Lowest rated Juyo swords?

[Mikaveli]

So, I was reading a Darcy article about rating systems, and it said that in current convention, only Fujishiro "Jo Saku" rated smiths could obtain Juyo, with some exceptions.

 

Does anyone have any Chu Jo Saku (or below) rated Juyo swords?

 

I'm also interested in any damaged / flaws that have made it through (run off boshi) for koto blades.

 

Or, modified or suriage shinto blades.

[Scogg]

I cannot speak to rankings or ratings. 

But below is a sword that you may find interesting. It was on display at the 2024 SF show, and bears a remarkable kirikomi. It was awarded Juyo in 1973.

https://nihonto.com/bizen-morisuke-備前守助/

[Lewis B]

8 minutes ago, Scogg said:

I cannot speak to rankings or ratings. 

But below is a sword that you may find interesting. It was on display at the 2024 SF show, and bears a remarkable kirikomi. It was awarded Juyo in 1973.

https://nihonto.com/bizen-morisuke-備前守助/

That Morisuke was discussed at length here with mixed opinions.

 

[Scogg]

Thanks Lewis, that's an interesting discussion.

To answer the question "could you", and having seen the sword in hand, my personal answer would be: Yes!

Chip aside, it had remarkable workmanship, and was an awe inspiring blade. My only complaint was how much I had to strain my short arms to admire such a long sword  (just joking)

Just my opinion of course, and thanks for the link.
-Sam

[Mushin]

I have seen a Juyo Bizen Osafune Morisuke in Enbun-Joji style from the mid-Nambokucho. It is in a friend's collection. The smith is rated Chujo Saku.It's a really nice blade in koshirae. I am not sure if that rule applies to high-quality older swords from the Heian, Kamakura and Nanbokucho time periods when production and quality values were overall very high. Also remember that while Fujishiro rankings are widely accepted, they are far from perfect or universally agreed upon. There are several instances of good smiths having been given lower rankings because Fujishiro either never saw their work or saw only a few examples that might not have been the best samples.

[Gakusee]

49 minutes ago, Mushin said:

 There are several instances of good smiths having been given lower rankings because Fujishiro either never saw their work or saw only a few examples that might not have been the best samples.

Bobby

 

i think the predominant factor for the ratings of Fujishiro is not him having seen them or not. It is more about written and oral tradition passed on to him by the previous generations. Nihonto study and ratings is all about history, tradition and what has been valued over the eras. 

[Jussi Ekholm]

There are swords that pass through Jūyō by smiths that are not even featured in Fujishiro. It is not surprising as there have been thousands of smiths throughout history. However it is good guideline that smiths who are generally rated highly are more likely to pass through Jūyō, however it does not always maybe hold through as NBTHK might have differing opinions from Fujishiro.

 

For example in this thread is discussion about Shiga-Seki Kanenobu (兼延) who is jō-saku smith in Fujishiro, however there have only been 3 swords by him that have made Jūyō. 

 

These are the smiths from last 3 Jūyō books that are not featured in Fujishiro (I only did a quick check from Seskos Index and did not check each one from my Fujishiro)

 

67

Tegai Kanetsugu 3rd 包次

Sōshū Hirotsugu (late Muromachi) 広次

Mino Takatane 高植

Fukuoka Ichimonji Chikafusa 近房

Reisen Sadamori 貞盛

Bungo Norisada 則貞

Heianjō Yasuhiro 安広

 

68

Ko-Bizen Kunitsugu 国継

Ko-Bizen Kunitsuna 国綱

Ko-Bizen Sadakane 定包

Bizen Saneyori (late Kamakura) 真依

Ko-Aoe Tsuneyoshi 経義

Reisen Sadamori 貞盛

 

69

Senjuin Mitsumasa 光正

Osafune Shigeyoshi 3rd 重吉

 

Out of these only Reisen Sadamori was surprising (for him I needed to open my Fujishiro) as many others are really rare smiths. However Reisen Sadamori has 22 Jūyō swords (2 signed short swords and 20 mumei long swords)

[Jacques]

It is the sword that obtains the Juyo, not the smith. Some average blacksmiths have sometimes created high level swords

[Mushin]

35 minutes ago, Gakusee said:

Bobby

 

i think the predominant factor for the ratings of Fujishiro is not him having seen them or not. It is more about written and oral tradition passed on to him by the previous generations. Nihonto study and ratings is all about history, tradition and what has been valued over the eras. 

While you are technically right, Michael, I think, as Jussi has shown above, Fujishiro missed out on several smiths who were known and regarded by scholars of the past. A good example is in the Sa School. For instance, several of the top seven students of Samonji, including Hiroyoshi and Sadayuki, are not even mentioned in Fujishiro. And Yukihiro, among Sa's very first students, and the only Sa School student with a Kokuho blade, is rated as just Jo-Saku, despite scholars saying his work was, of all Samonji's students, the closest to his master's work. Now, it's not my intention to denigrate Fujishiro, just to note that there is more to many of these smiths than whether or not they are mentioned in his books. Thus, as Jussu showed above, a Fujishiro ranking is not the only factor in the NBTHK's decisions.

[Sukaira]

1 hour ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

There are swords that pass through Jūyō by smiths that are not even featured in Fujishiro. It is not surprising as there have been thousands of smiths throughout history. However it is good guideline that smiths who are generally rated highly are more likely to pass through Jūyō, however it does not always maybe hold through as NBTHK might have differing opinions from Fujishiro.

 

For example in this thread is discussion about Shiga-Seki Kanenobu (兼延) who is jō-saku smith in Fujishiro, however there have only been 3 swords by him that have made Jūyō. 

 

These are the smiths from last 3 Jūyō books that are not featured in Fujishiro (I only did a quick check from Seskos Index and did not check each one from my Fujishiro)

 

67

Tegai Kanetsugu 3rd 包次

Sōshū Hirotsugu (late Muromachi) 広次

Mino Takatane 高植

Fukuoka Ichimonji Chikafusa 近房

Reisen Sadamori 貞盛

Bungo Norisada 則貞

Heianjō Yasuhiro 安広

 

68

Ko-Bizen Kunitsugu 国継

Ko-Bizen Kunitsuna 国綱

Ko-Bizen Sadakane 定包

Bizen Saneyori (late Kamakura) 真依

Ko-Aoe Tsuneyoshi 経義

Reisen Sadamori 貞盛

 

69

Senjuin Mitsumasa 光正

Osafune Shigeyoshi 3rd 重吉

 

Out of these only Reisen Sadamori was surprising (for him I needed to open my Fujishiro) as many others are really rare smiths. However Reisen Sadamori has 22 Jūyō swords (2 signed short swords and 20 mumei long swords)

I see a Hirotsugu listed in Sesko's index as jo-saku
 

HIROTSUGU (広次), 3rd gen., Bunmei (文明, 1469-1487), Sagami – “Sōshū-jū Hirotsugu” (相州住広次),
“Hirotsugu” (広次), “Sōshū-jū Hirotsugu saku” (相州住広次作), real name Ichikawa Chōbei (市川長兵衛), it is said
that he enjoyed a very long life and that he was still working in the Eishō era (永正, 1504-1521), ō-gunome-midare, gunome-
chōji, some blades show horimono, jō-saku

Edited Monday at 06:05 PM by Sukaira

[Sheridan]

That Ko-Aoe Tsuneyoshi from session 68 is mine... Beautiful piece.

[Brano]

2 hours ago, Jacques said:

It is the sword that obtains the Juyo, not the smith. Some average blacksmiths have sometimes created high level swords

Often times, they are unicorns that are the only known blade of a given swordsmith at Juyo level (and rarity also increases the chance of getting Juyo).
Nihontoclub contains over 12,000 swordsmiths, but for Juyo and above there are less than 500
And of these, more than a third are not recorded in Nihontoclub (or I can't identify them)

[Jussi Ekholm]

That is a super rare item Steve congratulations. It is so far the only Ko-Aoe Tsuneyoshi (経義) sword I have been able to find anywhere. 

 

I think sometimes it is really difficult to identify generations for various smiths and sometimes the various genealogies have slightly different working eras and generations. If I understood NBTHK text correctly they wrote that there are famous Hirotsugu working Meiō (1492-1501) and Tenbun (1532-1555) but by reading text I was getting that this particular sword might be seen as work after Tenbun, and hence they specify (時代室町末期) for the particular sword. Now I generally just classify 末期 & 後期 both as Late XX but I believe there is more specific notation that 後期 means late period and 末期 means end of period. It is very slight nuance and to me it does not make that big difference but there is noticeable enough difference for NBTHK to make these tiny classifications. Now what classifies as mid- late- end- that would be a whole another question. How many generations of Hirotsugu smiths there were in total, etc. For example Nihontō Meikan has different main periods for some Hirotsugu smiths when compared to Sesko Index. Nihontō Meikan has the Meiō and Tenbun Hirotsugu listed that NBTHK stated in their text. Now to make it tricky Fujishiro actully has 2 Hirotsugu that are listed as jō-saku. They are listed in Bunmei (1469-1487) and Eishō (1504-1521). Maybe Markus has combined these two smiths under one smith in his index entry. So it can be tricky as all of these various sources have slightly different information about the Hirotsugu smiths.

 

The Hirotsugu in Jūyō 20 book NBTHK specifies that item as Meiō period work. Unfortunately I don't have book 61 that would have 2 signed Hirotsugu. Also NBTHK has sometimes upgraded their view on things over the years which is only reasonable. So for some smiths there can be genealogy differences if you compare for example Jūyō 12 text and Jūyō 68 text (just hypothetical example but there has been increase of knowledge in 50 or so years)

[Sukaira]

I think another example might be Wake Shigenori - seems to have at least 1 Juyo but I do not see him as rated in Sesko (maybe Fujishiro?)

 

SHIGENORI (重則), Shōchū (正中, 1324-1326), Bizen – “Bizen no Kuni Wake-jūnin Shigenori” (備前国和気住人
重則), “Bizen no Kuni Wake no Shō-jū Shigenori” (備前国和気荘住人重則), it is said that he came from the Saburō
Kunimume school (国宗) but lived in Bizen´s Wake fief (和気荘) which was located about ten km to the northeast of
Osafune, gunome mixed with ko-chōji in nioi-deki, suguha-chō mixed with ko-chōji and ko-midare

[Gakusee]

3 hours ago, Mushin said:

While you are technically right, Michael, I think, as Jussi has shown above, Fujishiro missed out on several smiths who were known and regarded by scholars of the past. A good example is in the Sa School. For instance, several of the top seven students of Samonji, including Hiroyoshi and Sadayuki, are not even mentioned in Fujishiro. And Yukihiro, among Sa's very first students, and the only Sa School student with a Kokuho blade, is rated as just Jo-Saku, despite scholars saying his work was, of all Samonji's students, the closest to his master's work. Now, it's not my intention to denigrate Fujishiro, just to note that there is more to many of these smiths than whether or not they are mentioned in his books. Thus, as Jussu showed above, a Fujishiro ranking is not the only factor in the NBTHK's decisions.

Agreed on that point and the point Jacques is making. 
 

I was just clarifying the approach taken by Fujishiro in his very limited set of predominantly famous and well-known smiths. Otherwise, yes, there are arcane smiths outside of Fujishiro with great blades. Not only outside of Fujishiro, but sometimes the setsumei would also get muddled and talk about smiths with shared names and related but different genealogies etc which are not even properly described in the various meikan. 

[Mikaveli]

Thanks Jussi, very interesting.

 

5 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

For example in this thread is discussion about Shiga-Seki Kanenobu (兼延) who is jō-saku smith in Fujishiro, however there have only been 3 swords by him that have made Jūyō. 

 

So, maybe a difficult question to answer precisely, but what percentage / absolute number of Juyo would you have expected for Kanenobu?

 

Would you expect all (well preserved) extant works at jo-saku to be able to achieve that level, 75%, 50% or 10% etc. Just as a rough finger in the air.

 

Likewise for chu-jo, jo-jo and sai-jo?

 

It seems like we've seen lots of examples of good smiths the Fujishiro ratings missed out, but are their examples of a chu-saku rated smith producing Juyo winning swords?

[Mikaveli]

Bonus question, what's the biggest delta in quality seen from a single smith?

 

One smith making both a "masterpiece" and something little better than a bundle sword?

[Mushin]

56 minutes ago, Mikaveli said:

Thanks Jussi, very interesting.

 

 

So, maybe a difficult question to answer precisely, but what percentage / absolute number of Juyo would you have expected for Kanenobu?

 

Would you expect all (well preserved) extant works at jo-saku to be able to achieve that level, 75%, 50% or 10% etc. Just as a rough finger in the air.

 

Likewise for chu-jo, jo-jo and sai-jo?

 

It seems like we've seen lots of examples of good smiths the Fujishiro ratings missed out, but are their examples of a chu-saku rated smith producing Juyo winning swords?

So, Michael,

 

In recent years, Kanenobu has become a new go to for attributions for a nice but not top class Naoe Shizu blade. But this is different from Shigaseki Kanenobu, who is not as well-regarded by collectors or the Honbu. As Jussi pointed out there are only three Juyo awarded to the smith. And I am not sure that Jussi has the data of how many TH and Hozon papers are out there awarded to him by comparison because of the massive volume of swords produced during the Muromachi, especially in Mino. I think you should reach out to folks who watch the trends in the Shinsa team to see how much they might have opened to great works by Muromachi Sengoku-era Mino smiths. I would suggest perhaps, Ray Singer or Hoshi or even Markus. I would hate to see you go through the stress and expense of shipping a blade into Japan and then paying somebody to submit it on your behalf if it’s going to not make it past the first round only because of institutional bias. And then having to wring your hands while waiting for your sword to come back. Darcy used to have an algorithm and formula he would use to assess a sword’s chances of making it through Juyo and then Tokubetsu Juyo, which I don’t know if he handed off to anybody before his passing. All I can say, based on what I am seeing, is that the last Shigaseki Kanenobu that passed Juyo was a katana in session 58, at least 23 years ago. Don’t want to rain on your parade or dash your hopes, it just doesn’t bode well. But to be honest, a sword doesn’t have to pass Juyo to be a Smith’s masterwork and some of my favorites blades only have Hozon papers, and I am ok with that.

[Mikaveli]

34 minutes ago, Mushin said:

I think you should reach out to folks who watch the trends in the Shinsa team to see how much they might have opened to great works by Muromachi Sengoku-era Mino smiths. I would suggest perhaps, Ray Singer or Hoshi or even Markus. I would hate to see you go through the stress and expense of shipping a blade into Japan and then paying somebody to submit it on your behalf if it’s going to not make it past the first round only because of institutional bias.

 

That's kinda what I'm getting at, in a roundabout way. 

 

What I'd like to imagine, is as Jacques said - it's the sword that obtains Juyo, but my concern is whether that's the reality.

 

As you, and others have said - papers don't constrain a blade - just because it "only has Hozen" doesn't mean it's not higher quality etc.

 

I've seen a couple of blades that (in my head at least), stand out as potential candidates - certainly great examples of their smith.

 

Last year I saw a number of Shinshinto pass - but I think the overall success rate was only 8%? It'd be interesting to see the rejected examples and understand why etc.

 

[Mushin]

1 hour ago, Mikaveli said:

 

That's kinda what I'm getting at, in a roundabout way. 

 

What I'd like to imagine, is as Jacques said - it's the sword that obtains Juyo, but my concern is whether that's the reality.

 

As you, and others have said - papers don't constrain a blade - just because it "only has Hozen" doesn't mean it's not higher quality etc.

 

I've seen a couple of blades that (in my head at least), stand out as potential candidates - certainly great examples of their smith.

 

Last year I saw a number of Shinshinto pass - but I think the overall success rate was only 8%? It'd be interesting to see the rejected examples and understand why etc.

 

Good question. Many of us would like to know the answer to that because there were several excellent examples that were passed over. “Why” is the big question. Some have theories, but there is no definitive answer. The current Honbu and their decisions are a mystery to the most ardent NBTHK watchers. But in your case, I think you have to be realistic. Besides, since Washington’s introduction of global tariffs, shipping swords back from Japan has been extremely problematic. I think patience is the best approach now while watching how the next few Juyo sessions go. So far, we have seen few surprises from what has been recently awarded Juyo and more from those that have been rejected. 

[Hoshi]

Hi, 

 

I can certainly chime in. 

 

Regarding your first question: There are a few chu-saku Muromachi and Edo smiths that have a tiny number of Juyo blade. for example, Kiyonori, Ujishige and so on. Less than ten of them. However, all these blades are in absolute mint condition, signed and ubu and critically, these swords pass during the lax years of the 70's, and today they would be mostly considered "Juyo in name only" (JINO, as Darcy used to say). The only chu-saku smith that passed later than than the troubled "phonebook" sessions is the Edo smith Kunimasa, and even then, no chance in today's extremely difficult and competitive sessions. These blades are difficult to sell in Japan. You see a lot of JINO online catering to the foreigner market.   

 

In this day and age, no chance. 

 

Quote

Would you expect all (well preserved) extant works at jo-saku to be able to achieve that level, 75%, 50% or 10% etc. Just as a rough finger in the air.

 

The question is too general to be answerable. 

 

In general: fixation on Fujishiro's ratings is a good starting point but inevitably incomplete, and it also requires the understanding that Saijo saku in Kamakura is not the same as Saijo saku in the Muromachi, as he normalizes his rating according to the median of the period. Also, there are many extremely rare and unrated smiths from the Koto period with masterpieces that have J and TJ blades to their names. Typically, from the Ko-Bizen, Ko-Ichimonji, or Ko-Aoe schools. As mentioned, there are also underrated ratings by Fujishiro (Some Sa students, Some Kamakura and Nambokucho Aoe, and especially glaring ones like Kencho, and most egregious of all, Ichimonji Yoshifusa).

 

On passing Juyo and above. 

 

It's important to recognize just how correlated things are and, as a result, how easy it is to get confused: great smiths are more overwhelmingly more likely to produce top quality blades, top quality blades in great state of preservation are more likely to have been in important collections (Daimyo, Imperial...), more likely to come with an origami or Kinzogan by a Ko-Honami, more likely to be Meibutsu, more likely to be highly rated by Fujishiro and Dr. Tokuno, more likely to be featured in exhibitions in Japan, more likely to pass Tokubetsu Juyo, and so on. It's easy in this context to think "oh it's juyo because it has denrai to the Tokugawa" - but, at Juyo, this is mistaking correlation for causation. 

 

The seed of everything is the quality of the blade in the artful sense. Appraising quality is no trivial matter and requires ample exposure to masterworks until it clicks. There are many classical traits associated with artfulness that are highly appreciated, and were seldom reproduced after the Golden Age. To name a few, these features include a 'wet' looking jigane (uroi), utsuri in its various expressions, a bright and clear nioiguchi (Akaraku saeru), a deep nioiguchi, a sense of unaffectedness, the variety and quality of nie, control over the expression of the nioiguchi, and so on. How these traits are expressed by the three major traditions vary, but they all have a physical basis, they are not "in the eye of the beholder". 

 

And yes, there is a component of taste. However, It is not a mere social construct that swords that possess such attributes are considered the best swords. First, there is a biological basis to this in the human brain: it is these very swords that tend to elicit aesthetic emotions in the broadest set of viewers. When steel appears wet like a deeply frozen pond unveiling hidden layers that the mind cannot quite discern, when nie covers the edge like ethereal snow, and when it all appears inevitable and natural, as if the human hand had played no role into bringing this object into existence - It is such encounters that can have profoundly moving effect on the observer.

 

 

There is a name for the trigger of this emotional response in classical Japanese aesthetics, it is called Yūgen (幽玄), and differs from the Sublime in that it unfolds progressively rather than all at once. When the sword looks flat, the steel grey, the hamon is empty, and the nioiguchi looks drawn with a crayon, it cannot produce such an emotional response in the viewer.

 

 

And there is an entire continuum in between. 

 

Second, it is widely believed that quality in the artful sense correlates positively into the physical reality in the performance sense, and there are very valid metallurgic and historical reasons to believe in this relationship, but this veers into a different conversation. 

 

Now, it is important to understand that Juyo means important, it does not mean masterwork, or that it is one of the best blade by the smith. There can be other reasons why a blade is important - for instance, while it may have no boshi and ample hadatachi in the ji, if it is the only extant work by an obscure Ko-Aoe Smith, and on top of it, it was not featured in the Meikan, then it is important by virtue of its scholarly value. The same reasoning on rarity occurs for mei, a signed sword by Norishige is of superior scholarly value than a signed blade by an Edo period smith. The delta knowledge that the sword brings to scholarship affects its Juyo worthiness above and beyond its artful quality. At the highest level, when deciding between keeping a sword Jubun or making it Kokuho, exceptional provenance is also considered over and above its correlation with quality. All else considered, a masterpiece Sukezane owned by Nobunaga is more likely to be elected to Kokuho compared to one exhibiting the same artful qualities and condition but no provenance. 

 

Hope this helps, 

 

- Hoshi 

Edited Tuesday at 03:56 PM by Hoshi

[Jacques]

Quote

The delta knowledge that the sword brings to scholarship affects its Juyo worthiness above and beyond its artful quality.

  Not at all. Only the artistic value of a sword is taken into account when assigning a juyo.

 

According to my Japanese mentor, Fujishiro's classification is based on a swordsmith's entire career and the quality of their entire body of work.

[Hoshi]

 

Bonjour Jacques, 

 

Quote

Not at all. Only the artistic value of a sword is taken into account when assigning a juyo.

 

*sigh*

 

You have proven time and time again that you do not update your beliefs when faced with evidence. Nonetheless, for silent observers who might be tempted to buy into your unwarranted sense of conviction, here is a shape I call "the prison shiv" - made out of a broken Middle Kamakura period Kodachi, and bearing the signature of the master Sukezane. It passed Juyo. 

 

It is a trivially true statement that a mei can push a sword over the Juyo line when its artful qualities and/or condition are otherwise disqualifying.

 

 

Quote

According to my Japanese mentor, Fujishiro's classification is based on a swordsmith's entire career and the quality of their entire body of work.

 

Your "Japanese mentor" is incorrect. Fujishiro is based on the quality of the smith's entire body of work normalized over the average quality of work for the period. In other words,Sai-jo saku in the Kamakura period is superior to Sai-jo Saku in the Muromachi period. You do climatology right? You know how normalization work. In contrast, Dr. Tokuno TTE1 and TTE2 use absolute values based on empirical observations of market transactions. 

 

I truly hope you learn to relax your priors and appreciate new evidence. 

 

Best,

 

Hoshi

Edited Tuesday at 10:03 PM by Hoshi

[Jacques]

@Hoshi  

 I'll tell my horse about it, he'll have a good laugh.

 

ps like many others, don't pretend to be something you're not. 

 

ps2 you don't know who is my Japanese mentor/teacher.

 

Edited Wednesday at 02:47 PM by Jacques

[Brano]

Jacques - it doesn't matter who your mentor is
What you said - "Only the artistic value of a sword is taken into account when assigning a juyo" - is simply not true

Zaimei, nengo, ubu, denrai, origami from a respected Honami... all of these have a positive impact on passing Juyo even if the artistic level is not great

[Jacques]

5 hours ago, Brano said:

Jacques - it doesn't matter who your mentor is
What you said - "Only the artistic value of a sword is taken into account when assigning a juyo" - is simply not true

Zaimei, nengo, ubu, denrai, origami from a respected Honami... all of these have a positive impact on passing Juyo even if the artistic level is not great

Have you ever attended a juyo shinsa? No, so what you're saying is just the opinion of an ordinary person but in no way a valid argument.

[Brano]

11 hours ago, Jacques said:

Have you ever attended a juyo shinsa? No, so what you're saying is just the opinion of an ordinary person but in no way a valid argument.

Your arrogance is unfounded
I think the question is appropriate - have you ever participated in Juyo Shinsa?

 

It is enough to have access to information about the blades that have passed Juyo
Anyone who buys Juyo Zufu can get them
And be able to work with them

[Mikaveli]

Examples, as we had earlier, prove the point either way.

 

Do we have many good examples of artistic merit only Juyo swords?

 

And conversely, swords with issues that would usually preclude them, but have history or other provenance that awarded Juyo.

[Jussi Ekholm]

I think Brano made a good comment that the majority of Jūyō swords come from pretty small number of smiths. It is just NBTHK style of appreciation. Now the Kotō portion of Jūyō passes usually pretty much looks like this

 

Few Awataguchi

A lot of Rai

Few Hasebe

Few Nobukuni

Quite a bunch of variety of 5 Yamato schools

Few Shintōgo / Yukimitsu

Maybe Masamune / Sadamune / Hiromitsu / Akihiro

Some Shizu / Naoe Shizu

Few Nanbokuchō / Muromachi Mino

Few Tametsugu

Few Norishige / Gō

Some Ko-Bizen

Lot of Ichimonji

Some Osafune mainline

Few Hatakeda / Ukai

Few Motoshige

Bunch of Sōden-Bizen

Bunch of sideline Bizen

Some Muromachi Bizen

Few Ko-Aoe

Bunch of Aoe

Few Ko-Mihara

Bunch of Sa school works

Few Enju

 

To me this above is not all that exciting as it happens year after year, I want to find unique an interesting pieces passing. For example a jō-saku smith that I like for some reason is Taira Nagamori (長盛). However there are only 2 wakizashi by him that have ever passed Jūyō. To me it would be much more important to have 3rd sword by him pass the shinsa than 190th Mumei Taima blade or 216th Mumei Aoe blade. Unfortunately NBTHK does not really value Bungo stuff (Excluding Yukihira and Sadahide). I was thrilled to see a first blade by Bungo Norisada pass in Jūyō 67. I do not have the art eye for details but even I must admit that many of the mumei Jūyō items are actually stunning swords and well deserving the Jūyō title. It is just my personal feeling that too much suriage mumei stuff pass. I would rather steer more passes towards very good quality signed work by Muromachi period smiths than bulk of suriage mumei Kamakura/Nanbokuchō stuff over and over again. Still it is NBTHK's game and their rules apply.

 

There are even Tokubetsu Jūyō swords that are in my opinion not awarded by their artistic merit but rather extremely valuable historical value. Then in my personal opinion there are also the opposites where just the artistic merit pushes the sword up to Tokubetsu Jūyō level as to me the sword itself is not that interesting just the workmanship is stunning. I have seen both variations in person, and it is just personal opinion and quite possibly I might not understand the intricate details.

[Gakusee]

3 hours ago, Mikaveli said:

Examples, as we had earlier, prove the point either way.

 

Do we have many good examples of artistic merit only Juyo swords?

 

And conversely, swords with issues that would usually preclude them, but have history or other provenance that awarded Juyo.

That is a difficult and highly subjective discussion. It is fraught with problems such as:

- what is an “artistic merit” and who judges that?
- how can we isolate “artistic merit” from eg engineering and structural integrity, balance, cutting ability etc

- why are we trying to assume consistent application of standards over the last 60 odd years of shinsa judgements, when in reality there were different panels with different views / weights and slightly different absolute and relative criteria?

 

I posit that it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions over the entire period NBTHK judgements have been conferred. And that is fine. They have evolved as has the subject. 
 

For instance, I noticed that in the “problematic” 1970s, when there was some rampant Juyo issuance, a number of Juyo certificates were issued to swords made by Ichige Tokurin. See one such example below. 
In my view, his swords are not pretty and do not have artistic merit. The hamon is plain, the whole execution uninspiring..

Yes, he was interesting in that he was a samurai retainer who turned swordsmith. 
But do his swords have historic importance or artistic merit? In my humble view not really.