Opinions on Jūyō Katana by Shikkake Norinaga (1st Gen., Yamato – Late Kamakura)

[DENihontocollector]

39 minutes ago, Markus said:

I would like to quote from Tanobe Sensei's latest book on the Yamato tradition, where he elaborates a bit more on the Boston tantō that has bee mentioned:

Hi Markus,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to share this detailed insight – it really helps put the whole discussion into perspective. Your explanation about the Boston tantō and the signature conventions is fascinating, especially the point that traditional distinctions between Shodai and Nidai may need to be reconsidered.

 

In the context of my blade, which is mumei but dated late Kamakura by NBTHK Jūyō papers, this information adds a lot of nuance. It seems that, regardless of whether we label it Shodai or Nidai, the workmanship clearly belongs to Norinaga’s high-level output within the Shikkake school – and that’s ultimately what matters most to me.

 

I’ll definitely revisit the sources you mentioned and compare them with my own oshigata and setsumei. If you have any additional pointers on what characteristics to focus on when studying these works, I’d be very grateful.

 

Many thanks again for your time and expertise – it’s incredibly valuable to have your perspective in this thread.

 

Best regards,

Dennis

[DENihontocollector]

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

This might be a bit long post with lot of personal opinion. First of all I must say you have a nice sword with nice koshirae. It might be crazy but I personally might like the koshirae more than the sword itself.

 

Hi Jussi,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to share your detailed observations and personal impressions – especially with the examples you’ve personally seen in Japan. It’s extremely valuable to get insights from someone who has studied these pieces in person rather than only through books or photos.

 

I really appreciate the point you made about Norinaga essentially being the only recognized smith of the Shikkake school and how this impacts attributions. Your mention of the “bucket attribution” is something I’ve come across in discussions before, and it’s helpful to hear this confirmed by someone who has handled so many reference works.

 

Regarding my own blade, I find it fascinating to compare it to the Jūyō Bunkazai and Tokubetsu Jūyō examples you referenced. Even though opinions on Norinaga’s aesthetics may vary, the rarity of works that combine Jūyō certification, strong Yamato traits, and complete koshirae with signed fittings is something I personally value highly.

 

Your breakdown of the dated works (1319, 1338, 1340) and the broader context of the generations also helps frame my research into whether this piece aligns more closely with early Shodai output. Combined with the late Kamakura attribution by NBTHK, it’s a direction I’ll continue to explore.

 

Thank you again for adding so much depth to this thread – posts like yours elevate the discussion enormously.

 

Best regards,

Dennis

[DENihontocollector]

3 hours ago, Hoshi said:

I would be 100% focused on the deki when assessing the value of the object. Specifically, where it stands within the corpus of NOR237/NOR238, within the broader Yamato tradition, and in relation to other school founders. 

Hi Hoshi,

 

Thanks a lot for your thoughtful reply – I really appreciate the perspective you’ve shared here. Your point about Occam’s razor and the fluidity between Norinaga generations makes a lot of sense, especially when looking at the overall corpus.

 

I agree that, from both a study and market standpoint, focusing on the deki and how the blade sits within the broader Yamato tradition is more important than worrying about Shodai vs. Nidai. Still, it’s been really interesting to explore the historical context behind the name usage and signatures.

 

Thanks again for taking the time – posts like yours really add depth to the discussion.

 

Best,

Dennis

[Rivkin]

Really jealous to see this tanto! What a piece.

My personal take, in regards to the school itself, I did not have the opportunity to study any, but books do list a few Shikkake smiths with known signed blades, most prominently Muromachi "Suke" smiths but also earlier examples like Norikuni[?]. Still if it is not Muromachi there is almost nothing which is not Norinaga and by default all pieces till Oei should be Norinaga.

In regards to popularity of attributions, I feel that there are not too many other options for the classic style. With small gunome it can go Nio, and indeed there is some interplay between the schools. If gunome is wide and irregular I've seen alternative opinions going Mino.

What else is there - Houju? It would have to be very aperiodic hamon and dark jigane. Similar direction for Uda. If its very prominent gunome, there are other options like Tomoshige, but then again its unlikely to be attributed as Shikkake in the first place.

If its notare or pure suguha, then indeed other options are plentiful but also it is not a classic Shikkake and not very often attributed as such.

Overall the school's attributions are dwarfed by those to Tegai, which is reasonable.

 

In regards to generations, this could be like Nobukuni or Kaneuji a reasonable large family shop working under the same signature name, in case of Shikkake a clean cut separation between the first and second generation is more so a matter of convention.

[DENihontocollector]

50 minutes ago, Mushin said:

I agree with those telling you not to get caught up in obsessing over generational differences

Hi Mushin,

 

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and for posting about your Norinaga tanto – congratulations on acquiring such a beautiful piece! I really enjoyed reading your impressions of it, and I think it’s a wonderful example in its own right.

 

What you describe about your own experience is almost exactly the dilemma I’ve been facing with my katana: trying to determine whether it’s Shodai or Nidai. The more I read and hear from others (including your post), the clearer it becomes to me that this distinction may not be as important as I initially thought.

 

Your point about focusing on the craftsmanship and enjoying the blade for what it is really resonates with me. It’s a great reminder not to get lost in the generational debate and instead appreciate the sword itself.

 

Thanks again for sharing your perspective – it’s both calming and motivating as I continue studying my own piece.

 

Best regards,

Dennis

[DENihontocollector]

8 hours ago, Lewis B said:

I should make a correction. The Tachi in the KotozenHC is signed. However the style of midareba hamon is atypical for Norinaga in that it is almost entirely ko-gunome except for the centre section. Unlike his Yamato contemporaries, this published example shows his adoption of the up and coming Osafune style of hamon. Typically Norinaga features suguha-cho mixed with ko-gunome as featured in Dennis' blade.

Hi Lewis,

Thank you for pointing this out – that’s really interesting to me.

It’s reassuring to hear that the typical Norinaga style is suguha mixed with ko‑gunome, which seems to fit my blade very well.

The Osafune‑influenced example you mentioned makes a great contrast and helps me better understand where my sword sits stylistically within Norinaga’s work.

 

[Lewis B]

1 hour ago, Mushin said:

Dennis,

 

I agree with those telling you not to get caught up in obsessing over generational differences. I often need to heed my own advice, but, as Hoshi has pointed out, it’s pointless to stress about such things. With mumei blades it’s easy to worry about the strength of the attribution or the subtle differences with signed pieces. And with zaimei works you can easily get lost wondering about which generation forged it. Case in point: Pictures below are of a zaimei Shikkake Norinaga tanto I recently purchased. It has Hozon papers, which in and of itself doesn’t necessarily mean much, and it was listed as Kodai Norinaga. Tanobe’s sayagaki gives the time of manufacture from the end of the Nanbokucho to Oei. Once upon a time it might have been attributed to the work of the Nidai or the Sandai. Indeed, the dealer who originally listed the sword said it was the work of the Nidai. But as recent scholarship started questioning the generations’ work periods, Tanobe and the NBTHK started assigning blades to likely time of manufacture, rather than generations of smiths. This is especially true when it’s not a slam dunk for a particular generation. You see this in Nobukuni and Hasebe attributions as well these days. I bought this piece is for serval reasons, including:

1) I am tanto collector and zaimei Yamato tanto are not common, even Norinaga, which according to Jussi’s research, has 14 zaimei tanto (more than most Yamato smiths but still not many,) seven of which are Juyo from different era.
2) The sugata is lovely to my eye and the length at 29.2cm is sweet.

3) While there are some coarse areas on the ji from many polishes, the activity in the hamon is still wonderful and better than most Kodai blades I have seen, on a par with many of the Juyo examples. 

4) It was relatively inexpensive with koshirae, always a nice extra.

The key to all of this is that I liked the work. It’s better than most I have seen for sale over the years, and the price was right. And I got to study a new smith and school from a fascinating period of Japanese history. That is ultimately why most of us are in the hobby. The market does what the market does, and smiths fall in and out of favor. All that matters is that you like it. I think yours fits within the work of the Shodai, but even it is by another hand, it’s still lovely.

 

Beautiful tanto Bobby. You wouldn't happen to have a better photo to show the sugata? From what I can see it I would have put it in the first half of the 14th century. 

[Jacques]

Yoshi@ 

 

Quote

Bright and soft nioiguchi is rare in Yamato work

I would love to know what is a bright and soft nioiguchi...

[Mushin]

  1 hour ago,  Lewis B said:

Beautiful tanto Bobby. You wouldn't happen to have a better photo to show the sugata? From what I can see it I would have put it in the first half of the 14th century. 

Here you go. Interesting: from a quick analysis of the small data set of Norinaga tanto that Jussi compiled there is amazing consistency of dimensions and traits of Norinaga school tanto over a century. They seem to be slightly shorter at the end of the Kamakura, obviously extended a bit during the Nanbokucho and shrank some heading into the Muromachi. But the dimensional proportions and length to width ratios remained constant. They were also all muzori, which shows a consistency in the school that I thought was very interesting. However, this is a study of only 17 samples (mumei and zamei) and any conclusions from limited data analysis should be taken with a box of salt. 

 

[Jacques]

Quote

I believe that's just the starting era of the shodai and nidai smiths and not their entire working period. 

Usually the given nengo indicates the period where the smith was the most active

[DENihontocollector]

22 minutes ago, Jacques said:

Usually the given nengo indicates the period where the smith was the most active

Hi Jacques,

 

I fully understand what you mean: the given nengo usually indicates the peak activity period, rather than the entire working lifespan of a smith.

 

In this specific case, though, what led me (and some others here) to lean toward Shodai is that the NBTHK attribution clearly places the blade in the late Kamakura period. As far as I’ve seen, most research – including Tanobe-sensei’s notes and Jussi’s compiled data – aligns the Nidai’s activity more solidly with Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi, so the overlap seems minimal.

 

That said, your point about how these attributions can shift as scholarship evolves is well taken – it’s exactly what makes studying Yamato so fascinating.

[CSM101]

Nihonto Newsletter 

 

[Lewis B]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

Gentlemen, this is a superb example of an educational and very scholarly discussion. Thank you all who are participating, and we even have a minimum of bickering. 

Totally agree. There have been far too few deep dives into particular smiths and schools in recent years, much to the detriment of the forum. Thank you Dennis for bringing this blade into the NMB arena and being so open for constructive discussion. 

 

Since you are based in Germany it would be great to see the blade in person at one of the NBTHK-EB meetings in Solingen. With so many eager and experienced eyes I'm sure you would learn something new about the sword. 

[DENihontocollector]

16 minutes ago, CSM101 said:

Nihonto Newsletter

Hi Uwe,

 

I wanted to briefly chime in on the ongoing discussion about the generational attribution of Norinaga. I agree with many here — the distinction between Shodai and Nidai seems less crucial nowadays, and the craftsmanship (deki) is ultimately what matters most.

 

@Uwe: I found the lineage diagram you posted particularly fascinating in this context. It clearly presents Norinaga as the founder of the Shikkake school and places his main period of activity roughly between 1311–1331 (late Kamakura to early Gentoku era). This timeframe aligns quite well with the late Kamakura dating that the NBTHK assigned to my blade. Later generations of Norinaga, according to the diagram, appear only during the Jōwa and Ōei eras (after 1340) — notably later than the period attributed to my sword.

 

Of course, this isn’t definitive proof, and as Markus highlighted with Tanobe-sensei’s notes, generational boundaries can be fluid or even questionable. Still, I think this chart nicely illustrates why many historical references lean toward Shodai for late Kamakura-period blades.

[DENihontocollector]

8 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

Totally agree. There have been far too few deep dives into particular smiths and schools in recent years, much to the detriment of the forum. Thank you Dennis for bringing this blade into the NMB arena and being so open for constructive discussion. 

Thank you both – and really everyone who has taken part in this discussion – for the kind words and the incredible depth you’ve all brought to this thread.

 

As someone still fairly new to collecting, I’ve learned an enormous amount from the perspectives and references shared here. It’s been eye‑opening to see how much knowledge there is in this community and how generously people are willing to share it.

 

I’m very happy if this thread not only helps me understand my blade better but also contributes something interesting for others as well.

[Sebuh]

Apologies for budging in like this, as I have little mastery in Yamato, and can’t contribute in a scholarly discussion.

 

Denis, regardless of the generational situation. You have quite the blade, it is truly impressive, I believe the Juyo certification and the Tanobe Sayagaki should hopefully be a statement to its quality. 

 

Ofcourse, when I had just began my quest into Nihonto I too, would fixate on generations  though between me and you, I ofcourse still do. 

 

At the end of the day, you have something quite pretty. Remember that, and try not to get too consumed in technicalities, that’s all from me.

[DENihontocollector]

27 minutes ago, Sebuh said:

Apologies for budging in like this, as I have little mastery in Yamato, and can’t contribute in a scholarly discussion.

 

Denis, regardless of the generational situation. You have quite the blade, it is truly impressive, I believe the Juyo certification and the Tanobe Sayagaki should hopefully be a statement to its quality. 

 

Ofcourse, when I had just began my quest into Nihonto I too, would fixate on generations  though between me and you, I ofcourse still do. 

 

At the end of the day, you have something quite pretty. Remember that, and try not to get too consumed in technicalities, that’s all from me.

Hi Sebuh,

Thank you so much for taking the time to comment – I really appreciate you jumping in and sharing your thoughts. It means a lot to hear encouraging words, especially since I’m still relatively new to collecting.

Your last piece of advice – not to get too caught up in the technicalities and to simply enjoy what I have – is something I will definitely keep in mind. It’s easy to get lost in details, but you’re right: at the end of the day, my Norinaga is a wonderful blade and I should enjoy it as such.

You are always welcome

Thanks again for your kind words!

Best regards,
Dennis

[DENihontocollector]

46 minutes ago, DENihontocollector said:

and being so open for constructive discussion. 

Thank you – I really believe that learning and gaining deeper understanding can only happen if we remain open to constructive discussion. The exchange of different perspectives here has been incredibly valuable for me

[DENihontocollector]

58 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

and being so open for constructive discussion. 

Thank you – I really believe that learning and gaining deeper understanding can only happen if we remain open to constructive discussion. The exchange of different perspectives here has been incredibly valuable for me

Hmm, I wanted to edit my previous post because I accidentally quoted myself :D
Unfortunately, there’s no option to delete posts here, so sorry for the double post!

Edited Monday at 08:05 PM by DENihontocollector

[Sebuh]

52 minutes ago, DENihontocollector said:

 It means a lot to hear encouraging words, especially since I’m still relatively new to collecting

Ofcourse! you and me both, there are tons to learn. Never seems to be enough time, glad to see new faces here. Hope that you countinue participating, hopefully this thread proved a helpful introduction,

 

all the best Dennis!

[DENihontocollector]

8 minutes ago, Sebuh said:

Ofcourse! you and me both, there are tons to learn. Never seems to be enough time, glad to see new faces here. Hope that you countinue participating, hopefully this thread proved a helpful introduction,

Thank you so much for the warm words! I absolutely share your feeling — there’s always so much to learn, and this thread has already taught me more than I expected when I first posted it. I’m definitely planning to stay active here; the depth of knowledge and the openness of the members have been really motivating.

[Sebuh]

Perfect! glad to have met, see you around these forums!

 

hope we have been of help.

[Brano]

20 hours ago, Jacques said:

A clear misunderstanding of the process. Some swords from the same smith will never get juyo because they don't reach the required level. A quality criterion is in no way “competitive”, this isn't a forging contest. 

In this case, I think you misunderstood the meaning of the text that you are questioning (I personally agree with Darcy's opinion on how Juyo/ TokuJu Shinsa works)
The sentence you are referring to says that if 5 blades from Nagamitsu are submitted, with 4 being at ubu/ zaimei/ perfectly sound level and the fifth being an o-suriage mumei in above average metallurgical quality and condition for Juyo, then maybe all four will be selected and maybe only 3 of those four and the fifth blade will not pass this time.

However, a year later, this fifth blade can easily pass Juyo if it is the only representative of Nagamitsu for that year's Juyo

[Jacques]

1 hour ago, Brano said:

In this case, I think you misunderstood the meaning of the text that you are questioning (I personally agree with Darcy's opinion on how Juyo/ TokuJu Shinsa works)
The sentence you are referring to says that if 5 blades from Nagamitsu are submitted, with 4 being at ubu/ zaimei/ perfectly sound level and the fifth being an o-suriage mumei in above average metallurgical quality and condition for Juyo, then maybe all four will be selected and maybe only 3 of those four and the fifth blade will not pass this time.

However, a year later, this fifth blade can easily pass Juyo if it is the only representative of Nagamitsu for that year's Juyo

Maybe (English is not my native language), but where is the "competition" ? What you say is pure speculation, nothing else.  

Anyway, I'm not interested in that , what I am interested in is recognizing a swordsmith's work at the first glance (that's not the case for many).

[Brano]

1 hour ago, Jacques said:

Maybe (English is not my native language), but where is the "competition" ? What you say is pure speculation, nothing else.  

Anyway, I'm not interested in that , what I am interested in is recognizing a swordsmith's work at the first glance (that's not the case for many).

I understand and respect that as your opinion
The competition is in the blades themselves of the same smith or school

If it were only by the quality of the blades submitted (I assume this is your claim), then blades with the attribute Mihara, Nio, Naoe ... would not have passed Juyo if there were enough blades from Awataguchi, Ko-Bizen, Ko-Aoe, Ichimonji, etc.
And of course all of them would be in a state of preservation corresponding to obtaining Juyo status

And this is not speculation Jacques
It is not unusual for a blade to fail one year and succeed the next or two years later
With the same judges
Why?
If the only criteria was quality, then the blade would pass first time or never pass

 

Regarding your comment "I am interested in is recognizing a swordsmith's work at the first glance" - I don't understand if you mean the judges' skills or your own

There is nothing unusual about a blade having excellent metallurgical quality and it is not easy (maybe even impossible) to attribute a blade to a specific swordsmith

I agree with many of your contributions
And some I don't

[DENihontocollector]

24 minutes ago, Brano said:

I understand and respect that as your opinion
The competition is in the blades themselves of the same smith or school

If it were only by the quality of the blades submitted (I assume this is your claim), then blades with the attribute Mihara, Nio, Naoe ... would not have passed Juyo if there were enough blades from Awataguchi, Ko-Bizen, Ko-Aoe, Ichimonji, etc.
And of course all of them would be in a state of preservation corresponding to obtaining Juyo status

And this is not speculation Jacques
It is not unusual for a blade to fail one year and succeed the next or two years later
With the same judges
Why?
If the only criteria was quality, then the blade would pass first time or never pass

 

Regarding your comment "I am interested in is recognizing a swordsmith's work at the first glance" - I don't understand if you mean the judges' skills or your own

There is nothing unusual about a blade having excellent metallurgical quality and it is not easy (maybe even impossible) to attribute a blade to a specific swordsmith

I agree with many of your contributions
And some I don't

That’s an interesting point,

I’ve often wondered – and I’d be curious what others here think – if the NBTHK might intentionally keep the number of Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō designations relatively low.

 

If every excellent blade were to pass, the designation itself might lose some of its prestige and the market could become oversaturated. By applying extremely strict standards and allowing only a limited number each session, they might ensure that the rank remains truly exceptional and valuable.

 

This could also explain why certain swords fail in one session but pass in another – even without any change in polish or condition. Perhaps the acceptance rate depends not only on the quality of the individual blade but also on the overall submissions and a desire to maintain exclusivity.

 

Has anyone come across comments from NBTHK officials or scholars that support or refute this idea?

[DENihontocollector]

Looking at some figures about NBTHK designations, I realized how rare both Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō swords actually are – not just Tokubetsu Jūyō. These numbers include all sword types (katana, tachi, wakizashi, tantō, naginata, etc.):

 

• Total Jūyō Tōken worldwide: Roughly 8,000–10,000 since the system began in 1958.

• Total Tokubetsu Jūyō Tōken worldwide: Roughly 700–1,100 since the early 1970s.

 

 

These numbers come from NBTHK’s published Zufu catalogs and estimates by researchers like Markus Sesko.

 

How this is calculated:

 

• Each Jūyō session typically results in around 120–180 swords being awarded. With ~65 sessions since 1958, that equals around 8,000–10,000 Jūyō swords in total.

• Tokubetsu Jūyō started in 1971/72 and occurs every two years, usually awarding about 15–20 swords per session. With ~50 years of sessions, that equals roughly 700–1,100 Tokubetsu Jūyō swords total.

 

 

When compared to the roughly 2 million registered Japanese swords, this means:

 

• About 0.5% achieve Jūyō status (≈ 1 in 200 swords).

• About 0.05% achieve Tokubetsu Jūyō status (≈ 1 in 2,000 swords).

 

 

It makes me wonder: besides the strict quality criteria, could NBTHK deliberately keep these top levels scarce to preserve their prestige and value? If too many were awarded, the impact of the designation might diminish.

 

This scarcity could also explain why a sword might fail Jūyō in one year but pass in another — not necessarily because the blade changed, but because the NBTHK may control numbers to maintain selectivity from year to year.

 

Curious to hear others’ opinions on this perspective.

[Jussi Ekholm]

Thank you Dennis for presenting your fine sword to the forum and starting extremely interesting discussion.

 

As Markus posted the newest research by Tanobe sensei I admit I have bit hard time in understanding what he is saying. My conclusion was that in current research both blades with the short signatures and long signatures date approximately to same period?

 

The term "bucket attribution" might sound belittling for blades but that is not my intention at all. It is just that some schools get a lot of blades attributed towards them, it just goes like that as in traditional sword appreciation it is often that very specific attribution gets given to mumei blades. I would be perfectly fine with more broader attributions but it is what it is.

 

I posted this in May as I remember I posted this before. Here are the amount of swords NBTHK has had passing through each phase of their shinsa. The numbers are not 100% correct (I would have all Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō data but I am not bothered to count every single item) 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 admit I don't really understand quality in traditional appreciation sense. Quality as a term gets thrown around so often but my own view on it is biased. I don't think precious smiths or schools are synonym of highest quality (it is also likely I just don't understand them). However I have seen Masamune, Awataguchi, Ko-Bizen etc. that to me have not been that high quality swords, and in comparison I have seen splendid work by some less appreciated late Muromachi or Shintō schools. If attribution was all that was judged then there would not even be the need for multiple tiers of papers (well I understand some of the reasons for multiple tiers). However swords can be of weaker overall quality and still achieve high ranks on other extremely important features. I think there are actually many Jūyō Bunkazai blades that those who focus solely on quality would not really appreciate, and the opposite there are many Tokubetsu Jūyō blades that historically focused person like me might not appreciate that much even though they could be of very high quality.

[Alex A]

Subjective, 

 

Have a lot of respect for those that really know these swords and the only way to know them is study them daily, not just one or two from a known smith, but many. 

 

Did ask a dealer in Japan once what the best blade blade he ever held was, expecting some Juyo candidate, was surprised with his answer and taught me a lesson.

 

 

[DENihontocollector]

44 minutes ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Thank you Dennis for presenting your fine sword to the forum and starting extremely interesting discussion.

Hi Jussi,

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to share these detailed numbers and your perspective. It really helps to put things into context. I’m glad to see that my own research on the approximate totals of Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō swords wasn’t too far off from your figures – it’s reassuring to know we’re in a similar ballpark.

 

I also want to say how much I appreciate the work you’ve done compiling and sharing these statistics. Having such an overview of the number of blades across all paper levels is incredibly valuable for collectors like me who are still learning to navigate the NBTHK system.

 

Thank you as well for your kind words about my sword and this discussion – it means a lot coming from someone with your experience. Your contribution has really helped me understand the bigger picture, not just in terms of numbers, but also in how quality and attribution can be viewed differently within the community.

 

Best regards,

Dennis