paulb

Hi Mark, not wanting to jump on Mark's response but in cases where you have numerous generations using a name such as Kanesada or Kanemoto and where there are no distnguishing features specific to a given smith, it is quite common for the paper to confirm a blades authenticity but without being able to pinpoint it down to an individual.

Hi Ford that was my initial response too but if you look closely there is a small black zig-zag virtually at 12 o clock on the seppa-di. I think this is what Grey is talking about. I think it may just be some minor damage or darkening patination rahter than anything deliberate.

Well done Mark, Having seen this on the work bench it is great to see it in place and full. Looks like a great job. I am very jealous of your talent. Regards Paul

Dimitri, I agree with you and the elitism topic doesnt need to take up space here. I also agree that it is as important to encourage new collectors. All of us have started pretty much the same way. We buy what we can afford and hope it is better than it probably is. With time and commitment we improve our collections. that is the nature of the subject. No one should be ridiculed for making a start on what is a very challenging road.

Hi Tobias, In an attempt to brief I might have sounded a bit aggressive, that wasnt my intention. When I first started collecting swords in the 1980s I bought what I could afford which was basically showato. I spent ages trying to convince myself, firstly that they were gendaito and then that if they were, the quality of steel and forging was every bit as good as koto or shinto work. As I studied more, looked at more and hopefully understood more I realised I was kidding myself. The process is ongoing and I am still staggered as I look at more early work to see just how good it is. There have been extremely talented smiths from all eras of sword making history. However my personal opinion is that the very best were working from the mid to the end of the kamakura period (13th to mid 14th century) and that no one has ever achieved better quality than some of the smiths working at that time. sorry for going off topic. If you want to discuss this further please feel free to pm me best regards Paul

Dimitri, I have no doubt I can be as pompous as the next and probably am. What I find less acceptable is the increasingly frequent use of the term elitist or elitism. Every time someone tries to raise the bar a little, introduce a slightly higher level of questioning or understanding it seems to be lablelled as Elitist. If someone aspires to buy or, God forbid, buys something above the average the label comes out again. So If aspiring to achieve the best I can and learn as much as I can is elitist then yes I am and am happy to be so. Inspiring younger people does not necessarily require dumbimg down (sorry I was trying to think of something equally insulting to the elitist tag you seem to want to apply the other way) What is required is enthusiasm and inspiration. Many of the best teachers I have ever met never cheapened their subject in an attempt to broaden the appeal. They spent time informing people why their subject was worthy of study. We will continue to disagree on this and you may well be proven right. I still think making blades in this way does absolutely nothing for this art form. BTW Tobias there are many, including me, that would argue very strongly that no science has improved the quality of forging in the 20th century. I do not believe anyone in the 19th, 20th or 21st century has come near the quality of forging achieved in the Kamakura period. Regards Paul

Hi Piers, Just for the record my main concern wasnt that the museum might be poluted (your term not mine) I can understand them utilising exhibition space and drawing crowds in .So while not necessarily comfortable I could understand why they would do it. My biggest cocern was that modern smiths have used their skills to produce fantasy weapons, suggesting it was somehow adding to their art form. Sorry I just dont agree with that idea. I accept that I may be in the moniroty and frankly my opinion is totally irrelevent to what they will or wont do in the future, but I just think it is wrong. The forthcoming exhibitions sound great even to a non Bizen enthusiast like me. I am very envious of your ability to attend Regards Paul

John and Piers, I appreciate I am being a bit extreme in my view and am in danger of turning in to a total kill joy. If it is any excuse I also felt the same way about Star wars and Harry Potter exhibitions in the Royal Armouries, although in fairness to them they didnt try and incorporate real weapons in to their shows. I absolutely agree that we need to increase interest in a new generation the question is how is this best done. I have watched youngsters sitting spellbound while perfomance artists gave accounts of episodes in English history at the Armouries. There is a great difference between that and linking what is a major national work of art and world history in to a B movie cartoon series. I think the point John made "attract increased interest while maintaining the dignity it deserves." is what I am gettnig at. I am not sure how having tradionally made blades being waved about by teenage comic characters is supposed to inspire the next generation of sword lovers. I can accept that you need something like this event to bring people to the building. Waht I dont think you need is to degrade the art form by making it part of a cheap exhibition. Bottom line is I think the subject if presented correctly is pull enough to inspire youngsters we dont need to rely on links to fanatasy films. The reality holds sufficient fascination. Linkng it to cheap short term popular culture is not the route to creating a sustained interest.

Peter, I am not sure if it is my eyes, machine or your image but I cna even see the mei at this resolution. Can you take a picture of the Nakago only? thanks Paul

Now I know I am past my sell by date. Looking at this feels a bit like seeing your favourite painter or writer contributing to a comic strip. It looks like an easy lesson in how to denegrate an art form which has survived and been cherished for 1000 years. I cannot believe that craftsmen who suposedly regard their work as a spirtual calling could allow themselves to be involved in the production of something like this. I think it is a very sad reflection on the modern world. Regards Paul B

Chris, It has a seki arsenal stamp on it which suggests it is not traditionaly made. The hot stamp on the bottom is that of kanezane who has been much discussed here recently. While he did make Gendaito the majority of his work appears to be made using mill steel and oil quenched. There has been much discussion here recently about which stamped swords will and wont paper. Unless something dramatic has happened in recent months a sword with a seki stamp is not regarded as traditionally made and would not therefore paper. regards Paul

Dear All, Can I please make very clear my comment: was meant as a general point and an attempt to put single experiences in to context. it certainly wasnt intended as a comment on the attitude of any contributors in this or any other thread. Denis I dont believe there is an appeal procedure as such and I doubt records are held that would enable them to check back that far. While Juyo and higher papers are recorded and published I dont think the same level of record is held on lesser papers. Lee could certainly resubmit the sword

I dont want to re-open old discussions regarding validity of papers new and old they have been well discussed (discussed anyway) more or less since the board began. I agree with Lee that papers are an opinion, I would add that they are a far better qualified opinion than mine or indeed anyone elses outside of Japan. I am not as cynical regarding older papers as Lee appears to be. There is no question and it is well recorded that there were problems, particularly with lower level papers issued by branch offices of the NBTHK during the late 70s (and probably before) Some of this was due to inaccurate appraisal some corruption. This is why the system was changed. Having said that there are very many papers issued between 1957 (I think thats when it started) and 1980 which are perfectly valid and accurate. the problem is that the minority that are wrong cast doubt on the majority. I would not dismiss older NBTHK papers out of hand. Regarding new papers and mumei blades I do not understand Jacques point. However I would repeat some personal experience with recent shinsa held outside of Japan. In the first UK shinsa many signed swords were submitted and falied to gain a paper. For the second far fewer signed blades were submitted. The thinking appeared to be that an unsigned blade will be attributed to something and therefore "be papered" which would make it a more commercial prospect than a signed blade which was rejected. Many of these swords were in less than good polish and detail not easily seen. My feeling is that the shinsa panel gave the best answer they could based on what they could see and erred on the side of caution when important detail was obscured. Some of these attributions would be changed if the blade was presented in a good condition and polish. So who is at fault here? the shinsa panel for expressing an opinion based on what they could see or the person who submitted it in a condition which did not allow for a more accurate apparaisal? Would it have been better for the panel just to pink slip them and tell the owner to get the blade polished? I also think that condemning papers based on an individual expeirence is akin to disliking a nation because you have had a bad experience with a person. While I dont doubt there were errors with old papers and continue to be with new there is no better system to choose from. I am a very contented member of the NBTHK, I find them an incredibly helpful organisation and with a depth of knowledge and material we can only dream of. When buying swords at distance I am certainly more comfortable buying a sword that has been assessed by the NBTHK than something that has not been.

Sorry Denis that is impossible to answer for anyone other than the shinsa panel To try and anticipate what they might do: 1. Echizen work is well documented and the characterisitcs well known. They have been for many years therefore it is reasonable to assume the initial attribution was right 2. The smith and his work are well known. He is, I think, well regarded but not top tier. therefore there is little reason to a) fake his work or b) as in this case attribute a mumei blade to him in an attempt to commit fraud. 3. Resubmission would likely confirm it is an Echizen sword, if there is enough individuality in the smiths work (sorry I dont know him that well) they could attribute it to him. If not they may just leave it at Echizen or Den Echizen. Taking all the above in to account I do not think you would gain much greater insight and if it were me I would not go through the process. But that ultimately is your decision.

Hi Denis, Because of the problems experienced by the NBTHK in the late 70s and early 80's and because of greater amounts of research being undertaken in the past 30 years the NBTHK have generally encouraged people holding swords with older papers to resubmit them for re-appraisal. In the case of your own sword it has been papered to a competent late koto or early Shinto smith. It is mumei so under the current system it can obtain hozon or if it is exceptional, possibly tokubetsu Hozon papers. The total exercise will cost you several hundred pounds. Having an up to date paper may make your sword easier to sell but wont necessarilly add to the value. If it were attributed to an important school or famous smith it would be worth considering. For anything less the benefits are less clear cut and I dont think you would increase the sales price by the costs associated with the process. regards Paul

Hi Curtis, Sorry but I think you question is impossible to answer other than what you have already said for yourself. Ruling factors are quality of manufacture, condition and rarity. The bottom line is as you say "what someone is willing to pay" and each sword must be judged on it's own merit. Sorry this doesnt help much but I dont think there is an eay answer Regards Paul

Hi John, There are many stories of mei being removed only to have the sword later attributed to the smith concerned after the event. It has been suggested that you should always obtain two or three attributions before thinking of having a mei removed. It depends who you submit the sword to. The NBTHK will either pass or fail a a sword but if it is gimei they will not tell you who they think made it. When the NTHK fail a sword as gimei they will give an indication of who, or which school may have made it. I would certainly think very carefully before removing signatures and certainly would not do so based on a single opinion/appraisal. best Regards Paul

Andrey, I am sorry but you really are wasting your time. This has nothing to do with what Japanese scholars do or do not think, how they work or their attitudes. It is about an obvious fake (sorry to be so blunt but the mesasage seems to have failed to get through) being offered for sale at a price that is so rediculous that it belongs in the realms of fantasy. If you wish to believe this is what you claim and is worth the price you have put on it fine, carry on. Do not expect anyone here to change their view or support. You are wrong. If your scientific proof (yet to be seen) supports this then that is equally wrong or fraudulent. The problem is the longer this debate goes on the less it appears to be a genuine error and the more like an attempted fraud/scam.

Sir, I make no claim to be an expert in anything. I have however spent most of my adult life studying Japanese swords. I am not a member of the NTHK although I do respect their opinion. I would however make the following points which I do not think anyone here will disagree with and may save you a great deal of time rwasted in posting copies of emails. 1. I believe your sword is a fake. There is nothing about it which suggests it has any quality 2. A valuation of $80,000000 is ludicrous. Before your expert puts such a valuation on anything they should at least study the market. Swords made by the greatest smiths in history such as Masamune and Rai Kunitoshi etc do not command such a rediculous price. The highest figure paid in a Western auction for a properly authenticated piece was approximately $400,000. The value placed on your blade says as much about your experts lack of knowledge as it does the sword. I would suggest you do not waste time and effort trying to prove your blade is either genuine or worth the price your expert has put on it. You will fail. BTW I would place a much higher value on an appraisal made by the NTHK based on a photograph than I would a self proclaimed expert that puts such a redicluous value on a blade seen in hand.

thats a hurdle we all have to get over, can advise about dealers but not relationships (wife) :D

Hi Laurent, Living in Belgium gives you a lot of options which are far better than Ebay. I have sold many of my own swords and some of a friends throughout the EU from the UK. so far without problem. there are a lot of well respected dealers within the EU and it would be infinitely safer to talk to one or more of them and or people selling on the board than it would to try a speculate on Ebay and bring something in from further afield from an unknown source. Regards Paul.

Sam, trying to predict what will and wont sell at auctions at present is akin to witchcraft. there seems little reason in it. The blade you mention looks ok and there is nothing that I could see in the description that would suggest it had any significant faults. One thing against it is that it has old Kanteisho papers, infact they are about as early as it gets at 1957 (I thought the NBTHK started this system in 1958 but that may just be a fault in my memory) Had the sword been papered more recently it may have achieved a better result. Also age on its own is not an indicator of value. There are some, me included, who rate Yamtao blades very highly but for others they lack the attraction of Bizen and Soshu work. So the market is more limited. Regarding cutting tests- Authentic ones add value, but there are very many fake tests applied to blades at a later time to attempt to enhance value. So unless such a test is authenticated they are best avoided. Otherwise agree with David hang on to your money until you have had the chance to see a lot of swords and talk to experienced collectors. good luck Paul

I hope you will put us out of our misery soon Chris the suspense is killing me

Using the non traditonally made definition of Showato I would go for nos 4 5 8 and 9 as being Showato Like Tom I think they are were all made in the Showa period. Reasons: The other swords exhibit either a lot of nie or a more complex nioi with a lot of activity within the hamon. Although sword 4 shows odd patches of nie it appear accidental rather than intended. I saw something similar on a blade that was attributed as oil quenched in an NTHK shinsa. 5, 8 and 9 show little life in the hamon and not much going on in the hada. Having said all the above I believe it is difficult enough making these judgements sword in hand. doing it from a partial image increases the challenge considerably so I am far from confident in my choices. Regards Paul

I think I am with Mariusz on this one. Looking at the illustartion I am distinctly underwhelmed. (guess thats why I better stick to blades!)