Papers.

[David Flynn]

How much importance do you place on Sword papers? Do you consider NBTHK more Realiable than NTHK? Why? How about Shibata papers, Hon'ami papers and polishers papers? Is the importance of papers more a "Western", approach? This is just my own curiosity working overtime here. I'm a Gendai collector and am able to check the Signatures pretty well. However, Gimei Gendaito turn up!

Whenever I have a sword polished, or the Shinsa comes to town, I have my swords papered. How about you? So far so good, 100% pass rate.

[cabowen]

For me personally, the importance I place on papers depends on the sword. If it is a big name from an early period, I would place more importance on them than for a gendai. Knowing that many in the West place an emphasis on papers, if I had a big name koto, shinto, or shinshinto, I would have it papered so that when the time came to sell it, it would be a known quantity. I place no value on papers for gendai, personally. I have submitted them on occasion, but it has always been for a reason other than to verify a mei. For example, when people said the NBTHK would not paper star stamped blades, I submitted a Tsukamoto Okimasa with such a stamp to see if this was the case (it wasn't, it papered)...Otherwise, in my case, I do not submit gendai for shinsa.

 

As far as which shinsa team is more reliable, that again depends on the sword to some extent. Some groups are better with older swords, some not. It also depends on the level of papers. Some groups are excellent at the upper levels, but train their teams on the lower levels. Usually many heads are better than one, and that is why most people put more weight on papers issued by a panel of judges, rather than individuals. Teams change members from time to time. There are scandals, etc. When a paper was issued sometimes is important. Some teams have little experience and rather low reputations in Japan. One should do one's homework before putting one's faith in any team.

 

I wouldn't think that papers are a Western approach since origami have been issued in Japan for hundreds of years. They exist because fake swords exist and there is a demand for them from people who want swords but who do not have the experience and knowledge to authenticate them on their own. We see experts evolve in all fields of art and collectibles where there are fakes created by the large sums of money collectors pay for such things. Many Japanese collectors, like their western counterparts, rely on papers when making buying decisions. I wouldn't characterize it as a Eastern/Western thing...

[Bugyotsuji]

Having read Chris's reply in which he suggested we do our homework, it struck me what a useful thing it would be to have a cheatsheet to hand.

 

Rather like a wine diary giving the best vintage years by region, or when buying a car an awareness of the period of years when Jaguar motors had in place weaker quality control, would it not be nice to have on one page for example in color gradations the relatively stronger years and weaker years for the reputations for each paper-issuing body?

[Curran]

Piers,

 

For the most part, I think Chris B. worded everything very well.

 

As for Nihonto version of a wine diary, it would be useful if a consensus could be reached. I doubt it could with the whole NTHK vs NPO NTHK. Both orgs suffer for it.

I do think people heard there were some bad "green papers" and therefore think all green papers are junk, but some of them are quite good. And conversely, I think some of the recent NBTHK Hozon papers for fittings are no better than place-mats.

The merits of good vintage would be like older 1980s and 1990s NTHK papers on Bizen swords. Often they are good as gold.

 

A consensus would be difficult to form currently.

[David Flynn]

So far the comments are on the sword soc. How about Shibata, Hon'ami and Polishers papers?

[cabowen]

Usually many heads are better than one, and that is why most people put more weight on papers issued by a panel of judges, rather than individuals.

[David Flynn]

Chris, that still doesn't really answer the question, you didn't say how you rate them. Also I'm curious as to what other members think. After all they are only opinions.

[nagamaki - Franco]

How much importance do you place on Sword papers?

 

Thoughts; In the end the importance of papers depends upon the sword, meaning, an excellent sword leaves no doubt as to who it was made by even when mumei, regardless of the judging organization. Another point is that when it comes to quality, sword papers do not necessarily always tell the whole story. It is still up to the student/collector to determine the level of quality of the individual example. An average example of a smith's work is still an average example when compared to an oustanding example of his work.

[paulb]

David,

I think this subject has been discussed often in the past, and equally often has generated some emotional response. This is not surprising as an appraisal is not a finite or exact science. Human nature being what it is if we get the result we want we think highly of the organisation that gave the appraisal. If we are dissappointed it seems easier to blame the messenger than accept that we may have been wrong.

All that said and agreeing with Franco's post above, I have listed my personal preferences below based on my limited direct experience:

 

NBTHK- I have found them the most consistant and in my view accurrate. Equally impotant from a confidence point of view they seem to have broader recognition and acceptance commercially than other bodies. With regard to old vs new papers my understanding that the majority of problems revolved around the "blue" papers issued in the late 70s/early 80's. As a previous poster mentioned there are a lot of ealry papers in existance, particularly higher ones that are, I think, perfectly valid.(I hope so as I have some of them!!)

 

NTHK- I have only had direct experience of the Yoshikawa group but based on comments of others who have experience both groups they seem to be held in equally high regard. As Chris mentioned it is possible one is better in one area than the other and vice versa. I do think there is a difference in accurracy between those papered in Japan and those done on overseas roadshows. I think this is a function of logistics and time. In the Japanese meetings more time is spent with fewer swords and greater availabilty to reference material.

 

Polishers papers- These seemed to have gone out of favour in the past decades but certainly those by such people as Fujishiro and more recently Kenji Mishina are regarded highly.

 

Dealers papers- Possibly the least respected as the seller obviously has a less than biased view. However many (the good ones) are very jealous of their reputation and would not knowingly decieve.

As Franco said the real point to consider is the sword we all know this but if honest most of us, for lack of access to anything better draw comfort from appraisals by those who have much greater knowledge than ours. One thing I am confident of is that the opinions of all the above are worth a lot more than mine.

[David Flynn]

I have met some people who have become blinded by what they think they have, as to what they really have. Unfortunately, being human we come with prejudices and bias. These two traits affect different people different ways. When I look at a sword, I try to be as objective as possible. When I look at a sword, I begin with the cons rather than the pros. This prevents me from becoming too excited and I begin to weigh the cons against the pros, including future sales. I never buy a sword with the view, that I will keep it forever. There are factors, such as "Trading in", or maybe to raise some cash, that I take into account. The point I'm really trying to make is, I know people who believe they can research a sword fairly well and become shocked, when told by Shinsa that they have something completely different. I have seen swords with polishers papers, that receive something completely different at shinsa. I have seen swords submitted to both NTHK and NBTHK and receive totally different attributions (mumei). I also have seen Gimei swords submitted where people are astounded they are Gimei. There are just so many factors in sword appraisal, that makes collecting so interesting.

[cabowen]

There is no point in commenting on the NBTHK/NTHK flavors other than to say do your homework: look into how the organizations are viewed in Japan (swords received for shinsa is a good proxy) and pay good attention to the experiences of people who have submitted items. A little due diligence goes a long way here.

 

As for the individual papers, your mileage may vary even more here. As mentioned, it is hard to shake the scent of self interest when issued by a dealer and it would be unwise to purchase an expensive sword that has only dealer papers. Papers from polishers usually are free of potential bias but again, usually more heads are better than one and I wouldn't pin all my hopes to the opinion of one person with a difficult kantei. I would prefer to use them to affirm a group opinion rather than look at them as the last word. I have never submitted to an individual, though I think a few of my swords, a Horii and another Tsukamoto I think, came with Shibata papers as I recall....

 

As for the Hon'ami, history has not treated them well....Koson was the leading expert in his day and did mountains of attributions and sayagaki. Today they receive next to zero respect. Older origami are treasured but not always believed. One can only wonder about the future reputation of today's experts...Knowing what I know about Japanese culture this is no surprise.

 

Having run several shinsa, I am very familiar with those that think they know what they have and are disgruntled when things don't turn out the way they expect. I have asked people in the past why they submitted if they already were certain of what they had, or why they believed the team when the item passed but didn't when it failed....The shinsa team are loved and respected when the item passes and loathed when the item fails. Illogical as people act, it is human nature; I have never found an abundance of logic in collecting in general. As we have seen here recently, however, sometimes people have a legitimate gripe so I do not dismiss complaints out of hand as simple owner's remorse...

 

It is no surprise that swords submitted to different organizations receive different results. Kantei is not a science, in the end, and we receive simply the best guess at that point in time, of the experts at hand. It has always been my recommendation to submit a sword to at least two different groups before giving up on a blade. Surprising as it is, there are many reasons why opinions from two different groups can vary a great deal, and I have seen this more than a few times. In these cases, one should simply weigh all the evidence and choose the one that one likes the best, er, makes the most sense.

 

As has been said, truly good swords are easy to kantei. Nakahara makes that point in his book as well and that has always been the traditional viewpoint in Japan. One should consider this as well when assembling a collection.

 

90% of Japanese swords are not that difficult for any expert in Japan, or a very experienced collector, to kantei reliably. It is that other 10% that cause the problems- the unsigned, wakimono, abused and altered blades, etc. These are where the true ability of the shinsa team is called upon and why experience is key. Due diligence, again, what more can be said?

[nagamaki - Franco]

Although touched upon in a number of ways in this discussion, it has been my experience time and time again that the polish is of much greater importance than papers. If a sword is not polished correctly, if the shinsa judge cannot see detail to confirm his kantei, the end result will be that the paper ends up just being another paper.

[sanjuro]

I agree with Franco in as much as the better the polish the more accurate the kantei is likely to be. Anything less than 90% polish makes kantei that much harder and makes any judgement the best possible within the limitations of the condition of the blade rather than the best possible with all features in evidence. Even a 90% polish imposes some limitation on the judges. Surely its foolish to send anything less than a fully polished sword to kantei. If its worth submitting, then its worth polishing. Making that call however takes a little knowledge on the part of the owner.

[cabowen]

90% polish is more than enough in most cases though I agree that in that 10% of submissions where the team earns their pay, the better the polish the easier it is for the shinsa team and the better chance they have of being correct. For most blades, as long as they can see the important features, fresh polish is not really a requirement.

[NihontoEurope]

Hi all,

 

Adding another complexity to the matter:

 

Let's say you have a sword that you are 80-90% sure of the authenticity. Not 100% sure because there is not many specimens to compare it with. When comparing it to various books it matches to almost every detail of the swordsmiths normal features. The mei might not have a perfect match when having it side by side to five others, but nor does the five signatures match (match as in inseperable) each other although they are 110% authenticated.

 

Also, the nagako is not of the same shape as the smith normally have according to the information you have at hand. Fortunately, you have information from a book that this smith did make type of shaped nagako or unlikely that he didn't because so and so.

 

So, what is the correct way to do.

 

1. Submitting the sword to NBTHK or NTHK and keep the information you have to yourself with the mindset that "they must know, because I know. They have more information than I have".

 

2. Submitting the sword to NBTHK or NTHK and keep the information you have to yourself with the mindset that "I must be politically correct and not step on any toes...".

 

3. Submitting the sword to NBTHK or NTHK and keep the information you have to yourself with the mindset that "Hey, I have this information about this smith and production that you might not have...".

 

4. Submitting the images of the sword to a board with fabulous, terrific and very very competent guys who might give there opinion in the matter and then consider on one of the first 3 options.

 

5. Send a letter to NBTHK or NTHK with an image of the nagako with the mindset that "Hey, these terrific and competent guys on this board says this is sword is for real. Please send papers to...".

 

Yes, I bought a sword with doubts and without checking with you wonderful people first. I am guilty as charged, but I fell in love with the sword. Love at first sight.

 

/Martin

[cabowen]

Depends a lot on the smith. If it is a big name and not textbook, few shinsa teams seem willing to go out on any limbs. If it is a lower ranked smith and few signatures exist, it could go either way.

 

If you think a shinsa team pulls out a complete library and spends hours researching every blade, you are mistaken. Chances are you have done more research than they will. If you think about the hundreds, if not thousands, of swords that come through the NBTHK each shinsa, they simply don't have the time. Most teams have a few references they will check with an unfamiliar signature, look at the blade, and if they all agree that it is within the parameters of what their experience and references indicate, they pass it. If there are few examples and yours doesn't reasonably match what they have, you will probably be disappointed.

 

Normally you do not provide a ream of research materials with the sword. If the sword fails, you can sometimes (with the NBTHK) make inquires and perhaps present your case and get an explanation. With the other shinsa teams, I have no idea. With the NTHK-NPO shinsa here in the US, you can certainly plead your case if it fails and get an explanation. Whether or not they change their minds depends on how convincing your case is....They usually prefer to err on the side of caution so it is difficult with a smith that has few surviving examples....

[sanjuro]

You have already done #4. Now it seems (unless I misunderstand Chris's suggestion) it is time to go for #1. Fingers crossed.....Place your faith in the Gods of nihonto.......Pay the fee and take the plunge.

[NihontoEurope]

Keith,

 

#4. Issued 2 minutes ago:

 

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11250&p=96223#p96223

 

I hope to get confident with a descision to a submission or not after feedback from the experts.

 

/Martin