Mumei and NTHK attributed to smith – why no reason given?

[Mark S.]

All,

 

I have tried to do searches here to find an answer, and several threads have discussed issues ‘close’ to my question, but nothing definitive. So if this has been asked and answered before, I apologize. I’ll ask my question straight out… and then do a bit of ‘back-pedaling’ afterward.

 

My recently purchased blade is mumei, but has NTHK-NPO papers attributing it to a specific smith. My question is: “Why is there no area on the papers for a notation as to WHY the judges believed it was a specific smith?”

 

I understand not wanting to have a judgment questioned later plus the amount of extra work involved, and IN NO WAY am I questioning the attribution I was given, nor questioning the judges vast experience to make such a judgment… that is NOT the point of my post at all. But it does leave one with a bit of a ‘shoulder shrug’ as to why they wouldn’t at least give a couple notes as to what attributes they saw in the mumei blade that made them confident it was a specific smith?

 

In my case, the attribution was “Masamori” from a long list of “Masa’s” who were active Kai-Mihara smiths. So they must have seen ‘something’ that led them to pick him out from ‘amongst the herd’… and I use that term with all due respect to ‘the herd’. All I have been able to find on line are some general attributes of the Kai-Mihara MasaXXXX smiths, but nothing really specific separating them from each other.

 

I suppose the judges are not obligated to ‘teach us’, but only to make judgments about what they see. But when you can’t ask them ‘on the side’ after the Shinsa (I wasn't there, I only have papers), it is just a bit frustrating. It would just be nice to know why they said, “Ahhhh… that’s HIM!”, especially when the smith isn’t a ‘big name’ with clear distinguishing features, yet they were still able to pick him out.

 

Now, to argue AGAINST myself, I suppose if they were asked to do as I request, they would be much more likely to just attribute age, location, school, etc. and simply forget judging a smith for mumei blades… but they really COULD do that now without question. They saw SOMETHING… why not say what it is?

 

Any insight is appreciated,

Mark S.

[cabowen]

What exactly does the kantei-sho say? Does it say Den Masamori?

 

The kantei-sho lists the hada, hamon, boshi, etc. From these, you can do your research as to why the shinsa team arrived at their conclusion. While it would be nice if they showed all of their "work", but as is common in college text books, the "work" is left to the reader. Look at it as a learning opportunity....

[Mark S.]

 

What exactly does the kantei-sho say? Does it say Den Masamori?

 

 

Mr Bowen

Thank you for responding... I posted pics of the papers in my earlier posts and I try to be careful not to continually post the same info as not to appear to be 'fishing' for simply what I want to hear or to keep re-posting the same info over and over. Sometimes I never know where 'trying too hard' starts or ends here.

 

What I find frustrating is that it seems when a question is asked, it sometimes comes across as "questioning the experts" which is most assuredly not my intent. I'm not here to stump anyone, nor question conventional wisdom. I truly TRUST the judges... I just don't understand the WHY, which I desperately WANT to.

 

As a beginner, when I research the Kai-Mihara smiths, there are several listed including Masaoku, Masazane and Masanao, Masamori, and others. I find explanations of the school as a 'whole', but nothing distinctive about each. Suguha hamon, Itame grain, etc... and none of that is different than is what is on the kanteisho papers I have. Is there something I am not looking at that would lead me to understand WHY they would have chosen Masamori over any of the others? Once again, this is not a challenge to you or the judges. I WANT to understand... not question out of hand.

 

I feel my genuine 'want' to learn is not coming across and the more I ask, the more I might be seen as 'difficult'? Am I doing something wrong here or are there references I am not looking at that I should be so as not to waste anyone's time?

 

I will re-post the kanteisho papers with my translations (with the generous help I have received so far). Is there anything specific I missed that would say "Yes, of course it is Masamori?" I would assume that the sword would need to be seen in hand to really make the determination... and that to me is the difficult part. Wouldn't it be a HUGE learning experience (for future research) to record WHY the judges made a determination they do on a mumei blade? And really... this was the point of my original post. Can you imagine the volumes of knowledge that would be obtained if someone recorded the conversations of the judges during a Shinsa when they come to their conclusions?

 

Just to 'make something up' to highlight my point, I would like to be able to say, "It is a combination of the usual Kai-Mihara school attributes, but the addition of the Gomabashi-hi and Koshi-hi on this sword are what make it scream Masamori". Problem is, I don't know that for a fact... but what if the judges mentioned this fact (based on their experience) during the Shinsa? How much valuable knowledge is being 'lost' or never transferred?

 

Please... if my question is inappropriate... what am I missing?

[John A Stuart]

Here is what I would expect to see if I was a fly on the wall and could watch the process. For mumei swords; 1) A general consensus on school and age 2) narrowing down to a specific smith through telltale points known by a judge/s intimately familiar with the particular school from 1 or refered to in specific references at hand. 3) consensus on the validity of that judge/s opinion. After all there are seals of multiple judges on the origami indicating agreement. John

[Mark S.]

 

narrowing down to a specific smith through telltale points

 

After all there are seals of multiple judges on the origami indicating agreement.

 

 

John,

Thank you so much for responding. And honestly, you highlight the point of my post. I am not questioning the "multiple judges on the origami indicating agreement", but I seem to keep coming across that way. What I want to understand is the "telltale points". I guess I am dreaming for the impossible... my own chance to ask the judges "Why Masamori"? As a beginner, maybe I am too eager to just say "Yep... Masamori" without the question "Why?" And add to that too little knowledge to know "why" on my own, or where to look. Maybe the judges have seen 100 Masamori blades and are like "Duh, of course Masamori". I have seen... 1. Maybe Nihonto are more in the "You have a kanteisho paper, now shut up and color until you know more" category...? Hard when you want to learn...

 

Mark S.

[cabowen]

The kantei-sho says "den", meaning the sword has attributes consistent with the smith named and his group. They are not saying he specifically made it. It could have been made by a student or other affiliated with this smith.

 

One needs to keep in mind the purpose of a shinsa, which is to judge the quality and authenticity of a blade so that the product, a kantei-sho, can be issued. Elucidating the process by which this is achieved is not part of the product. I can't argue that it would be highly informative and is, in fact, the central focus of kantei meetings, which the NTHK-NPO holds on a monthly basis. There is simply not time for the team to record the whys and hows for every blade that comes through, in any case. The kantei-sho is an excellent starting point for the owner to begin their own study and research should they desire.

[Marius]

What I want to understand is the "telltale points". I guess I am dreaming for the impossible... my own chance to ask the judges "Why Masamori"?

Mark,

 

I think it would be good if you read a few of the NBTHK Token Bijutsu kantei descriptions. In most such description you will find failed and nearly right bids with explanation why they were wrong/nearly correct. Each kantei description gives you several reasons why a smith was chosen and why other smiths were rejected.

 

Those kantei descriptions have been translated by Markus Sesko and published by him, as you certainly know.

 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/markus-sesko/k ... 00238.html

 

http://www.lulu.com/shop/markus-sesko/s ... 00250.html

[Jean]

Mark,

 

You cannot compete with shinsa judges because they have seen scores of signed kai Mihara swords and able to establish benchmarks among the different school smith lineage. To understand their kantei implies you are familiar with the school, its different smith lineages and that you have equally seen and analyse (in hand) several blades from this school. If you understood their kantei (meaning: "of course, it is obvious") you will be more or less an expert in Kai Mihara school....

[Mark S.]

Gentlemen All,

Thank you for your kind patience and replies... and thank you Mariuszk for the links. I'll keep digging and studying on my own a bit more... but I reserve the right to bother you on occasion again...

Mark S.

[seattle1]

Hello:

Chris Bowen gave you one major reason, in response to your question about an attribution of Den Kai Mihara Masamori on your mu mei blade, particularly "...why the judges believe it was a specific smith?", even if one assumed they actually did. Namely the purpose of a shinsa is not an exercise in inductive rationalization, and if it were the time involved would make shinsa as we know them impossibly long. The provision of such a rationale is the denouementof a classic kantei contest, not a shinsa.

I believe a second important reason is that the judges, no matter how exaltant they might be, might be unable to do it at all with any high degree of certainty. There is a statement in the translated literature by perhaps the foremost sword scholar of modern times, Homma Junji (1904-1991), that no one knows who made any mu mei sword. Sometimes that is expressed as only the smith, the man who shortened it and God, really know. That does not mean that attributions are random guesses or vexatious shots in the dark, quite the contrary. The judge will quickly determine the period of manufacture, the tradition the sword is made in, hopefully the school, and they will carefully observe for kizu. Once those issues are dealt with the judge will have a good feeling for overall quality. That impression might, on qualitative and informational grounds, lead to a judgement such as just Mihara, a closer feeling might yield Ko Mihara, or Sue Mihara, and among the Sue there are options, one of which is Kai, and in that group there are, as you say, various smiths. Unless Masamori has some very well know trait that is quite unique to him, you cannot think that the judge actually meant him to the exclusion of all others.

The mention of a particular smith is really a reward judgment expressing a fairly high qualitative assessment. The judge could have stopped just at Mihara alone, or even some lesser group within the broad group of which Mihara is a part, namely smiths who exhibit, broadly speaking, some substantial Yamato characteristics. I suspect that in cases such as the one you bring up, that there is some correlation between the specificity of the designation, e.g., Masamori, and the value of the points awarded. As Chris says the detailed rationale cannot be practically provided, however the attribution received is a narrow channeling into the company of a pretty good group of smiths during a narrow interval of time. Congratulations!

While shinsa make unintentional mistakes, and the skill of all judges is not the same, it is really an amazing and fascinating process. If you submit your sword to another shinsa, perhaps even conducted by the same judges, do not be surprised if you get another and different attribution; however be surprised if the qualitative ranking of a different attribution is substantially at variance with the implicit quality level of your sword at the first go around. For all shinsa, irrespective of the paper level, you should expect a substantial dollar value difference for an attribution vs. a confirmed mei of the same man, as the former has to deal with so many unknowns in arriving at any attribution.

Arnold F.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Part of sword study and learning involves careful consideration including extensive research into the answer given by the shinsa judges. It is the collector's job to figure out the how and why, regardless of whether or not they even agree or disagree with the judgment, but more importantly understand how the judges might have come to their conclusion. This is where a good solid library becomes invaluable and essential, including books that describe what it is that one should be seeing in the work coming from a particular school and more specifically from representative sword smiths of that school. Also, at this point the correctness and condition of the polish needs to be considered and carefully evaluated and understood especially when the shinsa results don't add up with what is being seen. The judges can only work with what has been presented to them.

[kusunokimasahige]

Also, be aware of shinsa costs. The actual fees are different as what some dealers online who broker shinsa ask for a sword which passes.

 

Last week a link was posted on NMB to a shop which offers shinsa and sword restoration as well as spare parts for koshirae.

(shitodome) in this case. Not only was their polishing service rather fishy *at no time was any polisher in Japan specified,

the price they asked for a Hozon outcome was over 2000 US$. Now this is, as far as I can tell not in line with the fees the actual NBTHK asks.

 

So yes, as it is within the art world, expertise as well as valuating art objects can be very fickle as well as plain guesswork (put your finger in the air and see where the wind comes from), but a shinsa team will generally do its best to attribute a sword to a school, style, smith, group of smiths, era and what have you.

 

Most if not all of the answers above are spot on.

 

And if you would really like to delve into the "why" I would advise you to take an art course with an auction house or valuating organization (assessment). Then you will learn how fluid the market is as well as the ways in which people come to certain conclusions. It is not a science where oly facts and empirical data matter.

 

KM

[seattle1]

Hello:

Haste does make waste, or at least incomprehensible sentences! In my post above, the third line from the bottom of the last paragraph should have read:

"different attribution is substantially at variance with the quality standing of Masamori. For all shinsa ..."

Arnold F.

[Brian]

You are able to edit your own posts....for a few days after posting them.

Look to the bottom right of your post...you should see an edit button. Do people not have this feature?

 

Brian

[nihonto1001]

I think of papers as the destination and the research as the trip.

 

Having a destination in mind is important before embarking on a journey. The fun begins when you begin researching why the expert came to that conclusion.

 

Sometimes I feel like I was led astray, other times not. In either case, I have learned something.

[nihonto1001]

I think of papers as the destination and the research as the trip.

 

Having a destination in mind is important before embarking on a journey. The fun begins when you begin researching why the expert came to that conclusion.

 

Sometimes I feel like I was led astray, other times not. In either case, I have learned something.

[seattle1]

Thanks for the tip Brian; done.

Arnold F.