Working on a Juyo submission

[Sukaira]

I have a nice signed piece from Kanenobu at a mukansa polisher in Japan, doing a sashikomi to bring out the full hitatsura. Right now only the primary temper on the cutting edge is brought out. It should be completed in February and I am going to take a look at the finished work in person while I am over there. The plan is to submit to Juyo, as right now it is TokuHo.

 

This is my first time submitting a blade to Shinsa...any tips or gotchas I should be aware of? It is machi okuri by about 4.5cm, but I think that is alright for koto blades?

 

Included is an oshigata of the blade done by Kondo Kuniharu (Kondô Hôji (近藤邦治), the president of the Gifu branch of the NBTHK) - reminds me of  Yosozaemon's hitatsura Juyo (but this one was a few years earlier around 1490)

[Ray Singer]

Can you confirm which Kanenobu this is attributed to? There are a few, including: Naoe Shizu Kanenobu, Shigaseki Kanenobu and Seki/Mino Kanenobu. You may find it challenging to pass Juyo for a suriage machiokuri blade if it is Muromachi jidai. 

[Sukaira]

@Ray Singer This is Shigaseki Kanenobu 1st gen. Thanks for the heads up on the suriage! This nakago is not shortened though, just machiokuri. I thought that was not technically "suriage" since the nakago is not shortened?

[Ray Singer]

My impression from the oshigata is that the lower mekugi-ana below the mei (now plugged) is the ubu-ana (the original mekugi-ana). If so, the upper mekugi-ana would have been added when the nakago was modified and shortened from the nakago-jiri end. This does appear to be suriage to my eyes. 

[Sukaira]

That could be possible, I will have to ask the seller to clarify again, since they specifically said machiokuri by 1.5" with no mention of suriage. I was thinking with the signature so high above the bottom mekugi ana that it would be pushing into the actual blade area. For example here is another Shigaseki Kanenobu https://sanmei.com/contents/media/F27316_S1522_PUP_E.html with 2 mekugi ana and ubu, but signature is placed differently  - in any case its a good call out and I will follow up on this. 

 

To clarify, is it just "unofficially" frowned upon for Muromachi to have a bit of shortening, because I read the official rules are Edo era and up must be zaimei and ubu. Is that inaccurate?

Edited Thursday at 02:05 AM by Sukaira

[Ray Singer]

The later a sword is, the more that condition is strictly considered. There isn't an absolute rule about shinto and later blades being ubu. For example, suriage Nankai Shigekuni have passed juyo. However, suriage is a disadvantage for Muromachi period works. 

[Sukaira]

Welp fingers crossed!

[lonely panet]

By the oshigata it looks fantastic 

[Lewis B]

What is the nagasa measurement?

[Jussi Ekholm]

To me it seems like very nice sword based on the oshigata, I like it. However I think the sword has been shortened. Like Ray I think the lower ana is the original one. While that might not be a huge deal for me personally I think for Jūyō shinsa it could be a major point.

 

There are only 3 Kanenobu (兼延) swords that have passed Jūyō. In sessions 41, 49 and 58 (unfortunately I don't have the 58 book yet but I will post the 2 others). They are both ubu and you can see that 41 session sword is hitatsura like yours. I have never sent anything to shinsa but I think I would just enjoy it with current papers it has.

 

 

[Sukaira]

@Jussi Ekholm that is good to know! So was in contact with seller and NBTHK says this piece is machiokuri only. The bottom mekugi ana is indeed the original, however this was originally an uchigatana, then machiokuri by about 4cm. Registration paper labels as katana but TokuHo registers as wakizashi, nagasa 60cm, original nagasa about 64cm. 

 

I will say the chestnut shaped nakagojiri seems atypical for Kanenobu though. Seems machiokuri might have been done to change this from a one hander to a two hander.

Edited Thursday at 04:34 PM by Sukaira

[nulldevice]

14 minutes ago, Sukaira said:

@Jussi Ekholm that is good to know! So was in contact with seller and NBTHK says this piece is machiokuri only. The bottom mekugi ana is indeed the original, however this was originally an uchigatana, then machiokuri by about 4cm. Registration paper labels as katana but TokuHo registers as wakizashi, nagasa 60cm, original nagasa about 64cm. 

 

I will say the chestnut shaped nakagojiri seems atypical for Kanenobu though.

 

I'll also say that it looks suriage to me. If you were to assume its ubu and bring the machi down, you'd have a very short and stubby tang even by uchigatana standards and compared to the examples you showed as well as Jussi's 2 Juyo reference oshigata. Plus as you mention the nakago-jiri is atypical for Kanenobu. 

 

The Tokubetsu Hozon papers don't make any distinction on machi-okuri vs suriage blades. 

 

Looks like a nice blade! Post pictures when it comes back from polish!

[Sukaira]

I can definitely see the argument for suriage. I think in February when I am there to see the polish in person I will make a final decision...but either way I will be posting some polished pics here!  - thanks all for input!

[Lewis B]

You could also ask Tanobe sensei to write a sayagaki and see if he thinks it has a chance at Juyo. 

[Ray Singer]

1 hour ago, Sukaira said:

So was in contact with seller and NBTHK says this piece is machiokuri only. The bottom mekugi ana is indeed the original, however this was originally an uchigatana, then machiokuri by about 4cm.

 

With Jussi's juyo oshigata as a reference, I think this shows that it would be impossible for current nakago-jiri to be original. As said above, the current nakago-jiri would be uncharacteristic and the nakago itself too short to be functional. 

 

 

[Sukaira]

24 minutes ago, Lewis B said:

You could also ask Tanobe sensei to write a sayagaki and see if he thinks it has a chance at Juyo. 

How does one go about doing such a thing?

[Sukaira]

17 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

 

With Jussi's juyo oshigata as a reference, I think this shows that it would be impossible for current nakago-jiri to be original. As said above, the current nakago-jiri would be uncharacteristic and the nakago itself too short to be functional. 

 

 

 

Yeah, I am starting to wonder if there is some lost in translation thing going on with my communications with the seller

[Lewis B]

51 minutes ago, Sukaira said:

How does one go about doing such a thing?

Your dealer should be able to mediate for you. If not, let me know and I'll provide contact details for other dealers I've used in the past when I needed sayagaki. 

[Sukaira]

1 minute ago, Lewis B said:

Your dealer should be able to mediate for you. If not, let me know and I'll provide contact details for other dealers I've used in the past when I needed sayagaki. 

Sounds good, will reach out if needed - thanks!

[Mark S.]

Along with the current issues, you also have to ask yourself how this blade will stack up competing against other blades.  Juyo is a competition between ALL blades submitted, not just a checklist of criteria.  A blade can check all the right boxes and still not obtain Juyo because other blades were simply judged ‘better’.

[neo1022]

Is machiokuri generally a deal-breaker for Juyo?  

Any sense of whether suriage or machiokuri is weighed more heavily (i.e., is an ubu with machiokuri more likely to pass than a suriage blade)?  

It seems some level of re-machi is necessary on most swords with anything but the most minor of suriage, but minor machiokuri can occur as a result of a changed tsuba, new tsuka, etc.  Is that right?  I've always associated the two quite closely, assuming suriage meant re-machi, but not vice versa.

[nulldevice]

7 minutes ago, neo1022 said:

Is machiokuri generally a deal-breaker for Juyo?  

Any sense of whether suriage or machiokuri is weighed more heavily (i.e., is an ubu with machiokuri more likely to pass than a suriage blade)?  

It seems some level of re-machi is necessary on most swords with anything but the most minor of suriage, but minor machiokuri can occur as a result of a changed tsuba, new tsuka, etc.  Is that right?  I've always associated the two quite closely, assuming suriage meant re-machi, but not vice versa.

It depends. 

 

Here's the most succinct answer I've found:

 

Juyo Token

1)  Blades made in a period from Heian to Edo, having Tokubetsu Kicho, Koshu Tokubetsu Kicho, Hozon or Tokubetsu Hozon papers, of extremely high quality workmanship and state of preservation, and judged as close to Juyo Bijutsuhin, may receive Juyo Token paper.

2)  Blades that meet the criteria given above and made in or before Nambokucho may receive Juyo Token paper even if they are mumei. Blades made in Muromachi and Edo periods, as a rule, have to be ubu and zaimei to receive Juyo Token paper.

 

Now a blade can be slightly machi-okuri as you stated and still be ubu. The criteria above dont mention that but just mention if the tang is ubu or suriage and zaimei or mumei.

[Mikaveli]

To add, what's the purpose of Juyo (from an NBTHK perspective).

 

We (the collecting) market, tend to view it as higher status, and by extension, quality.

 

But, with the Shinto ubu requirements - one could say it's a preservation competition (as well as importance) - looking for the best condition, unmodified original swords - and that's different.

 

Yes, we know the criteria is looser for older blades (somewhat by necessity) - but if suriage rules out your Shinto blade, that's not a criticism of quality - just a statement of originality, in that it's different from what the smith created.

[When Necessary]

I remember reading on this forum that a judge at the NBTHK (perhaps Tanobe sensei, I'm not sure) said "This blade will pass Juyo but, with a polish by Mr. X, it would pass Tokubetsu Juyo".

This never made any sense to me because it implied the judge could already see the quality of the blade but was basically insisting it lose more metal in a polish for that quality to be officially recognised. I thought the NBTHK was all about preserving swords in the long term?

[Hokke]

1 hour ago, When Necessary said:

I remember reading on this forum that a judge at the NBTHK (perhaps Tanobe sensei, I'm not sure) said "This blade will pass Juyo but, with a polish by Mr. X, it would pass Tokubetsu Juyo".

This never made any sense to me because it implied the judge could already see the quality of the blade but was basically insisting it lose more metal in a polish for that quality to be officially recognised. I thought the NBTHK was all about preserving swords in the long term?

I dunno D, that’s a fine line, but you may be right. The judge may have seen indications of detail in the blade that were not  pronounced in its current polish. His recommendation to have it repolished to bring out those details for certain would certainly make it more easily judged for tokuju. On the other hand, humans are humans and he may have just been trying to steer money toward a friend of his. As for preserving nihonto for the long term, yes, it’s a goal, but since these swords will never see use, if a new polish will better exemplify the work of a smith, it would presumably be the last time it was polished. 

[Ray Singer]

18 hours ago, neo1022 said:

Is machiokuri generally a deal-breaker for Juyo?  

Any sense of whether suriage or machiokuri is weighed more heavily (i.e., is an ubu with machiokuri more likely to pass than a suriage blade)?  

It seems some level of re-machi is necessary on most swords with anything but the most minor of suriage, but minor machiokuri can occur as a result of a changed tsuba, new tsuka, etc.  Is that right?  I've always associated the two quite closely, assuming suriage meant re-machi, but not vice versa.

It can go both ways. Sometimes a nakago-jiri might be slightly truncated and the hamachi/munemachi left in the same position. In other cases, the nakago-jiri might be untouched leaving a longer (sometimes exceedingly long) nakago. I believe there was an early Rai tachi in the Compton collection that had an ubu nakago-jiri and a raised machi that left the nakago with an exaggerated length. All things considered, I believe that machi-okuri is less impactful to shinsa outcomes than modifications to the nakago-jiri, but these things becomes less-and-less important the older the sword is (ie. o-suriage is acceptable for a Nanbokucho blade that is otherwise a juyo candidate, and even moreso for Kamakura-jidai, etc).

[Sukaira]

7 hours ago, When Necessary said:

I remember reading on this forum that a judge at the NBTHK (perhaps Tanobe sensei, I'm not sure) said "This blade will pass Juyo but, with a polish by Mr. X, it would pass Tokubetsu Juyo".

This never made any sense to me because it implied the judge could already see the quality of the blade but was basically insisting it lose more metal in a polish for that quality to be officially recognised. I thought the NBTHK was all about preserving swords in the long term?

Yeah, that is quite interesting...but I guess if you think of Juyo/TokuJu as more of a competition, then maybe the needle starts leaning away from preservation and more into "who has the most awesome thing here"

[Sukaira]

20 hours ago, Mark S. said:

Along with the current issues, you also have to ask yourself how this blade will stack up competing against other blades.  Juyo is a competition between ALL blades submitted, not just a checklist of criteria.  A blade can check all the right boxes and still not obtain Juyo because other blades were simply judged ‘better’.

That is true, which why I want to see it after the mukansa sashikomi polish in hand, in Japan before making any decision. It is a sick piece without a doubt. It is done in soshu style and filled to the brim with hataraki - kinsuji and inazuma in the hamon, chikei with a whitish ji-nie covering the entire blade plus a pretty vivid nioguchi. Also nice that Kondô Hôji took the time to create a nicely detailed oshigata for it. Personally I love the sugata and boshi/kissaki on this one.

 

In any case, even if it doesn't get submitted to Juyo, you guys will see some finished pics in Feb!