Shinsa Criteria For The New Era?

[seattle1]

We are all familiar with existing NBTHK criteria followed in awarding papers from the level of Hozon to Tokubetsu Juyo. The most recent changes of May 19, 2015 can be found on Danny Massey's site, nihontocraft.com, they being amendments to those Danny published in 2006.

The Pacific War ended September, 1945, and shortly thereafter the resumption of sword making in Japan was to introduce a new rationale for sword making, namely the "art sword" and a series of shinsakuto smiths and products, often of very high technical and aesthetic accomplishment. It seems to me that the criteria for papers awarded in the past have been primarily linked to the sword as a battle weapon, particularly through taking into consideration the demerits, when present as kizu, which would compromise the blade's functional abilities to a greater or lesser extent. We also know that the NBTHK does not award papers to a blade having been made by as till living smith.

Well, things are changing. It has been 70 years since the war's end and the proportion of postwar blades to the total stock is inexorably rising, and for those shinsakuto blades, ignoring the issue of living or dead maker, do you believe criteria should change, and if so, why and in what way? What recursive impact might new critera have on current criteria for pre-shinsakuto blades and the market for blades of each era? At the moment few papers are awarded to postwar made blades, but I would guess that because of market forces and collector interest, that will change,

Criteria of course could be left unchanged, but if so that would introduce a bias that would tend to favor the new and more pristine products of the postwar world.

Arnold F.

[Fuuten]

If anything, since time passes criteria will undoubtedly change, when of-course is a mystery.

 

Perhaps in say a hundred years the post war products will receive their own set of categories. Maybe when for one reason or another the Meiji era ends..

[Brian]

It will be a lot easier when they are 100 years old, and considered antiques. Until then, I suspect there will be a tug of war between them realizing the quality is there, but not the "old nostaligia"

I think this will change gradually as the old school passes, and the new school (probably far fewer of them nowdays unfortunately) takes over.

And in 50 years, they will be frowned upon by everyone, just like any "weapons", as the politically correct world continues it's slide into self destruction.

Do I sound bitter? lol.

[SAS]

If anything, since time passes criteria will undoubtedly change, when of-course is a mystery.

 

Perhaps in say a hundred years the post war products will receive their own set of categories. Maybe when for one reason or another the Meiji era ends..

 

Heisei started in 1989....

[Fuuten]

I don't know what to say! Ignorance.

[Greg F]

Brian, you dont sound bitter. Continued restrictions are disappointing, frustrating, annoying and just stupid. Do I sound bitter? Haha. All the best.

 

Greg

[Kronos]

Not at all bitter Brian, there's a fine line of sanity to tread between the gun-toting nutjobs that think there's nothing wrong with everyone walking around carrying fully automatic assault rifles and those that insist on age restrictions for buying the likes of safety razors and butter knives.

[DirkO]

Back to the OP: I think we have to keep in mind that the papers are stating something is "worth preserving". Is a newly made sword of a living smith worth preserving? Not really, I can order a new one tomorrow. Once the smith dies, the number of swords by him suddenly is limited and as such, we need to preserve them.

Seeing for modern smiths there are usually quite some of swords extant, NBTHK focusses on the better ones (ie, flawless, typical work,...)

For older smiths there are less extant works, and so the rules are less stringent.

[Toryu2020]

The other thing you will need is a generation of scholars studying the work.

Currently modern makers and modern swords are not part of the curriculum, unless the student has an interest in that area or is a current craftsman himself. So the work of the NBSK and others is really laying the foundation of the shinsa team of the future. When a preponderance of collectors are seeking certifications for their Gendaito you will see changes made. I would think that we are twenty or so years away...

-t

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think Dirk summed up pretty well how I feel about this thing. I like really old stuff the mostly due to the history attached to the pieces. Swords made during the modern age do not have the same historical importance in my view yet they have other qualities.

 

What Thomas said is also true, we need new makers to keep the tradition alive. Likewise we need new collectors & enthusiasts to keep the tradition alive who collect new stuff as well as old stuff.

 

In short the newer the sword the better condition of the sword would be important factor I'd guess. Seeing as tameshigiri would be about the hardest use swords of modern day will have to endure, and most precious modern blades will probably not be used at all for cutting things. So like Dirk said above, flawless typical work of the smith would be of highest importance, or that is how I believe. The debate about "power relations" between smiths old vs. new - new vs. new I'll leave to more experienced folks.