Jacques Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Just now, Lewis B said: I wouldn't expect anything less. Have you ever attended a Shinsa session? No, so don't talk about what you don't know. 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, Jacques said: I fully disagree Interesting point – I’ve seen different opinions on this, which makes me curious. Would you mind sharing why you see it differently? I think understanding both perspectives could really help put the whole Jūyō process into context. Quote
Scogg Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Here is part of why people say Juyo is a competition. Written by the late Darcy Brockbank who was a respected scholar of Nihonto. It’s a web archive article, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit. I have learned a lot from Darcy’s contributions and am inclined agree with his view https://web.archive.org/web/20201022000337/https://blog.yuhindo.com/hozon-is-a-test-juyo-is-a-competition/ Please understand that this is just one side of the argument here. I don’t presume to know what Jacques believes. Lovely sword by the way! -Sam 1 1 Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 25 minutes ago, Scogg said: Here is part of why people say Juyo is a competition. Written by the late Darcy Brockbank who was a respected scholar of Nihonto. It’s a web archive article, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit. I have learned a lot from Darcy’s contributions and am inclined agree with his view https://web.archive.org/web/20201022000337/https://blog.yuhindo.com/hozon-is-a-test-juyo-is-a-competition/ Please understand that this is just one side of the argument here. I don’t presume to know what Jacques believes. Lovely sword by the way! -Sam Darcy would be my point of reference for this opinion. AI also agrees Yes, NBTHK Juyo is a competition, in the sense that a blade's passing is not solely based on meeting a set of absolute criteria but also on how it compares to other swords submitted in the same session. While the Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai (NBTHK) evaluates swords based on quality and condition, the Juyo Token (Important Sword) designation involves a competitive element where only a limited number of blades can pass each year, meaning a superior sword might be passed over for a better example from the same smith or school. Understanding the "Competition" Aspect of Juyo Shinsa: Relative Quality: Even if a sword meets the minimum requirements for Juyo, it might not pass if other swords in the same submission are considered superior. Limited Passes: The NBTHK only awards Juyo status to a specific number of swords annually, making it a competitive process where blades vie for a limited number of slots. Historical Context and Comparison: Judges consider the historical context and how a blade compares to other examples by the same smith or school, potentially leading to changes in opinion over time. Polish Matters: The condition of the sword's polish is also a factor in the evaluation process, and it must meet the NBTHK's standards. Voluntary Entry: Submitting a sword for Juyo shinsa is voluntary, and by entering, you agree to the NBTHK's rules and evaluation criteria. 3 2 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 31 minutes ago, Scogg said: Here is part of why people say Juyo is a competition. Written by the late Darcy Brockbank who was a respected scholar of Nihonto. It’s a web archive article, so you’ll have to scroll down a bit. I have learned a lot from Darcy’s contributions and am inclined agree with his view https://web.archive.org/web/20201022000337/https://blog.yuhindo.com/hozon-is-a-test-juyo-is-a-competition/ Please understand that this is just one side of the argument here. I don’t presume to know what Jacques believes. Hi Sam, thanks a lot for sharing the Darcy Brockbank article – I just read through it, and it really helps to see why people describe Jūyō as a “competition.” The way he explains the jump from Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon to Jūyō makes a lot of sense. For my own Norinaga that passed Jūyō in 2023, it’s interesting to think about how timing and other submissions might have played a role, especially with stricter standards these days. Really appreciate you adding this context to the discussion. 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 2 hours ago, Scogg said: Lovely sword by the way! thank you so much for the kind words – I really appreciate it! When I was looking for a Jūyō sword, I actually had the chance to choose between several very nice pieces. In the end I decided on this Norinaga because I found the combination of being a founder’s work and from the Yamato tradition incredibly fascinating. It felt like the right piece to study and appreciate over time. 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 5 hours ago, Tokaido said: Nice sword and koshirae, by the way. thank you very much for the congratulations – that really means a lot to me! I’m especially happy with the koshirae; it is beautiful and really complements the blade. Having both pieces complete like this makes it even more enjoyable to analyze and understand the sword as a whole. Quote
Hoshi Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Hello Denis, Lovely sword. Koto period Juyo blades by school founders are highly valuable. We know that with five blades ranked Juyo Bunkazai, Norinaga has a long tail of excellence. My heartfelt congratulations on passing Juyo Shinsa, especially during these hard sessions. And I appreciate seeing good sword being discussed on NMB, thank you for your contribution. As for your blade: Strengths: - Attributed to a school founder, which is rare: we have ~50 blades certified blades by the founder, of which 21 are signed and Juyo+ - Comes with a nice paired Koshirae (This is a big factor in the West, not so much in Japan) - Sizeable motohaba at 3cm, all else being equal, wide blades are much appreciated. - Passed a hard session on the merit of its deki (not a rare inscription type) Unknowns: We cannot judge the deki from the photography provided, so this remains a question mark. We know that its lower-bound is juyo level, but not the upper bound. Compromises: - Mumei (half of them are signed, so they exist, including dated works) - Short: 64.2cm is on the left tail of the Norinaga Daito length distribution Here are some good questions for you to research: - Where is it situated in Shikkake Norinaga's broader certified corpus? Lower Juyo? middle Juyo? Top 10% (Tokuju candidates), amongst the top five in existence (Exceeding Jubi, approaching Jubun)? - Early, Middle, late work? Can we tell at all? Typical, atypical? Where does it fit in the story of Norinaga and Yamato-den scholarship, and do we learn something new about Shikkake Norinaga from this blade? For an example study of a school founder's corpus, see here. The fact that it is a Juyo blade attributed to a school founder is very precious in and of itself. These are amongst the most desirable Yamato blades, Chin-Chin Cho-Cho. You are a lucky custodian. Best, Hoshi 5 1 1 Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Check out Sesko's Kotozen-HC kantei reference. There are 3 Norinaga swords, a tachi and 2 katana, described in detail with oshigata on p46-51. Very useful to compare with your blade, especially as these are also mumei although two have kinzogan Mei by Hon'ami Koshitsu and Hon'ami Koson. 1 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 24 minutes ago, Hoshi said: Hello Denis, Lovely sword. Koto period Juyo blades by school founders are highly valuable. We know that with five blades ranked Juyo Bunkazai, Norinaga has a long tail of excellence. My heartfelt congratulations on passing Juyo Shinsa, especially during these hard sessions. And I appreciate seeing good sword being discussed on NMB, thank you for your contribution. Hi Hoshi, thank you so much for taking the time to write such a detailed and thoughtful reply – I truly appreciate it. Your perspective on founder works and the way you broke down both the strengths and compromises of my sword really gives me new angles to think about. I’ve also been reflecting on the same points you mentioned – especially the shorter length and the fact that the blade is mumei. At the same time, I’m very aware of how scarce founder works like this are, and it’s fascinating to consider where this piece might sit in that small group of certified Norinaga blades. Thank you as well for sharing the study link. I find that approach fascinating and I plan to analyze Norinaga’s work in a similar way. It really opens up a whole new perspective for me, especially in understanding where my blade might fit within the broader body of Shikkake Norinaga’s work. And finally, thank you for your kind words about my sword – I feel very fortunate to be its custodian Best regards, Dennis 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 8 minutes ago, Lewis B said: Check out Sesko's Kotozen-HC kantei reference. There are 3 Norinaga swords, a tachi and 2 katana, described in detail with oshigata on p46-51. Very useful to compare with your blade, especially as these are also mumei although two have kinzogan Mei by Hon'ami Koshitsu and Hon'ami Koson. Hi Lewis, thank you very much for pointing me towards Sesko’s Kotozen-HC Kantei Reference. That’s exactly the kind of resource one should have when working with blades of this level, and I’m glad you mentioned it. I’ll be meeting a close friend on Tuesday who has the volume in his library, so I’ll be able to study those pages directly and compare the three Norinaga examples with my sword. I’ll make sure to share any interesting observations here afterwards – it should be very insightful to see how these oshigata line up. Thanks again for the excellent recommendation! Best regards, Dennis Quote
Jacques Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Quote Darcy Brockbank who was a respected scholar of Nihonto Darcy was a dealer no more or less. He's never been to a shinsa and what he says is only his opinion. I met him in Tokyo and was able to judge the level of his knowledge. Quote I don’t presume to know what Jacques believes. I don't believe anything, swords are judged on their artistic quality and I don't see how they can be put in “competition”. A Yamato is not comparable to a Bizen or a Soshu. 1 1 2 Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 The original post says this is a Shodei Norinaga Shikkake but neither the Juyo paper you posted nor the sayagaki mention the generation. Does the Zufu clarify this attribution? I ask because the nidei also worked in a similar style. NORINAGA (則長), 1st gen., Shōō (正応, 1288-1293), Yamato – “Yamato Norinaga” (大和則長), “Yamato Norinaga saku” (大和則長作), “Yamato no Kuni Shikkake-jū Norinaga saku” (大和国尻懸住則長作), “Yamato Shikkake-jū Norinaga saku” (大和尻懸住則長作), first name Tarōzaemon (太郎左衛門), Shikkake school, according to tradition the son of Norihiro (則弘), because there are no blades extant by Norihiro – who is considered as ancestor of the Shikkake school – the 1st gen. Norinaga as often regarded as actual founder of the school, he worked according to tradition in the vicinity of the old marketplace of Kishida village (岸田) in the Yamabe district (山辺) of Yamato province, he was active from about Shōō to Ryakuō (暦応, 1338-1342), there exists a tantō with the date signature of the third year of Bunpō (文保, 1319) and the information “made at the age of 48” and a tantō with the date of the third year of Ryakuō (1340) and the age of 69, that means we can calculate his year of birth with Bun´ei nine (文永, 1272), there are tachi, tantō, and naginata are extant whereas tantō can also be in kanmuri-otoshi-zukuri or shōbu-zukuri, tachi have a shallower sori than contemporary blades, the jigane is an itame mixed with masame, ji-nie, chikei, and some yubashiri, and appears as so-called “Shikkake-hada” (mokume along the shinogi and masame along the hamon), the hamon is a suguha or suguha-chō mixed with uniform ko-gunome elements in nie-deki, in addition hotsure, nijūba, kinsuji, and sunagashi appear, the bōshi ist sugu, runs out as yakitsume, and tends with its hakikake often to kaen but can also appear as midare-komi, some hamon interpretations with uniform ko-gunome remind of the Dōei school (道永), this characteristic feature is already mentioned in the Keifun Ki (解紛記) which was published in Keichō twelve (慶長, 1607), ō-wazamono, jō-saku ◎ NORINAGA (則長), 2nd gen., Jōji (貞治, 1362-1368), Yamato – “Yamato no Kuni Norinaga” (大和国則長), “Yamato Sakon no Jō Norinaga saku” (大和左近允則長作), “Yamato no Kuni Shikkake Norinaga” (大和国尻懸 則長), son of the 1st gen., successive generations Norinaga continue to work in the style of the 1st gen. but from the start of the Muromachi period a noticeable decline in quality can be seen, old records of the school say that short signatures of the kind “Yamato Norinaga saku” belong to the 1st gen. and longer naga-mei with the supplement “no Kuni,” “Shikkake,” or “Sakon no Jō” (左近允) to the 2nd gen., but recent comparative studies of extant signatures have disproved this, i.e. no conclusions can be drawn just on the basis of the length of early Norinaga signatures 1 Quote
Rivkin Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Unfortunately the photographs were taken very poorly. This is one of Japanese setups with a fixed box and a fixed light which is however positioned in the way it accents hadori but not the hamon. It however also catches a bit of hada so it sort of has appearance of a real sword, but in reality you can't see anything at all. That this is 2023 session might mean something, or it might not. It is sort of like getting an award in Physics - "we did not give awards to Europeans for a long time... We need to support this topic because they are facing hardships... this guy was coming up for awards many times but never got any". All are valid and present considerations in all such "competitions", and in the sword world the first thing to consider is what were the Norinaga attributed blades that passed, which more or less defines the range. In regards to school's standing, the first thing to check is whether there is an upper bound on attributions. For example, the best Taima can become Yukimitsu, the best Echizen Tametsugu can move Shizu, Go, Norishige, even Masamune. Shikkake is however relatively well defined because its periodic gunome or alike hamon is not common for the period. At times it goes Shizu or Yamato Shizu or Mino Kanenobu but its not very common. So in principle you can have a very strong Shikkake blade, and there are some. Overall while it does not have strong TJ potential as a school, at the same time it has a good TH to Juyo pass rate, so the worksmanship is significantly tighter compared to say Tegai. Aoe is not Yamato, its in fact one of the greatest schools of Nihonto which however produced quite a few trashy blades. So did Bizen, but somehow it did not hurt its reputation nearly as much. In regards to Hosho - even tighter work, daito are rare while Shikkake is mostly daito school, I would rate Hosho higher but mostly because Hosho aesthetic is more subtle and classic. Senjuin is a catchall for pre-end-of-Kamakura period Yamato blades. There are absolute top tier items, and there are quite a few trashy ones. 1 Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 I seem to remember Darcy saying that one of his favourite blades was a top tier Senjuin. 1 Quote
Jacques Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 Quote 1st gen., Shōō (正応, 1288-1293) Wrong Is the rest of the text correct? What said Fujishiro Quote NORINAGA SHIKKAKE [BUNPÔ 1317 YAMATO] KOTÔ JÔSAKU He is also called Shikkake. [TN: Note the different second kanji in the spelling.] He lived in Yamabe-gun Iwata Mura Shikkake, is the son of Norihiro, and was called Tarôzaemon. To make the period of his works clear by providing the nengo on the backs of his works, there are BUNPÔ SANNEN TSUCHINOTO-HITSUJI SANGATSU JÛYOKKA SHIJÛHASSAI (48 years of age (1319), GEN'Ô NI KANOE-SARU (1320) JÛNIGATSU HI, GENTOKU SANNEN KANOTO-HITSUJI JÛNIGATSU ICHINICHI (1331), SHÔCHÛ SANNEN SANGATSU HI, and KARYAKU SANNEN ROKUGATSU ROKUJÛKYÛSAI (69 years of age) (1328). Therefore, as for Norinaga, in order for there to be a first generation in Kenji and a second generation in Gentoku, the nengo presented above are entirely consistent with two generations, but it is thought that these have had their eras moved back, and Shôhei Gannen (first year) (1346) is made equal to an age of 70+. His works are katana with a high shinogi, hamon is suguba that has both a wide and narrow yakiba with ashi in the narrow sections and nie in the wide portions. The bôshi is frequently yakizume, and the tantô are takenokozori. (Ôwazamono). 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 12 minutes ago, Lewis B said: The original post says this is a Shodei Norinaga Shikkake but neither the Juyo paper you posted nor the sayagaki mention the generation. Does the Zufu clarify this attribution? I ask because the nidei also worked in a similar style. Hi Lewis, Thank you for pointing that out – you’re absolutely right that the Jūyō paper itself doesn’t specify the generation. In this case, the NBTHK usually only states the smith’s name for mumei blades, even if the style and period strongly indicate a first‑generation work. What gives me more confidence about the Shodai attribution is the Tanobe sayagaki, which explicitly mentions “Shodai Norinaga,” and the stylistic features described in the Jūyō Zufu – late Kamakura workmanship, broad mihaba, and the typical Shikkake‑hada – all align with first‑generation examples. So, while the official NBTHK certificate is conservative in its wording, the combination of sayagaki and the blade’s characteristics makes me quite comfortable referencing it as Shodai in discussions (while also clarifying why). Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 14 minutes ago, Jacques said: NORINAGA (則長), 1st gen., Shōō (正応, 1288-1293) NORINAGA (則長), 2nd gen., Jōji (貞治, 1362-1368) Methinks the dates are a little messed up. Dated blades up to 1340 for the Shodei with 1272 given as year of birth. Maybe Markus can clarify. 1 Quote
nulldevice Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 5 minutes ago, Lewis B said: Methinks the dates are a little messed up. Dated blades up to 1340 for the Shodei. Maybe Markus can clarify. I believe that's just the starting era of the shodai and nidai smiths and not their entire working period. 1 Quote
Lewis B Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 1 minute ago, nulldevice said: I believe that's just the starting era of the shodai and nidai smiths and not their entire working period. Thanks. That would make more sense. Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 31 minutes ago, Lewis B said: The original post says this is a Shodei Norinaga Shikkake but neither the Juyo paper you posted nor the sayagaki mention the generation. Does the Zufu clarify this attribution? I ask because the nidei also worked in a similar style. Both the Jūyō papers and the sayagaki by Tanobe-sensei attribute the blade simply to Shikkake Norinaga, without mentioning any later generation. From what I’ve seen, Tanobe-sensei typically adds “Nidai” or another note when he considers a later generation, so the lack of such a qualifier strongly suggests he attributes it to the Shodai. the characteristics described in the sayagaki (and also reflected in the Jūyō zufu) align well with what’s documented for the founder’s work, so I feel confident this is meant to be first generation Norinaga. I really appreciate you raising this point – it’s something I wanted to be sure about myself. Best regards, Dennis Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 34 minutes ago, Rivkin said: Unfortunately the photographs were taken very poorly. This is one of Japanese setups with a fixed box and a fixed light which is however positioned in the way it accents hadori but not the hamon. It however also catches a bit of hada so it sort of has appearance of a real sword, but in reality you can't see anything at all. Hi Kirill, Thank you very much for your detailed insights regarding the relative standing of Hōshō compared to Shikkake. I find this perspective extremely valuable, especially since I am still learning how these subtle aesthetic differences influence market perception and appraisal. I agree that Hōshō’s tighter hada and more subtle style are highly appreciated – in fact, when I first started looking into Yamato schools, I initially considered Hōshō blades for precisely that reason. What fascinates me about Shikkake, however, is that despite being more “rustic,” it has a strong daitō tradition and often shows bold features (wide motohaba, powerful suguha with gunome, etc.), which gives it a distinct character among the Gokaden. Your comparison also helps me understand better why Shikkake seems to have an excellent TH-to-Jūyō pass rate, even if it doesn’t always reach the very top tier like Hōshō. This adds important context when thinking about both scholarly and market perspectives. Thanks again for sharing this – I really appreciate contributions like yours, as they make discussions like these so much richer. 1 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 13 minutes ago, nulldevice said: believe that's just the starting era of the shodai and nidai smiths and not their entire working period. Yes, thats what I was thinking too. Thank you Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 1 hour ago, Lewis B said: Check out Sesko's Kotozen-HC kantei reference. There are 3 Norinaga swords, a tachi and 2 katana, described in detail with oshigata on p46-51. Very useful to compare with your blade, especially as these are also mumei although two have kinzogan Mei by Hon'ami Koshitsu and Hon'ami Koson. Hi everyone, As Lewis suggested earlier, I’m posting the oshigata of my Shikkake Norinaga Jūyō blade for direct comparison. I’d be very interested in hearing your thoughts on how its hamon, hada, and boshi align with other documented Norinaga works – especially those in Sesko’s Kotozen‑HC Kantei Reference (pp. 46–51) or similar Jūyō examples. I’m curious to see if these features look typical for Shodai Norinaga or if they show anything unusual. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated I hope the quality is good enough...Otherwise I will upload a high res scan later. Quote
Markus Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 I was pointed out to this thread to comment. As written in the preface to my publication: "Point (3) lists the handed-down artistic period where this date has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some dates are based on extant dated signatures and are more or less accurate, but most of them were transmitted again and again over the centuries with the initial listings often simply based on hearsay." What I am trying to say is that all of that is piling on and piling on atop of surviving period sources. There is re-assessment necessary on all levels, no exception. And that is where we are right now. 5 3 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 4 minutes ago, Markus said: I was pointed out to this thread to comment. As written in the preface to my publication: "Point (3) lists the handed-down artistic period where this date has to be taken with a grain of salt. Some dates are based on extant dated signatures and are more or less accurate, but most of them were transmitted again and again over the centuries with the initial listings often simply based on hearsay." Hi Markus, Thank you so much for taking the time to comment here – it really adds a lot of depth to this discussion. I found your note about the transmitted dates very interesting and it certainly helps to put things into perspective. Since this thread already touches on some key aspects of Norinaga’s work, I’m curious (and I’m sure others here would be too) how you personally approach these pieces when it comes to understanding which generation they might belong to. For example, in the case of my blade, the NBTHK and Tanobe sayagaki both attribute it to Norinaga without specifying the generation, but the workmanship has certain traits I’ve seen associated with early Shikkake. I’ve also posted the oshigata here in case it offers any points of comparison with known examples. I’d be very interested in your perspective – not necessarily as a firm verdict, but just in terms of what stands out to you or how you’d frame it in the broader Norinaga corpus. Thanks again for joining in, it’s great to have your insights here. Best regards, Dennis Quote
Markus Posted July 27 Report Posted July 27 I will chime back in as quickly as possible 👍 I know many here have reached out lately via email on other topics, and I try to work off that back log asap 😇 Just very occupied these days to get the Tosogu Classroom over the finishing line. 1 5 Quote
DENihontocollector Posted July 27 Author Report Posted July 27 13 minutes ago, Markus said: I will chime back in as quickly as possible 👍 I know many here have reached out lately via email on other topics, and I try to work off that back log asap 😇 Just very occupied these days to get the Tosogu Classroom over the finishing line. Hi Markus, Thank you so much for taking the time to stop by this thread – it truly means a lot to me. I completely understand how busy things must be for you, especially with wrapping up the Tosogu Classroom project, and I really appreciate that you still make time to share your expertise here. I’m genuinely excited to hear your thoughts whenever you have a chance – no rush at all. Just knowing that you’ll chime in at some point already feels incredibly valuable, and I’m very grateful in advance. Best regards, Dennis Quote
sabiji Posted July 28 Report Posted July 28 Overrated, underrated, significance in relation to other Yamato schools, popularity—these are all market-related questions. As someone interested in Yamato swords and a potential buyer who already owns such a sword, I would be interested to know how my blade ranks in the context of Shikkake in general, and for Shikkake Norinaga in particular. What characteristics lead to an immediate Norinaga attribution, and how does the craftsmanship of my blade compare to other works attributed to Norinaga? And would this particular blade fully meet my expectations and requirements as a Shikkake work, or would it be advisable to wait for a more suitable sword? Passing a 2023 Juyo session for a 64 cm Mumei O-Suriage Shikkake seems to speak for its importance. What does the Setsumei explicitly say? Unfortunately, the PDF for the Sayagaki is no longer available, and Tanobe-Sensei doesn't seem to have written much either. Is there any information available about Tanobe-Sensei's comments in connection with the creation of the Sayagaki? That can sometimes be very interesting and insightful. 1 Quote
Jacques Posted July 28 Report Posted July 28 The Nihonto meikan, translated by Markus, makes the same mistake, underlining once again the need to always cross-reference to check the validity of what we read. Another source, Nihon koto-shi says that Quote There is an extant tantō by Shikkake Norinaga (則長) with a production date of the Ryakuō 3 (暦応, 1340) and his age of 69. It is recognised as a work of his last years but the authenticity of the inscription has yet to be studied. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.