seattle1

Hello: Without commenting on price, I would only add that nanako on iron is unusual, however you should ask the question "is the piece an older piece, as the apparent signs of age indicate, with the nunome added at a latter date, and is such decoration appropriate if part of it is under the seppa on a mounted sword?" Arnold F.

Hello: Aoi-Art has a considerable track record in dealing with foreign buyers and is a reliable and trustworthy dealer as far as I know. They are happy to supply information when asked, particularly when one is dealing with Tsuruta san. I agree with Mariusz that the consideration might hinge more on the fact that it is suriage rather than the kizu. It is a good length even though suriage, though to my eye the classic Kanbun shape of the era isn't particularly well shown. That it is Tokubetsu Kicho provides an interesting illustration of how the standard did change somewhat between those days and the more modern Tokubetsu Hozon and Hozon criteria. For the latter check Danny Massey's site, nihontocraft.com, and go to Articles and NBTHK Shinsa Standards. When that was initially translated and printed it had the approval of Mr. Tanobe so it can be considered accurate. It seems to me that the sword under consideration would not meet the current Tokubetsu Hozon criteria. While we can all be smitten by a particular sword, criteria notwithstanding, it is helpful to have some choice criteria. There is nothing wrong with collecting suriage Shinto blades though the price should incorporate not just the suriage aspect but the degree of additional uncertainty that such things introduce. Arnold F.

Hello: I am sure there will be many replies to the question, but here are a few tips that might be useful. Mizukage, the starting of what looks like looks like straight line utsuri, but fads out quickly, from the ha-machi at about a 45 degree angle on an ubu blade, is the classic sign. However Horikawa blades in general may and those of his top student, Dewa Daijo Kunimichi, will usually, have that trait. Thus it is not always a flaw. Also it is common to see what looks like the start of mizukage on old Bizen blades that do have utsuri, however in that case the utsuri will continue normally up the blade and what is seen is not saiba. Utsuri itself starts somewhere. General things to watch out for are temperlines that are unnaturally wide on old and much polished blades, discontinuities in the nioiguchi or spots that can be functions of lost clay in the retemper process. Retempered blades, if they are suriage, will have the hamon coming from the ha-machi, or the nakago will be unsually free from rust from it having flaked off during the process, or it will be too blue in color. The blade will tend to look dry and too bright. Look for hamon in the boshi for if in good shape elsewhere it should also look clear in the boshi which is a challenging area for the saiba process. Watch out for a blade with too much sori for its age or function. It may just be my imagination but retempered blades seem rather heavy, tip heavy, but so do shinshinto, so that could be misleading. Also watch for saiba in selective places, though that is even harder to disguise, for example in replacing an entire boshi where the kissaki may have broken off. Many Japanese blades have been damaged by fire and I suspect there are more retempered blades out there than we imagine, and like all things having to do with swords there are both good and poor craftsmen, and some saiba are very well done. I know of one case where the NBTHK knowingly papered a koto saiba of an excellent smith, and I am sure there are more. While most collectors wouldn't knowingly want a saiba blade, for others it might be seen differently if the blade is still in keeping with the style and character of the original and its condition taken into consideration on the price. These are only a few things to consider. Arnold F.

Hello: The question asked about school or period, and then the "conversation" quickly got into the elements of taste and workmanship, which of course are equally interesting. From the size, particularly the thickness of the seppa-dai, and the presence of two ryo-hitsu, it seems early Edo, perhaps late 17th Cent., and possibly Mito or some provincial Shoami. It could have been for a daisho set, they becoming a requirement for samurai by then, and clearly it is a Buddhist theme of a female smooth dragon chasing a tama. The subject of workmanship has several dimensions, the depiction, skill with the chisel, and so forth. I would say that the chisel skill is rather poor. Sometimes such workmanship is an attempt to seem "artless" and spontaneous; here I think it is just ineptness. For many tsuba "workmanship" is not a major consideration, aside of course for the necessary functional qualities all true tsuba must have, and the theme shown and its aesthetic nature is the main issue. The theme here is highly conventionalized and rather unimaginative, so I would give it a low mark on that basis too. Of course in all these matters assessment is in the eye of the beholder, and no absolute judgements can be laid down. I don't believe the piece is "dock work"; it is a functional piece meeting the needs of the day and some journeyman samurai pocket book. Arnold F.

Hello: With all due respect to Mr. Chan, I find it strange that Gassan Sadakazu is dismissed as not being the first gendai Juyo recipient, and referred to as shinshinto. It is certainly true that he lived in that era, having been born in 1836; however he lived until 1918, that being during the Taisho era. Some people would call any smith working during the Meiji era a gendai smith, that era beginning in 1868. A stricter starting point might be the date of the sword wearing prohibition, the Haitorei of 1876. For the former, Sadakazu was 32, for the latter he was 40. He was designated Teishitsu Gigei-In in 1906, that award being for the continuation of the sword making tradition after 1876 and for his superb workmanship. The Juyo I mentioned above was made in 1908, 30 years after the Haitorei. The majority of his life 50 years, was lived after Meiji became Emperor. It might also be relevant that the Juyo made blade was a blade made rather late in his life. If those numbers make him a shinshinto and not a gendaito smith, so be it. Arnold F.

Hello: I would guess that the making of an armor is a much more of a group task, co-ordinated by the designated katchu-shi master, than is the making of any sword or tsuba. An individual might make the plates, many of them at a time, perhaps not always of a standard width, for assembly of helmets of different base diameters by other craftsmen, which would call for different numbers of plates. Of course a given helmet might be downsized after manufacture to fit a smaller head!? Just guessing of course. Arnold F.

Hello: Just looking through my Juyo Index (NBTHK, Heisei 11 (1999)), which I should have done sooner, shows on p.78 of the post-koto volume that Gassan Sadakazu had a wakizashi, 45.6 cm, dated Meiji 41 (1908), 3rd. month, a day, awarded Juyo Token status. That was two years after he and Suguwara Kanenori were designated Teisitsu Gigei-In status by Emperor Meiji. That is generally acknowledged as equivalent to the post-war so-called Living National Treasure status. The Sadakazu was designated Showa 46 (1971), 6,1. I do not have a copy of the Juyo volume for that year, and I haven't found the blade in any taikan I have. Could it have come from overseas? There might be other gendai awarded blades since 1999. Arnold F.

Hello: This discussion of Juyo for a gendai smith started in May and was continued today by a post from Mr. Chan. I thought I had better reread it all and in so doing I discovered an embarrassing error in my earlier post which I must correct. I had said that one must be dead to receive a Juyo designation and that that rule is sometimes violated by the NBTHK. Perhaps the error was so obviously wrong that nobody commented, anyway what I meant to say is that a smith must be deceased to receive any paper. I am sure that no Juyo would be awarded were that not so, but living smiths - at least one - was awarded an NBTHK paper while still living. I don't think that is done as a rule; perhaps Chris Bowen could confirm or correct. That smith is Kotani Yasunori who has been mentioned several times in this thread. He was Kotani Kenzo, nephew of Kajiyama Yasunori and cousin of Kajiyama Yasutoshi. He was born in Hiroshima, Meiji 42 and passed away in Kure City, Hiroshima Prefecture, March 1, 2003. He initially made blades signed Kenzo and became Kotani Yasunori when receiving the 4th certificate as a smith at the Yasukuni Jinja, July 1, 1935. He received that name from the Minister of War, Hayashi Senjuro, and he made about 1,600 at the Jinja. The paper awarded was issued as a Hozon Token, #305763, Showa 61 (1986). I would have thought the Kenzo name would be known to the NBTHK. I believe Chris Bowen has had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with Yasunori while living in Japan. Arnold F.

Hello: Originally the thread was the issue of uchiko and after reading a lot of skepticism about its use I asked Bob Benson for his opinion. As everyone probably knows, Bob has polished swords for decades, is one of the very top professional polishers in the US, has almost certainly polished more swords than anyone in the US, and, yes, makes and sells uchiko. His reply, which I quote in part, follows: "Uchiko is actually the final act in polishing. Very clean uchiko when used properly is the way to go. There are many that have a varied idea of how to maintain their swords. Some people don't want oil used on their swords, some people use lighter fluid to clean them, a lot of people want the blade stored without oil. Most collectors use too much pressure when wiping off the uchiko. They forget that it is made from a stone and when I only use the powder that is suspended in the water after sitting for several minutes it can also make small hike or sun bursts when used improperly. In the last 5 years I have been teaching to only tap it on the mune and let the powder fall down on the sides of the sword then wipe it off gently with kleenex." (chalk one up for Barry) He goes on to talk about the uchiko he has recently made, half of which sold in San Francisco, and that the ones he makes now are "very heavy with the powder and would last 10 years." I believe that the "...uchiko ... is the way to go" says it all, at least for informed and expert opinion. Benson surely makes no profit making and selling uchiko; they are intended for the care of top swords. Arnold F.

Hello: Mr. Chan, are you sure that the uchiko was made by Bob Benson? That could make quite a difference! Arnold F.

Hello: Interesting issue Barry! As consumers we are sort of Lemming-like in the consumption cascades that follow new products; witness all the electronics toys folks rush to buy, and even the humble microfiber cloth doesn't get exempted. I would rank them right up there with that awful coarse Japanese paper found in "sword care kits". It must be a magnet for abrasives after very little use. I believe the right uchiko, used infrequently and properly, e.g., by never reversing a stroke, is best for a blade and not damaging to it. I think it helps set a new polish and is harmless if used correctly. I do not think the mune striking method, if used alone, is sufficient to distribute the uchiko uniformly. The key is getting the correct uchiko. I have some prepared by the Hawaii based togi-shi Bob Benson, and they are excellent. With them came a multi-page discussion of the time consuming and pains taking method of manufacture. One stand out clue to good uchiko is that the pom , at least initially, be heavy in comparision with those cheap ones in the boxes. While Bob does not mention it, I believe it is wise not to hit the pom hard on the blade as is so often seen done by the sword tengu at the shows. While I am no physicist I would imagine that the g forces are substantial and if anything will abrade the steel surface and will leave an impression, only to be magnified by repeated use of that practice. Finally, if you use oil, get the very best. A few years ago I saw a report on the chemical analysis of "sword choji oil", and it was usually transmission fluid. That might be okay, but it just doesn't seem right. I also saw a study of the inclusions found in common Kleenex type tissue as manufactured. I do use it but do not remove the uchiko with strong finger pressure. Arnold F.

Hello: Thanks for posting the tsuba from Token Bijutsu #679, which I take to be a Juyo piece, but the text might be read as "similar to the Juyo", I am not sure, but I will assume it is Juyo. I don't have a copy to check. You invite discussion, so here goes. First, if the information was available it would be so helpful to have the dimensions included, in millimeters, including both the seppa-dai thickness and the mimi thickness. That might not have been in the journal. I am very surprised to find such an example called Juyo, and here is why. It appears as if the gorintoh is the original ko-sukashi element, with everything else other than the nakago-ana, added. Assuming it was carried on an uchigatana by a lower level samurai the placement of the gorintoh is appropriate and pleasing. Such samurai would not normally have had accommodations in their koshirae for a kodzuka, so that seems to have been added and at one time awkwardly enlarged. The monkey-like figures, sometimes referred to a Dharma dolls, look awkward. If dolls the idea is that they would wobble if pushed and then return to an upright position; who knows what these would do. The snowflake, if it is that, adds nothing that I can figure out, except possibly to accompany those small Japanese monkeys as that theme is common in life and painting, if indeed they are monkeys. That would make some sense as winter and snow might be complementary to the lonely gorintoh. In any event everything on the left looks cluttered and added. The excerpt speaks of katchushi as armor makers who did tsuba for a sideline. If you will check with the Ogawa Morihiro catalogue done for the Met show of a few years ago (2009) you will see the economic organization of armor making discussed by Ikeda Hiroshi, wherein he says that the man titled "katchu-shi" was the lead craftsman responsible for directing others in the making and assembly of the product, p. 42. It sounds as if that important person was like the master craftsman in the cottage industry system of England during the time of before and during the early Industrial Revolution. I doubt such a person would be crafting tsuba. Our entire understanding of ko-toshi and ko-katchushi makers is highly speculative; perhaps the division of terms is less useful than the efforts that have gone into defining the division, but that is another thread. Given the popularity in recent years of both ko-tosho and ko-katchushi, their scarcity and cost, one can imagine how expensive one designated Juyo would be. For the thousands involved I believe one could do much better than the illustrated example discussed at a major US show or even the Dai Token Ichi. Our Chinese friends haven't missed the market shift, so be careful; if the box contains fortune cookie residue, watch out! Just may 2 cents worth. Arnold F.

Hello: Thank you Kunitaro san for the post about the NBTHK papers and their meaning with respect to signed swords. If you will recheck my post you will see that I had said there that the operational documents that establish the criteria of genuineness, quality, etc., of NBTHK papers, is public as does not allow for the certification of a false mei, however the point I tried to make was that the papers do not say, as do those of the NTHK, in both is versions, that the paper declares "Shoshin", which I take to say, literally, "genuine". I do not mean to say that the NBTHK awards papers to blades they believe carry false mei, just that the paper itself fails to specifically state that. To say that a blade is a "precious object" or "especially precious", etc., is not the same thing. The paper, the origami, will tend to stay with the sword, however the supplementary document spelling out the meaning of NBTHK papers is not distributed with the papers. Most of us respect the NBTHK very highly; I just wish they would close the window of ambiguity. I have been told that the NTHK in years past would testify in a legal setting to the validity of their issued papers. I don't know if that is so, but if it is so I wonder if any other authority has or would do the same? Arnold F.

Hello: With reference to the Kiyomaro and paper in question, Kunitaro says: "The paper ... doesn't say that the signature is genuine." That omission, there and elsewhere, is a more important qualification on most papers we see than it is given credit for in my opinion. While I cannot claim to read Japanese in any real way, I do believe that only the papers of the NTHK, in both its representations, specifically boldly writes "Shoshin" (genuine), on the origami. Most other papers, including those of the NBTHK, do not say that, or any reasonable synonym, in so many words. I have seen explanations of NBTHK paper meaning, wherein genuine is referred to as an operational decision criteria, but it is not on the papers as far as I can tell. To me that omission has always opened the door to speculation, and one wonders if an outstanding blade in all ways except for a bad or uncertain mei, might be rationalized as worthy of a paper. One could even make an argument as to why that should be done, and the absence of "Shoshin" would make it easier. It is for that reason that the papers of the NTHK carry more weight than might be thought in the eyes of some collectors. Arnold F.

Hello: The NBTHK was founded in 1948 and the renowned sword scholars, Drs. Homma and Sato were the guiding lights in the early years. The NTHK (NPO) features what appears to be the initial organization journal on the covers of their journal, and it has a date of Meiji 43, ie, 1910. After the death of the highly revered Yoshikawa Koen sensei some years ago a schism occurred and we are now treated to two NTHKs, each publishing journals in the same serial sequence, with the same title, Token to Rekishi, and both offering shinsa from time to time in the US. I believe Chris Bowen was living in Japan at the time of that unfortunate, as I see it, split, and I am sure he could add a lot more context. Arnold F.

Hello: This is actually a very interesting thread, one that ought to be aired more often, and it is a question that is entirely general for any tangible non-income yielding asset. The cautions and warnings given by most posts are basically good advice, but people usually have to learn those lessons from personal experience at the school of hard knocks. Having been a tenured professor of the dismal science for some decades - now retired - perhaps a little buttressing might help. For financial assets a gain over time comes by an appreciation of that asset (we will avoid the very real and substantial issue of making inter temporal comparisons in real purchasing power terms, usually a very important issue when viewing a return over more than three or four years), by way of an appreciation of its value, or a given value, times the prevailing applicable interest. Now any asset's return must be considered relative to the risk attached to it: that is the story of government debt, hardly risk free, in comparison to "junk bond" debt, which is yet more risky. No art object - rare book, painting, tosogu, sword, etc. - yields interest, therefore its return over time is a function of a change in its value. If it is only dollar considerations that matter, the problem is simple. A tsuba could be compared with a share of non dividend paying stock of equal risk, however all art objects also confer psychic income, the pride of possession, therefore if the hypothetical tsuba in equilbrium yielded a return identical to the non-dividend paying stock, some of that return would have to come as psychic income as the stock yields no psychic income. Therefore, risk adjusted, the tsuba would yield a smaller dollar return. The conclusion is, risk included, tangible art object assets yield lower returns in equilibrium in dollars that do non-aesthetic tangible assets. That is not to say that changing market determinants cannot deliver high returns to Japanese samurai arts, as surely happened some decades ago, or Korean arts a few years later when the Korean economy boomed, or Chinese art today, but when adjusted for risk - the essential point - the dollar return will be less. By the same token, the sum of dollar value plus psychic income can fall with time, either through value decline alone or changing psychic enjoyment from possession. For a more detailed analysis, see, "On Investing in Japanese Swords", Randolph B. Caldwell, Editor. The Book of the Sword. Dallas: 1972. Arnold F.

Hello: I hope this post won't be dismissed as redundant or side taking in the great stamp controversy issue, as I would like to address the reason for the touchiness towards WW II gendaito and the obvious need to abandon some of the underlying rationale for the views taken of WW II swords some decades ago. That is not to say that I don't have an opinion of star stamped swords, as I do (they are true Nihonto and almost certainly made of tamahagane), but they are a sub set of all gendaito and essentially a side show. As for Minatogawa Jinja made swords, I believe them to be exactly like Yasukuni Jinja swords, and most certainly Nihonto in every sense of the term, and further the kikusui-mon isn't a stamp at all. At the end of the Pacific War the future of the entire stock of swords in Japan was very much an open question. On August 30, 1945, when Japan was utterly defeated, unconditionally surrendered and deprived of any domestic or civil choices, the Occupation required that all weapons be surrendered. On Sept. 2, the day of the formal surrender on the Missouri in Tokyo Bay, General MacArthur's headquarters ordered that all Japanese swords were to be confiscated and destroyed. "All" included historical blades, gendaito as we know them, as well as the lowly machine made Showa-to: nothing was to be spared. The renowned Dr. Honna Junji was to write in his Japanese Sword (The National Museum Art Series). Tokyo: Kogei-sha, 1948, pp. v-xi, and, pp. 70-72, that prospects were so severe that he was not optimistic and thought he might have to give up his research on swords. Representations were made by a number of people in Japan to the Occupation, along the lines of distinguishing between "art swords" which were worthy of preservation, and all the rest, which were to be destroyed. That story is to be found in the Mainichi Daily News, Sept. 25, 1973. The turning point came when Homma was able to meet with Col. Victor Cadwell, Provost Marshall, Eighth Army, (whose life-size bust, cast by Dr. Homma's son, used to be seen at the Sword Museum, Tokyo, but now, I am told, it is no longer on display) on Dec. 30, 1945 in Yokohama. Japanese experts were employed in screening "art swords" from all others, and in August, 1946, an Occupation memorandum authorized Japanese nationals to retain swords of artistic or historic importance. Homma was to say "...no doubt it was the most significant occasion in the long history of Japanese swords." I believe many collectors think that swords were "free for the taking" for GI's during the Occupation, which lasted until 1952, but that was not generally so, at least for the "art swords." Yes some were literally "taken, but most could stay in Japanese hands though vast numbers changed hands for food, chocolate, cigarettes, and of course money, and became the stuff of legend at US sword shows for decades to come. The key was that "art sword" wording and its genuine intent. The NBTHK was formed soon thereafter and it did not have its motto and rationale for the "Preservation of Japanese Art Swords" for nothing. Some might argue that it is now time to give up that "art sword" label as it can add as much confusion as insight. It played an absolutely essential role historically, but that need is long dead. A discussion of the necessary qualities that a Nihon-to must possess, yesterday or today is interesting, at least to me, but "an art sword" - what is that? No sword smith through 1945 ever tried to make one! Arnold F.

Hello: It took a couple of weeks but I was able to get some oshigata paper from Japan and am delighted with the quality and service. It is 10 sheets for 150 JPY. They only send by EMS, so that is costly, so buy several lots. They say they supply Japanese sword dealers and the like and I believe it. Access at info@namikawa-ltd.co.jp Doing oshigata is a great way to get to know your swords. While photography has some easy advantages, but a learning curve too, oshigata can yield details and a three dimensional feeling that no photo image can IMHO. Arnold F.

Hello: Kunitaro's posting of the 1950 Kicho awards (the earliest in NBTHK history?) illustrates exactly the point I was attempting to make above on the rating of early Kicho. I am sure that the same could be said of early Juyo. I believe that the first police registration dates that really mattered were Showa 27 and 28 (1952 and 1953) subsequent to the Occupation, when the collections of former Daimyo families and of shrines and temples that had never seen the light of day, or at least public expose, were first registered. If they subsequently submitted them to shinsa, and I would guess that only a small fraction would have done that, the quality must have been high and historically important. Any information on that Kunitaro? Arnold F.

Hello: We have been treated to an interesting and rather original essay by Darcy on value ranges for a given sword, the underlying theme being the role of Hozon papers in establishing price minimums, along with the notion that each sword must be assessed on its own merits. I believe there also is a rather subtle assumption in his argument that sees buyer and seller as sharing essentially the same view of the market once that Hozon, or perhaps some higher certification, has been established. The realism of a model's assumptions do not validate or invalidate any model, however I very much doubt that buyers share that sort of symmetry of outlook or knowledge, particularly when one is a professional and the other is a hobby buyer or seller. Each side in the transaction wants the "best" price, be that high or low depending which side you are on. Certainly for the collector the level of a paper matters a lot. There is a great deal of informational asymmetry in this area, and we should recognize it. Dealers play a very valuable role in the sword market, make no mistake, but they also tend to well informed and up-to-date on the market. The issue of the validity and reliability of papers over time would be interesting to examine. As the NBTHK moved away from Kicho and Tokubetsu Kicho, and Koshu papers to the newer Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon, how have they transformed in comparison? The same thing could be said about the papers of both the NTHK organizations, and how do Yushu and Sai Yushu papers compare with Juyo papers? We tend to laud the Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon papers today, but at the same time we often hear that the early Kicho papers really meant a lot. As for Juyo papers of the 1970s, Darcy seems to argue that they don't tend to be equivalent to the Juyo of today, if I read him correctly. In my opinion I believe we should not forget that after the war Japan experienced a very high real GDP growth rate of about 10% between the mid-1950s and the mid-1960s. In the years just thereafter there was heavy buying of swords by Japanese dealers in the US in particular, but elsewhere too. Many of those swords were excellent GI bring backs and they tended to swell Juyo submissions. Now we read of high Chinese GDP growth and low Japanese real growth. In the ten years ending in 2011 Japanese real growth was about 1.5%. We await the Abe effect! What holds up the market today is not Japanese buying of course, but the internationalization of taste that is attracted to things Japanese. These are just some rough thoughts. It would be interesting to have well known and well informed dealers like Darcy hold forth further on the market place. I would be particularly interested in his views on the discount, other things equal, that should apply to mu mei Juyo. Arnold F.

Hello: The term nioi-giri is usually used to refer to an interruption in the margin of the yakiba, though I suppose running off the ha would also fall within such a meaning. Looking at the images I wonder if what you see might be an artifact of the polish rather than a nioi-giri in actuality? The blade does appear to be koto but not so drastically shape changed that it has a run off yakiba. Depending on the age and quality of the sword, while such things are detracting, they are not necessarily fatal. Arnold F.

Hello: As a clarification I did not mean to suggest that the book referred to as Sasano was not written by Sasano sensei, just that it is not one of the older ones frequently cited. There is editing by John Harding, though I do not know its extent and I believe it was published posthumously. In any event it is the one Sasano meant to supplant his other publications as it is quite revisionary. A variorum comparison between it and the Japanese text from which it was taken would be interesting. In any event the book as such has no bearing on my observations about the tsuba offered at Aoi. Arnold F.

Hello: With regard to Pete's post, no there is not a lot of decrease in thickness from the seppa-dai to the edge, but it does appear to decrease and the visual effect from light on such a surface, while subtle, is substantial. As for the reference to Sasano, it is the book Sasano (1993) and not one of the several books written by Sasano sensei. The point about ko-sukashi was to open the door to it possibly having come from a polearm. That is not a criticism of the piece, but a clue. Arnold F.

Hello: When first seen yesterday morning I was rather surprised at the price, however dealers naturally go with the market and in the last few years ko-tosho and ko-katchushi have risen in market appreciation, particularly in the West. "Ko" certainly is the operative term, and with some confusion on the issue, the larger the better seems to rule. Following Sasano (1993) however, pp.28-29, "large" is hardly the determining variable for illustrated there are two thin and fairly small ko-tosho, each with a ko-sukashi device and one with a plugged kodzuka-ana, and described "as the greatest (of) all sword fittings." As for the Aoi tsuba I believe the key element for appreciation is left out, namely the fact that its obverse seems to be convex, and that makes a world of difference when viewed from above in varying light. For people who should know better, once again proper dimensional information is missing, namely the thickness at the seppa-dai, and if that was there it would be even more obvious that it isn't a mere plate. As Chris says much in the aesthetics of things Japanese is by imputation, and perhaps the more limited the better: for this piece it is shape, convexity and state of the surface iron. I find the relative size of the nakago-ana rather off putting, and wonder if it might not have been on a polearm and somewhat earlier than Muromachi, namely Nanbokucho. The thickness is not a demerit, as while rather thick at the rim, Sasano illustrates one, p. 36, which is 4.2 cm at the rim and 4.44 at the seppa-dai, and he calls it Late Kamakura. It is interesting that all the Ko-tosho he illustrates have a ko-sukashi device. Finally we should not get too excited about whether it is tosho or katchushi, as like everyone else the paper awarding organizations all know that the definition of each category is fuzzy and often it is a coin toss as to which bucket it goes into, and the terms themselves are not old. It is not even clear if the two groups of makers are two rather than versions of design differences falling into one group only. Just a thought or two. Arnold F.

Hello: Thanks for all the posts. I appreciate them very much. Arnold F.