Juyo statistic

[Jean]

http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/sale/08604.html

 

I have come across several Motoshige Juyo and I would like to know if anybody knows how many Motoshige juyo blades exist

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi Jean,

I found 4 papered Motoshige blades in my books;

1.NBTHK 7.Tokubetsu Juyo T. Nr.38

2.Compton part I -249 with NBTHK paper from 1968

3.NTHK Yushu to zu Roku vol.I-29

4.NTHK Yushu to zu Roku vol.II-44

Ludolf

[Jean]

Thanks Ludolf,

 

I know of about 4 other juyo Motoshige

[nihonto1001]

There are two Motoshige in Darcy's book: Japanese Swords of the Bizen Tradition. http://www.nihonto.ca/bizen-to/

 

One is a signed Tanto, the other is an O-suriage Daito, Juyo Token #38. The Daito has remarkably similar sugata to the one on AOI.

 

One of my favorite swords in his book is the Osafune Hidemitsu, of course I may be a little prejudiced:)

 

Jon

[Darcy]

There are 104 Motoshige Juyo Token in the index, of which 12 are Tokubetsu Juyo. Given that more were probably found since publication, I would hazard a guess at the 110-120 range. Enough to substantiate either a very long work period or two smiths.

[Jean]

Thanks a lot Darcy for this answer (and BTW HNY to you), I had the feeling that this swordsmith was one of the most prolific.

 

If I can abuse (and above all if you don't mind), who are the top 3 smiths (in sword numbers) who have achieved Juyo/Tokuju level?

 

When shall we see your next book published?

[Darcy]

I've been busy writing software lately and not enough time on my hands to get through all of the issues of the day and be able to edit photos. The Soshu book is delayed maybe for another 3 months at best. A stock market recovery would help this process considerably :-).

 

I think off the top of my head that the smith with the largest number of Juyo and Tokuju works is Kanemitsu. This is followed roughly by Rai Kunimitsu, Rai Kunitoshi, Niji Kunitoshi and Chogi.

 

If you buy into Rai Kunitoshi and Niji Kunitoshi as the same smith (which I think is very close to fact rather than theory at this point) then he is above everyone else I think. Somewhere around 250 Juto in the index.

 

The common element with these smiths is that on their own they are all extremely skilled but they were also the heads of schools that had extremely skilled smiths in them and they were famous in their own time. So you had a lot of talented people working in groups, probably high output with uniform high quality, and an immediate desire on behalf of people to preserve.

 

I have not had time to verify any of this but it is kind of a handwaving general answer based on memory.

[Jean]

Thanks Darcy for the input,

 

Such random thoughts on the master smiths and their top students could lead to the fact that some "Den" Juyo are by top students of a school so it could be that it will be a better kantei to state "Juyo Rai" rather than "Den Rai Kunimitsu" as it is often done for Naoe Shizu.

 

Won't you think for your Soshu book that a subscription could help the process as Afu did for the Nihonto Koza books?

[Darcy]

Actually that is not a good rule and it has been suggested before and believed before and it's really important to not go down that path.

 

"Den" has nothing to do with students. Period.

 

Den means *only* that there is variation from the established criteria set from the signed pieces. Since the signed pieces are not a canonical description of the work of a smith, by definition, Den cannot be used to ascribe something to a student.

 

If it is by a student the paper will indicate it is by a student.

 

Den Shizu does not mean the same as Shizu Den.

 

Naoe Shizu is for the students of Kaneuji in particular. Den Shizu means that the blade is a Shizu. It is a Shizu, a Shizu, a Shizu, in the opinion of the person writing the judgment. However they have noted that there is something a little bit missing or a little bit extra that is not on the signed pieces from the smith.

 

If a piece is Den Naoe Shizu, that may mean that the variation is towards the teacher, and that the piece is showing traits that are more expected of the master than of the students. Going the other way would be a little bit unusual since Naoe Shizu is already a broad category in that it embraces several people.

 

Knowing the difference is something that takes either study or mastery.

 

Given that the vast majority of the old koto masters got their work cut down, you have signed pieces that represent 5% for example of what exists and mumei 95%. It is not fair to say that the 5% is perfectly representative of the work of the smith, they are a small statistical sampling. So again, by nature, Den is just saying that the blade in question is not falling with in that 5% which is what should be true the majority of the time.

 

For smiths like Sadamune and Go Yoshihiro, where there are no signed examples, the rule is to attribute with Den always since there are no canonical examples extant. Instead they go by old books, old descriptions, skill and style and the pigeonhole principle.

 

In the end, only think of Den as plus or minus 5%.

 

Bob Benson's Norishige which was one of the most stunning blades I have ever seen went Tokubetsu Hozon as Dem Norishige, Juyo as Norishige, and Tokubetsu Juyo as Den Norishige. Or maybe in the inverse order heh.

 

It looks like it could have been made by Masamune or Go Yoshihiro as well as Norishige. This is what introduces the uncertainty. The patterns in the jihada look like Norishige but the hamon looks more like Go or Masamune and the Boshi looks like the archtypal Go Ichimai boshi. So you get an argument.

 

Den doesn't downgrade the blade.

 

There are many without Den that won't make Tokubetsu Juyo.