Jump to content

Authentication paper without signature?


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I have another newbie question I guys.

 

How is it that a sword without a signature can get an authentication document stating the smith? 
 

I guess the Authentication is about the sword it self at these cases. But wouldn’t it be better to just leave the smith out of the document and not speculate on the smith at all. I mean how sure can one be on guessing the smith? I think it takes some credibility of the Authentication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are challenging the entire fundamental crux of Japanese swords. That smiths are identifiable through their work. The entire basis of Nihonto study is that skill is identifiable and recognizable. That a sword will lead to its maker through his techniques, training, experience, knowledge and skill.
Without that, there is zero need for shinsa or papers. To says what? That it is a real Japanese sword? Don't need experts for that.
Some people study swords and makers their entire lives to be able to identify makers. And the fact that multiple experts independently can come to the same conclusions proves this is not hokus pokus.
It's NOT guessing. Freddie, that entire comment of yours shows you need to read a lot more.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Brian said:

You are challenging the entire fundamental crux of Japanese swords. That smiths are identifiable through their work. The entire basis of Nihonto study is that skill is identifiable and recognizable. That a sword will lead to its maker through his techniques, training, experience, knowledge and skill.
Without that, there is zero need for shinsa or papers. To says what? That it is a real Japanese sword? Don't need experts for that.
Some people study swords and makers their entire lives to be able to identify makers. And the fact that multiple experts independently can come to the same conclusions proves this is not hokus pokus.
It's NOT guessing. Freddie, that entire comment of yours shows you need to read a lot more.


Ohh, I didn’t know that this was such a sensitive question. 
And I don’t questioning the fact that you can identify a smith through their work, I’m questioning that you can be so sure about a 300 year old sword without a signature that you in fact can put your stamp on a paper and say, it is definitely that smith.

 

If we use the art of painting as a reference you would all most (with a very few exception) never state that a painting is made by for example Picasso if you can’t find a signature. You can say that it looks like a Picasso and that it probably is a Picasso but you would rarely be able to get a Authentication document stating that is truly a Picasso. Note, Aldo, Picassons work is far from 300 years old. If you could find like pictures or similar that supports the case then that is another thing surely. But the these evidence should be attached to the object.

 

To connect a sword to specific line of smiths, style, a time era or/and a specific school, that I have no problem to accept,  but to pinpoint a 300 years old sword to specific smith I have a little bit harder to accept, especially when there are so many forgeries, sons and students crafting in the name of other smiths. I guess I’ll learn the answer to my question only by studying and learning more, I guess I’m to ignorant today.

 

And as you so clearly pointed out, I need to read up on this more. A couple of books have not turned me into anything else but a more dedicated student of the lovely art of Nihonto.


 

 

“The key to wisdom is this – constant and frequent questioning, for by doubting we are led to question, by questioning we arrive at the truth.” – Peter Abelard

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

How are unsigned renaissance art masterpieces attributed to the artist? If the signature on a Caravaggio is lost how could anyone tell he painted it.....


I would say that paintings can be attributed to a painter but not sure.

 

Also, I’m quite sure that the concept of letting students and relatives produce paintings for Caravaggio was not as common (even if there are some examples) as it is among ancient swords smiths.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Fredd

When looking at a sword the last thing you look at is the mei

Hopefully this confirms what you have already found out but this is a lifetimes work

Papers are an opinion and not fact but these appraisers have seen hundreds of swords but as the saying goes 'even monkeys fall from trees'

Are you a collector?

 

 

Grev

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago I sent off a Mumei wakizashi to the NBTHK. It came back with Sue So-Shu, which was nice to have confirmed, plus a suggestion that it might be the work of a particular smith. Now, I did not take that as a cast-iron guarantee, but as a sign that someone on the NBTHK Shinsa committee knows enough about the work of individual So-Shu smiths to be confident in attributing the blade to him. Although the blade is unsigned, it now has an opinion to go with it.

 

Likewise, I sent off a Mumei blade that everyone around me said was guaranteed to get papered to Yosozaemon no Jo Sukesada. It did not go that far, however. The Hozon paperwork stated that it was the work of Sue Bizen Sukesada, without narrowing down the field any further. So now I have paperwork pointing to around Eisho, 1504-21 and one of that close-knit Sukesada group. I was a little disappointed, but not too badly. I can leave it like that, or resubmit it, or get other opinions if I want to take it forward. (In fact my sword Sensei kindly wrote an accompanying letter that gives me more information than the laconic NBTHK committee did.)

 

(Of course, paperwork pointing at a certain smith encourages me to focus on that smith and having done some research, to decide for myself if I agree with their attribution.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course there is no exact answer to my question, it’s up to each and every person to decide your position on this question.

 

For me that are new to this world and that see things a little more black and white I’ll stick blades that only have an authentic signature or is so beautiful that I can’t resist to buy it.

 

I don’t see any point of arguing about this and here by close this thread... sorry for questioning the establishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, kissakai said:

Hi Fredd

When looking at a sword the last thing you look at is the mei

Hopefully this confirms what you have already found out but this is a lifetimes work

Papers are an opinion and not fact but these appraisers have seen hundreds of swords but as the saying goes 'even monkeys fall from trees'

Are you a collector?

 

 

Grev

 


1.Could not have said it better my friend!

 

2.It depends on how you guys in this forum define collector. I’m fascinated my the culture and the craftsmanship and I have one sword that I love.

 

But the question is really interesting by the way, what is a collector?

 

I guess one criteria is that you have to own at least two swords to even call it a collection, so I guess I’m not a collector. :-)

 

My blade only cost 1200$, is there a monetary limit to call it a collectible? I would say no to that.

 

Is it the manufacturing process that stipulate if it is a collectible

or not? This one is harder, but for me it is important that sword is made of tamahagane and produced by traditional ways.

 

How does age affect the collectible? For

me it’s crucial. I only look for blades that are older then mid Edo. Others may collect WW2 blades.

 

I have only been engaged in Nihonto for 6-7 month, is there a knowledge level one needs to reach to be considered a collector? I would say no to that.

 

Boy, you got me going there with your seemingly simple question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bugyotsuji said:

A couple of years ago I sent off a Mumei wakizashi to the NBTHK. It came back with Sue So-Shu, which was nice to have confirmed, plus a suggestion that it might be the work of a particular smith. Now, I did not take that as a cast-iron guarantee, but as a sign that someone on the NBTHK Shinsa committee knows enough about the work of individual So-Shu smiths to be confident in attributing the blade to him. Although the blade is unsigned, it now has an opinion to go with it.

 

Likewise, I sent off a Mumei blade that everyone around me said was guaranteed to get papered to Yosozaemon no Jo Sukesada. It did not go that far, however. The Hozon paperwork stated that it was the work of Sue Bizen Sukesada, without narrowing down the field any further. So now I have paperwork pointing to around Eisho, 1504-21 and one of that close-knit Sukesada group. I was a little disappointed, but not too badly. I can leave it like that, or resubmit it, or get other opinions if I want to take it forward. (In fact my sword Sensei kindly wrote an accompanying letter that gives me more information than the laconic NBTHK committee did.)


Thanks for sharing your experience!

The fact that you can get different reviews at different Shinsa tells us how hard it really is to do that analysis, hence my original question.

 

So I totally agree with you, you get more insight and information the more people you show a specific object to, it is all about learning. And all this information (especially if you can get your sensie to complement it. ;-)  ) adds to the real value for you as the owner (not monetary).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

So a Naoe Shizu attribution means the sword is better than Mihara but not good enough to be called Kaneuji. 

 

Brian is 100% correct, Freddie—with study and training kantei is nearly a science. Nearly. But you also recognize that no one has a time machine. 

Darcy Brockbank has written a lot about this (much of it on this board in the past). That you are asking these questions is not a bad thing. It just means it’s time for you to put real effort into serious study if you truly want to understand the answers. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are looking for a naoe shizu blade and you find one mumei attributed to naoe shizu but it does not look like what you expect from naoe shizu you shouldnt buy it. 

There is no reason to believe an attribution if you think its not good, but that can mean you have to learn more or the attribution is bad.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

 

Excellently put. 

 

Next level: think of attributions as a global maxima on multidimensional probability density distribution. Rarely is a mumei sword a slam dunk. You often have multiple good ideas coexisting together, with one taking over the others as more likely which then constitutes your attribution. In reality you need to accept uncertainty and part of studying the sword is to understand where it fits in the great interconnected web of plausible candidates. Think of all the smiths as an interconnected web - a graph - where the thickness of the links represents proximity in their work. If you end up right in between two or three nods you'll have a case for "Den" 

 

Attributions also capture uncertainty, and not just via Den. When you go down the less reputed schools and the work lacks differentiability, attribution to these schools on a mumei sword may be an admittance of uncertainty in the judgement. 

 

More important than the top idea that comes up on the paper is all the other ideas that have been put aside with high certainty. A sword that comes back as Bungo Takeda or Ko-Udo can be a number of things around these waters, but Ichimonji it is not, etc. On less highly rated school, these attributions are the fruit of a process of elimination when you go down quality ladders. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Katsujinken said:

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

So a Naoe Shizu attribution means the sword is better than Mihara but not good enough to be called Kaneuji. 

 

Brian is 100% correct, Freddie—with study and training kantei is nearly a science. Nearly. But you also recognize that no one has a time machine. 

Darcy Brockbank has written a lot about this (much of it on this board in the past). That you are asking these questions is not a bad thing. It just means it’s time for you to put real effort into serious study if you truly want to understand the answers. 

 


 

 

2 hours ago, Katsujinken said:

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

So a Naoe Shizu attribution means the sword is better than Mihara but not good enough to be called Kaneuji. 

 

Brian is 100% correct, Freddie—with study and training kantei is nearly a science. Nearly. But you also recognize that no one has a time machine. 

Darcy Brockbank has written a lot about this (much of it on this board in the past). That you are asking these questions is not a bad thing. It just means it’s time for you to put real effort into serious study if you truly want to understand the answers. 

 


Off course Brian is correct, he simply describes the fact that the probability to be more precise in an analysis/guess increases with knowledge and experience. I agree to 100%.


with study and training kantei is nearly a science.” Again, I agree to 100% but even scientists (e.g. archaeologists) guess when they are not sure. Sure, they can do a much better guessing than we ordinary people, but still, they guess.

 

The word guess is not a negative word if that is what somebody thinks. Some of you maybe see that word as disrespectful in this context. But it’s not.

 

Def. To commit oneself to an opinion about something without having sufficient evidence to support the opinion fully: for example, to guess a person's weight.

A fitness coach or doctor would probably be better in guessing someone’s weight due to their knowledge and experience in seeing and examining many different bodies. But they wouldn’t be able guess the exact weight. Some scientists dedicates their whole life’s to a specific area, they still guess when they are not 100% sure.

 

Sorry, to break it to you, that is no difference from judging blades.

And without a signature on the tang the guessing/assessment is harder and the blade is more difficult to verify. So hard that (in my simple opinion) it should not count for an official statement saying that a sword was produced by a specific smith (Attributed yes).

 

Question for you,

Is your view that two identical blades would be judged with the same result even if only one of them had a genuine signature?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Valric said:

 

Excellently put. 

 

Next level: think of attributions as a global maxima on multidimensional probability density distribution. Rarely is a mumei sword a slam dunk. You often have multiple good ideas coexisting together, with one taking over the others as more likely which then constitutes your attribution. In reality you need to accept uncertainty and part of studying the sword is to understand where it fits in the great interconnected web of plausible candidates. Think of all the smiths as an interconnected web - a graph - where the thickness of the links represents proximity in their work. If you end up right in between two or three nods you'll have a case for "Den" 

 

Attributions also capture uncertainty, and not just via Den. When you go down the less reputed schools and the work lacks differentiability, attribution to these schools on a mumei sword may be an admittance of uncertainty in the judgement. 

 

More important than the top idea that comes up on the paper is all the other ideas that have been put aside with high certainty. A sword that comes back as Bungo Takeda or Ko-Udo can be a number of things around these waters, but Ichimonji it is not, etc. On less highly rated school, these attributions are the fruit of a process of elimination when you go down quality ladders. 

 


Valric, I agree with you to 100%, both in the text you quote on and your contribution.

I wish I hade the capability to express my self like you.. I humbly bow  :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

If you are looking for a naoe shizu blade and you find one mumei attributed to naoe shizu but it does not look like what you expect from naoe shizu you shouldnt buy it. 

There is no reason to believe an attribution if you think its not good, but that can mean you have to learn more or the attribution is bad.

True that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fredd, as I pointed out on another thread, Markus sesko has done a bang-up job explaining the kantei process: https://markussesko.com/kantei/

 

This is a free, university-level approach, & if you will dig in, you'll find that identifying a specific smith from back in the 1600s isn't guesswork, at all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Freddie said:

Is your view that two identical blades would be judged with the same result even if only one of them had a genuine signature?


Yes, in the hands of an expert this is the whole idea, and it happens all the time. The authenticated signed blades set the standards used to assign attributions to mumei blades. The field is always evolving. 
 

This is also a very important point:

 

2 hours ago, Valric said:

More important than the top idea that comes up on the paper is all the other ideas that have been put aside with high certainty. A sword that comes back as Bungo Takeda or Ko-Udo can be a number of things around these waters, but Ichimonji it is not, etc. On less highly rated school, these attributions are the fruit of a process of elimination when you go down quality ladders. 

 

Most Koto swords are unsigned due to shortening. Did you know this? Keep studying...

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Freddie said:

So hard that (in my simple opinion) it should not count for an official statement saying that a sword was produced by a specific smith (Attributed yes).


Also, no one is really disagreeing with this. You need to pay very close attention. And keep reading. :-)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ken-Hawaii said:

Fredd, as I pointed out on another thread, Markus sesko has done a bang-up job explaining the kantei process: https://markussesko.com/kantei/

 

This is a free, university-level approach, & if you will dig in, you'll find that identifying a specific smith from back in the 1600s isn't guesswork, at all.


Wow, I Have read the first two parts. He has real put some time and effort to this blog series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2021 at 3:28 PM, Katsujinken said:

When a mumei blade is given an attribution to a school or even a particular smith what you have is a statement of relative quality and importance within a system of consistent measurement over time. 

So a Naoe Shizu attribution means the sword is better than Mihara but not good enough to be called Kaneuji. 

 


 

 

 

I don't think it works the way you say it does.

 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People with two papers for the same sword usually find that if the smiths are different,  the smiths are at a comparable level. A good mumei sword by a decent smith will not be attributed to a low level smith. It may be attributed to a smith at a comparable level but not the actual smith. Juyo swords have sometimes been attributed to a different smith when they earn tokubetsu juyo. I had a blade papered hozon to Enjyu that went to Hosho when it was papered juyo.

The word Den in one level of paper may disappear at a higher level, or the reverse may happen.

Do you think that the shinsa team spends the same amount of time on blades looking for hozon, tokubestsu hozon, juyo or tokubestsu juyo level papers?

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

 

I don't think it works the way you say it does.

 


I very much think it does, and Barry’s response above is also quite good.
 

Now, I didn’t say that the indication of relative quality is the only information contained in papers for mumei blades. This is very much a three or perhaps four dimensional concept, one that most collectors really struggle with. 

 

As I said Darcy has written extensively on this topic, and I find his arguments authoritative and pursuasive. 
 

Here’s a good example, and there are surely many more to be found on this very board: https://blog.yuhindo.com/20-go-80-norishige/#more-152

 

Quote

 

In some cases, an answer can be obtained that is clear and singular, but in others it is more mysterious. What Kanzan is getting at here is that the distinction between the answers in most cases is not as important as people want to believe it to be anyway. In his words, the conclusion of Norishige, Yukimitsu or Masamune are three ways of saying almost the same thing. They mean absolutely top shelf Soshu tradition work. 

 

It’s important to get your mind into this zone, where you can accept that some questions do not have straight forward answers and that sometimes there is equivalency or that the answer on its face does not mean what you think it means on its face.

 

If a sword is attributed to a mid ranked school or smith, it is a flag telling you that the judge believed it is mid ranked work first and foremost. You cannot walk away from that with the impression that the judge believed it is a masterpiece for the ages if he attributed it to a middle ranking school. Good, yes, high quality yes, major masterpiece: never.

 

Quote

 

There is always going to be a simple, easily digestible line for public consumption. With a Juyo paper that goes right on the front and if you stop reading that big text that names the smith, it’s OK. You can stop there. 

 

But if you want to learn more you need to read the commentary, you need to read it literally and you need also to read between the lines and parse out if they are trying to deal with a difficult concept that is defying easy categorization into a simple and clear box. 

 

There can be deeper meanings to things behind every simple symbol. They are there for your taking if you pay attention to them.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MIchael, 

 

I am sorry and take no offense but neither Barry nor Darcy are experts. They give their opinion but it is only worth what it is worth, same for me. 

 

About Darcy, quoting the Heisenberg's indeterminacy principe is just laughable as we can obtain both of informations but not at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

MIchael, 

 

I am sorry and take no offense but neither Barry nor Darcy are experts. They give their opinion but it is only worth what it is worth, same for me. 


That’s fair, these are all opinions. And that’s the point. A paper is an opinion that is really a proxy for a shared understanding of a hierarchy of quality. There is an underlying taxonomy here that should be appreciated.
 

(And by the way, Darcy has studied tens of thousands of hours more than any of us for decades now, spent more time in person with dealers and NBTHK luminaries in Japan, and handled more world class blades than any of us. I would say he is absolutely an expert. But who’s keeping score?)
 

But how about Tanobe sensei?

 

‘I bought a Juyo Norishige to Tanobe sensei once and he looked at it with great interest and a big smile on his face. After making a lot of appreciative sounds he look at me and said, “20% Go, 80% Norishige.”’

 

This is the reality, and it is clear that this is how the top experts in the world conceptualize attributions to mumei blades. 
 

Are you saying you believe that a mumei blade papered to Naoe Shizu was absolutely made by one of Kaneuji’s students during the time they lived in Naoe? In many ways, that is the least interesting bit of information that could be conveyed. 
 

I’ve made my point though. To each his own. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a somewhat different take on this one.

If you look at 500$ poorly made poorly polished shinto waki, frankly speaking you'll probably never get the exact maker's name guessed right. Shinsa will identity someone, if only because that's the way Japanese express their opinions about things - by associating them with a lineage and a position within this lineage, instead of discussing style, quality in situ. But the reality is that lower level pieces are usually not very distinctive.

 

With collectible swords, 80% of those in polish are fairly straightforward to kantei up to Dozen level. If you have really good photos or sword at hand, you can guess pretty quickly and pretty accurately when it was made, approximate school and approximate level of the maker within this school. And the better the sword is, the easier it is to do so. Really high class items are not too common even with Juyo papers, and the circle of people capable of making them is narrow. Conversely, the worse the item is, the harder it is to kantei. 

 

And then there are 10-20% which are born as weird things which mix and match very different school's features and you'll probably never get a final answer no matter how many shinsa you try. There are Hasebe sunnobi tanto with substantial sori, but very thin kasane. There are occasional Tsunahiro with thin kasane and similar sori. Despite being 200 years apart, both were large schools with greatly varying quality and features, even though they tend to be Soshu-based. So from time to time you see the blades like this - thinnish kasane but some sori, good Soshu work but not great enough to be considered early Soshu with certainty. Chances are you'll never know what it really is. All you get is a "circle of confusion" which say included Tsunahiro, late Masahiro, Hasebe, maybe some Shimada name and Nobukuni - and there is no reason to pick one of those with 100% certainty. Often such blades are resubmitted until they get the most desired name out of this crowd.

 

There are schools which are widely known to give you headaches like this. Soshu is the most important example, in part as there are almost no signed examples from any of the absolutely first tier smiths, so the attributions can be a conjecture based on top of another conjecture. And there are also schools which are known to spread widely in terms of features. I woudl argue most pre-1300 blades are kind of like that. Ichimonji is distinctive, but only in its choji form - while a lot, if not the majority of still fully signed ubu blades by Ichimonji smiths are in suguha, and often quite ugly one at that. Patchy nie, lots of nagare, it looks almost Yamato, ko Hoki or something alike - nope, its signed by someone from Fukuoka Ichimonji.

The greatest issue with Japanese way to do Art History is that its strictly vertical - you are defined by your father, not by your contemporaries. Which is very often not the case. 

 

And then there is politics. A lot of politics. Not surprisingly coming into play where the exact attribution is objectively hard. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael 

What is an expert? It is a person able to identify the work of a blacksmith, it goes up to the generation and even beyond, that in few minutes. A true expert can say such a sword of such a blacksmith is better than this one yet of the same one and to explain why. It's not because there can be uncertainties that they don't know. Judging the quality of a steel, of hada, of nie (not the size) of chikei when there are some etc. is not that easy and needs years of study


Saying Mihara instead of Naoe-Shizu because the work is not as good is nonsense because the two do not have the same characteristics (sugata, hamon etc.).  

 

Tanobe? is a Japanese and Darcy is a "gaijin". He can say what he wants, he knows Darcy will believe him. 

 

How much time does the experts team spends on a blade ? To know it, you would have to attend a shinsa session.
Darcy an expert? no a dealer yes, it's easy to do what he does, you just need the funds to buy, it's easier to buy a juyo than an unpolished sword whose potential you have to guess. 
 

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jacques D. said:

Saying Mihara instead of Naoe-Shizu because the work is not as good is nonsense because the two do not have the same characteristics (sugata, hamon etc.).  


I admit this was a bad example offered too quickly. Adjust it to be about Shizu Kaneuji versus a Naoe Shizu attribution and my point stands just fine. 
 

But I think we can agree to disagree?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We cannot agree to disagree to misconceptions of this magnitude. 
 

The idea that Tanobe-sensei would lie and fabricate some nonsense to please a gaijin by stating a notion that goes against the surface level understanding is beyond preposterous. 

 

Where to start... 

 

And also the ubu zai ichimonji in suguha being the “majority” is plainly wrong. Early ko-bizen phase work of its founders may be found in suguha. Such works are less than 10% of extant ubu zaimei ichimonji. Mumei they would have gone to Ko-Bizen. 

 

May Hachiman give us the strength. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jacques, you are so far off reality and truth when it comes to Darcy and Tanobe and this whole subject. But I am not in the mood for censorship as it will just look like I am biased.
I have NO ties to any side here, I have no personal relationship with any of these guys. So I'll let others deal with your baseless accusations and hopefully Darcy will address this silliness himself.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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