Why submit a tosogu to Hozon shinsa?

[raiden]

Steve,

for fun just give your judgment of this tsuba, I know that kantei is impossible by pics (I have said this many times), but this is for the sake of argument. Just a school and time period will suffice.

[raiden]

 

shakudo, kin uttori

[Curran]

Quid pro quo.

For Mike.

 

Those who know, please refrain.

[raiden]

Nishigaki kiwamei from the pics

[raiden]

forgot to post the Hikozo paper

[raiden]

there are some kokinko also similiar to that wave tsuba as well. thats the best i can do for the 10 second kantei by pics.

[Pete Klein]

Mike -- kiwamei??? Where?

[raiden]

Kiwamei means an attribution on ausually a unsigned piece.

[christianmalterre]

Gents,

 

here we got some input indeed!....NOT?

 

Mine very personal conclusion now...reading all these nice arguments,points,facts...spoken (plus those which were unspoken )

Me!

do prefer so to consult an collector who dedicated his study and passion into an specific direction....rather than to play these (politic?)-games any longer....

 

!

 

Christian

[Curran]

It was a double edged question. I logged on to remove it, since I didn't think it fair to you.

You replied before I could pull it.

 

I showed it to you before papering, but you said that we were wrong.

I gave you the answer a while back, but you seem to not remember.

You did get Nishigaki this time. Closer.

 

It proves your point though, that it is tough to do kantei over the web.

I bought it via the web thinking it as you originally did. 50/50% between two possibilities, though there is a design element that makes this a slam dunk. I just didn't know enough at the time.

Ito-san and one of our Brit members got it from photos, and I only made up my mind 100% when it came out of the box.

 

The one you gave Steve is sort of a loaded one. Easy to be one thing, but also sort of generic that it can be several things.

I threw out something much easier, but would just as soon strike it and leave this between you and Steve.

Other people are invited to give a guess too.

[Soshin]

Hi Curran,

 

I would say the second master (Kanshiro) of the Nishigaki school of Higo Province.

[raiden]

Well does anyone want to take a shot for fun at the dragon tsuba?

[Henry Wilson]

I say an example of a Goto tsuba from when they started to prodcue tsuba (Momyama period?). Golden dragons and shakudo is my reasoning.

 

By the way, Mike thank you very much for your insights in the above posts. I find them very refreshing to read. They make sense and don't make me feel like someone is trying to brainwash me....

[christianmalterre]

me do not see any Goto into this dragon Tsuba...?

for those who love such stuff?-well nice of course!?

me would not even look twice on it...can not see quality here despite an "artistical expression"...

Sorry Mike...here but,me definitely do pass...you had much better in past already.

 

Christian

[Loco Al]

 

I can understand why someone would want to have an item papered. More so in the case of a sword, than a tsuba. It's an affirmation that you have something special (as long as it passes). Having a sword pass through to Juyo conveys a certain pedigree, I would think. Can't hurt when it comes time to sell it. Perhaps the same would apply to a papered tsuba.

 

Alan

[John A Stuart]

Mike's tsuba of dragon in waves at first glance immediately gives the impression of Omori school work. The waves and dragon are ubiquitous in the school. It doesn't seem to reach the level of Teruhide, so a student perhaps. Someone like Hisanori or Okinari? John

[raiden]

There was a maker that signed seijo who made many signed fuchi kashira of a similiar dragon as your tsuba. Owari kinko is also similiar to your tsuba.

 

My dragon has a reason for its posting on this thread in which i will get to in a few posts. Got to get a few things straightened out for Tampa.

[christianmalterre]

unfortunately an collector like mineself,situated in Germany,will(in mine case)not have actual possibility so to speak you(attain)the Tampa show.

Sorrowly!(me have to confess)

May you ben willing so to post significant datas online,or via mail?

 

 

Christian

[raiden]

Well, since I have to look at a huge collection tomorrow, i will probably have no time to write about this so here it goes. BTW I thank those who took a shot, right or wrong it is good to do so.

In the beginning, this tsuba was looked at by several friends of mine and some other high level collectors. The general consensus was Kokinko. The 2nd choice was Goto. But because to me the dragon was a different style, yet of very high quality, it reminded me of some work I had seen a few years ago. So I did some research and came up with a judgement to put on the submission papers NBTHK (yes you may put your idea on the entry certificate). I have proof of this as I told the client who purchased this piece what my idea was BEFORE it was papered. My call was Umetada, Momoyama period. The tsuba had extremely great work in gold uttori that could only be done with high skill. Often the Umetada School is forgotten as they did a number of different high grade works in anything from iron to all types of soft metal. The Hozon result was Umetada (easy to pass Tokubetsu Hozon by the way), Momoyama.

So by submitting a piece like this, it educated many people, and opened the eyes of others. Otherwise it would have been always thought off as Ko kinko.

BTW later as I did some more research, I found a signed example in the Kurokawa collection by an early Umetada artist that was signed with the same design, right down to the criss cross gold rim. So Yes it is good to submit some items to shinsa.

[christianmalterre]

This clearifies!

Thank you very much!

Cordially

 

Christian

[Steve Waszak]

Mike,

 

Sorry, was out of town today, and didn't get a chance to respond to your posts. As might be expected, I have quite a bit to say in response. Let me begin by just quickly saying that I don't have much interest in soft-metal guards (especially of the shakuko-and-gold type), and so have not studied them much, and so would not be able to offer anything close to an informed (or as some would have it, "informed") opinion on the piece you have presented here. Your Yamakichibei would be an entirely different matter...

 

Now, onto many other points/issues:

 

1. First, I think it is worth stressing that, unlike some here, I have no involvement with or vested interest in shinsa institutions (which might be obvious...). Were I to be a member of a shinsa team, or have any other formal (or even informal) association with the shinsa process, I would expect that my position would of course be pro-shinsa. I would also expect that this position would therefore be recognized for the biased one that it is. Additionally, since I have never submitted a piece for shinsa, I have no personal axe to grind with the shinsa process due to "a bad" experience. If I had personally submitted items before, and were continuing to do so as a regular practice, it would likewise be evident that I had some investment in the idea that shinsa is a valid concept, practice, and institution. But because I don't have any connection to shinsa whatsoever, my thoughts on it are not influenced by such connections; can this be said by others here who are arguing in support of shinsa and its eminence?

 

2. Here is a simple syllogism: Humans make errors. Shinsa teams are comprised of humans. Therefore, shinsa teams will make errors. Since neither of the initial premises is flawed, the conclusion must be accurate. This logical necessity is not a matter of opinion. It is an inescapable fact. This truth speaks to the reason I posted to this thread in the first place: shinsa teams can, must, and will make errors. You say, Mike, that "[t]here is not an incorrect or poor judgment, this is not a court." What? Of course there will be incorrect and poor judgments. This is unavoidable. Pieces are presented in order to receive informed/"informed" opinions on various aspects of the piece in question. The efforts of the shinsa team are focused as best as possible on determining factual information about that piece. Since the facts about that piece are not a matter of subjective valuation, errors can and will be made (see syllogism above). Now, this is not to say that the facts about that piece are easy to obtain or discover; in many cases, it may be impossible. But it's not as though a shinsa team's purposes are primarily concentrated on subjective evaluations (i.e. the work is beautiful; the work is important; etc...). The first task of the shinsa team is to attempt to determine factual information about a given work. This being the case, to say that "[t]here is not an incorrect or poor judgment" is demonstrably false on its face.

 

3. The implicit contention that the analogy I made with the U.S. Supreme Court is wrong-headed ("...this is not a court") is itself wrong-headed. The specific analogical relationship between the Court and a shinsa team has been misidentified. In both cases (as I took pains to detail), you have a body of individuals who are recognized experts (or "experts") in their field whose charged task it is to attempt to render judgments on the "cases" presented before them. Whether one set of judgments is legally binding or not is entirely beside the point. The actual point is that in each circumstance, this seasoned, trained, experienced, respected body of individuals can make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will make mistakes. Again, this is not a debatable point. It is both logically necessary (see syllogism above) and a matter of historical record. Which leads to my next point...

 

4a. ...a point of emphasis: I initially posted to this thread to emphasize that it is an untenable position to hold that a shinsa team's "determination" of a given piece's identity/authenticity is unquestioned gospel truth. I know Brian has said that he didn't think anyone really held such views, but according to the language I have seen repeated again and again and again in these forums, it is clear to me that there are many who do. As I have shown, shinsa results are (must be) imperfect. Since they are imperfect, how does one ever know when, where, and how often the error(s) will occur? In relation to this, when you say in response to my question concerning multiple submissions for the same piece (with different results) that "it depends on the submission," I would say, simply, no, it doesn't. It matters not at all what the specifics are: if a paper is issued, it is delivering a formal "informed" opinion. A paid-for formal opinion. If two different results are issued over whatever period of time, and whatever the make-up of the panel of judges, the relevant information (relevant to the reasons I posted to this thread in the first place) is that shinsa results are inconsistent, and therefore, cannot be 100% reliable. If they're not 100% reliable, and if one cannot know when/where the shinsa team will err, the final take-away is that shinsa results do not determine factual information about pieces dependably. This is not arguable. It is a logical necessity.

 

Look, I would LOVE it if shinsa results could determine factual information with 100% accuracy. That would be wonderful! We could all really know what a given piece was, when it was made, perhaps by whom, and there would be zero doubt, and we could all rest comfortably, assured in the doubtless veracity of the information received. This, though, is pure fantasy. Wishing it were so does not make it so. Wanting desperately for it to be so does not make it so. Accept it.

 

4b. To your question/request for specific cases where a given piece had received papers to two different artists/schools, alas, I did not save/retain the information on these cases when I was made aware of them (I didn't know then that doing so would be useful for such threads). I know that the latest case I know of involved a tsuba, which received papers to Aizu Shoami after one submission, to another school entirely after another submission, but I don't recall which came first. I do know that the tsuba was submitted twice within a short period of time (a year or so). In any event, it cannot be denied that such has occurred and does occur. So my question rests: which result do you accept? The first? The second? Neither? What is guiding your decision of which result to accept or how to receive such conflicting outcomes?

 

5. As for shinsa teams being ready/willing to explain their decisions when asked, they should do this automatically, at least in some cursory way. Given the prices paid by submitters, it is bordering on unconscionable that reasons for results are not provided as a matter of course.

 

6. I see you agreed emphatically with Chris' contention that, "[o]f course a 'glowing resume' is not all that is necessary but without the experience and knowledge it indicates, critical thinking and 'reason' only gets you so far, and that is not far enough. In truth, you need both."

 

Sorry to see you agree with this, as once again, such thinking is logically flawed. Whatever degree to which a "glowing resume" might "indicate experience and knowledge," it is not debatable that such "experience and knowledge" can, must, and will result in error at times. But most will not be able to discern which times. The conclusions to be drawn are inescapable. Why is this simple truth so difficult for some to accept? On a related note, since some here are apparently unwilling/unable to respond to my points concerning iemoto-ism, what are your thoughts, Mike, on the fictions that are proved to have resulted from iemoto practices in the Japanese arts? This "experience and knowledge" that dazzles some here is not infrequently intimately tied to iemoto dynamics. When it comes to ascertaining the factual nature of information, there can scarcely be a less reliable source by which to do so than iemoto-ism (or similar constructs). Whenever there is a system where the viewpoint, opinion, or beliefs of a master (or "master") must be taken as absolute, unquestioned fact, with a dearth of reasoning, explanation, evidence, etc..., that system is on its face to be rejected as a reliable source of fact. It does not mean that all information coming out of such systems must be fiction, but it does mean that one cannot know.

 

I think it is abundantly clear that I, for one, will not be persuaded by the arguments put forth here so far in favor of submitting tosogu to shinsa. At least as far as submitting pieces in order to receive "the truth" about that tosogu. Shinsa has its place as a starting point for deeper investigation, as stated. This should be taken advantage of, as it is indeed a good point for launching into that investigation (especially if the shinsa team's reasons were provided automatically, as they should, given the prices paid). Knowing the inherent and inarguable limits of shinsa and the results obtained thereby, though, should not be taken as a full-blown damning of the institution. But those limits had better be recognized and accepted, and not rejected out of either hiding one's head in the sand, infatuation with the emperor's new duds, or both.

 

Steve

[Steve Waszak]

As an amusing addendum, I quote Chris Bowen from a November 2nd, 2013 post:

 

"There are many reasons why pre Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon papers are dissed in general- the previously mentioned scandal involving papers issued at branch offices and the Yakuza, standards may not have been as rigid, shinsa team members may not have always been the most knowledgeable, and cozy relationships don't always yield the highest standards of integrity, etc.

 

"I am not sure I completely buy the explanation that knowledge among Japanese experts has taken large strides over these last 20-30 years. I see no groundbreaking research works published that alter large portions of the landscape. There is no doubt that in certain narrow niches knowledge has been gained, but I don't see large, across the board gains that would materially affect the general level. Most new books parrot what is found in the older books. When is the last time the Nihonto Meikan was updated and reprinted?"

 

While Chris is speaking specifically of earlier, pre-Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon NBTHK papers here, the specific points made are hardly necessarily unique to pre-Hozon/TBH times. Can we be certain that these "cozy relationships" don't still exist and exert themselves? Can we be sure that today's shinsa teams are now, finally, "most knowledgeable"? I find it intriguing, too, Chris, that you specifically reference the "parrot[ing]" of older books here, when you have taken such pains to downplay the references to literature shinsa teams rely on.

[raiden]

Steve i havent had time to read your large post (how do people find the time) but my questions before I do so to you are

Do you have papered items?

Do you buy them already certified?

If they were papered to a different school , would you still own them?

Would you pay the same price if they had no certificates?

[raiden]

sorry getting ready for Tampa, so time is short and I have a deadline by the 25th as well.

[Brian]

Steve,

All I can say it that it must be hard going through life with absolutely no faith in an legal system at all, since as you have pointed out, they do/can/must make mistakes and therefore cannot be relied on for any concrete opinions.

Is that an accurate statement?

 

Brian

[Steve Waszak]

Mike,

 

To answer your questions:

 

Yes, I have papered items. I have never sent an item for papers, but if I ever did, it would be to further/initiate learning, not as an effort to determine with finality the facts of the piece. So yes, the items I have that have papers came with papers when I bought them. I'd have bought them with or without papers, or with whatever result the papers indicated, as I knew the material well enough to have confidence in what I was buying, regardless of what the papers said. And yes, I would have paid the same price whether the items in questions had papers or not.

 

I find what you've said about shinsa teams providing reasoning for their judgments interesting. I see far more value in submitting works (some works) to shinsa IF there is indeed reasoning/explanation provided along with the opinion. The learning comes from the reasoning/explanation far more than from the mere outcome. I have a particular tsuba right now that I've toyed with sending to shinsa. If I could be assured that a carefully-detailed explanation would be accompanying the opinion of the team, whatever that opinion was, I'd be more inclined to consider it more seriously.

 

Brian,

 

Yes, it's not especially fun to recognize the inherent fallibility of the human animal, and the instability, arbitrariness, and capriciousness that inform/accompany/are a result of that fallibility. In teaching the university courses I do in Argument, Critical Thinking, and Critical Theory, along with courses in U.S. Supreme Court history and jurisprudence, I am unfortunately(?) all too aware of how undeserving faith in a legal system can be, as well as in the processes of reasoning (or "reasoning") employed by would-be expert individuals and various bodies, legal or otherwise. However, as I have tried to stress, I do believe that certain determinations/conclusions can be drawn, but (this is the key point) the veracity and reliability of those determinations and conclusions are to be arrived at by assessing the reasoning used (this includes interrogating not only the logic employed, but the premises, assumptions, beliefs, etc... attendant to the critical thinking process), not by the reputation or standing of those doing it (or not doing it, as the case may be)...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[raiden]

I guess we have to back up again. For those that would like a good educated opinion about their item, a shinsa is a great place to start. Whether or not if you agree with the opinion is a moot point. How you use the information afterwards is important. I have stated many times, a shinsa is an educated opinion, albeit by supposed professionals, but in most cases by someone who is educated in this field. That is where i can see where background comes into play. Tanobe sensei is a great example, having worked at the kyokai from a young age, and special training by Homma and Sato directly. Then access to the best examples and research material in all of the world to use and study. A person that could tell me when my Tadahiro was made just by the writing style even though it had no date. He always told me that it is important to have facts and evidence before making an opinion. For me for either educational reasons or for investment reasons, shinsa is a very important feature in the world of nihonto. Personally I would be very afraid to buy the Mona Lisa without any certification........

 

Steve would you buy a nobuiye or a yamakichibei for $30,000 without any papers at all?

[Steve Waszak]

Mike,

 

Interesting. Okay, now let's see. A couple of things you say here would pique the curiosity of the skeptic. You note that Tonobe sensei could "tell me when my Tadahiro was made just by the writing style even though it had no date." You also observe that his teachers were Homma sensei and Sato sensei. This is the immediate question the skeptic would ask (all in the interests in learning, of course... : what is the foundational document or other information that allows either Homma sensei or Sato sensei (or anyone else, for that matter) to know what specific, exact, concrete detail in the "writing style" of Tadahiro (the generation of your Tadahiro) establishes confident dating? HOW do these sensei know? Not who taught them, as this does not answer the question. But what objective detail/information exists for them to know? Are there period documents, contemporary to Tadahiro's time and verifiable (reliably verifiable)? Sorry, but given the realities of iemoto-ism, I remain dubious of such information pipelines. Again, I am NOT saying that they must be wrong or false, just that I don't have confidence that this information is unquestionably factual.

 

To the question you ask, since my special area of interest is in Owari tsubako of the Momoyama Period, I would have no problem buying an unpapered Nobuiye or Yamakichibei tsuba for $30K, if I believed the piece in question to be authentic and to warrant that price, and if I happened to have a spare $30K lying around... If I didn't believe the piece to be genuine or otherwise worth it, a paper wouldn't convince me otherwise, unless, of course, it came with convincing, persuasive, enlightening reasoning attached...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[cabowen]

But because I don't have any connection to shinsa whatsoever, my thoughts on it are not influenced by such connections; can this be said by others here who are arguing in support of shinsa and its eminence?

 

Obviously if I didn't believe that a shinsa team offered a useful service, I wouldn't be bringing them to the US. Clearly such a service wouldn't exist if there wasn't a demand. There is a demand because people find value in the opinions of experts.

 

Having said that, I think I have also said repeatedly that in some cases, shinsa isn't the best route. Mike put it well earlier. You might want to go back and reread it.

 

What I do support unilaterally is having one's pieces evaluated by experts, whether those experts are shinsa judges with decades of experience or private individuals that have focused their time and energy on research using original sources and in hand study of examples in a specialized area.

 

As for the rest, yes Steve, we all know shinsa teams are human and that humans make mistakes. I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise here, so you can let that go.

 

"Shinsa", by definition, is an examination/inspection/judging done for the issuing of "kantei-sho", which, again, by definition, is an expert (written) opinion. Expert opinions, done by fallible humans, are used every day in courts, in finance and real estate, in medicine, and elsewhere. Should the opinions of shinsa teams be disregarded because they will error on occasion? Should children disregard their parents because they too are imperfect and error on occasion? Should I disregard the investment advice I got from Warren Buffet because he is not always right? Your flawed logic suffers from the "Nirvana" fallacy: we should reject shinsa because it is not perfect. It doesn't need to be perfect to provide value. To provide value it needs to be seen as reliable and in most cases, shinsa teams seem to be the most reliable option, especially for those outside of Japan. And what possibly could make them seem reliable? Well, how about those glowing resumes that list the decades of experience they have? Just like that piece of paper on my physician's wall that reads: MD...

 

What you are hearing over and over isn't that shinsa teams are infallible, it is that shinsa teams have more experience than you do and are more knowledgeable than you are, and most others, and therefore they are in most cases, the best option when one wants the best educated opinion. Regardless, who is in a position to say that their opinion is "wrong"? Disagreeing or not understanding something doesn't make it wrong...Everyone else here seems to understand and accept that shinsa results are opinion, not fact; you can let that go too.

 

While Chris is speaking specifically of earlier, pre-Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon NBTHK papers here, the specific points made are hardly necessarily unique to pre-Hozon/TBH times. Can we be certain that these "cozy relationships" don't still exist and exert themselves? Can we be sure that today's shinsa teams are now, finally, "most knowledgeable"? I find it intriguing, too, Chris, that you specifically reference the "parrot[ing]" of older books here, when you have taken such pains to downplay the references to literature shinsa teams rely on.

 

No Steve, there are likely still cozy relationships in some quarters and there will always be teams with more or less knowledge than others, and there are surely other imperfections in the system; regardless, the process offers access to experts otherwise unavailable and the opportunity to learn from their knowledge and experience.

 

We all know they don't know everything; they don't have to. They just need to know more than the alternative.

 

It really took no pain at all to mention that the shinsa team from the NTHK-NPO doesn't rely much on books (when they are judging signatures)- it was mentioned to reinforce my point that those familiar with native fluency in the reading and writing of the language have abilities and advantages ( they can often judge the veracity of a signature simply by inspection of the strength, fluidity, and confidence of the strokes) that non-natives such as yourself do not have. By the way, there is no connection between my comments on the stagnation in newly published research and my comments on the shinsa teams ability to judge signatures without the use of exemplars. No need to be "intrigued"....

 

just that I don't have confidence that this information is unquestionably factual.

 

Certainly you are entitled to your opinion but you really are in no position to make an informed judgment; nothing wrong with a bit of healthy skepticism but knowing first hand the depth of Tanobe san's knowledge on the subject, I can't help but be amused at the chutzpah involved...

[Henry Wilson]

if I believed the piece in question to be authentic

How would you be so sure that it is authentic? You can't be there at the time the piece was made to verify yourself. You need to compare it with something else that you think is real and how do you know for sure that the test sample is authentic too? You seem very confident of yourself and your grasp of tosogu.