction of the supply side, and some of the helpful posts illicited touch on many of its elements. A feeling for the nature and weight of those variables will only come with time, and getting to shows and having contact with honest and helpful dealers and other collectors will be extremely useful to you. You just don't have your "sea legs" as yet. The Orlando show that followed the Tampa show was about a month ago, and depending on where you are, the SF show is coming up Aug. 1-3. If you are on the East Coast Bill Green, the promoter of the Tampa show, is having one in Philadelphia Oct.17-19 at a convenient airport location. Good luck and keep asking those dogged questions. Arnold F.

Hello: Does anyone have information about cost differences between sashi-komi and hadori togi? Arnold F.

Hello: One last comment in response to Robert S's post, and just by way of clarification. By no means was I suggesting anything other than a sort of after the fact and after the shinsa teams decision more detailed explanation for the rejection of a blade, in most situations probably only arising in the case of a mei judged to be wrong. By all means the shinsa process should be at arms length. The issue of multiple submissions is an entirely different thing. When that happens it is usually on a mu mei blade and simply because the rejection was not specified as to rationale. Sometimes that can work wonders: I knew a collector who submitted a mu mei that was first judged as gendaito, another shinsa placed it in the Shinto era, and finally the NBTHK called it, Shikkake, I believe, and awarded Juyo Token to it. Needless to say my friend was both delighted and highly distrustful of the who shinsa process, with the delight probably outweighing the distrust! Arnold F.

Hello: In response to Chris Bowen's post above I do believe that I know that kantei guessing contests don't issue papers, and shinsa do not invite the blade's owner to be brought into a rationalization process about why or why not it is or isn't it "x". I thought I was suggesting something different and value adding. I know that sometimes if a blade fails, particularly a signed blade, an alternative call might be noted, but what is not noted is just why "x" failed. Of course I exclude the situation where it is saiba, too badly flawed, over polished and the like. Sometimes shinsa organizers say that a question can be asked, but there is hardly time for much of that under existing time constraints or situational attendance. For those interested an additional charge for one on one discussion could be very educational. It is just a suggestion. Arnold F.

Hello: Well said Peter, particularly the last sentence of the last paragraph. So many blades go to shinsa with just the question in mind: "Who made it?" The answer comes along saying the mei is right, or if mu mei that it is so and so; if wrong there will often be an notation for a signed blade that it is perhaps made by someone or the other. I would like to see a process, with a higher fee to cover the extra time required, that says why it is "x" if "x" is the mei, and if not "x" then why exactly it should be "y" instead. If "x" is submitted and it is "x" the descriptive information is just that "descriptive" and does not address the why, which is critical to learning. With regard to the above a sayagaki these days by a master scholar, such as Tanobe san for example, will often address some of those issues directly and at some length, and of course in the extreme case, the Juyo document will tend to go even further. Arnold F.

Hello Ron: Well so I've heard, but I didn't think the question was quite that simple. I would be willing to bet that some smiths simply did not make blades for members of the merchant class. It is easy to speculate why certain groups probably only made for the samurai, or predominately for the samurai, but I am sure(guessing only) that some never made blades for merchants, and some predominately for merchants. Does anyone know what rules might have guided those practices or have any information on the distribution? Arnold F.

Hello: While the carrying of more than one blade goes back to very early times, we all know that by the late Momoyama and into early Edo times the carrying of two swords, one a wakizashi and the other a katana in matching, or at least highly complementary koshirae, became the badge of the samurai, indeed a requirement of that social group. We also know that swordsmiths of various recognized levels of skill made many wakizashi for the daisho set, sometimes both the long and the short sword, perhaps even carrying the same date. We also know that during the early Edo period, merchants and a few selected others, were allowed to carry wakizashi length blades. I would like to know if anyone knows how the distribution of the more highly rated smiths, say Jo saku and above, would be divided between samurai clients and merchant clients, or if not the distribution, then did any rules govern for whom a smith might make or not make a blade? I would guess that smiths who worked for a particular Daimyo, like the Hizen, would have their work, or example, going only to the Nabeshima; those working in Tokugawa strongholds like Edo, Nagoya and Mito, would work for samurai, but there were rich merchants there as well. Those in Kyoto, such as the Horikawa and Mishina, might work for the extended Royal family or wealthy merchants. Osaka smiths would probably have a large merchant clientele. Perhaps lower rated smiths took the lion's share of merchant work, but we know that superb wakizashi were made for samurai and for merchants. What determined the distribution? Idea/data anyone? Arnold F.

Hello: Well as I said in my first post further above on this topic, while the issue of cleaning blades keeps circling around, there is an opportunity to actually do some empirical data gathering and comparing on the topic, but as far as I know it has never been done and published in English, though perhaps something has been published data in Japanese. Short of that, all we have is anecdote, and I offered mine. You say that using Bob Benson's uchiko you could "...hear the stones running on the blade surface..." I cannot say you didn't, but consider that an observation that must be very unique. Bob has written up the very long and laborious process he uses to make the uchiko, and I am sure he would find your report of real interest. I wonder if he is on the NMB? Arnold F.

Hello: There will never be agreement on this general topic. I tried to say, and to repeat, use oil (the right kind) under very limited conditions unless in a geographic area of high humidity and/or quick humidity changes. I use the very best uchiko (Bob Benson's) and no more than once or twice a year, apply it gently and lightly, and remove in the correct way (see below), and I have never had any problem. Whether it enhances the polish or merely maintains it, I do not know, but in my opinion it does no harm. If uchiko is used, one wipe per tissue only, the tissue used with light applied finger pressure, up the axis of the blade, not starting from the nakago, and only from a grit free surface under the habaki. When the yokote is reached adjust the angle of held tissue to the new implicit axis of the kissaki. Never reuse or reverse the stroke of the tissue under any circumstances. If the stroke is reversed and/or finger pressure is heavy, you might as well use fish hooks. This is what I do; to each his own. Arnold F.

Hello: Schrecklich!!! Whatever they are, fake, reproduction or genuine mei, they could not possibly be considered to be tsuba! What auction is offering such things? Arnold F.

Hello: The topic of what "oil" to use and what should be used to remove it has spun around and around for years. It would be interesting to see some sort of a controlled experiment using a control and experimental group (anybody need a MS thesis topic?), but that might be asking too much. From experience I can only say I have used nothing but uchiko on all blades, the best uchiko I can find, coming from sources like Bob Benson, and used it very sparingly, generally on just acquired blades that have been oiled or on just polished blades for a short length of weeks. As for "oil" watch out as it is hard to know what you are getting. For certain don't ask a pharmacist for clove oil or ruination will follow quickly as it has a relatively high proportion of water. I use the most expensive clove oil from Japan that I can find, and trust to luck. I suspect that much of it is transmission fluid with scent added. If you can find it read Choji Oil Expose by Andrew Cameron, Tanren Kai, the Iaido Newsletter. He reports on chromatogram runs of drug store clove, then a very different graph from a run of Japanese sword oil, as one would expect, then a run of new transmission fluid, and except for some "minor fractal spike" differences, the profiles of the latter two looked very similar. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but it does make me wonder what clove oil sold for swords really is. The study was done in 1993 and the NL seems to carry 6/3 (43) as an identifier on the one page I have. As for the wiping material I use only unscented and unenhanced with lotion Kleenex, but even that must be viewed with caution. I cannot recall where I saw it, perhaps a publication the British To-ken Kai (???), but one article did an analysis of the actual micro content of various tissues, and the amount of what seemed to be abrasive type things found in the paper was surprising to say the least. That rough paper that comes in the small sword kit boxes was off the scale bad -- if memory serves. At the very least do not apply much finger pressure with any of that stuff. I have no idea about the micro fibers. Finally, unless you live in a climate with very high humidity or rapid changes in humidity, I wonder why one would oil a blade at all? If you must, apply with a small piece of flannel (I think that is what those little plastic boxes in the kits is supposed to store) as that tends to reduce beading effects, but unless the blade is just back from polish, what is the gain? Uchiko a couple of times a year should be enough by itself. Arnold F.

Hello: I do not believe it is fair or proper to use this thread, which asked a question about polishing, to introduce the aside of papering a tsuba through Bob Benson or issues related to his agent/helper in Japan. Bob and several skilled people who have worked under his direction in Honolulu do extraordinarily good work, and if one wishes he can send a blade to Japan for you and arrange for every service it might need.The seems to me to be the information sought in the initial interrogative! That is not to say that others cannot polish well here or act as an agent; I only raised Benson based on personal and favorable knowledge about his services, and the same thing goes for Jimmy Hayashi. Arnold F.

Hello: I know nothing of that organization or the persons involved, but it is untrue that there are no skilled polishers in the USA. Jimmy Hayashi in San Francisco completed an entire apprentice training in Japan, and there is a similarly trained man in British Columbia. I do not know the particulars of the training of the BC man, but in the Newsletter of the JSS/US, Vo. 31, No's 4-5-6 I published a ten page interview with Jimmy about his background, training (he was admitted at a trainee by the good offices of the late Dr. Sato), and his polishing experiences in Japan. There are other excellent polishers in the US even though they may not have a full formal student training in Japan. Bob Benson stands foremost and is the only other one I can mention by name and from experience, however there are others who are also very good and very cautious and conscious of what they are doing, so ask around. Another source of top quality polishing is of course to send the blade to Japan; again ask around. At the other extreme are entirely unqualified folks, the worst of which use sandpaper! So again be careful and ask around. I would advise using no one without the endorsement of an experienced collector. Arnold F.

Hello: Many interesting suggestions have been made and who can say that any are without some merit. It seems to me that what we don't need is any more fleshing out of the standard "shop manual" type books as most of us will have them all and what one might be light on another might be covering in more detail. I also don't think we need any further elucidation of on the great comprehensive studies such as Koza, except of course for the volumes Harry Watson has not done, and of course we have Fujishiro, as sketchy as it is, already done by Watson. Post 1876 swords are begging. The Boston Museum monograph on the Gassan's visit is great, Wallinga's monograph on the Minatogawa probably has no equal in Japanese to translate, but a lot of other smiths are uncovered. We should remember though that there are sheep and there are goats and that issue comes up with casual use of "gendaito". Chris Bowen promises something on the most important gendai, but after 1945 it is shinsakuto time, about which there is some stuff out in English, but the who is to be of lasting worth area is very fluid and it will take years to imagine an even approximate rank ordering between them. Kantei: well we look forward to more of your excellent translations Markus, and some such are already done additionally and selectively in the two journals of the NTHK and NTHK (NPO). What I would like to see are some of the works of Dr. Fukunaga translated, which I believe Tom Helm mentioned, as well as some of the long textual studies of Drs. Homma and Sato. To add to that I would add a selection of some of the articles, which seem "scholarly" to this non-Japanese reader that appear in Token Bijutsu and the two Token to Rekishi journals. Some deal at great length with locations, events, well known and less well know smiths, but what on earth are they saying??? Finally I would like to see what the Japanese have written about their great collections and collectors, what they think in prose makes a great sword or smith, where their world of collecting appreciation is going, in Japan and elsewhere - you know, insider stuff, the real skinney that we never seem to get much information on - I suppose because we are not "insiders." Just thinking out loud. Arnold F.

Hello: Interesting question! If the horimono is of good initial quality, as one would expect on a quality sword, reduction that has occurred through time by polishing will continue to leave a pleasing horimono, down to the last vestiges. However if the owner goes ahead the outcome might be value subtracting rather than adding. At some point most swords worth having will find their way to shinsa and a re-done horimono might be viewed as an atoh-bori, usually leading to lower points, and it might limit the level of a paper awarded. Using the NBTHK system, Hozon rather than Tokubetsu Hozan, Tokubetsu Hozon rather than Juyo, Juyo rather than T. Juyo. If one has a good sword at least consider the trade-offs. It could go either way, but the owner would really have to bank on a lot of aesthetic gain for himself personally, to discount the risks. If it is done after a paper is awarded, it could dilute the validity of the paper. Arnold F.

Thanks for the tip Brian; done. Arnold F.

Hello: Haste does make waste, or at least incomprehensible sentences! In my post above, the third line from the bottom of the last paragraph should have read: "different attribution is substantially at variance with the quality standing of Masamori. For all shinsa ..." Arnold F.

Hello: Chris Bowen gave you one major reason, in response to your question about an attribution of Den Kai Mihara Masamori on your mu mei blade, particularly "...why the judges believe it was a specific smith?", even if one assumed they actually did. Namely the purpose of a shinsa is not an exercise in inductive rationalization, and if it were the time involved would make shinsa as we know them impossibly long. The provision of such a rationale is the denouementof a classic kantei contest, not a shinsa. I believe a second important reason is that the judges, no matter how exaltant they might be, might be unable to do it at all with any high degree of certainty. There is a statement in the translated literature by perhaps the foremost sword scholar of modern times, Homma Junji (1904-1991), that no one knows who made any mu mei sword. Sometimes that is expressed as only the smith, the man who shortened it and God, really know. That does not mean that attributions are random guesses or vexatious shots in the dark, quite the contrary. The judge will quickly determine the period of manufacture, the tradition the sword is made in, hopefully the school, and they will carefully observe for kizu. Once those issues are dealt with the judge will have a good feeling for overall quality. That impression might, on qualitative and informational grounds, lead to a judgement such as just Mihara, a closer feeling might yield Ko Mihara, or Sue Mihara, and among the Sue there are options, one of which is Kai, and in that group there are, as you say, various smiths. Unless Masamori has some very well know trait that is quite unique to him, you cannot think that the judge actually meant him to the exclusion of all others. The mention of a particular smith is really a reward judgment expressing a fairly high qualitative assessment. The judge could have stopped just at Mihara alone, or even some lesser group within the broad group of which Mihara is a part, namely smiths who exhibit, broadly speaking, some substantial Yamato characteristics. I suspect that in cases such as the one you bring up, that there is some correlation between the specificity of the designation, e.g., Masamori, and the value of the points awarded. As Chris says the detailed rationale cannot be practically provided, however the attribution received is a narrow channeling into the company of a pretty good group of smiths during a narrow interval of time. Congratulations! While shinsa make unintentional mistakes, and the skill of all judges is not the same, it is really an amazing and fascinating process. If you submit your sword to another shinsa, perhaps even conducted by the same judges, do not be surprised if you get another and different attribution; however be surprised if the qualitative ranking of a different attribution is substantially at variance with the implicit quality level of your sword at the first go around. For all shinsa, irrespective of the paper level, you should expect a substantial dollar value difference for an attribution vs. a confirmed mei of the same man, as the former has to deal with so many unknowns in arriving at any attribution. Arnold F.

Hello: In that I think my mention of Kantei was the observation that somewhat redirected the theme of this thread; perhaps I could be allowed one more post on the topic. Kantei sessions have come and gone in the US, both at major shows and not always under the aegis of the NBTHK - AB, and at other locations. Some of them have followed the Japanese style of Kantei very closely, and others have been more informal, perhaps fitting the limitations of the situation and group at hand. Barry Hennick mentioned the sessions held by the Rochester Study Group. Those sessions started in March of 1993 and were dedicated to the memory of Allan Pressley, the founder of that group. Those sessions, which continued until a few years ago, were very much in the model of the Japanese kantei nyusatsu, lit. "bid for judging," and were done in the fashion found in Nagayama Kokan, To-ken Kantei Dokuhon, translated by Kenji Mishina. Contestants were initially individuals, later, as Barry says, small competitive groups, guesses were made in writing and in three rounds, first, second and third place winners were designated. The idea was to name the smith right on the button, and a correct guess got Atari. Atari Dozen was a lower valued score indicating that the miss might be between teacher and student, father or son, older or younger brother, etc. Less valued yet would be recognition of at least the correct province and period, Kuni Iri, and so forth down the list of increasing error in the guess. The role of the judge, the hanja, usually filled by Chris Sly and Jeffrey Wang, was to give helpful clues at each round so that the contestant could make a closer guess in the next round. That Rochester Study Group system worked just great. At the final unraveling the test sword owners would discuss their blades, all of which would be papered examples, and show how a correct inference as to maker could have be reached in the first round. A detailed discussion of one of these sessions can be found in the Newsletter of the JSS/US, Vol. 35, No. 2 (April, 2003), pp.8-21. Those were great learning sessions and lots of fun for all. The other sort of Kantei that has and does take place in America is the sort referred to by several posters. I believe those sessions even antedated the current ones run by the NBTHK - AB, but they are alike and are also highly educational. The first that I recall at national shows was where blades were laid out for examination and viewers were invited to make a guess, just one guess, as to the makers of the displayed blades. Michael Hagenbusch, in his masterful and somewhat loquacious way, acting as the demonstrator of who made which blades, would select a "guess slip" from the collected pile and then focus in on the guess and the intended blade. Michael's fund of knowledge and its extremely discriminating elaboration of a particular smith or school was something to behold. Groups were large and time constraints tight, so the stricter and longer system used in Japan and by the Rochester simply would not have been practical, but the end result was the same: a terrific amount of learning. In more recent years the NBTHK - AB would carry on this more "free style" sort of Kantei to equally good effect. I have only had an opportunity to attend a few and in those Bob Benson demonstrated an equal ability to unravel the puzzle of who made what. No particular winner is designated, but all attending "win" in another sense Either of the systems discussed above can be run at any show or local club. The style done at Rochester fitted a group of a dozen or so just fine; obviously for large show group, the current NBTHK - AB system is more efficient. Arnold F.