Jump to content

Your thoughts about this Tanto ?


kunitaro

Recommended Posts

I prefer to keep this way, not for investment but preserve its history.

 

This is really what it is all about. It is supposed to be what the NTHK & NBTHK is all about. I can understand (and agree with) not papering gimei swords, although these signatures are a unique part of the blades history. Sort of a Paradox.

 

It does not seem too far fetched that some togishi could have attributed the blade to Hiromitsu. Such is the case with many Kotetsu, who commonly did not sign his works.

 

Some "questionable mei swords" are even papered, such as in the case when a student signed for his Sensei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[attachment=0]h-1.jpg[/attachment]

 

It is possible to be attributed to mumei "Soshu Hiromitsu" after the mei off, and get high rank paper.

It is often happening, because, put the Mei on the blade which look like.

However, I prefer to keep this way, not for investment but preserve its history.

and we can enjoy high class blade with low price.

These kind of blades were treated as treasures under high ranking Samurais during Edo period, Meiji priod till before ww2.

 

I would like to ask people about this concept.

What do you think ?

 

The current dealing environment, when it comes to the higher end, is heavily dependent on papers, especially outside of Japan. It is a rare dealer who forgoes profit to preserve history, but it does happen. I agree with your opinion; I know there are those out there who collect blades rather than papers and hopefully, works such as these will find homes with those who recognize the intrinsic quality and are comfortable leaving it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to keep this way, not for investment but preserve its history.

This is really what it is all about. It is supposed to be what the NTHK & NBTHK is all about. I can understand (and agree with) not papering gimei swords, although these signatures are a unique part of the blades history. Sort of a Paradox.

 

Yes, it is a bit difficult to get one's head around the whole decision to alter blades as part of the preservation. I think they want to accomplish two things, the first is that they view it as vandalism if the mei is not 100% legit so in this case it's OK to remove to "restore" the blade. The second is to somehow prevent the papers from being altered to confirm the mei if they did allow it through with a notation as gimei.

 

The thing I worry about is bias towards the the book causing destruction of signature examples.

 

So if say you get 10 outlier signatures that are discovered over 50 years for a particular smith, and these 10 are spread out over both NTHK and the NBTHK for analysis. Each one of the 10 could end up in the hands of a different expert. Each one of these goes to "the book" (<-- known accepted works), compares it, declares it fake because it doesn't match the book and then the signature is destroyed.

 

The more that are destroyed then the less evidence exists to possibly update the book. If you were to discover them all at the same time and then put them all on the table side by side it would be possible to make a more informed decision, but the bite-by-bite nature of the discovery and analysis makes it very hard when the result is to destroy anything that does not fit with the current theory.

 

The result is a form of anti-science. That is in science when the theory does not fit the evidence then we update the theory. In swords when the signature (evidence) does not fit the theory we destroy the evidence.

 

Before some people go and take what I'm writing to an extreme conclusion, this does not mean that every signature should be preserved, some are "obvious" (<-- in quotes, god I hate having to annotate every word like this) and should be removed. But there exists the grey area. Like in this tanto the Mitsu is a pretty good match for existing work though the Hiro is off.

 

So do we rush out and erase the signature? I think not.

 

There is a question then about why don't they paper some things as attributed-gimei. "This work bears a false signature of Hiromitsu and is attributed to ________." That I think is a good approach. They don't do this but sometimes they venture a very rare statement which says they do not deny the signature but don't confirm it. But if they think it is gimei then you must remove it, and that will sadly mean that some signatures will get destroyed that future scholars might change their minds on. The question is, where is that line between (( certainly gimei -- needs to be studied -- certainly correct )) ... when they all do have some variation especially koto works. Those lines need to be established in ways that allow conservative judgment for authenticity (i.e. a bias towards exclusion from authenticity) but allow conservative preservation decisions (a bias towards not altering the work).

 

Right now we're stuck because the conservative bias towards authenticity works in opposite to the preservation decisions as Jon points out.

 

The most frustrating thing in the world to me is when I hear of swords having a signature erased (I know of a Hatakeda Moriie and an Ichimonji) and then get papered to the smith or school in question. To me it makes me have to accept that someone who was an inaccurate forger but awesomely correct judge got their hands on the blade some long time ago and upgraded it by adding a signature. I don't buy it so much. Maybe if the Ichimonji got a Moriie and the Moriie got an Ichimonji then it is easier to swallow. But those blades were not supported enough by the experts to get to the next level of the no-call on the signature.

 

It does not seem too far fetched that some togishi could have attributed the blade to Hiromitsu. Such is the case with many Kotetsu, who commonly did not sign his works.

 

Some "questionable mei swords" are even papered, such as in the case when a student signed for his Sensei.

 

It is an oddball because you also have to think about maybe descendents doing it or it being upgraded for use as a gift or just to rip someone off. The question I have is how is the mitsu done so well and the hiro is so far off what is normal for the smith. You'd think they'd be closer in their acceptability but if you wiped the hiro from this one then the mitsu is probably good enough to be accepted.

 

Speaking of students signing for the master if you go through all the Rai Kunitoshi you will see that about half of them appear to be done like this (signed by Rai Kuninaga, Rai Kunimitsu and Rai Kunitsugu). They are accepted and listed without question among the Rai Kunitoshi works.

 

In all of this there are a lot of maybes and I think so the conclusion to leave it as it is is good.

 

I have been in this situation myself as I had a tanto signed by Yukimitsu that I thought might be Shodai Nobukuni. I didn't wipe the signature but I brought it to Tanobe sensei and he said it was 50% likely to be Soshu Sadamune and if not that then Shodai Nobukuni. I sold it as a Nanbokucho Soshu blade but I let the owner know of the opinions after he bought it.

 

In the case of this one in particular I am happy that the signature validates what I was saying, that it looked a lot more like late Nanbokucho Soshu work than Muromachi Muramasa. If you handle enough then the differences tend to be pretty vivid.

 

So, this one is it Hiromitsu, it would be easier to accept if the signature looked 100% accurate but I think that I am still OK with the judgement that it is late Nanbokucho Soshu or strongly Soshu influenced. Which group it is among the late Nanbokucho Soshu or Soshu influenced smiths, needs to be examined. Sa group or Hiromitsu or Hasebe or one generation down from them is the hunting zone.

 

I'd leave it as is for a long time.

 

h1.jpg

h3.jpg

h4.jpg

h5.jpg

h6.jpg

h7.jpg

 

Tokubetsu Juyo Hiromitsu

 

The nie are thick and vivid in ji and ha and the hataraki are not subtle. Compared to Tokuju Hasebe on the right. Not my greatest photography but did not have my equipment.

 

h8.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most frustrating thing in the world to me is when I hear of swords having a signature erased (I know of a Hatakeda Moriie and an Ichimonji) and then get papered to the smith or school in question. To me it makes me have to accept that someone who was an inaccurate forger but awesomely correct judge got their hands on the blade some long time ago and upgraded it by adding a signature. I don't buy it so much. Maybe if the Ichimonji got a Moriie and the Moriie got an Ichimonji then it is easier to swallow. But those blades were not supported enough by the experts to get to the next level of the no-call on the signature.
I saw that Moriie when it was sent to Japan, and was present when it was shown to Mr. Tanobe. Besides the signature not matching known examples, there were other indications that the mei was added later. It would have been - IMO - an acceptable compromise to paper it nontheless, with the additional specification ato-mei. However, that's not the policy of the NBTHK (or any other organisation AFAIK). So, if we can't live without having our swords papered, we have to obey their rules, for better or worse. No-one is forced at gun-point to have a mei removed ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most frustrating thing in the world to me is when I hear of swords having a signature erased (I know of a Hatakeda Moriie and an Ichimonji) and then get papered to the smith or school in question. To me it makes me have to accept that someone who was an inaccurate forger but awesomely correct judge got their hands on the blade some long time ago and upgraded it by adding a signature. I don't buy it so much. Maybe if the Ichimonji got a Moriie and the Moriie got an Ichimonji then it is easier to swallow. But those blades were not supported enough by the experts to get to the next level of the no-call on the signature.
I saw that Moriie when it was sent to Japan, and was present when it was shown to Mr. Tanobe. Besides the signature not matching known examples, there were other indications that the mei was added later. It would have been - IMO - an acceptable compromise to paper it nontheless, with the additional specification ato-mei. However, that's not the policy of the NBTHK (or any other organisation AFAIK). So, if we can't live without having our swords papered, we have to obey their rules, for better or worse. No-one is forced at gun-point to have a mei removed ....

 

They would not have asked for it to be removed if it matched known examples.

 

That's the point.

 

To remove a Moriie and then say that it is a sword by Moriie makes my fingers twitch. To remove an ICHI signature (one stroke!) and say it is no good then say the sword is 100% Ichimonji makes my fingers twitch again.

 

For instance with Ichimonji if it is signed and Hozon the market (i.e. most collectors) will resist it having a "Juyo" price. If the seller wishes to sell it and someone wishes to buy it, and he asks the sage advice of other collectors they will shake their heads and say that is a Juyo price, don't buy it (though this is bad advice people say it and people follow it). So the seller then is told by the NBTHK if you remove this signature it will pass through Juyo as mumei Ichimonji, and as such the price will elevate past $40k, $50k maybe $60k.

 

How many people willingly leave $40,000 on the table to "do the right thing?" Especially when they know the next person to buy it will just go ahead and remove the signature, pass it through Juyo and sell it for maximum value?

 

So yes, there is no gun forcing anyone to do it.

 

But there is a huge bag of money sitting on the table encouraging them to do it. And that is far more encouragement than a gun. People have killed for far less than $40k and do so every day. So we should really put the policy into proper perspective.

 

The point is only that the ongoing policy of erasure when it does not meet with theory can only cause damage because it assumes that the theory is 100% correct. This is always a dangerous point of view to take: it is a religious point of view. That what we know now is gospel and cannot be altered and anything that is contrary to it should be erased.

 

it's not like this post or my opinion is about to change anything. I argue only that they are too quick to erase and that more signatures should be held as questionable than dismissed.

 

The other strange thing though is that the market will value something with secure attribution and questionable signature as lower than something with a secure attribution and no signature. This, to me, is utter insanity. That is that you can upgrade the value of a piece like this by removing the signature. But it is how people react and it's a sad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless dremeled in the other day, it is my wish always that this procedure would change. It is so simple to note on the origami that the signature could not be verified and left at that, and/or that the appraisal itself was made mei, atomei, shumei kinpunmei or gimei notwithstanding. John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha!! Nice. Yes. Maybe in your example though, no. Seriously as 99% of the beauty is above the nakago and provided the signature wasn't one unholy mess, it bothers me only slightly, especially in above cited cases or other extreme possibilities, like just plain error. John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

 

This is my very first post. As a short intro, my name is John Lapre and I have been a "silent" nihonto collector for many years. Silent meaning that I for instance did not post here, but followed the many interesting discussions. I thought I now needed to reply in this thread:

 

Thanks to Kunitaro-san I am the owner of this nice tanto. I own a number of signed Soshu blades (Hiromasa, Masahiro, Chikahiro (this latter is an interesting one by the way) from different periods and if I compare this tanto in hand with these, then the quality of the hataraki and the ji-nie is excellent. My Soshu Masahiro has some similar traits.

 

For this tanto, I was triggered by the quality and not by the mei. For as long as I will own this tanto I will not have the mei removed, but enjoy the workmanship and maybe gain more knowledge. In hand the tanto looks great and is very healthy, and it looks really Soshu-den looking at the quality of the nie. I am lucky to own a juyo Senjuin Yoshimitsu and the nie-utsuri on that tanto has similarities as well. So, in hand it is still not crystal-clear what the tanto really represents (Sa school seems different though), but Soshu-den prior to Muromachi represents a good possibility based on the deki of the blade and my (non-expert) comparisons with other blades in hand.

 

I am interested to learn more from the members on the board and hear their thoughts, not so much whether the mei should stay on (as I said I will keep it on), but more thoughts about the school etc.

 

Regards,

 

John Lapre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome John, and congratulations on what sounds like a fine addition to your collection. Sounds like it has good company.

You are in the best position to evaluate it, having other examples to compare it with in hand.

Going by quality and not the mei is what we have always advocated. The removal of gimei will always be a contentious issue, and no doubt will continue to be discussed, but as you mentioned it is irrellevant to your case as your intentions are clear.

Would be interesting to see more pics of the tanto under different lighting conditions..especially the type that Darcy takes. But I understand that might not be possible. Your best bet would be to get it to a large sword show where it can be looked at by numerous collectors. Perhaps one of the European NBTHK meetings?

Would be great to be able to get more info on it.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in hand it is still not crystal-clear what the tanto really represents (Sa school seems different though), but Soshu-den prior to Muromachi represents a good possibility based on the deki of the blade and my (non-expert) comparisons with other blades in hand.

 

 

John Lapre

 

Congrats indeed!

 

While the nie deki of the blade may point to pre-Muromachi, the length of this blade, even if machi-okuri slightly (is it?), would seem to be at odds with what is usually seen in Nanbokucho period mainline Soshu den....???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

 

I hope this will work out. I am not a photo expert but tried some pictures with more detail. Not close to the quality usually posted over here. I hope the links will work

 

Regards

 

John Lapre

 

 

Detail hataraki http://imageshack.com/a/img540/1573/ESrooz.jpg

ESrooz.jpg

 

Detail hataraki http://imageshack.com/a/img673/3277/aPoNIW.jpg

aPoNIW.jpg

 

Mei detail http://imageshack.com/a/img905/4160/JxjgBM.jpg

JxjgBM.jpg

 

Ha machi, is it machi okuri? Maybe not? http://imageshack.com/a/img540/750/wCk1G2.jpg

wCk1G2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ha machi, is it machi okuri? Maybe not?

 

Doesn't seem so....

 

As I pm'ed Kunitaro san, my first impression was Nanbokucho period, but noticing the nagasa, I had my reservations. Nakahara says Nanbokucho wakizashi are usually "33cm to 41cm in length with tanto very rare". This blade is only 26cm according to the original post so, accordingly, it is very rare if Nanbokucho. Blades of this length were common to later Muromachi. No doubt someone will confirm/deny Nakahara's statement by telling you exactly how many Nanbokucho Soshu den tanto less than 33cm are found among Juto, TokuJu, etc. blades....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the opposite of you, Chris, I love statistics. Numerous exceptions reverse the law (Conan Doyle "Sherlock Holmes"). I have checked what has written Nagayama Kokan in his book:

The tanto in the Nambokucho period are hira-zukuri, generally with Mitsu-mune....Blade length ranges from 30-43cm, these tanto are known as sunobi tanto (extended or longer knives) or ko-wakizashi (short swords) In contrast, tanto were also forged that were shorter than those produced in the early and mid-Kamakura periods The blade is charac­terized by a wide mihaba disproportionate to the decreased overall length, thin kasane, and slight sori.
.

So it seems that tanto under 30cm were not scarce (provided my understanding is correct) according to another expert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was busy with Papering game long time ago.

I did destoried a few history of sword......confession......

 

I got an offer a Tanto (27.5cm) from a dear in Japan.

the blade looks good, maybe nanbokucho, and it has Shumei by Honnami Choshiki (Meiji period), so I bought it without asking discount.

The shirasaya has Sayagami by Choshiki, said "Matsuura Go", and Shumei said "Go Yoshihiro""Choshiki".

post-4263-1419693863326_thumb.jpg

post-4263-14196938636267_thumb.jpg

When I studied the tanto, the shumei by Choshiki is original. maybe the polish was original by him as well.

The blade (Ji and Ha) looks like Norishige (but, this tanto has shallow sori,,,)

I was sure that NBTHK will not agree with the Shumei "Go Yoshihiro" !!

If in case of passing Hozon, It will be "Go yoshiro to shumei ga aru".... and Hozon maximum.

so, I took Shumei (both side) off. and got new Torokusho as Mumei.

submit TH, and passed, attributed as "Kashu Sanekage" a student of Norishige (nanbokucho)

so, I submitted Juyo shinsa and passed,

It became Juyo-token.

I was very proud and I felt that I won the game...

and the tanto is well treated by collector because, Juyo.

but in fact, The Shumei by Honnami Choshiki is more important than NBTHK Juyo paper...

I feel bitter when I look back...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kunitaro san I think you did not make a mistake. I think you did a justice to the tanto to reveal the proper maker.

 

Honami Choshiki, I think his reputation is not very good. It isn't just me with this opinion. There seem to be very many Masamune and Sadamune attributions made by Choshiki. Almost every time the decision is not supported by the NBTHK.

 

I have a Norishige tanto that is zaimei with date. It has a sayagaki by Honami Choshiki saying it is authentic. It is also Juyo Token and it came from a daimyo collection. It has a value of 200 gold pieces by Choshiki.

 

Someone at some time took the sayagaki and presented it to Dr. Honma and Dr. Honma wrote beside the judgment and valuation "Kanzan agrees with this."

 

In this case it seems everyone agrees that Choshiki made the right decision. But still, nobody respected the decision on its own, it is held in doubt because of these other curious decisions that he made. So even the old owner brought it to Dr. Honma and asked him to further authenticate the old authentication. I can see him saying, well this is a legitimate signature but the sayagaki by Choshiki makes everyone feel doubt. Can you please add your judgment to alleviate the concerns? And so he does and now it is OK.

 

I think in Choshiki's age at the end of the samurai era it was probably disaster for his house and he did what he had to in order to survive. So many Masamune, Sadamune and in this case even Go Yoshihiro tanto comes to exist. I only speculate this because I keep seeing them appear.

 

His corruption and bad judgments hiding within the generally good opinion of the Honami family is destructive. Bad people will use them as tools to defraud good people who are then faced with the decision of: do I steal from the next person and pass this along, or must I be the one who cleans up this historical problem and stops the deception here? It is not fair to take an honest and hopeful person and put them in the position of cheating the next person.

 

I have been cheated like this on a couple of occasions and I have absorbed the damage. In the case of this false shumei, remove it so that the truth about the tanto and its maker can be known, it can add to scholarship, and nobody can use it to cheat someone again.

 

So here we now have a good tanto that passes Juyo and can support its own value based on honest opinions. So I think this is fair and correct and we can appreciate it as Sanekage.

 

Honami Kotoku... I would say leave the judgment in place but it is Choshiki not Kotoku. And I am sure that he looked at this and he thought in the area of Sanekage but it is not possible to exaggerate it to Norishige, however it is possible to exaggerate it to Go. This is the thing about a good judge who is dishonest. When a lie is partially true it is a strong lie.

 

If you take a shinshinto tanto and you say "Masamune" in kinzogan then everyone can laugh at it. But if you take a master level Juyo tanto in the lineage of Norishige and you say Go, then you force people to pay attention a bit more because it is half true. And maybe half truth is enough to fool them.

 

So I vote that you did the world a service and cleaned up another mess that Choshiki left behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since some people have requested some stats, here are some Juto.

 

28 Hasebe tanto < 30cm.

49 Hasebe tanto > 30cm.

5 Akihiro tanto < 30cm.

10 Akihiro tanto > 30cm.

1 Hiromitsu tanto < 30cm

25 Hiromitsu tanto > 30cm (two though only by 2-3mm)

32 Kanemitsu tanto < 30cm.

16 Kanemitsu tanto > 30cm.

 

Akihiro and Hasebe works are coming in at 1:2 ratios for shorterthan:longerthan 30cm. Not extremely rare after all in the reference works. Hiromitsu, yes. Very rare. Kanemitsu, opposite is true. But he did begin somewhere in the late Kamakura so we can expect some influence.

 

The problem in this is that some people are approaching all of this backwards. That is, some people made a theory that this must be Muromachi because the nakago looks like Sengo. Therefore some people go and find statements in books that seem to support their argument by means of cherrypicking and massaging an interpretation to fit their preconception.

 

Yet, the evidence indicates that ratios of 1:2 to 1:3 may be the correct ratio in which sub 30cm work appears vs. longer pieces in these Nanbokucho Soshu pieces (d’oh, stupid evidence). And that observation is not in disagreement with the key word usually (which may or may not be part of something some people quoted) and the other key word rare. Rare has a subjective meaning and in context here it means infrequent. It does not mean “does not exist” unless you want to read too literally and then extrapolate to an invalid conclusion.

 

That is: oh he said rare.

And rare means really, really, really rare.

And if it is really, really, really rare... then this is the same as not existing.

Therefore this tanto that is less than 30cm cannot be from the Nanbokucho because those are so rare as to not exist.

 

Invalid conclusion.

 

Usually and rare are fair words to use and the observed items do agree with what he’s written but they also do not disallow a 30cm or less tanto from existing, nor are they so rare that we can safely statistically ignore them. Some people would have to pile that one on with a lot of other statistical arguments to try to make that point stick.

 

Anyway this tanto appears to be machi okuri as well, part of the reason some people were lead to the wrong conclusion about its school and hence its period, and some people need to let that go and go back to look at the construction of the tanto. From how the reference works evaluate, length is a moot point on this one unless you want to try to claim it is the work of Soshu Hiromitsu, in which case you have an uphill argument as the vast majority of his seem to fit the archetype of the longer style.

 

But even if we have lost 3cm to machi okuri then it falls within an acceptable range for the work of Hiromitsu even though his seem to so frequently fall on the long side. It would be on the small side for him still but entirely acceptable in length.

 

So the length argument I think is exposed as another blind alley, and an attempt to justify a poor decision in the first place.

 

Now, for fun.

 

I theorize we're looking at Daruma Masamitsu! My theory is that the Mitsu looks pretty good but the Hiro looks rather horrific. Daruma Masamitsu made blades similar to Hiromitsu:

 

There seems to be some works signed with two kanji and some with Daruma also. The style resembles that of Soshu Hiromitsu, and there are said to be some that are also signed Masamune. - Fujishiro

 

So now this is interesting. He's supposed to be working around 1381 and and is working somewhere around Hasebe in Kyoto. The later period would agree with it being a bit short. It looks Nanbokucho Soshu-ish and not far off of Soshu Hiromitsu which on paper also agrees with Masamitsu. He's rated at Jo-saku so if it looks like a smaller, bit less well made Hiromitsu then it is fitting the model for the theory. It is possible that the Masa is knocked out and someone replaces that with a Hiro to upgrade the piece. Also reasonable. The Hiro seems like it is offset to the side as well so reasonable to suppose that it may indeed be added after and not there correctly.

 

After I put that together I sought out a signature example and seems to be not so far off for the mitsu. But hey I had to use those terrible oshigata to do so, ugh. Darn reference works. Ruin everything.

 

masamitsu.png

 

Leftmost is Hiromitsu of Sagami. Center is Daruma Masamitsu. In the right is our friend this tanto.

 

I will say it is a heck of a lot closer to this single Masamitsu example than it is to the Hiromitsu example.

 

So worth looking into.

 

I think it remains what it appears to be: late Nanbokucho Soshu or Soshu influenced work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I said originally about this tanto here was that "the nakago looks like Sengo" and "nice Soshu". You can assume what you wish about that...Based on my experience with Nanbokucho Soshu, and what others like Nakahara have said, I later repeated here what I said to Kunitaro san privately- that it seemed too short to be Nanbokucho Soshu, which is what it appears to be at first glance. Just an opinion.

 

Your data mining shows that there are indeed a small number of Juyo Nambokucho Soshu tanto less than 30cm; what percentage of the total does this represent? Yeah, we have no way to know. Taking the small sample of blades that are Juto and extrapolating to the larger population is problematic in many cases don't you think? Or have you done statistical analysis to verify the robustness of the sample size?

 

I will agree that it does mean that this tanto could be Nanbokucho though as Kunitaro san has said, we don't really know.

 

You seem certain this tanto has machi-okuri. What leads you to that opinion?

 

I agree that this is most likely the work of a less famous smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note that I am now simply editing and removing lines that I consider superfluous and/or personal. I am not even going to point that out when I do it. Keep the personal stuff OUT of this please, or entire posts will disappear.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear all,

 

Still following the discussions with interest.

 

If there were a way to have it go through shinsa without having to remove the (gi)mei, then maybe yes. If in the current state with the (gi)mei NBTHK or NTHK would simply declare it gimei unless the mei is removed, then we all need to have our own thoughts and hopefully pleasure in discussing what it might be, because then I will not send it for shinsa. I will not remove the mei, at least that is my current state of mind.

 

Regards

 

John Lapre

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

Was it my mistake that the NTHK sometimes will give a gimei call with an idea of who they think it was done by? Or is that only at US shinsas?

Maybe worth sending to a US agent for the next one if that is the case. Perhaps I am mistaken though.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, NTHK-NPO will give an attribution when possible to a period, group, and sometimes smith at the US shinsa. They would probably do it in Japan as well if you submit it through someone who knows them and can request it. They are usually quite approachable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...