Nidai Muramasa

[MKS-13]

Thank you all for the fantastic conversation about the sword, papers & the den rating. I find it fascinating.

 

In my reading of it seems that interpretation changes if den is before or after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but den before could be taken to mean in, English perspective, "probably by" (leaving a bit of wiggle room) and den after could equate to the English equivalent of "like".

 

For example:

den before = That painting is probably by Rembrandt

den after = That painting is Rembrandt like

 

I occurs to me that once papers are made they are really certifying the blade so it makes sense that they would be overly cautious in their language.

[Curran]

Not like the Japanese aren't known for being intentionally vague or anything.

 

"Den" is something difficult to pin down. Westerners tend to view that uncertainty as a negative- at least in the early years of collecting.

People have set about trying to convince us that 'Den' can be a good thing, but we remain stubborn. As Jean said, I've seen Juyo blades with specific attributions go to Tokubetsu Juyo with 'Den ____'

Giving it uber high papers but a degree of uncertainty makes our mental corks pop even more.

 

For me, the cross over moment was a Hazama tsuba. Rare school. I've owned 5 and sold 3. The best one is 'Den Hazama'.

Beats the other 4 hands down. If not for a lamination flaw, I'd put it up for Juyo.

 

It is vague: for me the rule of thumb is 1/3 of the time it means 'better than', and 2/3 of the time 'almost'.

Remember that is just one semi-stranger's opinion.

Take it on a case by case basis.

 

*Nice blade, nice school, nice habaki and shirasaya, and has papers. Good thing to inherit. Hope you keep it for many years.*

[Curran]

It looks more like Shimada work to me....

 

That was my first thought, but dug out the NTHK Sue Koto books and looked a bit. Should have thought Sengo too.

[Derek]

Your Rembrandt analogy is interesting, but there are a few problems with it. Muramasa was one of those sword smiths that has become legend, so the historical figure stands in a shadow of his story. Unlike Rembrandt, Muramasa can be considered a school of sword making; most sources list three generations, along with students. Even dates are controversial... the earliest dated sword is 1501, but the Nihonto Koza places first generation at the mid 15th C, and Connessiuer's Guide a bit earlier. Even variations in signed blades can cause more "fog"....

In this case, my uneducated opinion is that the shinsa team meant, "Sengo school, possibly one of the generations of Muramsasa."

Either way, nice blade! Definitely a keeper!

[MKS-13]

Not like the Japanese aren't known for being intentionally vague or anything.*

 

I understand completely. Being half Japanese (on my Father's side) and spending a LOT of time there in my youth I have fallen into being somewhat vague about things. I actually feel that the Japanese have mastered the art of intentional vagueness. It really is a bit impressive to say something and not really say much.

 

That being said, I realize that with papers for any blade our western minds want to see it as finite, not fluid.

[Jamie]

Is the hAmon very similar on both sides of the blade?

[Guido]

Sengo school, possibly one of the generations of Muramsasa.

That's exactly the way I read the paper, too.

[MKS-13]

Is the hAmon very similar on both sides of the blade?

 

Similar, yes. Almost mirror image, no.

 

I'm working on taking some good photos to put side by side, but not having much success with it.

[Darcy]

I am going to hit Den with a few more hammer strokes.

 

1. There are blades that are partially signed that get a "Den" attribution. Those are doozies in order to completely digest. However, the setsumei and sayagaki will be direct, but without a complete signature if the blade's work does not match the textbook perfectly it will receive DEN. There is though *no confusion* over it being a school work, a work that resembles, etc. It's attributed to the smith in question. Period.

 

2. there are grand master smiths without students in range to be able to make work of similar quality, textbook example is Norishige. So there isn't really any "Norishige school" or "Norishige group" that becomes a satisfying attribution if you want to try to interpret "Den Norishige" in this regard if the quality is top level on the sword. That is, if we create a "Den Norishige" box and say this means "Norishige school" then into this is going to fall Tametsugu, Uda, Norishige, and some others. But there is no confusion between the work of Norishige, Tametsugu, Uda, etc. They are related works, but there is not any confusion between them. DEN is not introducing confusion on the part of the judge saying that this could be Norishige or Uda. It is saying this is Norishige, except this little part here kind of looks like Masamune or it is missing this other thing that Norishige usually does but it is really not anything of concern.

 

3. sayagaki by Honma Junji, Sato Kanzan, Tanobe sensei, etc. do not fiddle with "Den" but will attribute directly to the smith or if not capable, will put it to the school. Often these have a "Den" attribution on NBTHK papers. Tanobe sensei will also often take one step more and say for instance a Juyo Ichimonji is in fact Fukuoka Ichimonji. He will not do this in all cases, sometimes Ichimonji as an attribution is about as accurate as you can get and he will put that into a sayagaki matching the paper.

 

4. some blades have passed Juyo without Den then had Den added at Tokubetsu Juyo. Upgrade or downgrade? DEN interpreted as downgrade then is somewhat inconsistent with picking a non-DEN blade and elevating it to Tokuju, flagging it as one of the main masterpieces of the smith in the setsumei, then tagging on "DEN." Example: DEN Go Tokuju: "The blade shows every feature of Go Yoshihiro and is to be one of his masterpieces." There is no uncertainty there in attribution or in the interpretation of quality. In the sayagaki: "It is one of the finest specimens of all blades attributed to Go Yoshihiro." (Bear in mind, "all blades" is more than just all Juyo, all Tokuju, it is *all* blades). No uncertainty, and is certainly not pulling punches when describing the quality of this blade. Interpreting DEN as a negative directly contradicts the NBTHK setsumei and the Tanobe sensei sayagaki so is not a valid reading. In this case we have the NBTHK saying it has all of the features of Go, but still saying DEN. DEN in this case is special too, in that it is a reflection of the lack of signed pieces. As you go koto and have so few signed pieces, it is something to bear in mind.

 

5. A Tokubetsu Juyo Norishige that I had that may be the best of them all, was Den, and there was some wiggle in there that some features resemble Go or Masamune. DEN in terms of the plus or minus "to book" in terms of features agrees with these types of readings. Note that "more features" than the book does not necessarily mean a better blade, and less features than the book does not mean a worse blade. DEN is *not* a quality designator. It is a very minor fudge factor, one small enough that it does not affect the judge's conclusion. As such you can have a DEN blade that is just a superior blade to one that is not DEN. In fact, it has to even rise to a higher standard because one of the qualifications of Tokubetsu Juyo is that they're trying to isolate the archetype blades. Archetype does not necessarily mean better, or more beautiful, they are those that fit the book and retain the condition and quality of the highest type. We may for instance submit a Tokuju that is gorgeous and flawless and it fails. Why? Middle Kamakura, to fit the archetype should have a nice clamshell niku and ikubi kissaki. Maybe polish has altered the niku and the kissaki looks like later Kamakura. The work is otherwise first class and amazing beauty and quality, just fails compared to one that shows these features. Since DEN is a move away from the book then, it may make Tokubetsu Juyo harder to achieve, causing this split in that those that pass Tokuju with DEN are probably so outstanding that the plus or minus from the book is inconsequential though it is technically a requirement and as a result they could be better than most of their peers at this level. But it is not that DEN was assigned because someone thought the sword was better or DEN was assigned because someone thought the sword was worse. DEN just means this little bit of wiggle from the book, the sword still stands on its own as a masterpiece or a piece of trash regardless of DEN.

 

6. A Tokubetsu Juyo Yukimitsu that I had was Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo as "Den Yukimitsu". The language of the setsumei on the Juyo paper explained that there was some leeway in the Yukimitsu attribution and it required further study, but was one of the highest grade Soshu smiths. From the style with elongated kissaki and wide mihaba, it had to embrace Masamune and more likely Sadamune. This blade came with old Honami attributions to Yukimitsu. At Tokubetsu Juyo the setsumei now indicated that the old Honami attribution was now "accepted with no hesitation." DEN did not go away, but the setsumei cut at 90 degrees to the other. So it was made absolutely clear that in the NBTHK's viewpoint this DEN Yukimitsu is a work of Soshu Yukimitsu. Not the "Yukimitsu school." Not the "Yukimitsu group". Not "Yukimitsu-like". Soshu Yukimitsu is the attribution. Again, DEN is not introducing vagueness into the attribution. The attribution remains clear. If it is not clear, they will note it in the setsumei. My feeling is that this is also an older practice of the NBTHK, that they would pass something through and say the attribution needs further research.

 

7. If we were to attempt to say a DEN prefix means a group or school attribution, then we have major headaches with Den Ichimonji and Den Naoe Shizu and Den Enju and Den Senjuin. Because in these cases the judges have only narrowed it down to a school to begin with. "School of Enju School" is what we would have to read that as. These attributions exist and are Juyo. It is another indicator that this is an incorrect interpretation of DEN as a prefix. Similarly Den Shizu is Shizu Kaneuji Shodai, while Shizu Den is Naoe Shizu, his students who have their own special school name. Den Naoe Shizu then is not School of Naoe Shizu School. It means Naoe Shizu attribution, 98% fit to the book features.

 

...

 

In terms of NBTHK practice, DEN is really a settled matter. We have Tanobe sensei's comments as relayed by Bob Benson clarifying it. There is no reason to be confused past that. Not to mention all of the above if you sit down and process all of the related information and use senses.

 

Context is really important, and if you want to know what they meant, you need to read the setsumei. That will tell you what they think, not the use of Den. Den needs to be relegated to a matter of small importance (not of no importance, but of very small importance).

 

I will repeat again that this is about NBTHK practice, I don't know what the NTHK does.

 

In the case of Muramasa it is very tricky. Muramasa by itself can be the name of a line of smiths, can imply the first generation, or can imply the best generation. It can also mean that there is no certainty over how many generations are so to attempt to specify a generation is meaningless. It is very ambiguous. By going to Sengo I think they are making sure to resolve the ambiguity and make it wide, as it includes Masazane and others. Saying Den Sengo it means it is not a perfect fit for such a wide ranging attribution but the attribution is still accurate and the best that the judge can make and no other interrupts it. So that's what I interpret when I see this based on what I know about the NBTHK practice.

 

So, let's go back now and read "Tokubetsu Juyo Token Den Yukimitsu" from above, with the context of the setsumei.

 

This I read as: "Extremely Important work of Yukimitsu. The work is accepted as Yukimitsu without any doubt whatsoever, and without a second thought in mind. That said, this is not completely textbook work for Yukimitsu. However, it is an outstanding masterpiece and as a result, achieves the Tokubetsu Juyo rating."

 

In this case the blade has a kissaki that is more an O-kissaki than not. There is one other blade in the Juyos that has this same feature and it too passed Tokubetsu Juyo Token. Without getting into their heads, I look at the kissaki and I say, yes, that is not textbook for an end of Kamakura smith. I can immediately connect that to Den.

 

Does this make it a "less good" work? This kissaki makes the blade look particularly imposing and beautiful. For some it stands out in the body of work as one of the finest and the ones they would like to own. Though it does not fit the book perfectly, in a way it is just as important because it shows that there were departures at the end of his career and it forms a bookend and needs to be considered as a result when looking at the body of work. A purist may rather acquire one with a standard end of Kamakura kissaki though. He may also prefer one with suguba that matches the signed work in tanto form. So for the purist the departure from the book, to him is a slight downgrade. It depends on what is important to you as an individual. Those purists are market participants and as a result their opinion affects the marketability and so the price levels. As a result the Den blades can come off a little bit in the market, unless someone reads the setsumei, understands and accepts it, or knows in general what they are dealing with.

 

You just have to go further than this one word.

 

Den Yukimitsu Tokuju... the chikei in it are very similar to the Masamune on the cover of the Sano Museum exhibit. The sugata has a lot more in common with Sadamune than with most other Yukimitsu. On the sum of its parts, it does a lot of things in the style of Yukimitsu that Masamune and Sadamune did not do. Hence, DEN Yukimitsu when you sum it up. A blade made by Yukimitsu, not completely textbook, with some extra features. In this case the extras to me are a bonus, but that is subjective.

 

There is no way though that DEN says that this is a "less good" sword. From the setsumei:

 

This is one of the best mumei katana attributed to Yukimitsu and the jigane looks magnificent. This is a katana that had been handed down through the Ikeda family of the Bizen clan during the Edo Period.

 

Marquis Ikeda presented it to Emperor Meiji for his entertainment as a fellow sword lover.

 

[Darcy]

Thank you all for the fantastic conversation about the sword, papers & the den rating. I find it fascinating.

 

In my reading of it seems that interpretation changes if den is before or after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but den before could be taken to mean in, English perspective, "probably by" (leaving a bit of wiggle room) and den after could equate to the English equivalent of "like".

 

For example:

den before = That painting is probably by Rembrandt

den after = That painting is Rembrandt like

 

I occurs to me that once papers are made they are really certifying the blade so it makes sense that they would be overly cautious in their language.

 

My first response got too long to directly address this.

 

It's still not a correct reading.

 

Attributions:

 

"Mumei Rembrandt": unsigned work, attributed to Rembrandt, typical work

"Mumei Den Rembrandt": unsigned work, attributed to Rembrandt, atypical in some ways

"Mumei Rembrandt Den": unsigned work, attributed to the Rembrandt School

 

School: the painters working below him as students especially, or he himself, the actual author is not clear but is narrowed down to this. In practice the NBTHK does not use the third form, but instead will replace it with the name of the school as below:

 

"Mumei Sukezane": unsigned work, attributed to Kamakura Ichimonji Sukezane, typical in all ways

"Mumei Den Sukezane": unsigned work, attributed to Kamakura Ichimonji Sukezane, atypical in some ways

"Mumei Ichimonji": unsigned work, attributed to Ichimonji school, typical work (in practice, it means all the features of this work can fit into multiple Ichimonji subschools or smiths, not all smiths, but enough that do not have distinguishing characteristics anyway, that we cannot go further than this)

"Mumei Den Ichimonji": unsigned work, attributed the Ichimonji school, slightly atypical

 

So the uncertainty starts in when you start magnifying it to embrace other people in the school. Not when you put in DEN. Den does not mean *probably*.

 

The whole paper actually should be interpreted as "probably" because it is an opinion and nobody has a time machine. Sometimes there is no reasonable way to disagree with the opinion given but sometimes there is.

 

Because a work is atypical in some ways does not mean that it's not one of his works.

 

I make photographs. My photographs change over time. After long periods of stagnation I experiment, get new equipment, try new techniques. My new work does not match my old work. It is atypical. Until I do it enough. Then it becomes typical. Or they would call it something like a "blue period, wherein the artist became infatuated with blue colors".

 

Blah blah.

 

Think to Tadayoshi who worked in multiple styles. If he died just before fully exploring a style change it would be atypical work for him. He worked just enough in midare that we wouldn't call it atypical. But I think all of us would say that the textbook style of Hizen is suguba. Midare is in there, less frequently so it is a secondary style. "Slightly atypical?" How thin can we split that hair?

 

But if Tadayoshi threw out a Yamato Hosho copy in amongst the Shizu and Rai copies that are the basis or inspiration for his work then we'd say certainly it is atypical. It doesn't mean he didn't make it. We'd be lucky with him in that we can look at the signature and on the body of the evidence of the entire blade authenticate it.

 

In the case of unsigned, the DEN is coming into play on a very small percentage of features, and the rest of the blade works as the signature to make the match.

 

A mumei blade that looks like an excellent Hosho copy that was done in the Kamakura period is not going to become DEN YUKIMITSU (i.e. an atypical work of Yukimitsu copying the Hosho style). It's going to become DEN HOSHO (A Hosho work, slightly atypical). Because if it seems in 98% of ways to be Hosho then it will be Hosho for the purposes of attribution. To get a Yukimitsu its going to have to fit the Yukimitsu template to 98% basically. Then it's surely Yukimitsu but just a tiny bit atypical for whatever reason.

 

Mostly we could throw up a series of DEN and non-DEN blades attributed to the same guy and put them through kantei and mostly everyone would get them to the smith and nobody would think much about DEN. Even the NBTHK cannot keep straight what is and is not DEN as in the above example on Norishige, one group of guys thinks it should have DEN and another doesn't. It is minor and a matter of opinion, and will present itself more frequently when there are fewer signed blades as reference works.

[loiner1965]

http://www.nihontomessageboard.com/arti ... amasa2.pdf

Here is an interesting link to the great master

[cabowen]

Thank you all for the fantastic conversation about the sword, papers & the den rating. I find it fascinating.

 

In my reading of it seems that interpretation changes if den is before or after. Correct me if I'm wrong, but den before could be taken to mean in, English perspective, "probably by" (leaving a bit of wiggle room) and den after could equate to the English equivalent of "like".

 

 

Your papers were issued by the Yoshikawa NTHK. If you want to understand what "den" means in relation to your blade, you need to ask them. What other groups do is not relevant.

[bobtail44]

 

It really is a bit impressive to say something and not really say much.

 

 

impressive isn't the word id use

 

Id say the team that papered the blade would know exactly what they were saying, id just ask them if possible.

 

Trent S