Corrected Kicho Paper and Translation Help

[Mark S.]

All,

I apologize if the subject of ‘corrected’ Kicho papers (if such a thing really exists) has been discussed before.  Attached, please find the front and back of an old NBTHK Kicho Paper for a blade I recently purchased at the Chicago Show.  A “My Chicago Haul” thread is forthcoming, but I need to work on some pictures.  I always try to create detailed translations of my papers (OCD?) and REALLY TRY to do as much work on my own to translate papers so as not to just ask here without learning/trying on my own first.  So here are the favors and questions I am asking:

 

1) Can you please look over my translations and point out any errors (especially dates).

2) Translations of the 3 red boxed areas on the back of the paper (Japanese and English would be appreciated)

3) Any discussion about this paper would be extremely appreciated.  I was ‘told’ that this paper has been ‘corrected’ by the NBTHK?  From what I can see, the corrections were: reassigning the tanto designation to wakizashi (33cm length) and the removal of the “Kuni” in the original mei (as it is not on the nakago of the blade).  Whoever wrote the original paper added the “Kuni” on their own I guess?  My BIGGEST question is, does the NBTHK correct old papers (as late as 2020) and does this make them more valid? I though all old papers were invalid and a new Hozon was required???  I’m confused??? 
 

As always, thank you in advance.

 

Correction on back of paper (please note this is zoomed in - actual size of this section is only about 9cm wide x 12cm tall)

 

Front of Original Paper.  I removed name of original person who submitted it.  Is that etiquette’? (I read that online) or is it ok to post that?  I would actually like that information for historical purposes, but didn’t want to be accused of one of those social ‘fox paws’ (faux pas). 

[DoTanuki yokai]

Ohh i remember this blade from ebay, congratulations to a nice fuji hamon.

I was also confused by the corrected paper but have not investigated.

I have saved a picture from the auction, i can sent it to you, it got a translation of the date (february 1862) and mei on it.

 

[Mark S.]

Yes please send it.  Thank you.  I like to document as much ‘history’ as I can… good or bad.

[ROKUJURO]

NENGO of issuing the first paper is probably REIWA?

[Mark S.]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

NENGO of issuing the first paper is probably REIWA?

Yep… dropped letter spelling error I didn’t catch.  Thank you!

[SteveM]

表文中　Omote bunchū 
text on front

 

とあるを to aru wo
from, into

 

と訂正する　to teisei suru
is hereby amended

 

Its slightly difficult to give a one-for-one translation of the text as it shows on the paper, because the syntax is different from English (the verb comes at the end, which can make it difficult to shoehorn into an English format that makes sense).

 

 

[Bugyotsuji]

This is not a 鑑定書 Kanteisho, but a 認定書 Ninteisho.

The red circle 3 top left should go around the four characters: 訂正する to reflect Steve's nice 'is hereby amended/corrected'.

.

Never seen one of these corrective papers before so unable to comment. They are not validating the blade or the old (now largely less trusted) NBTHK paperwork, but simply correcting the notation errors.

 

Incidentally, thinking about 表文中, Omotebun-chu or Omotebun no naka, it could mean 'Within the first line' of the paperwork (to be corrected), to help indicate where what is being altered.

[Mark S.]

Thank you.  Ninteisho… got it.  I appreciate everyone taking the time to help.  Still really interested to hear opinions about whether or not NBTHK actually does these corrections???

[Jussi Ekholm]

I am puzzled too, never seen one before and I have browsed lots of stuff online.

 

I was under the impression that they just upgraded the papers from the old system into the new system.

[Nobody]

NBTHK shows the rules for rewriting papers due to typographical errors.

 

Ref. 証書関連（台帳紹介、書き替え、名義変更） | 日本美術刀剣保存協会 (touken.or.jp)

 

[Mark S.]

Thank you Moriyama San.  I would have assumed this only applied to newer ‘good’ HOZON and above papers and not old Kicho disavowed papers?  I’m just wondering why they would change papers and put their name on something they don’t recognize?  I know it is going out on a limb, but does it provide any indication they think paper is likely ok?

[SteveM]

The instructions outlined in yellow above say it applies to the older papers too. They say that in the case of typo or omission, they'll make the correction on the back of the paper (which is what I guess happened to your paper). The instructions say that the owner has to bring in the actual sword along with the old paper so they can verify the mistake/omission. 

 

If you want a completely new certificate issued, it will cost you JPY 20,370. 

 

I think the person who originally owned your sword just wanted the correction noted, and wasn't necessarily looking for a new certificate. 

I've never seen this kind of correction either, but it bears the proper stamp of the NBTHK, and it aligns with their policy of corrections, so I don't think there is any reason to be suspicious of this. It is interesting they changed it from tantō to wakizashi. It would have been nice if they had added some explanation of that, but as we know they kind of operate in a black box, at least until Jūyō level.  

[DoTanuki yokai]

I think it is a sunnobi Tanto and they wrote Tanto, but after it is bigger then 30cm Nagasa  it is a Wakizashi. 
This is just what I thought.