Do Juyo Sessions Matter?

[Rayhan]

Hello All

 

I am opening up a topic that older collectors will no doubt roll their eyes at because it has been discussed to death in the past.

 

Full disclaimers:

 

1) This is for newer collectors

2) I owned a blade from Juyo 22 so I am also in the shite there when this concept is brought up. Needless to say money was lost on a sale.

3) Knowledge is power and I am just repeating the wisdom of the past.

 

Ok! So, when we see the Juyo blades listed on dealers sites and catalogues we also see that the Juyo session is mentioned more often than not. This is a very valuable piece of information that goes under the radar in many cases. There is also a price parity associated with some Juyo sessions and for good reason. 

 

Attached you will find analytical information on each and every sword and item that has passed Juyo over some 70 sessions, all thanks to @Jussi Ekholm and his amazing skills in collating this data. Thank you Jussi, I hope everyone understands what a gift this information is in time. 

 

 I would like to draw attention to how many swords and items pass in each consecutive session. Readers will notice that in sessions from 20 to around 26 there are an unusually high number of swords that passed Juyo, not a good sign. It is an accepted fact that we see inferior swords in these sessions that have passed Juyo and as collectors you must apply great scrutiny to swords from these sessions before thinking of a purchase. I myself, owned a sword from Juyo 22 but it was purchased in hand and after the translated Zufu was given consideration. The swords from sessions where we see high passes are usually not held in high regard and so they are priced accordingly. 

 

The other way this list is so invaluable is to see what passes and at what rates. How many Hizen Tadahiro for example or how many Naotane, is Soshu the high flying segment or is it Bizen? Rarity, availability in the market and in private. If you go after a sword at Hozon how can you determine the chance at Juyo? So much can be gained from this list. Please download it and give it an analytical overview.

 

Thank you @Jussi Ekholm

Juyo Index 70p.pdf

[Hoshi]

Hello Rayhan, 

 

Beware your forays into such arcane knowledge... 

 

A good amount has been written by Darcy on this topic over the years, most notably here. It is a good primer before engaging in more advanced discussions. 

 

But, to cut the chase - these sessions are called in Japan the "phone book" sessions, because the Zufu volumes are simply enormous owing to the number of blades that pass. The data, however, indicates that it isn't average quality per se that is lower, but that the variance is greater. This is evidenced by a greater proportion of blades from these "phone book" sessions ascending to Tokubetsu Juyo, compared to later, harsher modern sessions. At the other end, we see a lot of JINO (Juyo in name only), blades which today could never make it to Juyo. 

 

These sessions also coincide with the rise in popularity of the hobby in Japan. For better or worst, It is my understanding that the trend stops more or less after Kanzan passes away, and the leadership takes a strong policy shift in favor of increasing the baseline-level quality needed for a blade to pass Juyo.

 

In these policy shifts, I believe that the personalities the judges is reflected - Kanzan Sato was the true "man of the people", foremostly concerned about making the hobby accessible, whereas Honma Junji was "Daimyo blade" person, who believed in stricter standards to keep the Juyo designation meaningful. Both approach have their pro's and con's, and it is debatable who, in the end, is right. 

 

JINO are obvious arbitrage targets for the western market, which is due to a lack of in-hand experience, and hence relies on ladder theory to build its pricing model of what constitutes a 'good deal' - For this reason, the effect you observe on price is due to a selection bias that puts JINO on the market, blades that often can't be sold to Japanese collectors. 

 

How to recognize a JINO? These heuristics are useful: 

- Unusual length and mumei status (e.g., mumei Yamato Wakizashi...)

- Unusual period (e.g., muromachi-era blade...)

- Unusual smith (e.g., a smith that never passed Juyo before, or after...)

And there is more, of course, but it becomes complicated. As is often the case in Nihonto, there are exceptions to the heuristics above, these are not rules, but merely clues. Always consider the entire picture and beware of shortcuts. 

 

EXHIBIT A: A JINO. 

A mumei, 48cm Shikkake Naginata-Naoshi from a "phone book" session: 

 

EXHIBIT B: NOT A JINO. 

A zaimei Awataguchi Yoshimitsu from one of the "phone book" sessions. The blade is Meibutsu. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

[Rayhan]

4 minutes ago, Hoshi said:

Hello Rayhan, 

 

Beware your forays into such arcane knowledge... 

 

A good amount has been written by Darcy on this topic over the years, most notably here. It is a good primer before engaging in more advanced discussions. 

 

But, to cut the chase - these sessions are called in Japan the "phone book" sessions, because the Zufu volumes are simply enormous owing to the number of blades that pass. The data, however, indicates that it isn't average quality per se that is lower, but that the variance is greater. This is evidenced by a greater proportion of blades from these "phone book" sessions ascending to Tokubetsu Juyo, compared to later, harsher modern sessions. At the other end, we see a lot of JINO (Juyo in name only), blades which today could never make it to Juyo. 

 

These sessions also coincide with the rise in popularity of the hobby in Japan. For better or worst, It is my understanding that the trend stops more or less after Kanzan passes away, and the leadership takes a strong policy shift in favor of increasing the baseline-level quality needed for a blade to pass Juyo.

 

In these policy shifts, I believe that the personalities the judges is reflected - Kanzan Sato was the true "man of the people", foremostly concerned about making the hobby accessible, whereas Honma Junji was "Daimyo blade" person, who believed in stricter standards to keep the Juyo designation meaningful. Both approach have their pro's and con's, and it is debatable who, in the end, is right. 

 

JINO are obvious arbitrage targets for the western market, which due to a lack of in-hand experience, relies on ladder theory to build its pricing model of what constitutes a 'good deal' - hence, the effect you observe on price is due to a selection bias that puts JINO on the market, blades that often can't be sold to Japanese collectors. 

 

How to recognize a JINO? These heuristics are useful: 

- Unusual length and mumei status (e.g., mumei Yamato Wakizashi...)

- Unusual period (e.g., muromachi-era blade...)

- Unusual smith (e.g., a smith that never passed Juyo before, or after...)

And there is more, of course, but it becomes complicated. As is often the case in Nihonto, there are exceptions to the heuristics above, these are not rules, but merely clues. Always consider the entire picture. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

100% @Hoshi, analytics play the most valuble rule, as we go along the list we see the entry period of foreign buyers and popularity vs quality and exclusive swords and items. I am sorry for not going deeper but the discussions to come should shed light. I hope

[Rivkin]

I think the most basic problem of nihonto is attempting to value a blade based on papers or length of sayagaki.

Yes, 20+ sessions were bad, but they passed a lot of great blades.

The most important nihonto blade, subjectively obviously, I've seen personally is Hozon. Moreover - no other blade by this maker passed Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo.

 

Yes, dealers construct laborious and complicated theories about which blade has a chance to pass Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo and why accordingly this or that blade is valuable more than "just Juyo" because there is an extra potential for TJ. On another page they dismiss the whole notion "papers=valuation" as "ladder theory" - because the blade they sell on this page already failed three submission to Tokuju.

 

Juyo analytics is an interesting subject, but ... blades are blades.

Good blade does not get worse from being in 20s session, mediocre blade does not get better by somehow getting into 60s. 

 

Bungo Yukihira is sai jo saku with plenty of high tier blades. Sadahide is jo-jo-saku. In some spherical vacuum it matters, but in reality the work is similar.

Finding dated Sadahide would be more important than most attributed Yukihira. Yukihira with horimono would be more valuable than most Sadahide. Sadahide in good condition would be more valuable than Yukihira without horimono and in average condition.

How many TJ or TJ divided by Juyo they each have? Which Juyo session was it? Its highly secondary. 

 

Sometimes its not even the blade which is particularly important, but the signature. Yet as it is, a signed blade ushering a new name in Awataguchi register would be devalued by many because the maker does not have any Juyo - strange nihonto-specific attitude resulting from putting too much emphasis on papers.

[Mikaveli]

The core issue is people seeking objective consistency, from a subjective process.

 

It's clear, from the numbers in the Juyo sessions, certain smiths are favoured - but more than their works would necessarily merit.

 

It's a bad analogy, but it reminds me of the Oscars, and when a famous director makes a new film, all the critics / judges see the emperor's new clothes...

 

Objectively, these works wouldn't receive the same acclaim - especially if truly blind tested.

[nulldevice]

I have one of Darcy's visualizations saved that plots paper level with length and time of manufacture. It goes hand in hand with what @Rayhan and @Hoshi have posted above. I love this type of graph and I wish we had Darcy around to keep giving his insights on such matters.

[AlexiG]

I was looking for this type of data so many thanks to @Jussi Ekholm for collating it. I was reading an interview recently in the book "The new generation of Japanese swordsmiths". The interview was with Shibata Mitsuo an influential sword trader who learned his craft from Fujishiro. He mentioned the introduction of the white kicho papers in 1948 and how that led to record sword prices at the time (20 000 yen). Now we all laugh and ignore at the white papers but at the time they seem to have been the coolest thing in town. Of course many/most of the good swords got re-papered, meaning more shinsa fees, more expenses by the collectors, etc). Maybe juyo is like that (less extreme of course). It was the cool kid in town at one point (Darcy points this out as well), now those with the means ($$$) go to tokuju and the value of Juyo is open to debate. Those with the knowledge don't need papers. The rest of us try to figure it....

 

Alexi

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Rayhan has made so many interesting topics lately.

 

I have spent a lot of time going through the Jūyō items and I quite recently started what is my probably 4th time going through all the books that I have. With the amount spent I think I should be able to make some guesses what would pass but to be honest I am pretty much clueless. Part of it is my own mentality for sword appreciation being different and huge part of course is not seeing the items in person. There are of course some what I would think as "slam dunk" items yet I have heard that some of the amazing Tokubetsu Hozon items have been sent to Jūyō and they failed, and that I cannot understand as you get so many X ō-suriage mumei swords passing while genuinely rare item would be failed.

 

As a long time NBTHK member I am still not a fan of their tiered shinsa system but it is what it is. For ō-suriage mumei items I would think the most important thing at Tokubetsu Hozon would be the attribution it gets from NBTHK. It is bit sad to say but rather than item quality itself I would be more focused on the attribution if I would think about Jūyō submission (now I have to state I have never sent an item to NBTHK shinsa at any level and not sure if I will). So as a mind game you have a nice ō-suriage mumei sword that you think is from Nanbokuchō period and you send to shinsa - then it returns as Echizen Rai (越前来). You are bit unlucky as there is only 1 mumei Echizen Rai that has passed Jūyō shinsa, so I would think you could try Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon again and see if you will get a better attribution next time. Now lets say you will get Nakajima Rai (中島来) as an attribution, then there are 64 that have passed Jūyō. There is even one Nakajima Rai that has passed the prestigeous Tokubetsu Jūyō, Nagoya Tōken World has it in their collection, I saw it there last year and it seemed to be a fine sword. https://www.touken-world.jp/search-noted-sword/tokubetsujuyotoken-meito/17432/ Then as 3rd spot in the game you might get Rai Kunimitsu (来国光) attribution you can give a big thumbs up, there are 114 ō-suriage mumei katana with attribution to Rai Kunimitsu that have passed Jūyō (yes few of them have kinzōgan etc. but that is often a form of attribution too and I don't see that relevant to prove the point). And 21 of them have went on to pass Tokubetsu Jūyō.

 

I have been very lucky to see in hand the amazing Tokubetsu Jūyō Kunimitsu of Samurai Museum Berlin and also a very stunning Jūyō Kunimitsu last summer in Kawagoe sword meet where multiple NMB members were attending. Yet I have seen few in museums that to me don't seem all that impressive.

 

Now those specialized in fine details in swords might say that there is no way that attributions would vary so much. I think yes and no, as the fine details are not really my thing. Sometimes I just find myself wondering why something gets an attribution it gets, and wondering if trying the process again would change the outcome. I also believe that people in Japan and even internationally who are "in the circle" for Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō swords know if certain items have been sent for example Tokubetsu Jūyō before. Unfortunately I am not and will not be as those swords are beyond my means and also not often the main type of swords I try to focus my research on.

 

The fact is that once the sword has passed Jūyō shinsa it is a Jūyō sword. Of course all of them are not equal. I would personally think that the only Jūyō sword of a smith Y would be more important piece than 1 out of 100 mumei attributed swords to smith X. However I think the vast majority will think the opposite way, and people want to get more and more items by these same prestigeous smiths. As some may know I have tendency to track swords at bit obsessive level. Now I looked and I have documented 19 swords for sale at Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon level that have since passed Jūyō (one has also passed Tokubetsu Jūyō).

 

Here is one example by Kanemitsu. I personally like the shape and size but that is my thing. I remember discussing this back then with several people and nobody was that impressed about the sword.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201031200433/https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/KT332646.htm

https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/KT332646.htm

 

Here is pretty nice one, rare Bungo smith and dated to 1451. It passed in Jūyō 67, I just don't feel like taking out books and taking pictures of them as it has already taken so much time to think and type this post.

https://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/A21591_S1283_PUP_E.html

 

This Uda Kunifusa attributed one also passed session 67.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210621170603/https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/N-564.html

 

This Hatakeda Sanemori attributed one passed Jūyō session 65 and Tokubetsu Jūyō 26

https://www.aoijapan.net/katana：kinpun-mei-gold-powder-hatakeda-sanemori/

[Jacques]

Since I'm not in the gods secrets (and I doubt anyone here is), I'll refrain. Who among us can say whether a given sword deserves juyo status or not?

[Matsunoki]

Just an opinion…..but my understand is that a Juyo judgement is not based solely on the quality and attributes of the sword under review but is heavily dependant also on how it fares against other swords in the same Shinsa ie it’s a competition. Yes I know it’s their game their rules but does anyone else think that is a bit illogical?

Either a sword merits Juyo or it doesn’t surely? 

[Matsunoki]

5 minutes ago, Jacques said:

Since I'm not in the gods secrets

Didn’t think you believed in Gods…..let alone human Gods?

[Franco]

10 hours ago, Matsunoki said:

Yes I know it’s their game their rules but does anyone else think that is a bit illogical?

Either a sword merits Juyo or it doesn’t surely? 

 

A sword is not only competing against other entries, it is (as previously noted) competing against "like swords", against quality of polish. Entrants should also pay attention to whether or not it's a Toku-Ju year with much stiffer competition. Finally, keep in mind that participation is voluntary. 

 

 

Desire is the cause of suffering.

Edited Monday at 03:31 AM by Franco

[Rayhan]

I am in the airport grabbing a flight so I will post from my cell phone, please forgive the compressed images. 

 

A story of taking a sword to Juyo follows, part 1:

 

Around 8 years ago my wife and I were travelling Japan and had hit Osaka for a few days. I knew of a sword dealer there that I had wanted to meet for a while.

 

We stopped in for a brief look at some swords and sitting in full display quietly at the end of the shop was a Muromachi Hirotsugu sword. It looked off for Hirotsugu because of the polish but was clearly Hitatsura. See attached the pictures of the sword before and the papers before.

 

I decided to ask that awkward question and my wife said "only if you gift it to me" I said "ok".

 

I put down a deposit and held the sword there for a few weeks and told the dealer I would pay in full as soon as possible.

 

Getting back to Tokyo I asked Paul Martin if he was passing by Osaka at any point would he be willing to consult on the sword after I had paid for it, he agreed as he was filming in the area and took time from his schedule to help me on a detailed consultation. His consensus was that the sword was good  👍. 

 

I asked if he would take the  sword back with him for further work and maybe help with Shinsa. He agreed and the sword made its way back to Tokyo. 

 

Having the sword in its' current polish i asked Paul Martin to assist with a submission to Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa and we had  the sword through in one sitting Hozon to THozon. See attached.

[Rayhan]

Part 2:

 

After the sword successfully passed THozon i was elated and my wife more so, so then I thought, Juyo next maybe? 

 

I asked Paul what he thought " No comments on Juyo, you want to try then I will submit but I make no comments" this was the professional thing to do, every sword enters at its own merit and on top of that it was a Muromachi sword. 8 years ago passing Muromachi was slim at best.

 

We submitted  and the sword failed, oh no!

 

Ultimately I was having a conversation with Darcy and mentioned the failure to which he  asked to see the images of the blade. That night at 2AM ( Darcy and I shared the fact we never sleep much) he sent me a message saying that the sword should be polished by Saito sensei in sashikomi style and try for Juyo one more time. I agreed and Paul sent the sword in with Saito sensei (the polish was in 5k USD range) 

 

The sword was submitted again and passed! And is now my wifes' sword. 

[Franco]

6 hours ago, Rayhan said:

Ultimately I was having a conversation with Darcy and mentioned the failure to which he  asked to see the images of the blade. That night at 2AM ( Darcy and I shared the fact we never sleep much) he sent me a message saying that the sword should be polished by Saito sensei in sashikomi style and try for Juyo one more time. I agreed and Paul sent the sword in with Saito sensei (the polish was in 5k USD range) 

 

The sword was submitted again and passed! And is now my wifes' sword

 

Type of polish, quality of, foundation all matter. Choose your polish and polisher wisely. Ha!

Edited Monday at 03:32 AM by Franco

[CSM101]

Last year at the DTI you could find 5 or 6 tanto by Rai Kunimitsu. Signed and unsigned, from 7,x sun to 9,x sun. All with Juyo papers.

 

The price range was from 6,6 Mio Yen to 11 Mio Yen.

 

Do you really think that the Juyo session is an important factor?

[Rayhan]

7 minutes ago, CSM101 said:

Last year at the DTI you could find 5 or 6 tanto by Rai Kunimitsu. Signed and unsigned, from 7,x sun to 9,x sun. All with Juyo papers.

 

The price range was from 6,6 Mio Yen to 11 Mio Yen.

 

Do you really think that the Juyo session is an important factor?

I think you can put any price you want on a sword and some will sell because people don't want to delve deeper and some will not because people will check at length before spending so much. 

 

But yes, I think sessions matter and I think judges and their motivation at the time matters greatly.

[Mushin]

I think it's important to acknowledge what many of us come to realize over time: not all Juyo sessions are created equal—but great swords are great swords, regardless of when they passed. That’s really the heart of what Darcy Brockbank tried to convey consistently in his writings. A masterpiece in Session 22 is still a masterpiece, just as a weak sword that slipped through in Session 48 is still a weak sword, regardless of the paper or session.

The problem is, markets are driven by perception, and the “ladder fallacy” isn’t going away anytime soon. I’ve seen some collectors—well-meaning but only partially informed—declare they’d “never touch a sword from Sessions 20–28,” as if the entirety of a session can be discredited. In reality, the criticism was always about the marginal swords that got a generous nod, not the standouts. But because many collectors aren’t equipped to evaluate nuance—especially through photos or oshigata—the default becomes blanket dismissal.

On the flip side, we also hear: “Oh, that’s from Session XX, which was a hard session—so it must be good.” Maybe. Maybe not. It still comes down to the individual sword: its workmanship, condition, and how it stands against the best examples of that smith or tradition.

Another overlooked complication is that the meaning of certain terms and designations has changed over the years—den, Sue-Sa, and others have shifted subtly (or not so subtly), without much formal explanation. So even the terminology isn’t a static yardstick.

I’m not anti-paper—far from it. Papers serve a vital role, especially in establishing market trust and valuation. If a top-tier Japanese dealer offered me an unpapered piece, I might trust their word based on reputation. But the sword doesn’t become “real” to the market until the papers catch up. Just look at Darcy’s own experience buying that Kanemitsu: no matter how good his eye, the validation didn't arrive until the hozon came through.

At the end of the day, your name only goes so far unless it’s backed by credentials or recognition. I could call a sword “Juyo quality,” and even if I’m right, it’s just my opinion—until the NBTHK agrees, it doesn’t move the needle for most buyers.

So yes, papers matter. And yes, the Juyo sessions are uneven. But in the end, it always—always—comes down to the sword itself.

[Rayhan]

1 hour ago, Mushin said:

 

I think it's important to acknowledge what many of us come to realize over time: not all Juyo sessions are created equal—but great swords are great swords, regardless of when they passed. That’s really the heart of what Darcy Brockbank tried to convey consistently in his writings. A masterpiece in Session 22 is still a masterpiece, just as a weak sword that slipped through in Session 48 is still a weak sword, regardless of the paper or session.

The problem is, markets are driven by perception, and the “ladder fallacy” isn’t going away anytime soon. I’ve seen some collectors—well-meaning but only partially informed—declare they’d “never touch a sword from Sessions 20–28,” as if the entirety of a session can be discredited. In reality, the criticism was always about the marginal swords that got a generous nod, not the standouts. But because many collectors aren’t equipped to evaluate nuance—especially through photos or oshigata—the default becomes blanket dismissal.

On the flip side, we also hear: “Oh, that’s from Session XX, which was a hard session—so it must be good.” Maybe. Maybe not. It still comes down to the individual sword: its workmanship, condition, and how it stands against the best examples of that smith or tradition.

Another overlooked complication is that the meaning of certain terms and designations has changed over the years—den, Sue-Sa, and others have shifted subtly (or not so subtly), without much formal explanation. So even the terminology isn’t a static yardstick.

I’m not anti-paper—far from it. Papers serve a vital role, especially in establishing market trust and valuation. If a top-tier Japanese dealer offered me an unpapered piece, I might trust their word based on reputation. But the sword doesn’t become “real” to the market until the papers catch up. Just look at Darcy’s own experience buying that Kanemitsu: no matter how good his eye, the validation didn't arrive until the hozon came through.

At the end of the day, your name only goes so far unless it’s backed by credentials or recognition. I could call a sword “Juyo quality,” and even if I’m right, it’s just my opinion—until the NBTHK agrees, it doesn’t move the needle for most buyers.

So yes, papers matter. And yes, the Juyo sessions are uneven. But in the end, it always—always—comes down to the sword itself.

Yes exactly, I think its very important to see how many of each smith passed and then look at why, why in the good sense and the sceptical sense. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Rayhans Hirotsugu story is amazing one and it highlights many things that go into submission and collecting at high level. Things that I and I suspect many others have not even thought about. I would have been perfectly happy with the sword in the original polish but more experienced eye saw how it would benefit from top class polish and the end result is most likely wonderful.

 

I hate the business side talk about monetary values etc. but as this hobby is so connected to dealing items and various papering tiers it is unfortunate part of it. To me it just makes wonderful historical items feel bit commecialized like they are more common goods that are just traded over and over. However the talk and discussion about Jūyō items is relevant in the sense that it gives bit of "common ground" for everyone to the discussion. Of course we all have varying understanding about them. Many might have never seen one in hand, some might get to occasionally view them in hand (I admit for me even after 20+years in the hobby it is always a rare and exciting chance whenever I get to hold a Jūyō level sword in my own hands [and a fun fact they have all been wonderful swords, even though we might talk bit negatively about some Jūyō swords to a very average collector like me they are always very good quality swords]), and yes we do have collectors in the forum that are at the top level and for them these are the types of swords they are accustomed to.

 

I think the best fact in NBTHK Jūyō is that the swords get documented to be used as a reference. Of course limited number of people will have access to the information but it is still one of the best resources towards high end items. It is also a good way to get the discussion going as people will at least have some experience of them. Trying to build up discussion about some shrine swords would prove most likely much more difficult as maybe only an handful of members would be aware of those particular swords.

 

Still online access to Japanese dealer sites, lots of international people visiting DTI, many things like that make Jūyō swords appear to be more common than they actually are. I know I have done some calculations lately about total number of swords in Japan, as well as I should have fairly accurate guess on the number of Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon passed items. Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō you can just actually count as they are in the references. Jūyō item % is very tiny when you compare it to the number of Japanese swords in Japan.

 

When thinking about Jūyō sessions one thing to look at is also the pass factor. I know few forum members excel in stuff like this, and have made amazing research on this. There is huge variance between the sessions in percentage of submitted items that pass. NBTHK does not hide this information at all, numbers of sent items and passed items are published in their Tōken Bijutsu magazines. Of course magazine is only sent to members, however recently NBTHK has published the results on their website too so everyone interested could have viewed them there. Like Franco and Colin wrote above it is extremely complicated with so many factors it goes way over my head. I have only fairly recently understood how important historical provenance also is. Of course it makes sense in the way that swords owned by high ranking people and families back in the day were quite often very high quality items.

[Katsujinken]

4 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I know I have done some calculations lately about total number of swords in Japan, as well as I should have fairly accurate guess on the number of Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon passed items. Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō you can just actually count as they are in the references. Jūyō item % is very tiny when you compare it to the number of Japanese swords in Japan.

Would love to hear your point of view on these numbers given how extensive your research has been. 

[CSM101]

Dear Rayhan,

 

I am pretty sure that you know the Yamanaka Newsletter. But the Eicken Newsletter? Short explanation: the NBTHK-EB held some lectures and Helge Eicken was the man behind it. So, in one of the lectures in 1989 you can find a chart what determines a price for  a sword.

Unfortunately it is in german. The points are: how many pieces left, artistic value, provenance, paper, etc. Maybe someone can translate it all. But this is how you come to a certain price.

 

Uwe 

 

 

 

Scan_2025_05_06_12_44_30_634.pdf

[Lewis B]

52 minutes ago, CSM101 said:

Dear Rayhan,

 

I am pretty sure that you know the Yamanaka Newsletter. But the Eicken Newsletter? Short explanation: the NBTHK-EB held some lectures and Helge Eicken was the man behind it. So, in one of the lectures in 1989 you can find a chart what determines a price for  a sword.

Unfortunately it is in german. The points are: how many pieces left, artistic value, provenance, paper, etc. Maybe someone can translate it all. But this is how you come to a certain price.

 

Uwe 

 

 

 

Scan_2025_05_06_12_44_30_634.pdf 18.77 kB · 13 downloads

Here's an English translation

 

 

Sword valuation en.pdf

[Rayhan]

1 hour ago, CSM101 said:

Dear Rayhan,

 

I am pretty sure that you know the Yamanaka Newsletter. But the Eicken Newsletter? Short explanation: the NBTHK-EB held some lectures and Helge Eicken was the man behind it. So, in one of the lectures in 1989 you can find a chart what determines a price for  a sword.

Unfortunately it is in german. The points are: how many pieces left, artistic value, provenance, paper, etc. Maybe someone can translate it all. But this is how you come to a certain price.

 

Uwe 

 

 

 

Scan_2025_05_06_12_44_30_634.pdf 18.77 kB · 15 downloads

I see the variables are similar to most antique or artworks but I am not sure why we are now focusing on price. I can price a sword at any number, it will sell only at a price that a buyer sees fit to remove their wallet from their perception and desire. Please let's focus on the Juyo and what has passed and why. Even amongst say 200 Awataguchi in the same room you will get 200 different prices, it's pointless to look at pricing to gauge intrinsic value against market value at the time. 

 

9 times out of 10 the people complaining about pricing aren't buying anyway and the ones buying are silent as midnight. 

 

Here you have a list of all Juyo sessions what is important is what passed and at what rates and ultimately why, what motivated the pass. This motivation changes as it is based on human factor as well as intrinsic variables associated with each sword / item.

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here are the amount of swords NBTHK has had passing through each phase of their shinsa. The numbers are not 100% correct but in the quite close neighbourhood and they will hopefully give you lot of insight. Starting from highest tier to lowest

 

Tokubetsu Jūyō - c. 1,200 swords

Jūyō - c. 12,000 swords

Tokubetsu Hozon - c. 80,000 swords

Hozon - c. 125,000 swords

 

I am quite sure there are 2,000,000+ swords in Japan. I made a post about license numbers as it is a running system and you can see it here: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/52155-naginata-naoshi/page/4/#comment-545277

 

The problem with running systems is that if the sword leaves the system (for example advances to tier above in NBTHK system) it just remains in the system as number even though the actual sword would not be Hozon papered anymore. Similarily if the sword returns to the system it gets issued a new number (sword gets a new license number when it returns to Japanese system, or for NBTHK shinsa the sword gets resent for Hozon and it gets a new paper and different attribution). Unfortunately these are the closest numbers that I can get.

 

About the pass factor, I chose 2 sessions slightly randomly as they have pretty much the same number of swords sent in. And I do own books for both of the sessions so I have data on every sword passed.

 

Jūyō 68 shinsa had 817 swords sent in to the evaluation. Out of them 66 swords passed. With my math that would be 8,1% pass rate

Jūyō 25 shinsa had 819 swords sent in to the evaluation. Out of them 341 swords passed. Using the same math it would be 41,6% pass rate

 

Pretty big difference... In the 2000's I think the pass rate has mostly fluctuated between 10-20%. There are some below that and some above that. It seems like the most recent ones 68,69,70 have all have been judged very stricly with very small amount of swords passing through.

[Mushin]

Great work, Jussi. If I’m not mistaken, the past several Juyo shinsa pass rates have hovered well below 10%, with Session 70 ticking slightly higher than 69, but still yielding the fewest accepted swords in decades. That trend alone speaks volumes about how much more difficult the process seems now.

 

But circling back to the Hirotsugu blade Rayhan so generously shared—while I fully agree that a polish can make or break a Shinsa decision, there’s another factor that deserves equal attention: the Shinsa teams themselves.

 

Boards of judges rotate. Tastes shift. The standards—and even biases—of individual judges can vary from session to session. Add to that the overarching policies and guidance from the Honbu, and you have a landscape where the definition of “Juyo-worthy” is a seemingly ever movable feast. These dynamics can weigh just as heavily as polish on the final outcome.

 

Politics, too—unfortunately the bane of all human endeavors—can sometimes color the process too. Case in point: I recently sent a mumei ko-wakizashi back to Japan for re-evaluation. It had received Tokubetsu Hozon papers, but the attribution was to a group that technically wasn’t even a formal school. Upon resubmission, the blade was again granted Tokubetsu Hozon—but this time with an attribution to one of the top-tier smiths in the history of Nihonto. It was an unbelievable dream result. At that point, I was happy to walk away with the win. I worried that submitting it to Juyo might risk a reversion to the weaker attribution. But I was told by a prominent Japanese dealer that once a Tokubetsu Hozon team makes a bold decision, the Juyo team that immediate follows will often support it because of the need to project consistency. I took the leap, and the sword passed Juyo with the improved attribution intact. I am still grinning over the result.

 

But how much of that result was luck? How much was due to the quality of the new polish? How much was owed to the power and allure of the new attribution? Or to internal consistency within the NBTHK? I’ll never know. But I’m convinced that if I’d waited for a different session or team, the outcome could easily have changed. Timing, polish, attribution, and personnel—all of it matters. The sword has not changed. It's still the same piece. But I would lie if I said my perception of it hasn't.