NBTHK mumei attributions

[Natichu]

Hi all, 

 

Just digging into the weeds on a few pieces, and had a question where a mumei blade is attributed to a specific smith by the NBTHK, but no generation is specified on the kanteisho despite there being multiple potential generations using that name. 

 

I do appreciate the NBTHK is often using a smith name as more a tiered attribution of quality for a school. But I would still assume they have a specific generation/smith in mind when making the attribution. Is the general assumption that it is the first generation? Or the most famous smith using that name? Or is no assumption possible such that one must really compare the specific piece against the known work of each generation when trying to assess the likely age of a blade and trying to understand why it has been attributed as it has?

 

Any illumination on interpreting mumei attributions would be greatly appreciated! 

 

 

[eternal_newbie]

Generally, when this happens it's because in that particular line of smiths, there's a bunch of them who are more or less indistinguishable, or have enough overlap in style, skill and/or working period that it becomes difficult to separate the generations, or alternatively that the blade in question has enough features to qualify for more than one generation of that smith.

 

The bigger the skill/quality gap between the "best" smith of that line and the "worst" smith of that line, the more likely it is that they will disambiguate, either with a generation or an approximate time period. As an example, consider Magoroku Kanemoto, the second of the Kanemoto line. He is by far the highest rated Kanemoto; his predecessor is also quite well-thought of, if not quite up to the standard of Magoroku, while the various other Kanemotos that succeeded them are a mishmash of quality with none really standing out. In this case, you're likely to see the one of the following attributions:

 

"Kanemoto (first gen)" - the first Kanemoto. Not up to the legendary standards of Magoroku, but still quite far above the rest

"Kanemoto (Magoroku)" or "Kanemoto (second gen)" - the one, the only, the big name

"Kanemoto" - one of the other ones, we might have our suspicions but we're not exactly sure which one

 

Sometimes they will add a bit more detail to the last category by attributing to "Kanemoto (Momoyama)" which might narrow it to a particular subset of those smiths within that time period, or "Kanemoto (later gen)," meaning essentially "it could be any of them other than the big two".

 

Rather than asking "What did they mean when they said this", it's sometimes instructive to consider what they didn't say, and then try to figure out why. On occasion this can be a very diplomatic hint at the state of the blade - e.g. "Kanemoto" could also mean "this is by a smith of the Kanemoto lineage but the current polish means we can't tell you any more than that" or "the blade is too tired for us to go out on a limb because who knows what it really looked like with all the meat on its bones and the kissaki not having been reshaped".

[Natichu]

1 hour ago, eternal_newbie said:

Generally, when this happens it's because in that particular line of smiths, there's a bunch of them who are more or less indistinguishable, or have enough overlap in style, skill and/or working period that it becomes difficult to separate the generations, or alternatively that the blade in question has enough features to qualify for more than one generation of that smith.

 

The bigger the skill/quality gap between the "best" smith of that line and the "worst" smith of that line, the more likely it is that they will disambiguate, either with a generation or an approximate time period. As an example, consider Magoroku Kanemoto, the second of the Kanemoto line. He is by far the highest rated Kanemoto; his predecessor is also quite well-thought of, if not quite up to the standard of Magoroku, while the various other Kanemotos that succeeded them are a mishmash of quality with none really standing out. In this case, you're likely to see the one of the following attributions:

 

"Kanemoto (first gen)" - the first Kanemoto. Not up to the legendary standards of Magoroku, but still quite far above the rest

"Kanemoto (Magoroku)" or "Kanemoto (second gen)" - the one, the only, the big name

"Kanemoto" - one of the other ones, we might have our suspicions but we're not exactly sure which one

 

Sometimes they will add a bit more detail to the last category by attributing to "Kanemoto (Momoyama)" which might narrow it to a particular subset of those smiths within that time period, or "Kanemoto (later gen)," meaning essentially "it could be any of them other than the big two".

 

Rather than asking "What did they mean when they said this", it's sometimes instructive to consider what they didn't say, and then try to figure out why. On occasion this can be a very diplomatic hint at the state of the blade - e.g. "Kanemoto" could also mean "this is by a smith of the Kanemoto lineage but the current polish means we can't tell you any more than that" or "the blade is too tired for us to go out on a limb because who knows what it really looked like with all the meat on its bones and the kissaki not having been reshaped".

That is exceptionally helpful, thank you very much! As you say, what they didn't say is likely as instructive as what they did - something to keep in mind when a dealer might be leaning more to a specific generation than the attribution likely supports. The usual adage of the sword proving the mei (or in this case, the attribution) seems one that is good to keep in mind then. 

[Robert S]

I've also noted that sometimes dealers who have a sword in this situation go back to the NBTHK and ask what generation the attribution was for, and the NBTHK has some comment to make on that - presumably from notes associated with the shinsa process.  Might be worthwhile reaching out to them to see if there is more that they can say!

[Jussi Ekholm]

I admit even after checking and documenting thousands and thousands mumei attributions by NBTHK I am often very clueless as they give so little information to anything below Jūyō level. I believe as Robert mentioned you can ask directly from NBTHK, however as I have never sent anything to NBTHK I am bit clueless about that process. The amount of time they spend for items at Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa is to my understanding quite short (due to huge number of submissions) so they must give out the attributions at quite fast pace. Personally I would prefer they would give more general attributions but specify the time in brackets for the items. I have been under the impression that if there is a mumei attribution to specific smith without any addons it would often mean "the famous one". Of course there are in my eyes times when that attribution would not maybe mean the famous one... it is very complicated, as sometimes the famous generation can be specified in brackets for items with mei, sometimes it is not but it is still seen as the work of the famous one. And as mentioned in another thread lately there are even some attributions where I am not sure if it is narrowed down to a single smith or if it refers to a group of smiths.

 

One thing would be also to know when the papers have been issued? NBTHK has been issuing papers for quite long time and there can be slight variations depending on issue dates. And with more modern information they have switched some smiths to different schools for example, or they have added more information for few schools as there has been misunderstandings by collectors so NBTHK has decided to add information to specific groups.