Jump to content

fake nbthk papers...


Recommended Posts

  • 2 years later...

I was looking at one of the for sale posts and was prompted to ask:

What is the specific period when certain papers were in doubt and was it from both major assessment organisations?

I seem to remember it being around 1960

Are we only taking about blades or is it all Nihonto furniture?

If for example it was 1960 - 1970 should items with papers before 1980 also be resubmitted for Shinsa?

I did a quick search on the forum hence the resurrection of this old post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at one of the for sale posts and was prompted to ask:

What is the specific period when certain papers were in doubt and was it from both major assessment organisations?

I seem to remember it being around 1960

Are we only taking about blades or is it all Nihonto furniture?

If for example it was 1960 - 1970 should items with papers before 1980 also be resubmitted for Shinsa?

I did a quick search on the forum hence the resurrection of this old post

There's alot of contention around Green papers and has been recently discussed in a couple of topics such as:

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/23292-muramasa-tanto-on-ebay/?do=findComment&comment=236631

and

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/19445-nbthk-tokubetsu-kicho-papers/?hl=%2Bgreen+%2Bpapers&do=findComment&comment=199725

 

Basically there was a period where some branches were producing wrong or fake papers. Collectors being quite a superstitious bunch have since been very wary of any old papers, warranted or not.

 

Current thinking is if it's worth getting re-papered it probably has been, with obvious exceptions. $2000 is one of the sweet spots for fakes specifically for the reason you are thinking.

 

I'm sure more knowledgeable members can elaborate or link you to other previous topics or articles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had a thought

These dubious papers would only involve high value items so it maybe that something less than say $2,000 would not be worth faking

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/6412-echizen-shigetaka/?hl=%2Bshigetaka+%2Broku

 

This is a low value wakizashi that I own.

Shodai and nidai Shigetaka are worth a fake signature but the sixth is unknown.

And considering the sixth worked in 1740's and this is dated Kanbun...that's a large 'mistake' for the shinsa to make.

 

As I bought this blade, and paid accordingly, based on the sage advice of 'buy papered and in polish', it definitely soured my opinion on kicho papers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Collectors being quite a superstitious bunch have since been very wary of any old papers, warranted or not.

 

Or, having degrees in mathematics...

 

Here is the basic problem.

 

Here is the set of Tokubetsu Kicho papered blades, some good, some bad: 

 

xxoooxxooxxoooooooxoooooo

 

NBTHK makes this announcement:

 

the Society's Local Shinsa of Kicho Token was disgraced by an intrusion of local organized outlaws in March and the other involving forged certificates widely circulated in the autumn, the Society had entrusted the Metropolitan Police Department with investigation into those regrettable incidents. After eight months' thorough investigation by the authority, eight persons in the forgery ring were arrested and twenty-eight more connected with the ring have been sent the police reports to the public prosecutor.

 

Everyone who owns a Tokubetsu Kicho papered blade or is selling one unanimously declares:

 

I KNOW WHAT I HAVE AND MINE IS GOOD

 

Except, some percentage of these blades are bad and nobody really knows which the good and bad ones are. Just, anyone who actually owns one refuses to believe it happened to them. This we know cannot be a universal truth, at the same time there are enough bad blades that people get arrested and prosecuted and the NBTHK wipes out a class of papers AND everyone who owns these blades has universally avoided ending up with a bad blade.

 

So, the NBTHK opens the door and says bring in the old papered blades, we will re-examine each one and re-issue an attribution. Or deny it new papers.

 

So let's run a little simulation of this algorithm of replacing Kicho type papers with Hozon type papers.

 

(Had to edit this twice, first lost all my UTF8, replaced those with emoticons, got that blocked)

 

So on year one:

 

Hozon = 

 

Kicho =  xxoooxxooxxoooooooxoooooo

 

 

 

Year two

 

Hozon =  ooo

 

Kicho =  xxoooxxooxxoooooooxooo

 
 

 

Year three

 
Hozon = ooooooo

 

Kicho = xxoooxxooxxoooooox

 

 

 

Year four

 
Hozon = ooooooooo

 

Kicho = xxoooxxooxxooox

 
 

Year five

 
Hozon = ooooooooooooo

 

Kicho = xxxxooxxooooox

 

 
 

Year six

 
Hozon = ooooooooooooooooo

 

Kicho = xxxxooxxox

 
 
Year seven
 
Hozon = ooooooooooooooooooo

 

Kicho = xxxxxxox

 

...

 
Now if you grab a Kicho type blade in year one, the chances are that any particular blade you pick, you will be picking a perfectly fine blade. In year 7, good luck. There is still one good blade in there for you to find, but the chances of finding it decrease. 
 
This is just pulling two to four good blades out of this simulated barrel of blades per year vs. our simulated original set. It is intended to demonstrate the forces at work when you have finite sets and a filtering algorithm.
 
If you have a pool, and you filter good water out, you will find out that what remains behind in the net is dirt and garbage after a long enough period of time. If you run a fishing net through the water in the swamp, the water will pass through and you will accumulate algae and junk in the net. It's the basic concept of filtering and this is what was set up with the NBTHK: to filter out the good blades from the old types of paper and leave behind garbage, until you can effectively just take the garbage that is left behind and disavow it.
 
I am guessing there were about 30,000 Kicho type papers made and probably in the first year a large chunk of those got exchanged, and every year it is diminishing returns rather than a flat number going through. That would be a good statistical assumption to make vs. any other model. But it doesn't matter at what rate they are converted over: Every year it is harder to find a green papered blade that will legitimately pass on its face. 
 
As this algorithm proceeds into the future, it is unidirectional: the items left in the Kicho bin on average decrease in likelihood of passing as the good blades are filtered out.
 
Does it mean all of them are bad? No. 
 
Does it mean you should be careful? Hell yes. With each month, every good blade remaining that gets pulled and put into the Hozon bin makes the concentration of bad blades left over go up.
 
When I am saying green papers = no papers, I'm not strictly saying green papers = gimei. I am saying that you need to treat it as an unpapered situation at this point in time, so you need to remain skeptical. And the bigger the name on that paper and on the blade, the more likely someone will have tried to convert it in the past so as to eliminate doubt and increase value for their item. So when you get to the extreme of a Tokubetsu Kicho papered zaimei Soshu Masamune, you have a 100% guarantee that this is no good. If it were Awataguchi Hisakuni or Yoshimitsu or anything like this, it's about the same. Someone would have run that thing back into the NBTHK and removed all doubt. When you get to the other end of the extreme, like an iron tsuba papered Echizen, well, those papers may just sit there because anyone with eyes collecting tsuba should be able to verify the attribution, and the attribution is not promising the moon and stars. It's just not worth $250 to replace the paper. The tsuba is probably worth less than the papers. So, you just keep that green paper and put it as a useful opinion. 
 
People are trying to handwave the green paper problem away with this anecdote: "I found 10 green papered blades and papered all 10 to Hozon, it shows that this is hogwash." This anecdote actually proves the problem, that 10 more good blades got pulled from the bin and converted out, leaving behind a greater concentration of bad blades. 
 
As well for the person doing this in bulk: buying green papered blades by the hundred, they will filter out all the good ones and convert them to Hozon and sell them with no doubt = highest profit because there is no risk premium. What does not pass, goes back to eBay or any other venue for selling with the existing green paper and gets cycled back into the market. Then this anecdote of "but I found all these good ones" is attached to the ones that didn't pass. 
 
Finally if someone is finding all these good blades and converting them to Hozon and then selling one that is not converted, why did this one get excluded from the conversion process?
 
These anecdotes are nothing other than appeals to emotion.
 
The issue with green papers is fact and published by the NBTHK.
 
The mathematics of the issue magnifying over the years is incontestable, and can be understood by a 10 year old. 
 
It has nothing to do with superstition. Warning people has nothing to do with profit motive. Actively buying and selling questionably papered blades is where the profit motive is, not in raising awareness of the issue. 
 
If anyone selling a green papered blade truly believes it is legitimate then they will have no issue with providing you a 2 or 6 month guarantee that it will pass in an upcoming shinsa. If they won't back their words with anything tangible then that tells you the value of their words.
 
And anyone who wants to say that this is not a problem I have some green papered Kiyomaro and Kotetsu and Shinkai that I can provide to you with a couple of quick phone calls. The price is really good.
 
Other notes:
 
In 1991, about 10 years after the replacement of the old system with Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon, the NBTHK was still receiving about 10% of submissions being upgrades from the old system. Tanobe sensei notes that after Juyo shinsa in 1991 they received a record number of 3,400 items for initial shinsa, so 340 of those items approximately were green papered items trying for new papers. He says part of the high number being submitted during this shinsa is due to suspension of Hozon/TH during Juyo processing for three months. So we can maybe extrapolate this 3,400 number into about 15,000 or so submissions on an annual basis and 1,500 green papered items being attempted for replacement papers per year.
 
In 1991. 
 
This is likely tapered off from past years as mentioned.  But even if it is a flat percentage, we're talking about 15,000 items in total for the first 10 years that got yanked from the bad bucket, and examined. Good items passed into Hozon and bad items thrown back into the ocean. 
 
So by 1991 a number somewhere close to half of the existing bad papered blades were already reassessed. That more than doubled the percentage of bad blades left in the Kicho bag. 
 
In 1991. 
 
27 years ago it was half cleaned out.
 
The responsible stance on green papers and that whole family, is doubt. This is the beginning and end of it: the sane, mathematically backed, factually backed, risk management backed stance, is doubt and only increases every year. As such it relies always on the person making the extraordinary claim to provide extraordinary evidence. 
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this only slightly addresses one major fact....that the vast majority of papered swords are not TJ or Juyo or even TH in all probability.
I know that high level dealers and collectors like yourself Darcy, will focus on the higher end stuff. That is the ultimate goal for any collector (or should be) and where your efforts are focused naturally. And in that pool, the rewards and risks are so much higher. The difference between a mumei unpapered Rai blade, and one with Juyo papers is huge. Hence big money at stake, and people in the past would have asked for favours when papering or used influence or would have done whatever they can to get their swords papered.
It is only logical that the higher grade you go...the more risk there is in old papers.

Now take some average out of polish Bungo or Shinto Mino sword. From some entry level smith. What are the chances that those papers are fake? Possibly yes. But the same risk as a Magoroku Kanemoto? Probably not.
Because it is VERY likely the small collector with average swords with low level papers never bothered to repaper them. I know I wouldn't. For what?
And surely many people with Hozon or Kicho or whatever low level papers to a smith that is not expected to paper higher are not going to re-paper those swords?

Not everyone collects at the upper or even mid level. And I do think that the focus on these old unreliable papers really does sit there. I don't doubt that many old papers are unreliable, including many of the entry level ones too. But at what ratio?

Doesn't counter anything you have said...agree with it. But I do think a distinction needs to be made when we are talking about average swords and ones that have the potential to go Juyo or TH etc. I wouldn't stress too much to rush out and re-paper that country smith sword with a sleepy hamon. Just saying..

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this only slightly addresses one major fact....that the vast majority of papered swords are not TJ or Juyo or even TH in all probability.

 

 

Juyo, and Tokubetsu Juyo level works are the only immunity of this problem. The reason for this is that the yakuza were working out of the branch offices and these were decided centrally. Also the Juyo and higher level works had all the top experts on them, the others did not. As such, Juyo doesn't even have any consideration in this conversation and I'm not sure why it's brought up.

 

The problem is focused on blades that would be candidates for Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon.

  

Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon do not have enough daylight between them to make any difference between them to be any of an issue. Looking at these things distracts from what the real issue is.

 

The accuracy of old green/white/blue papers. It begins there and it ends there. Many of those predate Tokubetsu Juyo, remember that as well. 

 

Trying to raise a point of immunity for low level judgments is missing some important information.

 

 

Now take some average out of polish Bungo or Shinto Mino sword. From some entry level smith. What are the chances that those papers are fake? Possibly yes. But the same risk as a Magoroku Kanemoto? Probably not.

 

 

Every time I write about gimei and every time I write about this issue here, I discuss the practical aspects of fakery. I cover it above in the example of the Echizen tsuba where the tsuba is less than the value of the papers (I am referring to something I personally own in this case) and the financial risk involved in the judgment being wrong is so small (not that the judgment cannot be wrong, but that there is nowhere DOWN for it to go) and as such there is not too much reason to worry or motivate one to exchange those papers. There is actually motivation still in some cases and will bring that up later.

 

It is something that I hope is self evident that if, say, someone could fake metals, they would turn their attention to faking gold rather than faking tin. So with swords, that the risk moves in lockstep with the value attached to the judgment. In this I agree, the risk decreases as a fakery target with the level of the attribution achieved.

 

I said several times "green papers = no papers", and I said that when the name gets significantly big enough then the only thing you can rely on is that the paper is an anti-paper: the item in question is made by anyone except for the person named on the paper.

 

However, the wrong takeaway from that is that there is immunity for anything. That seems to be a driving point, that this piece can be determined to be immune from this problem, and that is not true.

 

As soon as you say fakers only fake gold, and you don't have to worry about tin, they will turn around and fake tin because it's an easy thing to pass off as nobody expects it. As such we cannot too strongly anticipate what a faker will or won't do.

 

Basically it is just this: green papers are a pile of crap that have so much cancer in them the whole thing becomes extremely risk laden. You can take them, at best, as an honest nod in the right direction. They may end up being confirmed, but the risk is high that they are nothing better than a nod in the right direction regardless of the level of what is on there. The financial risk is not the same as the accuracy risk. Because it can be wrong and yet do no damage. It can also be wrong and within the fungibility zone where it doesn't matter. po-Bingo, po-Bungo, same thing.

 

The reasons why nothing gets a free pass for accuracy though are:

 

1. The problem is not limited to outright fakery: it involves bad judgment and lax standards.

 

2. As above, trying from one's armchair to second guess the levels at which a faker will take action is futile.

 

3. new data

 

Quoting Tanobe sensei:

 

"There were indeed some collectors who could not understand why their swords acceptable in the former system did not clear the new system and asked for reasons. Even then, we were able to gain their understanding and consent by explaining that it was due to certain factors, such as the new quality standards introduced in the new system, differences in viewpoints between old and new Shinsa staff, and discovery of reference materials providing new data."

 

"new quality standards" = "old standards were so bad they were incorrect"

 

"differences in viewpoints between old and new Shinsa staff" = "some people were issuing judgments that did not have adequate expertise (i.e. they didn't know what they were doing)"

 

 

 

Because it is VERY likely the small collector with average swords with low level papers never bothered to repaper them. I know I wouldn't. For what?

 

 

Because the judgment has a high percentage chance of being wrong.

 

What is the point of having a wrong judgment? There isn't any. Doesn't help you as a buyer, or as a seller, or as a student. Furthermore it will mislead you as a student into making wrong conclusions on future items. Thus, you are basically buying and supporting your own mis-education.

 

Bear in mind if the item is signed or mumei it can actually be upgraded. Because it is just not a one-way trip here we are talking about. Bad judgment is bad judgment. It is not necessarily overshooting, it can be undershooting or just shot in the wrong direction but the right distance.

 

green papers = no papers

 

Green papers doesn't mean the item is garbage.

 

Green papers means the PAPERS are garbage.

 

Case in point #1: Well known western expert (who is not me), is smart and praised on this board finds a suriage wakizashi with a Hankei signature on it and Tokubetsu Kicho papers. This goes for next to nothing in Japan because it has green papers and a big name and people are not stupid. But, because people also do not study they are not able to look at the blade and determine exactly what it is. They just know my rule above "if you have green papers and a significantly large enough name, it is a virtual guarantee that the blade is made by anyone except the name on the paper."

 

So, this smart guy looks at the blade, knows what it is, buys it, removes the mei and submits to Hozon and it passes as Shizu Kaneuji and is actually a Juyo candidate.

 

Now, go back and think about it.

 

People too uneducated to know much will buy it as Hankei. Someone smart enough to know that it's got a bad paper buys it for next to nothing and sells it to the guy less smart than him as the real deal. Someone even smarter than them all removes the mei and papers it to Shizu.

 

All of what I am saying applies to this case.

 

Case in point #2: I bought a blade with green papers to Tametsugu and someone had already resubmitted this and got Sue-Sa. Sue-Sa is to Samonji as Naoe Shizu is to Shizu, however, the Sue-Sa smiths are generally higher level than the Naoe Shizu smiths. In this case the judge was just wrong to put it to Tametsugu but he was hunting in the right zone. It is a Nanbokucho period Soshu derived work. The NBTHK took pains to point out as well that this was a direct student of Samonji. In other places they usually break out Sue-Sa as meaning: Sa Yoshisada (Jojo), Sa Yasuyoshi (Jojo), Sa Yoshihiro (Jojo), Sa Sadayuki (Jojo), Sa Kunihiro (Jojo). The Naoe Shizu smiths are more in line with Jo-saku and Tametsugu is also Jo-saku. Without them specifically saying a direct student of Sa or else spoon feeding what Sue-Sa means, one should conservatively take it to mean the extended Sa school.

 

So anyway in this case then this blade was upgraded. Though the original judge was hunting in the right area of Soshu influenced work, he was off the path as Samonji mon and Norishige/Go Yoshihiro mon are quite different and he underrated the skill level of the blade.

 

Then, why would you want to replace your paper?

 

Because these judgments are frequently wrong. Wrong does not mean that they are necessarily overstated, though this is the faker's manifesto: it mostly means they are WRONG.

 

How wrong can they be then is the next question?

 

The NBTHK has even overturned Rai Kunitsugu at Juyo and made it Awataguchi Hisakuni.

 

This is not the longest leap, and this is just stuff at Juyo that had fairly good judges on it to begin with. It's just that in this case they relied on old attributions and gave it some benefit of the doubt and actually mention it on the back of some of these setsumei. 

 

Tokubetsu Kicho though does not even have the benefit of older more solid judgments. It just has random poor judging on it a lot of the time, before getting to the outright fakery.

 

Maybe your Tokubetsu Kicho Enju can come back as Awataguchi.

 

That should be enough motivation for anyone to consider getting a modern attribution on an old blade.

 

It has happened that Enju has been reattributed as Awataguchi. More than once.

 

However, maybe it will come back as Bungo Takada. 

 

As long as it got out of the fungibility zone you might learn something.

 

Taking this out of the equation still, the basic reason to exchange it is because it's got a large chance of being wrong and if you want to learn from it, learning from bad judgments will teach you how to make bad judgments.

 

Coming back to the goal I have with this: it is to raise awareness that green papers = no papers. I am reading it is "superstition" (it is not). I am being accused of "being a dealer" (not sure how this affects the facts of the case, but it is a good emotional card to play). It is handwaved away as being overblown (buy that green papered Shinkai and find out it is valueless and then ask yourself how much this opinion restores the money you lost). It is dismissed as "I got a bunch confirmed" (which is evidence that the risk in the leftover pot has increased, not decreased). All kinds of fallacies and emotional arguments and guns being pointed at me and cocked over ringing the warning bell aggressively. 

 

However, once you discard any reliance on that old attribution, now you are free to judge on your own with a clear mind and that is what is necessary. You should have all of the standard worries then about big names and you should have all the standard worries about simply making a wrong kantei of your own. That paper cannot be your crutch into an answer nor can it be the seller's crutch to sell it to you. It's a paperless blade at this point and has all the pros and cons of that.

 

So the green papered Shinkai you can ask, is that Shinkai a real Shinkai? If not, what is it? Probably nothing significant once you erase the mei on it.

 

In the case of the Hankei, it wasn't a real Hankei, but it was a real Shizu. The reason the Hankei mei ever worked on it is because he copied Soshu and Norishige in particular, but the blade was not Norishige style at all. 

 

It is a double edged sword: I only want people to doubt the paper as the first and most important step. The big upset for me is seeing a dealer selling a green papered Shinkai and saying for sure this is real Shinkai but no guarantee. Someone is going to fall for that and they shouldn't. (Edit: I of course can always be wrong, but if you say you want to make a bet with me, and you will take the number six on a dice roll and I get numbers 1-5 I will take that bet every time and I will be right far more than I will be wrong).

 

When I saw that, I said to myself, enough of this BS. I am going to ring some bells and people will get pissed off at me but so be it.

 

For the rest, once they get it out of their heads that a green paper means anything significant, they need to put on their thinking cap. If it is an ubu Shinto work and looks like a Shinto work then it is probably a Shinto work. If it is being traded in the community for 37 years as a green papered Shinkai then the least likely judgment of that piece should be Inoue Shinkai. Taking that away you need to start from first principles to decide what it is. Mentally remove the mei and if the result is random Shinto work then that is what it is: random Shinto work. 

 

No immunity for anything greenish.

 

Just reduced financial risk for lowball attributions and meaningless fungibility for the lowest of the low, at worst.

 

However, if you buy a gimei Hankei for $1,000 and it is a Juyo capable Shizu, then the real financial risk is sitting on it and keeping the green papers. Knowing whether your gimei Hankei is a Shizu that someone slapped a Hankei signature on, or if it is a kajihei, is a matter for study and skill. If you have a collection of green papered stuff that is your study library, well... hard to learn anything from bad attributions.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a question: you said the majority of Hozon blades achieves TH. I have heard from several Japanese dealers that TH was much more difficult to achieve nowadays and that is the reason why NBTHK asks a TH kanteisho to submit a blade to Juyo shinsa. From a lot of Hozon swords I have seen, I had the feeling that any blade with no fatal flaws and not gimei could achieved Hozon but that it was not the case for TH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goods posts. Some very good heuristics in there.  

 

There are cases where it's plain not worth it to re-submit. Say the sword is a mumei chu-saku shinto wak - you've got no chance of moving beyond hozon. Kryptonite swords are more or less resistant to this issue just like low-grade tosogu. On top of it, nobody can have a 'confident' judgement on bottom of the pond mumei shinto wak. If the work is too low to be recognizable beyond tentative broad strokes and the polish makes for 90% of the value of the blade - getting new papers is probably not worth the hassle and the costs involved. 

 

I have a mumei sword with shitty old green papers and honami papers both throwing a wild guess to good smiths as a way to say "it's good". It's shinshinto, signature erased, nakago aged, and fake second mekugi-ana to make it look koto suriage. It will never get past hozon, and whatever the name that ends up on the paper isn't going to increase it's value. It's nice work, but from a value point of view it's tainted. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NBTHK is trying to create more daylight between Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon, this is true, we see it in the revised standards. But I think this is mostly objective and not subjective in nature. It is also true that Hozon represents basically authenticity and lack of fatal flaws (without period and maker exceptions).

 

There is a cycle of tightening of standards when people complain about other people's items getting papered, and this is followed by relaxing of standards when people complain about their own items not getting papered. It ebbs and flows.

 

I am not personally aware of any concrete example from me or other people who have had something come back as a failure for Tokubetsu Hozon after passing Hozon for reasons of "subjectively, not beautiful enough." (Edit: I am implying swords, I don't have enough fittings experience and I am under the impression that everything for fittings is a bit harder than it is for swords.) I could see one (sword) failing for condition being extremely bad, but I have owned things that were Shinto blades in poor condition and still had Tokubetsu Hozon. 

 

I am just lacking a single concrete example to show a failure state. Let alone the large assumed quantities which are out there.

 

If the blade is not rotted out or has a horrific problem of some sort, and is Shinto and meets the objective standards, it is going to go Tokubetsu Hozon in my experience. 

 

And the NBTHK in the past allowed you to make the jump from Hozon to Juyo (as you point out). That indicated from their point of view as well that there was not a lot of daylight between the two levels, and even now you can submit to Tokubetsu Hozon in one go unlike Juyo and Tokuju. So even with tightening standards, the way it is treated is that Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon are joined at the hip compared to the long leap to Juyo and the even longer leap to Tokubetsu Juyo. 

 

It makes sense for them to take a system which essentially had four ratings to it:

 

1, 2, 5 and 10 

 

And try to hammer this out so that it is more like 

 

1, 4, 7 and 10

 

That is indeed the goal but ultimately people are going to complain and that will always push 1 and 4 closer together. Though this makes pure logical sense to try to increase the gap between Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon, it also makes financial sense because you force people to pay for one more level before going to Juyo.

 

The last set of reasons involved here are that Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon are judgments of the item, whereas Juyo and Tokubetsu Juyo represent winning a competition. Whether or not you achieve Tokubetsu Hozon for a piece has no impact on any other pieces, nor do those pieces have impact on yours. It is or it isn't. 

 

This will forever weld Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon together as they just rate the competency of the piece, and to date, the requirements for competency to achieve Tokubetsu Hozon have been well within the range of smiths with known signatures. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for the detailed points made in your posts they are informative and thought provoking. I cannot add to the analysis or argument as to the gaps and differences, my understanding of such differences being based on what I believe/think rather than know. However a couple of your points raise questions.

  • As you mentioned the problem green papers that created the investigation were issued by branch offices of the NBTHK not the HQ. This is further confirmed by the comment that Juyo and above were not under suspicion because they could only be issued from Tokyo and judged by senior figures. This would imply that older papers generated from Tokyo were not identified as being part of the fraud and therefore have a higher possibility of being correct (accepting that as with anything else later research may prove them wrong. However this is due to improved education not dishonesty). However as you say the best and safest approach is to regard any old paper as no paper. The most important point for me that you make is that what is being said is that a sword with green papers isn't necessarily a bad sword. It is the papers not the sword that are bad.
  • I have seen several examples over the years of swords from all eras achieving Hozon but failing Tokubetsu Hozon. Reasons for this have been primarily condition, but also lack of certainty and the possibility of attributing to a specific smith or school with sufficient confidence.
  • ON occasion I have seen swords I thought of less good condition achieve TH but this I think was due to rarity or importance of the sword as a particular reference example of a tradition.
  • I am not sure I agree with the comment that most things will pass Hozon. One of the triggers for a recent debate was someone submitting 5 blades and having all rejected. If signed they could of course all be gimei but if unsigned then condition and quality must play a part.

 

It is important we try and understand the papering process better, especially as, regardless of what is said, the subject is becoming increasingly dependant on them. However there is a danger of over analysis and trying to read too much into what is in front of us (Remember the long debate about comments on sayagaki and whether they added to value or lack of them detracted) A paper offers opinion as to authenticity and quality. It is an incredibly valuable asset when both buying and selling. However we should not expect too much or apply too greater commercial value to the presence of lower level papers. (I cant believe I said that 30 years ago I just wanted something that had A paper, didn't matter what or by whom!).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe some actual numbers will help in determining if indeed almost any sword makes hozon, and that there’s not much of a difference between hozon and tokubetsu hozon:

 

As of 2011, 123,701 swords were submitted under the new system for hozon tōken, of which 79,999 received papers. The numbers for tokubetsu hozon tōken are 39,066 swords, of which 21,599 passed.

 

Of course we don't know how many people were satisfied with just hozon, and never submitted for tokubetsu hozon afterwards (or at the same time), or even went straight for jūyō after hozon. The NBTHK also doesn't disclosed the failure rate for jūyō and tokubetsu jūyō, just the number of swords that passed (10,950 and 920 respectively).

 

In my personal experience, the gap between hozon and tokubetsu hozon has widened considerably the last 10 or so years – and I think that’s a good thing. In 2005, I submitted a ubu Bizen Norimitsu katana with naga-mei and ura-nenki, no flaws at all, for tokubetsu hozon shinsa; it failed. When picking it up, I was told that it was slightly tired, and that Muromachi period blades should be in perfect condition in order to receive TH. Bummer, but lesson learned. I fell for *long mei + date + ubu + no ware = automatically TH*, which was maybe true in the 90’s, but not anymore. (I later sold it to a dealer [telling him about the failure], but he didn’t mind, saying that mei and nenki will help it sell fast [which it did]).

 

Btw, Paul, all old (green) papers were issued in Tokyo, even if the shinsa itself took place at local branches, so there’s no way of telling the difference if one hasn’t access to the records at the NBTHK honbu.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you  Guido I didnt know that. That's another of my useful and insightful comments that is totally wrong and valueless :doh: 

I wondered why no-one had picked up on this previously now I know.

Interesting numbers relating to Hozon and TH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for providing these numbers. It strikes me that there are far less TH in proportion to Hozon swords compared to what I'd intuit reading some of the posts above. Can this be right? for every Juyo blade there are only two TH ones? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure how recent Jean's numbers are, but if recent, I would think the change of needing Hozon to attempt TH and the now joint hozon and TH would drive folks to attempt for TH where perhaps they wouldn't historically. For swords I now send for hozon and TH always. In my view, I might as well since they are over there and I've spent the money to get them to shinsa anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

 

There are not my figures but a rough pourcentage computation based on the figures given by Guido:

 

"As of 2011, 123,701 swords were submitted under the new system for hozon tōken, of which 79,999 received papers. The numbers for tokubetsu hozon tōken are 39,066 swords, of which 21,599 passed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following this thread with great interest. I thank the contributors for sharing their insight!

 

Perhaps I'm out on a limb with this thought but I see this discussion skirts around a direct discussion of nihonto collecting ethics. If one truly subscribes that the old NBTHK papers are indeed worthless and worse, is a cause for the perpetuation of deception, it would seem that an ethical collector would be compelled to destroy the papers once in possession. I've never come across a post where someone announces that they've destroyed on old NBTHK papers but it would seem that if this is truly the position of the preponderance of the members here, it should be common place AND it should be supported, if not applauded by others. 

 

Are there valid reasons for retaining obsolete NBTHK papers? (other than to sucker the next guy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen NBTHK papers for sale on Ebay.  Just the paper, not the article that goes with the paper. I guess that there are paper collectors out there who don't need the blade to go with the paper  :) .

 

As for the green paper, it belongs with the blade that it currently is with. A little bit of history that should be preserved. 

 

I have a blade with two different attributions from two different organisations. Both papers will be sold/traded with the blade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there valid reasons for retaining obsolete NBTHK papers?

 

As others have said, it is a part of the history of the sword. I have a Ko-Aoe tachi with Tokubetsu Kicho that I purchased from a close friend. The papers have his name on them, and I have no intention of discarding them due to their sentimental value and establishing provenance. The sword was later sent for Tanobe-san's sayagaki only, which gave further validation to the attribution on the kanteisho. I felt no need to submit for Tokubetsu Hozon at that point, however I may do so in the future if/when I decide to submit for Juyo. Regardless, the Tokubetsu Kicho kanteisho will be kept with the sword as long as it is in my collection. A future collector may decide to destroy the kanteisho due to it's "obsolete" status, and that will be their decision, however I would find it sad if that happened and that part of the ownership history of the sword were lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It strikes me that there are far less TH in proportion to Hozon swords compared to what I'd intuit reading some of the posts above. Can this be right? for every Juyo blade there are only two TH ones? 

 

The numbers I gave are on public record, they can be found on the Japanese NBTHK website.

 

Although under the new system there always was the possibility for joint hozon / tokubetsu hozon submission, many people just applied for hozon because they only needed proof that the sword is not gimei, an educated opinion in the case of mumei, a stepping stone for jūyō submission, or simply to save some money, especially since the difference between hozon and tokubetsu hozon wasn't that huge. The numbers are from 2011, and my guess is that they'll change soon with a higher percentage of th - because one now needs those papers in order to apply for jūyō, and th criteria got stricter and therefore are indicating higher quality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen NBTHK papers for sale on Ebay.  Just the paper, not the article that goes with the paper. I guess that there are paper collectors out there who don't need the blade to go with the paper  :) .

 

Or maybe there are crooks who want to pair the papers with another sword (or fitting)? :fit: Although I understand the motivation for buying obsolete papers if one has criminal intent, I don't get it why anybody would support that and sell those papers. I hope the sellers will get some payback when they themselves become the victim of that kind of fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...