Nthk April 2015 Shinsa Results Blades And Fittings

[b.hennick]

All shinsa produce results that leave some collectors happy, others sad and still others confused. 

 

How did the blades that you submitted do at shinsa. Although I did not submit any blades or fittings I did speak to a number of collectors I know, to ask how their pieces did. Many of them are on the board. I think that it should be up to them to share or not.

 

I'm sure that some will be happy, others sad and still others confused (or very confused).

 

P.S. I saw no reason for two threads - one for blades another for fittings.

 

[Mark]

I submitted 5 blades. 4 signed 1 mumei, I was sure 2 of the signed blades were good, I was pretty sure one was gimei but wanted to verify, the mumei blade seemed to have the quality to pass and the last signed blade I was not sure either way.  4 passed, the one I thought was gimei failed.

 

I took some blades for others and, not to share anyone's business, I think the pass rate was over 50% and although I did not spend much time looking at the swords I did notice a couple that clearly looks gimei.

 

Overall the "mood" or buzz of those  who submitted seemed satisfied.  I remember shinsa and this time there was a marked difference for the better. As Tom mentions in his thread it seems collectors are learning and submitting better quality and the results reflect that.

[Jamie]

I submitted a Tanto. I thought it was sue soshu.

It passed to Den Fujishima. That seems like a good call to me.

Wakimono to Soshu school.

I'm happy with the results. They made one very small mistake and missed that the blade is mitsu mune. This doesn't affect the attribution and in fact strengthens it.

I spoke with Tom about this and he asked me to bring it back Sunday and said they would fix it.

So I went back and showed them and they not only fixed the paperwork but they related to Tom that the style of habaki on it was not seen often and was very interesting.

They enjoyed looking at it. Really cool I think!

They had not seen the habaki through the shinsa as you submit just bare blade. So from this very minor mistake I learned even more about the blade overall. The habaki is Osaka style.

It was an entirely positive experience for me. I got to personally hand it in, and pick it up only hours later.

With an attribution that I feel is right on.

 

Tom was hustling all weekend, and I applaud his and the teams effort.

Also thanks to Mark and family for running a very well put together, and run, show.

[bigjohnshea]

Good day gentlemen,

 

I submitted a blade I bought on ebay.  It passed with 70 points and papered to Taira Takeda Masanori from Bungo, 1504.

 

I'm very happy about that.  I thought for sure it would end up being shinto or shin-shinto, and since mumei would end up passing but not getting much out of shinsa.

 

Unfortunately I know nothing about this smith.  I'm assuming he is a smith of the Bungo Takeda school, but if anyone knows anything else I'd love to hear it.  Please shoot me a PM.

 

I attached a link to my drop box folder for this blade with some photos, if anyone is interested. 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/hkz8sh712tybcxw/AABIa5ZKXV0UeK9O-VeHzDIka?dl=0

 

I have a tanto that went through shinsa in Japan last month and am still waiting to hear about it.  So slow...

 

Hope you're all having a good day. 

 

Cheers.

[Jean]

John,

 

I'll say Masamori and not Masanori

 

http://www.sho-shin.com/sai13.htm

 

Two Masamori listed in Markus Sesko book, one in Tenbun, the other in Genki. None in Eisho

[bigjohnshea]

Jean,

Yes indeed it is Masamori.  Mistake from translation.

If I'm not mistaken 1504 is Eisho and that was the date I was given…  Hmm...

Thanks very much though.  Appreciate your help.

Cheers.

[Stephen]

for those not satisfied

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dndAXxqJbc0

[Jean]

John,

 

Markus book "Index of Japanese swordsmiths" is quite thorough and he has used several Japanese books/sources to write this one.

 

If he does not mentionned an Eisho Takada Masamori, it means that either this smith is unrecorded or that you have make a mistake in understanding Eisho or that it is an almost unheard of smith.

 

Which leads to the following question: How can shinsa can Kantei a sword to an Eisho Masamori smith?

 

That's just a question which will be worth to ask to the shinsa panel. Meanwhile, John, can you post a scan of the shinsa worksheet?

[bigjohnshea]

Jean,

Yes I will once it arrives. It's on its way from Chicago now. Will be a few days before I can post it.

 

I asked about this to the person handling the sword for me and he rechecked the date. The sheet does indeed say Eisho. I guess we'll have to wait to look at it.

 

Honestly it makes no difference to me if it's 1504, 1570 or 1573. I'd like the Origami to be accurate but otherwise I'm happy with the attribution.

 

Will post the worksheet ASAP.

Thanks.

Cheers,

[Jean]

John,

 

I am glad at the 70 pts value.

 

I am absolutelly not glad at the attribution If it is to a Bungo Takada Masamori unheard of and neither should you be.

 

Hawley, meikan, Fujishiro have listed swordsmiths quite exhaustively and not only by having seen their work but also from old documentations. If this smith is not mentionned in one of these books, it means he is not among one of the 25000 smiths listed by the dictionnaries already mentioned. That means that there is 99% probabilities that no one on the kantei panel has ever seen several swords by this smith (otherwise he'll be listed) only way to kantei to a certain smith.

 

FYI, kantei a sword to Bungo Takada school (I am just exagerating a bit) is like kanteing a tsuba to Shoami. You are young on this Board but people who remember Milton Ong on this Board know how he went by the Bungo aka. It was because everytime he submitted a sword to Shinsa, it came back with a Bungo kanteisho, fat chance, considering the number of Bungo Takada swords for sale on the web.

 

I don't question the Kanteisho, but if there is an attribution to an unlisted swordsmith, this rises questions who have to be answered. It is a learning curve for a real Nihontophile.

 

I am not questionning the Kanteisho but I need answers (and you should too).

 

BTW, I know I am an extremist LoL, but all swords submitted to shinsa should be in polish, it would avoid mistakes.

 

I had an out of polish Mino sue Seki Kanetsune with a NTHK Kanteisho which once polished had three hagire... Luckily the dealer took it back

[bigjohnshea]

Jean,

The truth is, from my point of view, as long as the school is accurate and the time period is koto, I'm actually happy.  I'm not planning to keep the blade anywhow.  If this makes me less of a refined nihonto collector, then I guess that's what I am.  I've always been more of an enthusiast of nihonto and less of a student.  I'm a student of medicine, and trust me that takes up enough of my time.  My brain is tired at the end of the day, everyday.  Studying nihonto after a 12-15hr day at the hospital is not productive.  I have to learn nihonto passively, and if I'm lucky I might get some time in to read on the weekends between studying for my board exams.

 

Going on the idea of getitng better clarity, what can I do about this other than submit the blade to shinsa again and hope for better clarification from another team member?  Sounds like 400$ potentially spent on getting nearly the same information I already have, or slightly different information with a date that complies with the reference books, which you have been so kind to assist me with.  I don't see how that really benefits me if I already trust the reference books?  And I do trust them.

 

In other words, what can I really do to get more clarity out of this other than resubmitting and hoping for more clarity?  Can I send it back to the NTHK and say 'Please, I humbly request that you give me more clarity on this?"  That doesn't seem like it will work, but maybe it will.  

 

Like you said, atleast it's an attribution with the 70 points, and while it is nothing special, at least it is a relatively attractive authenthic nihonto.  :-)

 

Anyhow, that aside, I'm planning to sell this sword ASAP at a bargain to a buyer.  I'm not keeping it or doing any work on it.  It is what it is.  In terms of the sales price, I don't expect much more from the buyer than what a 70 point katana would get with an old cracked shirasaya in a decent old polish.  I have three blades I'm keeping.  My four others, this included, are going someplace else, hopefully to be taken care of there.

 

I will post the shinsa paperwork ASAP.  Hopefully that will clarify it more.

 

Thank you again for all your help. 

Cheers,

[Jean]

That's make sense, John. You wanted the paper as a + for reselling the sword and to confort your buying it.

 

Are the swords you are keeping papered or not?

[bigjohnshea]

So the three swords I'm keeping are these.

 

1) A full size "nagamaki" made by a US smith with a theme addressing the memory of my father.  Not a "nihonto" but important to me and beautiful none the less.  I did say I was keeping three blades, not three nihonto.

 

2) A mumei nagamaki naoshi wakizashi with a Honami Koson Sayagaki attributing to the Shizu Kaneuji school of Kamakura era.  It has not gone through shinsa.  It was purchased from a reputable merchant in Japan.  I studied the Sayagaki of Koson, as well as the features of the Shizu Kaneuji school and made rigid comparison.  A great majority of the features needed to attribute it to that school are present in the blade.  I am happy with this.  I may someday submit it for shinsa but what I have satisfies me.  It likely would not satisfy all others, but it satisfies me.  Additionally, given the price of even a T-Hozon level Masamune Jutetsu blade, or even a blade by a student of a Masamune Jutetsu smith, this is likely as close as I will get to owning one with a solid form of provenance, and which more than stands up to the reference material available about the school.

 

3) A mumei katana with Hozon papers attributing it to Koto era Sengo School of Ise Provence.  This blade is actually still under the process of purchase. and on hold for me now.  I have saved about 80% of the money i need to buy it, and I'm hoping the sale of the sword we discussed above will give me the rst of what I need to finish the deal, or atleast most of what I need.  If not, i have other irons in the fire to cover the remaining cost.  As I was saying about the Shizu school wak above, given the price of 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation Murmasa katanas (not just Sengo school), this is likely as close as I will get to a Muramasa katana at my current and future projected income levels.  This blade does have the "mirror image hamon" that is more representative of the first three generations of Muramasa, but due to other variations in the blade the attribution to a specific smith in Sengo school could not be made.

 

I agree whole heartedly with what you said in your last comment Jean.  I wanted the paper 1) as a plus for resale, and 2) as a form of comfort for my buying.  The second also being a subconscious effort to reaffirm my capacity to spot a halfway decent blade.    I also wanted it as a form of provenance for the blade itself, so that it does not exist without future owners having some paper giving it provenance.  The first blade I mentioned above is not elligible for shinsa.  The third blade has already got one that I'm happy with.  The second blade has a reliable form of provenance and seems to fit the bill in terms of its characteristics.  Shinsa adds certainty to the second blade if it passes in keeping with the sayagaki, but as I have no interest in reselling it, and I am myself satisfied with it, shinsa adds little value to me personally.

 

Cheers.

[Mark S.]

 

I don't question the Kanteisho, but if there is an attribution to an unlisted swordsmith, this rises questions who have to be answered. It is a learning curve for a real Nihontophile.

 

I am not questionning the Kanteisho but I need answers (and you should too).

 

 

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but it would be nice if an attribution is made, then a reason 'why' would be given.  Last year I purchased a mumei Kai-Mihara katana that was given an attribution (in so many words) of "Den Bingo Kai-Mihara Masamori - Tensho era" by the NTHK-NPO in 2011.  But while I have found a listing for the swordsmith, I still don't know WHY the Shinsa team felt strongly enough to attribute the style of mumei blade to this smith.  They must have seen 'something' that made them single out this smith vs just listing the school/period, but I haven't found out much info about him, so I can't say he would be considered 'famous'.  In no way do I question the shinsa team, but it would be nice to at least be able to know 'why'.  

[Toryu2020]

Jean et al

I think you have to keep in mind we are talking about a "Worksheet" and not a kantei-sho, it is not set in stone until they issue a paper. The team kantei's the sword and then based on the work if mumei they assign an attribution. In the case of unique workmanship making that assignment is easy. However some swords will be harder than others to peg depending on many factors. If they decide upon a particular era in their assessment, as they should, they then must consider the schools active at the time that might have produced the work. Just as you would in your kantei. So on this work sheet they may have noted Eisho koro as the time when they felt the sword was produced. And just as you would move on to the maker. Once they decided upon a maker they may not have pulled the dates from the Meikan. No one can be expected to have memorized all the eras and so it could be the Eisho koro comes from memory, maybe a little early but still within a generation of Tenbun. Had they said Eiroku then it is neither Tenbun nor Genki so what would we make of that? I think they are seeing this sword as early.

 

Still the most important point is this is a "worksheet" - once they return to Japan they check all details of the swords that were recorded and will revisit the Meikan before they issue the certificate. I feel certain if they do not give it to a certain generation they will place it in a time frame that lets the owner do that. I am curious to see if this does not turn out to be the case.

 

-t

[Jean]

Thanks for the explanation Tom, that really makes sense. We count on John to post the kanteisho once it has been issued to see what was the final decision.

 

John,

 

Was the sword mumei or suriage or O suriage?

 

You were right to submit it to Shinsa if only to confort your being able to spot quality in an e-bay sword

[bigjohnshea]

The sword is mumei possibly secondary to some significant rust damage on the nakago. I pulled the photos from the dropbox link above if you want to see more. It is also machi-okure, likely for the same reason, but otherwise ubu.

[bigjohnshea]

Thanks again to everyone contributing to my knowledge.

[bigjohnshea]

Here is the worrksheet as promised.  

Hope everyone is doing well. 

Cheers,

 

Edit: No idea why the photo is rotated counter clockwise.  Sorry. Not sure how to fix this.

[Jean]

Thanks John, we shall have to wait for the final kanteisho, they shall probably change the smith.

[bigjohnshea]

You think they'll change the smith Jean?  Or did you mean "change the smith" by changing the date?

 

I just put this for sale on the board here and I want to make sure I'm not misleading anyone.

[Jean]

John,

 

Look at Tom post. Shinsa from the sugata thinks the blade is Eisho (early 16th century) as there is no Bungo corresponding smith by the name of Masamori forging at this date ... Either they change the date or the smith name. Considering that the sugata is (Nihonto is full of exception) a sure kantei point ====> smith name has to be changed.

[bigjohnshea]

Ah I see what you are saying Jean.  Many thanks.  I will revise my listing to include that possibility.  Either way I think people are getting a decent sword at a more than fair price for what I listed it at.  So hopefully the name or date change won't hinder people too much.  

 

Cheers,