Jump to content

Kicho papers are barely worth the paper they're written on


Ed

Recommended Posts

Reading another thread regarding the sale of old NBTHK papers(see link) made me wonder.

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=17213

 

In particular this statement.

Kicho papers are barely worth the paper they're written on

 

This has no reflection towards you Lee but brings up a good subject.

 

I have heard this for years, and I am aware that some years back there was some scandal within the NBTHK regarding the issue of false papers, etc., etc..

 

However, I have known a few instances where the owner of a particular sword was concerned with these older papers and re-submitted for newer ones. I personally can't remember one where the sword in question came back with a different attribution than the older papers.

 

Now before you start, let me say that I am sure it has happened. But, I know of more instances where a sword was re-submitted due to the papers being lost and receiving a completely different attribution. Or being submitted to a different organization and receiving a completely different attribution.

 

My question is how many of you have re-submitted solely in regards to having no faith in the older NBTHK papers, and what were the re-submission results ??

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Ed.

 

Good topic. It will/would be interesting to see the percentage of resubmitted blades passing hozon at the same attribution as the previous kicho papers.

I get the feeling you won't get a true figure, regardless how many respond.

A few reasons:

- the blade is obviously gimei; removal of mei being reasonably expensive and therefore whole resubmission process becoming more than the blade's worth or the owner can afford.

(my own bias against kicho papers - viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8593&p=75087&hilit=Shigetaka#p75087)

- owners not wanting to spend the money.

- owners not wanting to be told otherwise(took me awhile ;))

- owners not wanting modern official record that their 'Masamune is not real.

- knowledgeable Japanese saying that kicho papers are called "certification of Gimei/Gibutsu" - viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16989&p=149712&hilit=kicho+fake+papers#p149712

 

Essentially, if you're in this hobby for cash, kicho papers are great.

If you're in it for knowledge, education and preservation, then it seems that many kicho papers are not reliable. That many are unreliable, unfortunately, throws the good ones under the bus, as well

 

I'll be interested in how many documented examples are out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we have debated this often before and I am sorry Ed I cant add much to the statistics. I have had three swords past with old papers on, two I have moved on one I still have. As far as I know one was resubmitted by the next owner and was successfully papered to the same school. The one I have is for a mumei blade and I am content with the attribution as it fits what I can see in the blade.I have no plans to sell the sword on so little reason to resubmit it at present.

In line with Lee's point about bad papers effecting the reputation of the whole, I think he is absolutely right. However it doesn't need to be the majority or even a large number. The fact that any were proven to be deliberately fraudulent (not just wrong but deliberately misleading) destroys confidence in all and as a result the whole range of papers becomes suspect.

If I understand correctly the cause of the problem were papers issued by local branches rather than those issued from the HQ

( I don't know this for a fact but it has been said often before).

There is also the more recent cases of fake older papers (particularly the rarer blue ones) appearing on Ebay.

 

As always it depends on the sword but if I saw a supposedly high level sword being sold with old papers I would immediately have concerns. Obtaining modern papers would substantially improve its saleability and value so for a dealer (particularly one based in Japan) not to do this would seem strange

regards

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ED

 

This came up with me, I have a blade papered 1972 green paper, advised to have it submitted, but asking on here, the advice I got and accepted, was that perhaps there would be little to gain for the expense occurred. That posting I will find and indicate here.

 

Denis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who have given their replies/opinions as well as shared their experiences.

 

As Lee pointed out, it would be difficult to get an accurate number. Even if every member of this board replied and had experience with these papers it still would be a small percentage overall. I suppose the only way to get an accurate percentage would be in the NBTHK records dept., and that ain't likely to happen.

 

I remember reading most of those topics in the provided links but went back and read through them again. Yes, we know there was scandal in the past and these faked papers exist. We have read the opinions of knowledgeable members. Many swords have been resubmitted and re-papered which is most likely where these orphan papers originate.

 

Unfortunately, not much of this has any bearing on my question. I would simply like to have a better idea of the number of swords which have been resubmitted unnecessarily.

 

Paul indicated one incident where a sword was resubmitted and received papers to the same school. I know of two swords over the years which I sold and the new owners resubmitted them, both received the same attributions as the old papers. Sadly this topic so far has yielded little as we have only heard from a very few members. Perhaps more will chime in if they have something to add.

 

Aside from Lee's Shigetaka, which keep in mind has not been re-submitted(understandably), no one has provided an actual case where a re-submission failed to be attributed to the same smith/school as the older papers. Again, I am not denying or arguing the fact that cases do exist. BTW: Lee, if it were me I think I would remove the date and resubmit it. I have received bad information from a lot of knowledgeable and respected individuals. Not intentionally mind you, they believed every word, but were wrong none the less.

 

I brought this up in regards to one of my own swords with the older papers issued in 61'-62'. However, in October of 2007 my sword was in the NBTHK Journal. As such I firmly believe the old papers to be perfectly legit and don't feel it needs to be resubmitted.

 

Probably no way to ever get an accurate answer to my question, so I leave it at this.

Should we condemn them all, no. Should we be cautious, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW: Lee, if it were me I think I would remove the date and resubmit it.

 

Both mei and nengo are done in the same hand plus the sword characteristics don't tally with Echizen Shigetaka works, though I've only compared it with the first three generations as the sixth is impossible to find.

I think it's a clear case of gimei.

 

I would love to find out who made it but if I had the grand or so it would cost to remove all the mei and resubmit, I'd prefer to give it to Grey for some books I'm missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ed,

The "all old papers are junk" statement is obviously an exaggeration, and I am sure no-one thinks that of all old papers. But it was emphasized to make a point, that they aren't as reliable when buying as one would always like. In other words, the old adage of using your own knowledge and research to see if the blade features match the papers/smith applies. If you are buying, and it has old papers, then maybe best to price it as though it doesn't. This isn't really only about any fraud committed back then, I think the main reason is how much research and reference materials have changed the past few years, and maybe the shinsa panels have access to better info on which to base an opinion.

I know this knowledge has been passed down for 1000 years, but nowdays it is far easier to gather info, publish the same, and share knowledge worldwide than ever before. This leads to new, more accurate and better attributions sometimes. Of course that isn't always the case, and there are exceptions to every rule.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Submitting a sword to shinsa, that has the older paper!

 

Could the blade be entered without giving sight of the old paper? Would that be an advantage or a disadvantage? Would the panel if it had the paper, decide its job was only to approve or disapprove the attribution?. Or conversely without previous information treat the blade to a more comprehensive examination?.

 

Denis.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shinsa is only done with the blade. You don't send in old papers and the new team has no idea that the sword was ever even submitted in the past.

 

There are many reasons why pre Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon papers are dissed in general- the previously mentioned scandal involving papers issued at branch offices and the Yakuza, standards may not have been as rigid, shinsa team members may not have always been the most knowledgeable, and cozy relationships don't always yield the highest standards of integrity, etc.

 

I am not sure I completely buy the explanation that knowledge among Japanese experts has taken large strides over these last 20-30 years. I see no groundbreaking research works published that alter large portions of the landscape. There is no doubt that in certain narrow niches knowledge has been gained, but I don't see large, across the board gains that would materially affect the general level. Most new books parrot what is found in the older books. When is the last time the Nihonto Meikan was updated and reprinted?

 

I think the scandals and increased scrutiny caused the NBTHK to up their game and conduct shinsa on a higher level. Remember, the boom in Japanese swords occurred in the 1980's, prior to that, sword collecting in Japan was on a smaller scale with little international involvement and certainly little attention. When the economy took off, suddenly swords were in much greater demand- not just among the old collectors but many new entrants, even if they only wanted one sword. Huge numbers of swords returned to Japan and the shinsa process, in step with the sword business, grew dramatically. Suddenly there were many new, inexperienced buyers in the market....we know how that story usually ends.

 

The move by the NBTHK to change their papers was a genius business move- it not only addressed the scandals and quality issues with their shinsa, but it instantly made all their previous papers obsolete in practice and made every sword a new shinsa candidate. Brilliant.

 

Surely not all old papers are incorrect but for many, there is no way to know without resubmitting! So many are worthless that it casts doubt on all of them. This is the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know three. One I bought, one I didn't, and one consigned through me.

 

Tokubetsu Kicho Hankei.

 

Failed Hozon. Mei removed, passed as Den Shizu.

 

Upgrade!

 

Other:

 

Takagi Sadamune Tokubetsu Kicho

 

Failed Hozon, passed as Naoe Shizu which is a bit of a downgrade, but the blade went all the way to Juyo which is an upgrade. So this one is almost sideways, probably nets out better as Juyo Naoe Shizu than T.K. Takagi Sadamune.

 

Third:

 

Sa Yukihide. Was sold by Cary Condell to a collector, consigned through me some years later and (taken) by a certain nefarious character who uses many different spellings of his name. I paid out the owner, was never paid by said thief who then sold the tanto to a Japanese dealer who put it up for sale for 25% more than I sold it for. I was told by this certain nefarious character that Tanobe sensei had given it the thumbs down, (the nefarious character who stole it and sold it then claimed that somehow I defrauded him, unsure of the level of insanity required for that particular logic), but since it went back into the market at a high price I don't know for sure.

 

It would happen more often that you'd get a conflicting paper but if a sword has a high level signature and an old paper, people are too leery of getting a downgrade so leave it as is after it flunks.

 

It can still be a good sword as my two personal experience blades above show. I'd be more worried about things like Hizen blades and so forth.

 

At this point, given my experiences above, I agree with the statement that they are not worth the value of the paper that they are printed on and are currently unreliable in general (not uniformly, just that you're playing russian roulette with these things, you may win but you can lose).

 

I won't take any for consignment any more and if I buy a blade that has them (which is rare) I ask for a Hozon guarantee and send it straight in (as I just did last week) saying I will pay all fees for passing/failing but if it fails you refund me.

 

I think that is probably the wisest thing to do in regards to these papers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris you have advised me before on this very matter and have done so again thanks.

Darcy thanks also for your info.

When I purchased my sword from a high-end dealer, my knowledge on papers were nothing like I have now, so let me pose this!

The sword was offered with paper, wow now here‘s my certificate, cant go wrong. Its provenance a Tobubetsu Kicho dated 1972.

Happy? Of course, even being advised by Clive Sinclair, that there is a suggestion later papers should be sought. Still no hint of any doubts as to this paper, until I saw on here posts on this very subject.

I raised the question, and was given good advice! enjoy what you have. I don't have a problem with that, but knowing what I know now should I have;

a. Avoided this buy because of the paper offered with it.

b. Be unhappy with the seller for passing on a suspicious Kanteisho,.

c. Or could he and I insist that this paper is 100% and leave it to others to prove it wrong. (Ethics here)

d. Would a mumei blade at £5,000.00 suffer financially due to paper, or would it be buyer’s resistance on a resale. (Back to a.)

Denis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, here is my take:

 

A. It depends on the blade, the price, and you. I wouldn't shy away from a blade simply because it has older papers, but because it doesn't seem to have the quality/workmanship of what it purports to be at the price point. Also, I would expect the price to reflect the dealer's opinion, if he is reputable. If it seems like too good a deal to believe, then you are being signaled that the papers are probably not accurate. If you really like the blade and are comfortable with the price, then the papers really don't matter.

 

B. While one would hope a reputable dealer would freely give his opinion on the accuracy of the papers, you share some burden to do your homework or to at least ask the right questions. A reputable dealer should be able to discern your level from your questions and add info you may not know enough to inquire about, but that may be asking a lot... I think the buyer beware adage bears keeping in mind. On the other hand, if the dealer talked up the papers with no mention of the issues that surround them to lead you to believe they were highly valued, you would have cause to feel misled.

 

C. Papers are only an opinion, albeit from what one would hope is a learned authority expert in the field. It can be extremely difficult to prove a paper wrong in many cases, as it is an opinion. Perhaps the dealer really thinks it is correct, and you are free to agree. This only becomes as issue when you want to sell; the market may disagree and because of the uncertainty these papers engender, you will see your item discounted in comparison to similar items with later papers.

 

D. It depends entirely on the blade in question and the potential buyer. In general I think you will see it priced by the market as if it was not papered. It is actually good that it is mumei because that means there is no arguing about a signature. Sophisticated, knowledgeable buyers will not place much if any value on these papers and will instead focus on the sword. Obviously a mumei sword with TH papers to a well known smith or group will fetch more than one without, in general. However, if the sword is excellent, and you are lucky enough to find a sophisticated buyer who recognizes this, you may find the lack of a newer paper to not be a real impediment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I raised the question, and was given good advice! enjoy what you have. I don't have a problem with that, but knowing what I know now should I have;

a. Avoided this buy because of the paper offered with it.

b. Be unhappy with the seller for passing on a suspicious Kanteisho,.

c. Or could he and I insist that this paper is 100% and leave it to others to prove it wrong. (Ethics here)

d. Would a mumei blade at £5,000.00 suffer financially due to paper, or would it be buyer’s resistance on a resale. (Back to a.)

Denis.

 

I still enjoy my Shigetaka despite its (now)obvious gimei, fake papers and that I paid slightly over 2kUS because it had kicho papers when I was less informed.

The seller was a caucasion in HK who bought the sword when stationed in Tokyo 30 years prior to me buying it from him several years ago. He wasn't a collector, just wanted a memento from his trip - the sword had been left unoiled since his small bottle of oil that the original dealer gave him had ran out. He'd even taken sandpaper to the blade to remove the worst of the rust(minimal) slightly prior to me buying it.

 

I hold the seller in no way accountable for the 'mistake' that I made.

He was not a collector, didn't claim to be and was obviously not from our meetings, although he was a thoroughly amicable and genuinely nice guy.

He thought he had a genuine package and sold it as such.

Caveat emptor.

 

With hindsight, I'd have bargained him down more, but certainly not dismissed the blade because of the papers.

With more Nihonto knowledge, I'd have bargained more because it was a 6th gen Shigetaka wakizashi. If I'd known it was gimei, I'd still have bought it but would have tried to be ruthless with the price.

As it is, I count it as a lesson.

 

Regarding your point C, if you have to ask about ethics, I feel you're already skirting your own personal ethics.

Point D...depends entirely on the blade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, Thanks for your sharing your insight and providing such a well written explanation.

 

Darcy, Thanks for sharing these examples of two cases where the swords did not receive the same attributions, but good attributions none the less.

 

Denis, yes, that is what this post was about. It is about resubmitting swords which have the older papers. Resubmitting them only due to the fear that the older papers are worthless.

This thread was started due to me wondering how many swords with old papers have been resubmitted due to this fear or lack of trust in the old papers, only to have new papers reissued to the exact same smith/school etc..

 

Why would you avoid buying a sword that you obviously liked solely due to it having old papers(A) ? Be unhappy with the seller for passing on a suspicious Kanteisho(B) ? If I offered a sword with the old paper it would be only because that is what came with it. Much like offering an unpapered, signed sword. I may include a translation of the mei along with an opinion, but that is no guarantee that is is shoshin. On the other hand if the papers were so blatantly wrong, I would certainly disclose that fact or throw the papers in the trash. Or could he and I insist that this paper is 100% and leave it to others to prove it wrong ©. I think you should be as honest as possible, provide info, answer questions and let he buyer decide for himself. Would a mumei blade at £5,000.00 suffer financially due to paper, or would it be buyer’s resistance on a resale(D). I think that would be dependent more upon the sword itself and the current market.

 

This is why I feel the buyer should take some responsibility, (don't get mad at me), do some research of his own and make a decision he is comfortable with.

 

Why? There are no guarantees. The NBTHK or no other group that I am aware of guarantees it's current attributions, they are an opinion only. How can anyone else be it a private individual or dealer be expected to make guarantees ? You submit your sword this year it is attributed to Joe, lose the papers and submit it again next year it may be attributed to Bill, no guarantee!

 

Case in point: I had a katana with Tokubetsu Hozon papers, papers were lost. Spoke with Tanabe, who I informed of the situation and that I had photo records of the papers with the inventory numbers. He told me that they could reissue the papers with my information but would need to see the sword in hand to be sure it was the swords in question. No problem, I understood completely. What I did not understand was why when they were received they simply resubmitted them to shinsa and held judgment on my katana. There are no guarantees yesterday, today or tomorrow !!

 

Brian, of course it was an exaggeration. But when statements like the title of this post are made by anyone, it has an impact on the readers, especially newer collectors who come here to learn and take these things as gospel.

 

Ultimately, we are still in the same place. There are many fraudulently issued papers out there. But, not all are !

Use caution, do your research, but don't disregard all because many are bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well thank you gentlemen all, that didn't hurt too much, I, and I am sure others have gained from that exchange. I am quite comfortable with the sword, its attribution and as its a not for sale item, I shall file away all your opinions under 'satisfied enquiry'

 

Denis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello:

This has ben a useful and educational thread, however to add one more dimension I would point out that papers, any papers, new or old, should be considered on a confidence level scale quite differently if they are for a mu mei sword, either due to suriage or never having been signed, vs. one that is signed. I have the impression that that differential is much more compressed when expressed in any currency than it ought to be. Any shinsa judge would hold his own certainty more tentatively with an unsigned than with a signed piece and the market should significantly reflect that uncertainty, but from casual observation that does not seem to be so. There is far less wiggle room on signed pieces as a documentary record can be consulted bringing the issue of right or not down very narrowly, aside from any qualitative considerations of the blade. Shinsa judges carry around labels of convenience with which to sort mu mei blades that do not scream their own identity. I don't know what the differential ought to be for a signed blade, other things equal, but I believe it ought to be substantial. That doesn't seem to be reflected in market price. With any unsigned blade the judge can only say maybe.

The moral to this story, if there is one, is that earlier papers for signed blades are quite a different thing than for unsigned, and that is no less true today than it ever was.

I would be curious to know what list members think the confidence premium ought to be for a signed blade with a paper, and then how that should factor into market price. Those impacts are not necessarily proportionate.

Arnold F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. Avoided this buy because of the paper offered with it.

b. Be unhappy with the seller for passing on a suspicious Kanteisho,.

c. Or could he and I insist that this paper is 100% and leave it to others to prove it wrong. (Ethics here)

d. Would a mumei blade at £5,000.00 suffer financially due to paper, or would it be buyer’s resistance on a resale. (Back to a.)

 

For (a), ultimately papers are just an opinion, hopefully an informed and expert opinion, and never gospel. So the fallback is that you should be prepared to know what you're doing to some degree and have the best documents you can get, but the presence or lack of presence of any particular paper in and of itself is not a reason to buy or not buy an item. You just may encounter more risks with certain papers than you do with others so you need to overall look at what your risk tolerance is and what you hope to get out of something and what you're going to pay for it.

 

I don't mind buying a sword for instance with a Masamune signature and some hokey papers to Masamune for $500 if I think the sword might be something else that's OK. I've had examples discussed here where I bought a pair of swords on Christie's that nobody would touch because of dubious signatures and kinzogan mei and history and old papers by a dealer. I didn't care about any of that because I didn't believe in it but was trying to assess directly what the items were and so what they were worth to me. One ended up with an even chance of being a Sadamune according to Tanobe sensei. In this case the dubious signature/paper/history kept people away who thought it was a "bad" item as a result, when clearly anything that is going to be 50/50 Nobukuni/Sadamune is not bad at all.

 

So just factor in the risk and move forward if you think the item is good and you can trust your own opinion, or if it's cheap it's a good way of exercising your skills (to get it and study it and assess it and try to paper it and show people here and get opinions etc. This is one interesting area of collecting that people who only buy "finished products" don't get into.)

 

For (b) the seller may not be aware of any dubious history and probably most of the old papers are OK now anyway. It is still just an opinion, even if it is a "better" opinion or a "worse" opinion, even people like the major auction houses will sell items that have a bad mei. The trick is in how they describe them and what they guarantee. Selling a sword with current papers of any sort, I am going to defer to the expertise and let the buyer draw their own conclusions. So it's kind of presented as-is and with inspection periods its up to the buyer to use that week he's given to study the item, attribution, show to friends, get opinions, hire experts if necessary and dissect his purchase and return it if it doesn't pass muster. We will never know for sure with a lot of these unsigned blades for instance who really made them, it's kind of a best guess and Sato Kanzan even wrote that an attribution to Yukimitsu, Norishige, Masamune all pretty much means first grade Soshu and between these smiths it can be very difficult to impossible to judge sometimes. But the market won't accept that from the judge and demands a narrower reading so they will find some kind of reason to fall between one and another. I put a Norishige in front of Tanobe sensei who said "20% Go, 80% Norishige". There is some fuzzy boundary in all of this that the average guy is just not able to accept, where it has to be black and white and in some cases it's just not realistic to expect that. So with papers, it's always uncertain: mistakes happen, scams happen, judges of various levels of skill come and go. At the end of the day you have to as a buyer have enough knowledge to assess and confirm the papers on your own somehow. And if you're not prepared to accept any level of risk whatsoever then you shouldn't be collecting anything of monetary value. Pretty rocks can be picked up for no cost out of any stream bed after all.

 

I will agree that clearly crap papers should not be used to pass off garbage. In this the seller shouldn't be using them if they have a reason to believe that they're no good. Similarly they shouldn't withhold papers that they may have which may be detrimental. More on that after.

 

© There is such a thing as a fake paper, or an exaggerated opinion, as well as one that is poorly founded, but there is no such thing as a paper that's infallible. There are those that nobody is likely to disagree with in terms of judgements on a case by case basis, like say some Shinto grand master which is signed and dated and everything just fits the canon. But across the board that same body may make other judgements which people may take issue with. So 100% is a case by case thing, and if you can objectively support your case, then why not? Just depends on how accurate the thing is in the end, maybe it's right, maybe not.

 

(d) A blade who's value is approaching that of its polish, shirasaya and habaki in theory can end up with negative replacement value. But in general once the blade hits 0 value in the overall package you are probably getting into safe territory that whatever it is doesn't matter too much anymore. That is, what's really the difference between a Kaifu or Ganmaku attribution on a 0 valued blade vs. a Sadamune? Not too much provided that the blade is sound. Increase the package price so that the blade is well over 0 and now it really matters, but then again we'd be expecting that someone who is smart enough to be reading these boards shouldn't be falling into buying a Kaifu that is attributed to Sadamune. I chose this example on purpose as I did it once long long long ago :) :) :)

 

Slightly smarter now.

 

In the case of this blade, it had a sayagaki by Sato Kanzan to Sadamune. I didn't believe it and it was sold to me by someone I trusted. That is, I thought the sayagaki to be legitimate but that it wasn't accepted currently, but that the sword may then paper to something like Shizu or Naoe Shizu and be OK. The seller was someone I trusted and thought was a friend and someone I felt I could learn from. This is right when I was starting out. It ended up that this sword had been papered to the NBTHK as Kaifu, and that the sayagaki was a fake. The seller was aware of both of these things, but withheld the papers and presented the sword as a discovery of some sort that had a chance of papering to something good because of the past expert opinion as Sadamune. In this sense a sayagaki is an opinion like papers are, and the error I made was in thinking the sayagaki was legitimate but not accurate when it was purposefully illegitimate. What should have been some natural skepticism on my part was overridden by what I thought was a friendly relationship.

 

Live and learn.

 

He took it back, kind of, in the end, by trading it back to me for a couple of reputable items I could sell to try to get my money back (I didn't get it all back).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me add to the voices who have found this thread useful and interesting.

We have discussed situations where papers etc are 1) fake, 2) dated, or 3) questionable. And covered how papers should be regarded and the ethics of their presentation.

What about situations where a sword receive an evalaution that isn't "bad", simply modest.

I'm thinking a blade I submitted to shinsa. It is big, ubu, healthy, signed and dated (but not very legibly), and clearly "old".

The papers it got were positive altho they wouldn't even speculate about the mei, ignored the nengo, and stopped way short of the evaluation I was hoping for. This sword is collectible with the papers it earned. But if I were to bring this sword to a show, I think some collectors would be attracted to it as a "sleeper" with "up side potential". There are collectors who would rather hope that there is a "pig in the poke" than be told that it is merely a perfectly good cat. Solved riddles are less interesting than challenges. Am we obligated to dash the hopes of potential buyers?

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I think if you submitted and received a judgement and want to sell the sword, there is a moral obligation to reveal the judgement. People can then make an informed decision if they don't agree with it and want to try with someone else or again.

 

In the case of a certain old koto blade the NBTHK has come out and said they think the mei was no good but the work was correct and they want the mei removed and the sword submitted and they would paper it to Juyo. This drives me crazy (altering the facts to fit the theory). If the sword is right then the mei is most likely right too, why it's slightly off can be a billion reasons, if that's their call they should be putting a paper down and then their note that they thought the signature was questionable and NEEDS. MORE. RESEARCH.

 

The more outliers they destroy with this approach, the stronger the "theory" becomes and each outlier that appears in different years remains an outlier because the theory had caused all previous similar evidence to be destroyed.

 

An old Honami paper was then found that confirmed the signature.

 

In this case the NTHK, not sure which one, confirmed the signature as well.

 

In the case of selling this sword I think the full story shows that the NBTHK was pretty much asleep on this one.

 

Or as Kurokawa san said to me with all Japanese politeness when I pointed at the tsuka of a sword he was holding and said, "Zaimei?" He looked at me and said, "No, it used to be but stupid people removed it."

 

So just put it all on the table. The judges are not infallible. Let people make their own decisions but they should be informed decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a case of the blade having Tokubetsu Kicho papers, but then resubmitted to shinsa, & getting Hozon origami, but with a different smith:

 

In the first "shinsa" the sword was certified as Tokubetsu Kitcho (Especially Precious), presumably in 1948 due to the low number on the torokushko (see below). It was determined then that Kanenobu was the swordsmith that created this sword. However, the sword was submitted again after the rating NBTHK rating system was changed in 1982, and in the second "shinsa" it was decided that actually Ujifusa was the swordsmith and the status of Hozon (Worth of Preservation) was given according to the new scheme. Discrepancies such as this are not totally uncommon, as mentioned before, since the sword is unsigned, the sword itself had to be examined to determine the individual style and characteristics of the swordsmith. Very difficult when looking at thousands of blades made by thousands of different swordsmiths in history.

 

The eBay auction has ended, but you can probably still view the wakizashi at http://www.ebay.com/itm/Japanese-Sword-Wakizashi-with-NBTHK-Certification-Hozon-/131039109412?pt=Asian_Antiques&hash=item1e828a2124 for awhile. Should this seller provide both sets of origami if/when he sells it?

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If it were my item I was selling, I'd do what he seems to have done. I'd describe the process, both sets of papers, if I believed more in one set than the other I would state my opinion and why. When the buyer buys it he receives everything and ultimately it's his decision what to do.

 

For one reason or another, a collector may be more prepared to accept older papers rather than newer papers, even with past scandals, etc., because they may trust the older judges more.

 

My own bias is to collect up all the stuff possible and separate/destroy nothing. I don't like mei removal unless it's very obviously gimei. One of my friends had a koto sword with an old grandmaster signature on it, and the NBTHK said they'd accept the work as this smith and probably it would pass Juyo as such but they didn't like the signature and wanted it removed. After this at some point old Honami papers were located for the sword, and it subsequently was affirmed by the NTHK.

 

So the policy of destruction/removal whether that is a signature or old paper or sayagaki (sometimes people wipe out sayagaki too) I think lacks vision. It's something that can't be undone, so I prefer making footnotes. If a mei like the above is questionable but the NBTHK agrees with who the maker is, I think they should be passing it through with a footnote saying the mei needs further study and they are not yet fully confident. In this case I think they dropped the ball and thank god the owner didn't wipe it out.

 

Same with the older papers, as a collector I don't trust them too much and prefer newer papers but I am not throwing anything away and keeping/footnoting everything.

 

The thing is, the more that old papers, sayagakis, signatures, are wiped out or separated from the sword, the more the evidence is crafted to fit the existing theory.

 

So you can imagine say if when the first feathered dinosaur was found, if the researches said, "Well wait a minute. Dinosaurs don't have feathers. These have to be removed." And then removed all evidence of the feathers and then passed along the now-no-longer-inconvenient evidence that matches the existing theories, we'd never be able to make any advancements.

 

This does not always happen of course with swords but I think maybe there is a bit of this thinking that comes into play and influences the mei removal / destruction / separation thinking.

 

I think I said it recently but last time I visited with Kurokawa san he had a Ko-Bizen piece he was showing me that looked ubu from the tsuka and I asked him if it was signed, he said, "It used to be but stupid people removed the mei."

 

I like that statement.

 

Again I'll just temper that with the comment that some stuff, obvious gimei and fakery is vandalism and fraud, and removing those I have no problem with, it's returning the sword to the state it was in before the fraud. My comments above have to do with trying to maintain a sense of humility about the scope of our knowledge, and these items in the gray area for opinions there should be a bias towards preservation rather than elimination. And again covers all areas: mei, papers, sayagaki, etc.

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...