J.c.c.c. Token Kai Meeting August 8Th 2015

[b.hennick]

This report is to suggest a topic that worked well to other sword study groups. Our meeting had three parts. The first part was a brief presentation by Kevin Adams , our prize winning tsubako. He spoke a little about the NBSK and the competition where he won the silver medal for his tsuba. 

 

The second part started with a presentation by Chris Leung on the history of issuing papers starting with the Honami and ending with the current situation. I went over the NBTHK standards for papering swords as presented on Danny Massey's web-site:

http://nihontocraft.com/2015_NBTHK_Nionto_Tosogu_Shinsa_Standards.html

 

We divided our members in to three groups and had three blades for them to look at. The questions that they had to answer were:

1. Would this blade earn a paper? (reasons)

2. What level of paper would it earn (Hozon, Tokubetsu Hozon, Juyo)?

 

After everyone has a chance to examine all three blades and to discuss the blades in their group Chris and I discussed each of the three blades and answered questions. 

 

In the third part of the meeting, Mike Groisman provided 4 tanto for people to look at and to determine which level if any each blade would paper at. After everyone had an opportunity to examine the blade he discussed each in turn and gave the level of each and who made each blade. 

 

This formal part was followed by more discussion and the sharing of various blades brought to the meeting. 

 

Our aim was to help members to learn about papers and the processes involved and to become comfortable with quality levels and  criteria.

 

Most of our meetings have a hands-on component. We encourage discussion and positive reinforcement.

 

 

[Jean]

Congrats Barry for this organization very educationnal enabling any participant to assess what makes the quality of a blade...

[seattle1]

Hello:

Were the blades seen without the tsuka?

Arnold F.

[b.hennick]

Yes - one was signed the other two were mumei.

[seattle1]

Hello:

Thanks Barry. As sheer co-incidence would have it I've been wondering recently about the relation between the status of a smith and the level of the paper actually received by the blade, other things equal. It goes without saying that smiths that are highly ranked, Saijo saku and Jo Jo saku for example, on average made blades worthy of those designations, and subsequent papers will tend to reflect that. The great unknown is what impact those rankings have on a judge when they, hopefully, look at the mei after examining the other features of the blade. There is probably an upward bias, but how would one ever know its strength? I suppose that ranking bias, and only on signed blades that are considered genuine would it be of any relevance, varies judge to judge. It would be really interesting to have a group, say of a dozen blades, signed blades of course, go through the two versions of the NTHK shinsa, which tend to have a single senior judge, that are held periodically in the US and then compare the outcomes. I also wonder how the two NTHK standards differ from those of the NBTHK? Wandering off topic here...

We would be interested in hearing more about how that Toronto experience worked out for the blades you folks had.

Arnold F.

[b.hennick]

HI Arnold:

Some of this was discussed at the meeting:

".. As sheer co-incidence would have it I've been wondering recently about the relation between the status of a smith and the level of the paper actually received by the blade, other things equal. It goes without saying that smiths that are highly ranked, Saijo saku and Jo Jo saku for example, on average made blades worthy of those designations, "

 

It was pointed out that the NTHK looks at a blade in relation to the work of that particular smith. An average or below average blade by a good/great will receive an average or below average score. A great blade by a lower ranked smith will receive a higher score. So a 72 point blade by a great smith will be better than a 78 point blade by a poorer smith. The higher score reflects the better work of the lesser smith.

If was also felt that a mumei blade by a great smith might receive a generic paper e.g Bungo Takada rather than pointing to that great smith. Someone suggested that a blade might get a pink paper (fail shinsa) so that a big name smith is not papered.

 

I personally know of people who have submitted NBTHK papered blades to the NTHK and had the blade fail shinsa. 

 

As to the blades:

#1 mumei  wakizashi brasso obscured the blade's hamon except for an area near the machi, The blade was a Bizen wakizashi. Most didn't see that bit of hada and hamon and would have failed the blade.

#2 mumei small tachi very small point, very old shape and old tang, the hamon started several inches above the machi. There was what on first glance looked to be a huge blister about 6-8 inches above the machi. Close inspection (pointed out after people missed it) was that one could see the claws of a dragon and some scales. The blade was pinked (failed shinsa) the pink paper said saiha Muromachi jidai. The blade's sayagaki is to Bungo Yukihira who started his hamon above the machi, had horimono on one side of the blade above the machi 6-8 inches, early smith early blade shape. 

#3 signed wakizashi by Shodai Kanesada - hirazukuri shape little to see in the hamon. Soshin blade 

Arnold I wish that you were there as I'm sure that you would have made great contributions to our discussion. 

[1tallsword]

I would like to thank barry and chris for an in depth lesson and meeting. I always look forward to the meetings and there is always something to learn. also thank you to kevin for taking the time to present and shedding some details on the NBSK.  cant wait for the next!

[b.hennick]

Our Meeting dates are posted on the MNB calendar. We welcome visitors and new members. I would add that members brought at least 10 additional swords to the meeting for people to look at. There were books, fittings, a maedate, etc to buy or just admire. 

[seattle1]

Hello:

Hi Barry. Well the old days when I was there when the group got going were fun indeed.

You actually came quite close to answering the sort of compact questioning I had in mind. You might be right that the NTHK standard, never as fully specified by the way as the two recent versions of the NBTHK's that were/are on Danny Massey's site, should be interpreted as you suggest, i.e., that a 72 point designation for a "great smith" out ranks, say, a 78 point for a lower rated person. However that begs the question, from where does the rank come if not implicit in the paper value? I do have the three volumes that the branch of the NTHK associated with the late Yoshikawa Koen published and it is striking to note the Yushu saku designations that are given to lower ranking and fairly recent smiths, e.g., the grandfather of the current "Yoshihara brothers", Yoshihara Kuniie. I would like to see a more operationally specific criteria paper issued by either NTHK and then to know if both NTHK versions march to the same routine. Such a thing would be very helpful in understanding the confusion that some submitters get from the papers they receive at shinsa. Thanks for your reply as I am sure if gives a lot of food for thought.

Perhaps Chris Bowen could add some further clarification.

Arnold F.