Jump to content

Advice on a potential purchase


Recommended Posts

I have found a katana which I really like and am thinking of purchasing.  The tang is suriage and it has a tanzuka mei but it is unreadable due to age.  It has an NTHK (NPO) Kanteisho Certificate attributing it to a smith, with a date of somewhere in the 1360’s.  In reading these forums, it appears that the general consensus is that the NBTHK is slightly more respected and would hold more weight if I ever came to sell it.  I have no plan on doing this but want to leave as many options open as possible.    

 

As it is still in Japan, is it worth having it sent to the NBTHK as well for papering?  I am aware that they may attribute it to a different smith, but I would like to think it would be within the same era and school, or would I be mistaken?  Once it leaves Japan I think this option will be lost as I can’t see myself trying to send it back there again.  It would be great if they papered it to the same smith, but would having two sets of papers each pointing to a different smith cause more harm than good?  There are plenty of threads discussing papers, but this question is more about getting different papers for a sword which already has papers, and I couldn’t find anything covering that.     

 

I am a bit wary of mumei blades, but from what I have read, to get a nice Koto blade in good condition at an affordable price it seems this is something I must accept.  I have read comments saying to buy what you like and not worry about papers, but I am at an early stage in this hobby and I want to be able to make trades if I need to.  Therefore I want to purchase what I like but do everything I can to make it attractive to others should I ever need to sell.

 

Any comments or advice would be greatly appreciated.  Apologies if I have posted this in the wrong section.

 

Regards,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you like a picture of?  I'm not asking for any advice on the sword, just advice on the papering of it, which is why I hadn't included pictures.

 

I have attached two pictures.  Let me know if you would like any others?

nakago.jpg

blade.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a fair bit of background that's somewhat necessary in order for this to make sense. It might be better for us to provide some reference links rather than try to answer directly. With the appropriate background, the answer is very obvious, but might not make much sense otherwise.

 

I see you're in the UK, if you want to discuss this over the phone, PM me and we'll be able to cover a lot of ground in a few minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John,

A paper from the NBTHK usually carries more weight than one from other organizations, both here in the west and in Japan. If you are buying the sword from a dealer in Japan, you have to figure that he knows this as well as anyone does, and that he may have submitted the blade to the NBTHK (why wouldn't he; he's there) and received an answer he liked less than the one he got from the NTHK-NPO. I can't say for sure that this is what happened, maybe he was satisfied with the NPO paper or maybe it is a consigned sword and the owner didn't want a new paper or who knows why, but it is a possibility.

You might ask the dealer if it has been submitted to the NBTHK and if not would he be willing to do that to clinch the sale. Might be interesting to see his answer.

Grey

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

Hi Grey,

 

Many thanks for your reply.  They are happy to submit it to the NBTHK if I want but I believe they have used the NTHK because the turnaround is much quicker.  Submitted in December and papers in January which means they can sell it faster.  I have been told the NBTHK papers take over 6 months to turn around.

 

After speaking to Mark and gaining a better understanding of what the papers mean,  I have decided that if I proceed with it then I will get them to submit it to the NBTHK while it is in Tokyo.  As you say, it's there and can be easily done so it makes sense and I don't mind waiting.

 

Thanks for the replies.

 

Kind regards,

John

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

My sense is that you have done the right thing in going for NBTHK papers. It's a calculated risk, though, and takes time and money.

 

Certification papers from the NBTHK are no way guaranteed, though, so be prepared to roll either way. Great if you get them, because although not infallible they do tend to carry more weight than NTHK etc., but if your blade fails or gets put on Horyu (hold), you still have the original NTHK set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely have it submitted to the NBTHK. Not because I think they are "better" than the others necessarily, but just because it would be great to compare the opinions and see what they both see in it, and it would be very educational. Plus the costs are vastly reduced if it's already there. I don't see a downside to submitting it aside from a few more costs. Looks like a really nice sword too. Go for it, and keep us updated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

BTW, is it those kanji above that the NTHK used or was the sword possibly attributed to 倫光? 

Hi Ray, I believe you are correct.  They have not received the certificate back yet (appraised in December) - Attributed to Bizen Osafune Tomomitsu (備前長船倫光).  They have given the dates as 1362-1368 and mentioned him as apprentice to Kanemitsu, but have also mentioned the reference to Rintomo.  I have made a mistake when looking it up by concentrating on the dates and reference to Kanemitsu, and not the kanji.  Thanks for posting the correct reference.

 

There is a Tomomitsu (備州長船倫光) credited with an Odachi listed as a national treasure, which looks to be the one in your reference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

John,

I see no reason why the NBTHK should not be able to identify the TANZAKU MEI and thus find the maker of the blade. 

 

From the photo that John shared, this one does look very degraded. You can vaguely see that this is a 6 character mei beginning with Bishu and perhaps is signed Tomomitsu, but likely too deteriorated for them to say whether the mei is authentic or not.

 

nakago.jpg.71872ba63131a7d577a6b18261f987f9.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with almost all of the comments above and you have some great advice there. My personal observations are:

- often people submit and re-submit (if they can afford it and is feasible) until they are happy with the outcome

- this could entail multiple submissions to the same or both organisations

- sometimes, the judgements are different but they tend to be within the same broad period (eg late Kamakura or late Koto or something Muromachi or a specific era within Shinto, etc) and within the same broad level of skill (eg, very rarely a 'second' tier smith or school will be interpreted to be a 'top' tier master; also, extremely rarely are there any disagreements as to whether something is pristine Koto or ShinShinto)

 

In my case, I have had a sword that a previous owner had passed through the NBTHK and NTHK. The NTHK agreed with its Oei Bizen designation and issued the papers. But the NBTHK disagreed with the mei and pronounced it gimei. The previous owner had the mei removed and nakago repatinated. The sword then passed through NBTHK as Ichimonji with flying colours. Also, Tanobe sensei when he saw it commented it was a typical Yoshioka Ichimonji. So, in some ways, the gimei was bringing it down to an extent. 

 

The NBTHK seems to be more commercially recognised and in Japan dealers prefer their papers. At levels below Juyo, the turnaround is actually 3-4 months (not 6) and one gets the judgment / result in a slip reasonably quickly after shinsa. The actual certificate takes another two months or so. 

 

As to this blade, could we actually see some more of the blade? As pointed above, Tomomitsu is a reasonably big Koto name and it will be interesting to see this example. Thank you. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gakusee said:

- sometimes, the judgements are different but they tend to be within the same broad period (eg late Kamakura or late Koto or something Muromachi or a specific era within Shinto, etc) and within the same broad level of skill (eg, very rarely a 'second' tier smith or school will be interpreted to be a 'top' tier master; also, extremely rarely are there any disagreements as to whether something is pristine Koto or ShinShinto)

This is quite important because I'm sure I read on this forum in another post, that it is acceptable for a Nanbokucho or earlier sword to be mumei and/or suriage but not nearly as desirable if it is a later Koto period?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John F said:

Here are some more, I can always ask for additional pictures if there is anything else you would like to see:

 

Perhaps it is just the photos, but the blade has quite a murky appearance with neither the hamon or jitetsu showing very clearly. Do you know from the seller how healthy this sword is?

 

This is a tokuju example for reference: https://www.tsuruginoya.com/items/f00223.html

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the NBTHK criteria are worth reviewing when considering mumei in different eras:

 

Edo and earlier blades with correct mei, or mumei blades on which the time period, kuni and group can be identified, may receive Hozon paper.

 

Muromachi and Edo period mumei blades may not receive a Tokubetsu Hozon paper, as a rule. However, if a blade is attributable to a famous smith and in excellent condition it may receive Tokubetsu Hozon paper.

 

Blades made in or before Nambokucho may receive Juyo Token paper even if they are mumei. Blades made in the Muromachi period have to be zaimei and blades from the Edo period and later, as a rule, have to be ubu and zaimei to receive Juyo Token paper.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

Perhaps it is just the photos, but the blade has quick a murky appearance with neither the hamon or jitetsu showing very clearly. Do you know from the seller how healthy this sword is?

I think it may just be the photos but I will ask for more in a different light.  The comment I had from them was: "we find this blade aesthetically beautiful and in excellent condition".  

 

56 minutes ago, Ray Singer said:

This is a tokuju example for reference: https://www.tsuruginoya.com/items/f00223.html

That is beautiful. 

 

Mark, thanks for posting that site.  I hadn't come across it before, or the criteria set out quite so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, I would not get too discouraged by comparisons to the blade Ray linked above,  as that particular example is among the very best Tomomitsu. In fact, it has participated in various NBTHK exhibitions such as the “Sword Country Bizen” one and has featured as the main sword in articles of the NBTHK magazine. Its hamon is more active and variegated than the usual Tomomitsu hamon, which is more similar to Kanemitsu in style (wavy notare). 
The polishing style (sashikomi vs hadori) as well as the age of polish and its state of preservation also have a bearing on how the hamon looks. 
 

Your (or to be yours) sword  does overall look fairly good to me and I wish I could inspect it a bit more closely, especially the mei. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Michael.  I have asked for some more photos and included a request for a close up of the mei so will post those when they send them through.

 

I should have posted this photo earlier of the other side, I think it shows the blade in a slightly better light and you can see more detail in it:

 

 

katana2-20.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, thanks for the additional photos. Unfortunately, I cannot tell anything with this remnant of a gakumei, so apologies. For me it is too corroded, but others could be able to discern something. The hada is consistent with the purported age.

 

But regarding the last two photos (the post immediately above), there is a bit of a question mark there: the hamon seems to drop off the edge. So, please request for sidewise photos of the blade with the kissaki pointing towards a light source and the nakagojiri towards the photographer (sort of like this below a bit at an angle).

The idea would be to see the actual hamon through the hadori polish, which is a bit heavy at the moment. 

 

IMG_1332.thumb.PNG.fd8a52455e28c7edd047890389b489b0.PNG

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...