On hawley and valuation..

[obiwanknabbe]

Good morning everyone,

 

I wanted to ask about the point system used by W.S Hawley. I have seen in several threads where his grades have been used by many to ascribe a ballpark value to a given sword. I am curious, has this point scale ever been reevaluated? Please correct me if I am mistaken but seeing as this book was first printed in 1896, and i don't believe the point system has ever been edited, do these (points=Man) yen scores even apply anymore? Is there not 118 years worth of inflation to adjust for along with increased scarcity, broader research, and global market demand?

 

Please let me know if I am missing something in my hypothesis here. Also, if someone can clue me in on how this system is actually applied, that would be most appreciated.

 

Respectfully,

 

Kurt.K

[george trotter]

Hi Kurt,

Some errors there...Hawley wrote the first edition in 1967 (blue volumes), then the Revised edition (big brown volume) and after that in 2001 I think (two paperback volumes)...others?

The point system is not a value in Yen, it is a point system of value against each other...eg all swords are 10 points as "base value" (except gendai which are 8 points as base value).

From this basic rating a sword rated 40, 80, 150 or 200 is thus compared in excellence against the "base level" work.

There is no need to upgrade the system, but I am sure later scholarship would modify some of these ratings up or down as more knowledge about them appears.

Hope this helps,

[cabowen]

Personally, the only value I see in the point system is to alert you to a smith who is well known. Clearly Hawley did not have experience with all the smiths in the book and many, if not most, of the rankings are simply shots in the dark based solely on some general rule of thumb- giving all modern smiths 8 points for example. We know that there are some modern smiths whose work sells for $20K and some who sell for $1000 so clearly that arbitrary value is rather meaningless for modern blades. It is likewise of little use for any smith not fairly famous.

[george trotter]

I agree with what you say Chris...I meant that the points system Hawley used (don't know where he got it from) was just a grading system that (as you say) alerted the reader to the relative value of a given blade compared to its fellow blades. 10 smiths rated at 15 points is just a comparison between them and 10 smiths rated at 25 points. How one accounts for one of the 10 @ 15 points being worth $1000 and another being worth $25,000 is a matter of deeper research. I too think it a nonsense to rate all gendaito smiths at 8 points as we know they vary in quality etc, but when Hawley compiled the work there was little known about gendai as we know them today and I think he put them at 8 points because they were then "barely" considered swords (and at the NBTHK they still won't even consider them!)..

So, as a "quick reference" it is fine (IMHO) but of course, it is the beginning of the study only...the reader must then do the real research and appraisal from there on.

Regards,

[obiwanknabbe]

Thanks for your feedback guys... I don't know where i came up with 1896. Hawley pulled a lot of his information from the tosho zenshu and that was 1934, right? Actually I think it was the Tosho zenshu i was thinking of and mixed up the date. Coffee has not kicked in yet.

 

That being said, Has the Man yen system ever been changed or adjusted? I guess what I'm asking is how would an appraiser come up with an insured value? There has to be some concrete means to determine what something is "worth". I am moving I have a few nice pieces that I would like to add to my homeowners policy, just in case something unfortunate happens down the line.

 

Kurt.K

[Ken-Hawaii]

We know that there are some modern smiths whose work sells for $20K and some who sell for $1000

 

The last few times I was in Japan, I priced out modern blades, but never found a single one under $12,000, & that was directly from the smith.

 

Do you know of any smith selling blades in the $1-$2,000 range, Chris?

 

Ken

[cabowen]

When I said $1000 and modern, I was referring to WWII era blades....

 

Shinsakuto, bought off the rack, are at least $6000-$7000 for anything decent. Most even at that price level are going to be iai-to and not kansho-to. I was ordering katana, with polish, habaki, and shirasaya, for around $10K a few years ago. These were kansho-to. You aren't going to find anything but high end sushi knives for $1000 I am afraid...

[Darcy]

I felt like the Hawley point system was lifted from the Toko Taikan and tweaked .

 

The Toko Taikan lists the prices in man yen so comes over as things like 800 for Naotsuna (Hawley 100), 800 Muramasa (90) and 1000 for Akihiro (100), 2000 for Shizu (120), 2500 for Yukimitsu (150), 2500 for Masamune (400), 2800 for Nagamitsu (150) and 3500 for Tomonari (300).

 

So when I look to this I kind of see the Soshu line "corrected" to adjust Masamune up and Yukimitsu down.

 

The Toko Taikan readings are supposed to be a value based on all things being equal for a certain level of sword. And in it there is a bit of "blasphemy" for westerners in that Tomonari and Hisakuni have the highest ratings (they should). So this is corrected by boosting Masamune way up. In practice though Masamune blades do carry big prices.

 

Anyway it's just a theory because the numbers are close and I felt there was a correlation and then a westerners bias set in there to tweak some of these numbers to make them fit better from a western mindset.

 

I don't think they saw all these swords enough in order to be able to rank relative skill and it seems fairly arbitrary to say "Masamune is 40 times better a smith than this other guy." If one guy can do something another guy cannot do at all, he is infinitely better ... in some cases say like being able to jump across a stream and not get wet. Or at making the kind of sword Masamune did. If you can't touch it it you're not just half as skilled. Anyway rambling now.

 

I went through it all before and I felt that the less famous the smith was the more likely the Hawley value would correspond to the TT man yen value / 10.

 

Then, there are a metric bluckton of smiths at the I think 10 and 15 ratings which seems to be equivalent of a bottom line for "John Doe."

 

So it's just a theory about where they come from. Taking one as a guidance and then tweaking what didn't make sense from your point of view.

[Curran]

Hi Kurt,

Some errors there...Hawley wrote the first edition in 1967 (blue volumes), then the Revised edition (big brown volume) and after that in 2001 I think (two paperback volumes)...others?

 

Hawley: First was the 1966 Blue Volume. Then the almost identical expanded 1967 (blue volumes) that most people consider to be the first printing.

The 1966 version might have been a Circle of Friends type thing, like we kodogu/ tosogu screwoffs and the armor nuts-n-bolts guys have done on a few things.

 

Otherwise, +1 to Darcy, George, Chris etc. Hawleys is sort of an oldschool card catalog.

[Grey Doffin]

Actually... though no body has seen it and no body knows about it, there was a 3rd volume of Hawley's blue Japanese Swordsmiths. Hen with teeth have never seen it.

Grey

[george trotter]

Crikey!...even though I am a "geezer" and often corresponded with Willis Hawley, I did not know about the "first blue volume" or the "additional 400 names volume". So, all good info. I presume the "big brown volume" of 1981 had the additional names (and more). I don't know if the later "two grey soft cover volumes" (2001 I think) had additional info, but I'm sure they are handy as an initial, quick look-up source. Even though I have Japanese works, I still often jump straight to Hawley for a quick scan across the mei group.

Interesting comments.

Regards,

[John A Stuart]

Me too George. I get delayed having to truck through listings by the hiragana system and alphabetical order is so much faster. John

[Stephen]

ill say thirds on that George and John, and if i have a mei thats giving me a bit of the pain it helps a lot.