Why submit a tosogu to Hozon shinsa?

[Jean]

What is the use of having a tsuba certified Hozon (as heianjo or namban or Masamori) if there is no doubt about its kantei?

 

I have several tsuba I will post in this thread as kantei (easier kantei, you'll die ). Will they pass hozon, I think so but what the use? Money?

 

It is very interesting as the philophy is different from Nihonto's (IMO)

 

Hozon Shinsa for nihonto is based on Kantei for Mumei/o suriage blades or for mei validation.

 

After it is a gamble for Juyo. TH is an unnecessary step always IMO. You know the quality of your sword.

 

Juyo is a gamble, TH is not (always IMO).

 

That is why when you send Nihonto/kodogu to Shinsa, you should get the highest level Kanteisho available to the quality of the object and be ready to pay for it, instead of having to climb the steps by degree. Of course, it is against the shinsa commercial purpose.

 

I like NBSK shinsa, one level, that's all.

[sohei]

Hi Jean & all, I submit the pieces that are signed, you touched on that with swords being papered. I check the mei with the books I have, if the mei looks good or is very close and the workmanship looks good, and the pieces are worthy of submitting, I try to have them thru shinsa. Chris' shinsa in FL makes that very practical & easy. That way, when you go to sell the pieces, the buyer has another opinion (besides yours!) that the mei is good. Not everyone has a big library to check the mei. I believe it adds value. The only exception for my collection, will be an early piece I bought from Bob Haynes, mumei, that he thought was one of the early Goto smiths. So verifiying Hayne's opinion. Thanks, Mike

[sohei]

But I totally agree with you on the Heianjo, etc. I have picked up pieces that are NBTHK papered, just pieces I liked, not because they were papered. It is obviously Heianjo, so what would be the point of getting it papered to find out: it's Heianjo and "Edo"... (and these were all papered by people in Japan), Mike

[Peter Bleed]

Jean,

You ask the most basic question of shinsa. Why do it?

My personal opinion is that submission is usually undertaken out of 1) ignorance ("I wonder what this is?"), 2) insecurity ("Gee, I think this is what is is, but, I'm not sure"), or 3) arrogance ("I own it so it must be significant").

In place of these strategies, I recommend, 4) Reasoned hypothesis testing ("My best assessment is that it is either this or that . . . , and in either case, papers will add to the value."

For common and easy to identify categories and without background research, shinsa simply doesn't make sense.

Peter

[Curran]

Increasingly, papering of fittings is financial folly.

Add to that Agent and shipping fees.

 

If the cost of papers, Agent, shipping, etc are >= 50% of the value before shinsa or >=33% of the value after shinsa;

then probably a waste.

[John A Stuart]

They are all valid points. For fittings that are of lower quality, for sure, it is an unnecessary expense. Also I am of the opinion collecting would be better served by having results for individual pieces automatically raised to the level deserved without re-submission with fewer rungs on the ladder. As to why; ignorance would be the most important for the collector and for evaluation for the dealer or those who rotate out their fittings frequently. In this case ignorance means the original meaning of the word, lack of knowledge and not the state in which we as collectors want to remain. If we had access to a group of peers with whom was to be found consumate trust in their knowledge as being able to definitely attribute truth in a particular fitting, shinsa would be unnecessary. So, shinsa equals verification and a means by which knowledge is gained as well. That brings up another point; to gain knowledge there must be transmission of the process by which a result through shinsa is derived. This is a particular bitch point for me. John

[Henry Wilson]

Even if the tosogu gets papers, it might not be enough for some people. Have a read through this thread to see what I mean:

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=16279

[Pete Klein]

And of course, there's always the lottery ticket perspective...

[Henry Wilson]

and don't forget the cringe factor as some people demonstrate a possible gap in their knowledge by contradicting one of the main sword groups ...

[BMarkhasin]

In a utopian, non-commercial world order where unicorns and hobbits dwell, a shinsa would be a single tier process where submissions receive the mei verification (if present); a comprehensive overview of the motif (deeper insights included); the highest ranking the pieces deserve; at a reasonable fixed price. In this magical place, the shinsa team would be composed of certified (vs. certifiable) experts able to collectively cover all groups and periods in an unbiased, clinical manner, and members should be forbidden from providing independent certifications/qualifications (hako-/ sayagaki etc...). The group and its issuance should be recognized by the government, and they should be obligated to service a regular non-profit, educational public function.

 

Perhaps tonight I will enlist a good bottle of wine to usher me to this wonderous, happy place.....

 

Best,

Boris.

[Steve Waszak]

Seems it's time to "demonstrate a...gap in my knowledge by contradicting one of the main sword groups..."

 

Not too long ago, the first tsuba pictured here received NBTHK papers to Saotome. For many, such papers with such an attribution would put an end to any speculation as to who/what group may have made the work in question, as the NBTHK had "decided" the issue. The fact is that this tsuba was certainly not made by any tsubako of the Saotome group. It is positively a Yamakichibei tsuba. Not only is it a Yamakichibei tsuba, but the specific Yamakichibei tsubako who made it is identifiable. The style, workmanship, motif, and remnant mei(!) all confirm this "attribution." I am providing photos of two other Yamakichibei guards, made by the same tsubako as the tsuba in question, for reference.

 

As I have said many times in the past, I don't necessarily fault the NBTHK for making mistakes, even ones as serious as this. The far greater fault is to be found in those who uncritically and unreservedly accept any and every NBTHK/NTHK judgment as inarguable fact. Because the inescapable conclusion, drawn from the egregious NBTHK mistake in stating this tsuba to be Saotome, is that one can never know when the NBTHK (or other "main sword group") will be in error, which means that having full and unqualified confidence in papers is necessarily sheer folly. And all of the above is besides the murky issue of the politics of shinsa/papering, which only further cloud the reliability of papers... This is not to say that there is never any circumstance in which it is reasonable to seek papers for tosogu; however, I would argue that even in such a case, whatever judgment is rendered is only a starting point in ascertaining the actual origins/maker of the piece in question.

 

Steve

[Henry Wilson]

The fact is that this tsuba was certainly not made by any tsubako of the Saotome group.

 

It does look Yamakichibei, but how can you be so sure it is not Saotome? I can't see any remaining mei by the way. Is it on the back? (Don't tell me I should take your word for it.... )

 

The provided pictures don't do anything to demonstrate your point because they are chalk and cheese compared to the Saotome one, in my opinion.

 

Sorry if this seems antagonistic but please, to all you Amakudari out there, come off your perches.....

[Steve Waszak]

You need to look a little more carefully, amigo... There are certainly the clear remnants of the "bei" character from the Yamakichibei mei present in the "Saotome" guard, right between the "e" kana character and the left bottom corner of the nakago-ana. Further, the subject in the upper right of the tsuba references skewered dumplings, which as a motif has very tight associations with Oda Nobunaga, whose home province of Owari the Yamakichibei tsubako lived and worked in as well. The Yamakichibei tsubako are known to have reproduced this particular motif with some frequency (see photos below). Scholar John Dower, writing in The Elements of Japanese Design, notes that "..."...Oda Nobunaga [織田信長 or おだのぶなが - 1534-82], Japan's great sixteenth-century unifier...wished to see the severed heads of his enemies skewered like dumplings on a spit." (Dower, 110) Nobunaga's well known fondness for dumplings even resulted in a nickname for this particular food: uesama dango---"his highness's dumplings." (http://www.busho-aichi.jp/english/index.html) This design motif alluding to "Nobunaga's dumplings" is reproduced in the first image below. That there is a firm, concrete connection between Yamakichibei tsuba and the use of this motif is thus clear enough, but on top of this, I know of no other group or individual tsubako who uses this particular design, certainly not the Saotome. And on top of that, the use of (what looks to be) the "e" kana (katakana) is another practice virtually unique to Yamakichibei tsubako (see photo below). When one combines this knowlege of use of "trademark" motifs, with the yakite treatment evident on the tsuba in question, AND the remnant "bei" ji visible just at the lower left of the nakago-ana, it becomes abundantly clear that this is a Yamakichibei guard, and not Saotome. Yet it is papered Saotome.

 

Still chalk and cheese...?

[Henry Wilson]

Still can't see the mei. And I am not disputing the design or anything like that either. More your certainty that you are right. Anyway glad we are friends and stop taking yourself so seriously. Priceless!

[Steve Waszak]

Yes, I can see where I come off as rather stubbornly insistent... But I suppose it would be helpful, as John said earlier in this thread, if the various shinsa teams were (more) transparent and generous with their assessment processes. Doing so would not only make their judgements more trustworthy/dependable, but would afford a terrific learning opportunity for us poor, lost students... One wonders why such "generosity" is not made available, especially given the prices paid for papers... I know I would love to see the explanation offered up for determining the tsuba in question to be Saotome...

 

Tu amigo vano,

 

Esteban

[Jean]

In a perfect world, I am in Boris' dream at 100%

[Lee Bray]

I'm with Henry on this one.

Perhaps it is the pictures but the iron of the first "Saotome" looks nothing like the quality of the iron of the rest.

Nor does the shaping of the hitsuana or the quality of the sukashi work.

Could this 'Saotome' not be an utsushi of Yamakichibei?

[christianmalterre]

me just read this here...LOL!

Yes,yes!

 

show us these spoken Tsuba please Jean!(those you did mention above...)

me am quite certain this will get funny....and i am very courious! )

 

Christian

[Jean]

Here is one, Christian :

 

What the use of having it papered?

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17286&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=30

 

Page 3

[christianmalterre]

you do mean the your´s i suppose Jean?

if me am correct with that assumption-well yes of course Jean!

Certainly!

Definitely no need at all to let certify such....

(me but have to confess this school here,it´s not really mine stuff-you but do know that mine is Owari and Akasaka only)

 

Christian

[Steve Waszak]

Lee,

 

Well there are a few things to consider here... First (as your qualifier suggests), arriving at confident judgments of iron character from photos is notoriously challenging; my providing of the photos of other pieces is therefore not so much about inviting careful comparisons of the various pieces' iron qualities as it is about offering tsuba to compare the mei and motif-work of. Further, the tsuba in question would seem pretty clearly to have significant condition issues (to put it mildly). The hitsu-ana would likewise appear to have been tampered with (also to put it mildly). As to the rendering of the sukashi elements, again, a hand-held examination would afford more confident conclusions.

 

As to this being an utsushi of Yamakichibei work, it could be, but I strongly doubt it. However, having said that, I need to emphasize that I do not subscribe to the current view which holds that there were only two early (Momoyama) Yamakichibei tsubako. I believe there were at least four, probably five, of which the man who made this piece was one. Utsushi of Yamakichibei work is more or less limited to 19th-century copies after the time of "Sakura" Yamakichibei (latter 17th century), who did do some utsushi work, mostly in the vogue of the "nidai" Yamakichibei. When one views the 19th-century Yamakichibei utsushi, one does see very different treatment and appearance of the iron itself when compared to authentic Momoyama/early-Edo pieces.

 

In any event, Lee, the main point of my original post was that the tsuba in question is not Saotome, yet it received an NBTHK paper to Saotome. Anyway, I fear that I am...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Jean]

I'll show you some Owari next, Christian :-)

[christianmalterre]

Great Jean!

 

@Steven,

 

this discussion about an Saotome attribution,is,as obviously to ben seen(for those of us,who did specialise and dedicate their´s study to the Group of Owari Tsubako)-simply speaking ridiculous in every aspect.

The given attribution to Saotome is of course totally wrong!

(me´d really love to speak to that Shinsa-guy who gave that attribution )

 

generally speaking-the BIG problem with these Shinsa teams in Tosogu is(still!),they just are not individually specialised to one certain/specific group(like Sasano-san for example was,(however he always refused to be "active" in Shinsa as we know...((me do ask me why? ) ...)...

These Shinsa rather but have to cover the entire field,but...

and this,is strictly speaking-IMPOSSIBLE!

Impossible due financial situation of these associations...

yet but also impossible due politics of course!

That´s but no critic-it´s just reality-and you have to accept,despite you are willing so to "reset" old beliefs again....(ouch!...tough!)...LOL!

 

 

 

Christian

[raven2]

Here is a nice non-papered Owari for you, Christian.

[Lee Bray]

Hi Steve,

 

I appreciate the explanation, my 'dead horse' needs a little flogging sometimes...

I hadn't realised the condition issues, just thought it was as presented.

[Jean]

None papered Christian

[raiden]

I like NBSK shinsa, one level, that's all.

 

I have to ask, the NBSK has a shinsa?

 

Also, to me it is fairly simple, if you are educated enough to make your own determinations with out papers, then please do so, if not and would like an educated opinion, then submit. Like I have said before, I buy many items without papers, and my own personal items amny do not have papers as I know what they are. But how many of you are willing to buy a high priced Nobuiye without papers or guarrantees? Or a Matashichi, or a Myojo? I bought this Yamakichibei without any papers for a very high price. So I think there is defintely a need for shinsa on tosogu, just at what level depends upon the client, and the item.

[Jean]

For sure Mike, I will look for paper if I bought a million yen tsuba :-), even for less.

[christianmalterre]

sorry for mine retard Jean plus Fred ....

Yes-!

Fred yes...

Jean the middle one...

 

Mike...me do miss something!(essential) in it´s character-to say it honest...

in mine eyes(outseen-just speaking from this single one picture here...)(i had to confess ...not(yet) mine...)

however this is an attractive baby-doll...

(show me an better picture please)

 

Christian

[Soshin]

however this is an attractive baby-doll...

 

Hi Christian M.,

 

You need to write a book of your English funny one liners like this from your time on NMB.

 

Hi Jean,

 

I been thinking about your question this week. I have a really nice Owari Sukashi tsuba with a Hakogaki by Dr. Kazutaro Torigoye. Dr. Torigoye every states in the Hakogaki that the tsuba displays excellent workmanship. I purchased this tsuba from a long time collector that felt that a tsuba with such a high profile Hakogaki didn't need shinsa papers. Attached is a photo of the tsuba in question for your reference. I consider it one of my best tsuba in my collection and have received many positive comments from other collectors. The measurements are 8.1 cm X 8.1 cm with a thickness of 5.0 mm. Sukashi design tells the story of a famous Noh play titled Matsukaze. Can you see the older sister, Matsukaze, wears Yukihira’s eboshi headdress

because she misses him so much?