Board of education stamp on kanteisho

[DoTanuki yokai]

I have seen the stamp on newer nbthk kanteisho.  (Bottom left side) 
Is this information provided by the Torokushu ? 

[DoTanuki yokai]

Markus Sesko calls it a ‚Torokusho Quote’, i think that answers my question .  But my earlier date and higher number suggests what some users think in the old thread ? 
That this number is not nationwide but every office have its own. 
Also sometimes you see the statement that the earlier dates are ‚Daimyo papers‘  (the Torokusho picture https://new.uniquejapan.com/a-masatsune-nidai-wakizashi/ )

I was of the impression this is just marketing or is there proof ? 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I hope some of our Japanese or Japanese reading members could verify the circulating rumor about early torokusho being "special", as in the invitation for registaration would only be sent to certain people at first etc.

 

It seems that Shōwa 26 (1951) was the first year but possibly the registration started at different times at different locations. I do have probably few thousands of NBTHK papers saved but unfortunately I don't think I can share in public as I do not own rights to them. Now to note I only focus my research on early swords, so the evidence is skewed in that way. This is the first time I look into torokusho numbers but now after looking, I would be quite skeptical with the rumor that only Daimyō families could send items in 1951 (that Pablo stated in his sales ad for the Masatsugu wakizashi that was in the linked thread).

 

Yours seem to be Agency for Cultural affairs N. 493.

 

Here are some other early ones I found, after - is the current NBTHK attribution

Saga-prefecture N. 62 - Mumei Sekishū Sadatsuna with kinzōgan

Miyagi N. 178 - Mumei Naoe Shizu

Ōsaka N. 179 - Mumei Hokke

Chiba N. 186 - Sukeyori (Ko-Aoe)

 

Now just for fun I found

Tokyo N. 24748 - Mumei Kinju, from the first session of 1951, there are numbers beyond that in second session of the year.

 

Likewise I own Fukuoka N. 6520 - Yoshikage Naginata from the first session, and I found Fukuoka N. 13521 - Mumei Unji from second session of 1951.

 

 

 

[SteveM]

Yes, the Unique Japan site is incorrect when it states "only Daimyo families were invited to register their swords in 1951, the first year of registration". Actually there was already a registration system in place from June 1946 to 1951, which was established after the initial complete ban on all weapons. The ban on all weapons, without exception, was an edict which was issued by the GHQ initiated around September 2nd of 1945. But by the end of the year (or the end of September, depending on the source) the ban had been modified to allow for "Japanese of good intentions" to keep "artistic swords". This is the beginning of the registration system from 1946-1951.  

 

The registration system of 1946-1951 was replaced and superseded by the new registration system which continues to this day. Swords that were registered under the old system could get their registrations updated to the new system, and apparently about 202,000 swords from the old system were updated to the new system. Still, both the old and the new system were met with some distrust, as there were rumors going around that the GHQ would persecute anyone holding swords as a war criminal, or that they would forcibly relocate them to labor camps in Okinawa. In order to increase confidence in the system, the Japanese authorities appealed to large collectors to get their swords registered. This is the origin of the so-called "Daimyō Registration". These large collectors were not exclusively descendants of daimyo, but somehow this label stuck. I haven't found anything that describes the origin of the phrase, but it was obviously good marketing.

 

One source for the history of post-war sword registration

https://www.tsuruginoya.net/guidance/toukennnoshoji/

 

 

 

 

[DoTanuki yokai]

I was always of the impression that the Japanese government wouldnt refuse not daimyo citizen to register a sword.

This seem unlogical and their is no evidence, i think this is enough to say it is only marketing without value.

 

Thank you very much Jussi and Steve.