runagmc Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 What do you guys think about this? Read the story at the top of the page... http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/news.html I can't see any difference between the pictured blade on the paper and the sword that the NBTHK apparently said was a different sword See what you think. It seems sketchy to me... unless I missed something.
Jiro49 Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 The mekugi-ana and nei seem the same to me? Attribution regret?
chrstphr Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I think you have to look at the nakago inself in the photo and note the blemishes and dings in the blade. Several are missing from the blade itself. I had to line both photos up side by side to see what didnt match. On the tachi mei side NBTHK photo, on the edge by the 3rd character are two dings in the photo. However on the blade the edge is perfect. On the Katana mei side, beside the 3rd and 4th characters is a straight line that breaks the polishers slanted lines. This is not in the NBTHK photo. in the NBTHK photo on the katana mei side, above the first character on the edge is a rough blemish, this does not match the photo of the blade in hand. The polishers lines on the tachi mei side do not match. On the blade they are evenly spaced, but in the NBTHK photo, some are close and others further apart. I think they were saying there was a trick that the mei was replicated on the blade, but that other things did not match so the blade was not the blade certified. Perhaps there were other factors like length and sori that didnt match. The mei looks like a match. of course all i have posted here is conjecture. I am a nihonto idiot. Chris
cabowen Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 There are some subtle differences- the original has slightly narrower chisel cuts in some areas for example, but it is an uncanny copy.
Jiro49 Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I didn't think about matching the polishers mark and I didn't notice the difference in the width of the strokes.. Good eyes guys...!
runagmc Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Posted September 4, 2012 Hmmm, everything looks like a perfect match to me... You have to consider they are different pictures so certain things may look different in different light. And the polishers marks look exact to my eyes... I find it very hard to believe that this isn't the same sword... Even if it was possible to fake a sword to this level... why would they make the effort on a smith like this. Tanshu Ideishi ju Hojoji Kunimune?
george trotter Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Try as I may I can't see any differences. I compared the polisher's nagashi lines, the "dings" and bumps and the mei cutting....I can't see any difference. I also looked carefully at the nakago rust line on each pic. These are probably the only thing that is impossible to reproduce from tang to tang and even these seem to match perfectly. This has fooled me completely... regards, PS don't elect me to a shinsa panel...I'm a failure
cabowen Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Look at the main vertical stroke in the nen 年 kanji....Maybe it is the lighting but the "real" one looks narrower than the "fake"....There are others as well that seem narrower in the "real" version. Would be interesting to hear how the differences were explained by the NBTHK....
runagmc Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Posted September 4, 2012 yes, that's what I'm saying...
runagmc Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Posted September 4, 2012 As I said, consider the different lighting and different angles of the pics... The pic on the papers looks like a scan...
george trotter Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I've looked again Chris and I still can't see any difference in the nen down stroke...to me it looks more like pic lighting differences. I think you are right about the NBTHK ...the long one hour assessment wait for the Usagiya was possibly due to a big discussion group behind closed doors, wondering what to decide....glad it wasn't me. I think it is a good illustration of what occurs with shinsa and also here on the board...we are all expressing opinions. regards,
Nobody Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I agree with Adam and George. I do believe that the pictures were taken from the same nakago. I can see reasonable matches on the mei, date, and rust spots.
Ford Hallam Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I also think it's the same blade.
Lorenzo Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I think so. runagmc pictures have the proof.
sencho Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 I agree... clearly the same, Must have been obvious to the NBTHK guys too... probably they were just trying to save face from the earlier NBTHK cock up... :lol:
Marius Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Adam, that is a fascinating story, thanks for posting.
cabowen Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Looking at the last post from Ford, I would have to agree. A bit difficult to fake the corrosion pattern exactly....
Gabriel L Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 It is dangerous to be sure of anything in nihonto. And my following opinion surely betrays an arrogance exceeding my station, for which I apologize. But this, to me, is the absolute surest case that is possible. After poring over each image, nothing in heaven or earth will convince me that those aren't the exact same blade. The cases where some spots / corrosion appears muted or difficult to make out comparatively speaking are quite obviously because of the lighting angle. And they're still there, in the exact same position, if you actually look at the images carefully. More to the point, there simply isn't any process by which to fake corrosion patterns down to every single speck and line and gradient and stain and texture, across an entire nakago, to that degree of micro-detail, in that way. And even if there was, it would be a totally nonsensical waste of time and effort. The acceptance that this is a mismatch/fake requires believing in outlandish possibilities contradicting the available specific evidence and more general tenets of appraisal in this field. Whereas the possibility that the NBTHK screwed up (or worse) on the original paper is far more parsimonious. I personally would have respected the second shinsa for acknowledging reality and revoking the original papers; I mean, it is KNOWN that some earlier shinsa were questionable. Instead, the judgment they came to in this case smacks of either gross incompetence or willful dissemblance, and in either case has damaged my own respect for that institution (not that anyone should care what I think). Disappointing. :|
leo Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Definitely right! This is the same nakago, no doubt! There are differences, but only caused by the different photo technique. One is a very close to life color picture and the oshigata is a b/w scan with different lighting angle, routinely done in a scan machine as commonly used in Japan! Unfortunately the scan software automatically softens the image which obscures many details. So either the story is nonsense or the photo in the paper had been replaced! Best, Martin
runagmc Posted September 4, 2012 Author Report Posted September 4, 2012 My understanding from reading the story is, it sounds like the NBTHK has records (maybe a copy of the paper itself?) that allowed them to confirmed that the paper is genuine, but then they made the seemingly ridiculous conclusion that the sword in hand was a copy (an exact copy ) of the papered sword. It seems to me that the people at Usagiya were too polite to say what they really think... that the NBTHK papered a gimei sword, and now refuse to see reason and correct the "mistake". I have great appreciation for the NBTHK and their purpose of preservation, but I agree stories like this one are disappointing...
Ed Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 Interesting thread. I too, after viewing the examples would have to say they were the same blade. Though there seem to be some subtle differences, I think none which could not be attributed to lighting/angle. I did not see one inherently different stroke (up on one, down on the other), that combined with the individual shots other members added of corrosion and small anomalies seem to obvious to deny. Definitely disappointing, but not the first time something similar has happened.
Jean Posted September 4, 2012 Report Posted September 4, 2012 You are right, Ed. One must always always remember what is a kanteisho: a written opinion only ... I for myself often issue kanteisho
Ed Posted September 5, 2012 Report Posted September 5, 2012 Exactly Jean, people should be more aware that papers are nothing more than an opinion. No organization that I am aware of guarantees their attributions. Granted, their opinions are 1000 times better than 99.999% of us, but they all posses one fatal characteristic, they are human. Human in that they do make mistakes and human in that they don't like to admit them. So Jean, what do you call your organization, NBTHKJ ? What are your shinsa fees, maybe I can save a few bucks by getting papers from you
george trotter Posted September 5, 2012 Report Posted September 5, 2012 Hey Ed, are you sure you want a paper signed by someone called "Shoshin Gimei" :lol: It sounds like Jean sensei might be hard to pin down! (this wouldn't be a case of "Dr No"...but more likely a case of "Dr Maybe...Maybe-Not". It has been an interesting discussion...the comment that maybe the photos were changed on the paper had not occurred to me. regards,
Darcy Posted September 5, 2012 Report Posted September 5, 2012 I am going to contradict the consensus and say that the NBTHK is right. Someone took a legit papered blade, and doctored up another to look like it, and sold it off. Probably kept the legit blade and will submit in the future saying either lost the papers or bought it from someone online with no papers. Here are my thoughts. To distinguish, I'll call them the fake (the sword in hand) and the papered (one in the NBTHK photo). The first thing I noticed was a vertical line in the fake sword in the nakago that didn't appear in the photo of the papered. So I neutralized the colors and got the scaling right. The photos were about 99% correct for resolution already so not much change was needed. It's important to neutralize color and background as much as possible so we can then concentrate on what the true differences and similarities are. I will point out a few things before going: 1. we're very good as human beings at recognizing patterns. this is a happy face and so is this ... and for Russians it's just ) ... very small amounts of information that match a template we can quickly bingo in our brains as a match. So for the faker, he just has to make it good enough, to nail the few signposts that we use to recognize something and make it close enough. The next thing is that our concentration is already off because we have the paper in hand and we're not operating under the assumption that it's for a different blade. That is, we're already distracted and that's how the magician makes all of his tricks work. Now, on the other side, photographs done in different light will look different in some areas depending on the angle of the light. So we always have to bear that in mind. Shadows can be lost or oriented in different places so sometimes what one photo can show as an artifact may not appear in the other if the light angle is different. There are limits to this though. All of this said, a few major differences can be seen to me: 1. when the mei is scaled identically and placed side by side, the upper line where the habaki would go no longer matches up. The mekugiana also does not match up perfectly anymore. This implies that the basic geometry and relationship between mei, habaki, and mekugiana is different between the two swords. It should snap on exactly if it's the same item and it clearly does not. The faker has made an attempt to maintain the relationship with the mekugiana as much as he can but even then he's off by a couple of mm. Good enough to pass casual inspection but not good enough for pixelwise alignment in photoshop. 2. the yasurime on the fake sword are in general much more crisp and so show up more clearly in the photo of the fake sword. On the other hand the NBTHK photo is slightly soft anyway but I think that there is still a difference in the age/preservation of the nakago because of this on fake and papered swords. 3. the yasurime and general texture of rust underneath the signature on the fake sword seem to flatten right out into smooth textured steel. Look at the steel texture under the SHU character. On the fake it's smooth and the NBTHK shows texturing from rust. That the texture is showing up but not yasurime implies to me that the NBTHK sword is indeed corroded with time. This kind of texture does not show up so much on the fake sword, but the yasurime are clear. If the NBTHK sword was lit so that texture from rust can show up then it would show clear yasurime if they existed too. So I don't think it is an artifact of the light. This texturing difference is also clear immediately north of the mei. To me this implies that a sword with clear yasurime had the mei hammered down, filed a bit, a new mei placed in, then patinated. This will give you smoother texture where the new mei lays down. 4. In the Shu character the chisel lines on some of the atari remain crisp while they are very weathered on the papered blade. This can be seen in several places. Caution has to be used because of different lighting sources but it appears to me just looking at the papered blade that there are clear differences between some of these kind of weathered lines vs. the actual chisel marks, then in the fake blade there is no difference in how weathered they appear. 5. There are some deep pocks of erosion that appear on the papered blade but then vanish on the fake blade. Similarly the shape of the border of the mekugiana is slightly different, and they are showing some corrosion in different places on each side. There is a sharp and clear chisel mark just to the lower right of the mekugiana that doesn't appear on the papered blade. Generally where the mei is intacting with the mekugiana it looks a bit different to me. 6. There is a clear vertical line in the nakago of the fake blade that does not appear in the papered blade. 7. There are various other defects which do not pass over left to right. Too numerous to mention or to circle. There are some obvious ones which DO though. Just enough I think to trigger "hey same sword." 8. The closing damning evidence though I think is that the mei does not line up left to right nor does the mekugiana. I sampled some areas and highlighted them with strong contrast. You can see that the very top of the mei is aligned, and the very bottom of the mei is aligned. With top and bottom aligned, each character should then align perfectly left to right, but we can see, especially as it nears the bottom, that they become slightly offset. The arc on the top line of the kuni on the papered blade is much lower than on the fake blade. The differences in the character above that are even more extreme. Even just with your eyes with no highlights in place, you can see how far the JU character has drifted out of alignment, which seems to be mostly corrected in the following characters before drifting out of alignment again. The geometry evidence is just not explainable by the light. The characters should obviously line up and the mei position relative to mekugiana relative to habaki all of this is geometry. Even just looking closely around the mekugiana using the digital ruler you can see that everything is slightly off, 1mm here and 1mm there, characters are a bit high or low and mekugiana is high or low or mei is high or low. Anyway once picking your reference points then everything else should just snap into place and it doesn't. With the following: 1. geometry failure mei-mekugiana-habaki line 2. placement of characters within the mei slightly different within the overall scope of the mei They are very hard evidence of a substitution. The medium evidence is: 3. missing major bits of corrosion left and right 4. yasurime becoming softer and corrosion very light under the mei but not elsewhere (evidence that an old mei was hammered down, area patinated, then new mei laid in 5. no evident contrast in the papered blade between mei and non-mei areas for corrosion and yasurime implying no tampering, as well as a general difference with the fake blade Softer evidence is: 6. corrosion and geometry differences in the mekugiana 7. apparent differences in strength of yasurime Knowing photography I don't trust the last two pieces entirely but having photographed a lot of blades my feeling is that since corrosion is clear on the papered blade but yasurime is not, it means that the nakago is older and more weathered. If the photography will capture corrosion it should pick up deep, clear yasurime. This is evidently not the case so I think left and right show different ages on yasurime. For me, my conclusion is: Someone in the modern day took a papered blade and altered an unpapered blade that had a very close match in terms of nakago dimension. Possibly the nakagojiri is altered then to match the other but the relationship of mekugiana and machi is harder to match. Since the difference is slight enough that with some distance between paper and sword it is good enough to pass (as can be seen by the uniform condemnation on the board), a very careful copying of the mei stroke by stroke as well as attempts to copy over some of the defects which end up just being sharper in some cases, is enough for the sword to pass. Some of the major pits are brought over for that extra at a glance, it's the same sword thing. After selling off the fake in a couple of years send in the original for new papers and say you lost your TH papers. Now you get your papers back and an authentic blade. Without careful placement side by side I think it's very difficult to not jump to the conclusion that it's the same piece. Anyway, this is my opinion and I'm sure that some will disagree but I find it hard to argue with the geometry differences. Especially how the characters start to float around a bit at the end of the mei. If top aligns and bottom aligns then all of the component pieces should bear the same geometric relationship. I would also expect that errors in placement would propagate downwards. So basically as you're going left to right copying, your tendancy to be a little bit too big or a little bit too small by 1% will accumulate until it's noticeable. Now you have to "catch up" by altering the character geometry at the bottom in order to make it finish in the correct place and not be a visibly shorter mei. That triggers another thing that humans can do well, we certainly know if something is shorter than another but we don't look at the interiors of things so well. Anyway... that's what I think. When calling out these people on getting something wrong we have to I think make sure that the homework is done and the evidence is incontestable. We do like to do it, especially when our Soshu piece passes as Ganmaku and our Juyo blade only passes Tokubetsu Hozon and no further. Nobody is able to escape errors entirely so I am sure it does happen. I am not convinced in this case because I can't make the geometry line up on these two examples. The board is limiting the size of image I can post, so there is a higher res version here: http://www.nihonto.ca/compare-l.jpg You can right click on that and open in a new window to look at it and read the points above.
Ford Hallam Posted September 5, 2012 Report Posted September 5, 2012 Darcy, you don't seem to have taken the actual position and angle of the cameras into account. I'm sure Richard George could explain the distorting and foreshortening effect camera position and angle will create. This, along with the obvious differences in lighting quality, depth of field and clarity of focus, more than account for those apparent discrepancies, in my view. An examination of the nakago-ana will make the two camera positions quite obvious. The NBTHK image in centred and about 10~15 degrees below while the other image is slightly to the left of centre and about twice as low. And that little dent/corrosion spot you're circled right at the bottom ( is actually present in both images. The difference is due to lighting, focus and angle. regards, Ford
Recommended Posts