How Important is Provenance?

[Loco Al]

How important is provenance with regard to the decision to purchase a Koto blade (usually these are Juyo or above), and is it reflected in the price?

 

I realise that a blade should stand on it's own merits, but does a good provenance (belonged to such-and-such a Daimyo or clan) make it any more desirable or collectable? Shouldn't this make it more saleable in the future?

 

As an example: One website that I return to periodically, just to drool over the Juyo offerings and torture myself, had two similarly priced Juyo blades for sale. One of those blades has an excellent provenance, is Juyo, and has a signature (character "Ichi"). It has been sitting unsold for quite a while. The other blade was put up on that website just last year. It was mu-mei Tokobetsu Juyo, but had no special provenance (as I recall). It sold in relatively short order. I thought that the signed Juyo blade was actually the more interesting of the two, and I think has a more interesting hamon. Probably could pass TokuJu as well. Why did the buyer choose to ignore the Juyo blade with provenance, and instead snap up the TokuJu blade? To each his own, of course. Perhaps he just preferred the sugata (it also had bo-hi) and the fact that it was already TokoJu. Perhaps the Juyo blade is not as good as I think (to my relatively untrained eye), but that is where my money would have gone (if I had it).

 

So provenance be damned?

 

Alan

[obiwanknabbe]

Alan,

 

As someone who suffers from the same affliction as you, Chronic Windowshoppingitus with uncontrollable salivation, I can fully empathize with your suffering. As for your question, I think you nailed it already. Its all a matter of personal taste. I had asked a similar question about Namban-tetsu swords a while back. I was curious as to whether or not a blade marked as being made from foreign steel would have a greater value than one that did not from the same smith. The answer i got back was exactly the conclusion being drawn here. If someone one is looking for it, then it is more desirable and thus ++$$. If not, then it does not really matter.

 

I do suppose that if a blade happened to belong to the Shogun then that would change things as it would have more historic significance. Case and point, there is one particular sword with imperial provenance being offered on one dealers site for which I would personally sell body parts in order to acquire (I am sure you guys know the one). While the blade is just beyond amazing, the fact that it belonged to a prince just adds to the spice of it.

 

Well that's my 1864 two cent piece.

 

Best regards,

 

Kurt.K

[Marius]

Alan, Kurt,

 

Don't be shy Please share those sites with us

[Rich S]

Personally, I tend to be sceptical of provenance given by sellers. Too often made up stories or unproven family legends. My motto in this situation: buy the sword, not the story.

 

Rich S

[Eric H]

How important is provenance

 

Yes, indeed, if the provenance from a historical individual is doubtlessly proved, the price of such a sword will increase in proportion to that person‘s importance in History.

 

A six year old VW Golf formerly owned by Pope Benedikt XVI was sold for € 188‘938.88 at Auction 2005.

 

Michael Jackson one glove $ 192,000 at auction 2010.

 

John Wayne‘s Buckle „Red River 1946“, stolen, is estimated $ 100,000 when auctioned.

 

But i‘m afraid swords with this background aren't available, they are stored in Museums or as family heirlooms.

 

Eric

[Alex A]

When it comes to spending big bucks on any expensive antique provenance is everything. A well educated guy with plenty of money can obviously take a risk, but why take a risk?. We know that the NBTHK and NTHK papers are only the opinions of educated folk, but they are widely accepted as provenance. The sword you where talking about without papers, maybe the dealer guaranteed papers for the client.

 

I watched a documentary a few weeks back about a painting that had been declassified as being by Gainsborough. An expert in Gainsborough thought the decision was wrong and tried throughout the show to disprove the decision and get it reinstated. The scenery was typical Gainsborough, there was even two characters in the picture that where a match for another Gainsborough picture, apparently artists do this quite often. The expert was sure, but the test on the blue used proved it was cobalt blue, a later type of paint. Anyway, gone off topic but watching this show made me realize the importance of provenance.

 

Ps, turns out the picture was not a copy, but a Gainsborough drawing that someone over painted in a gainsborough style some years later. Even so, now its back in a Gainsborough museum with a nice new value$$$$$, hope you get my point.

 

Apologies for wondering off topic!

[Geraint]

Interesting thread with so much involved. Dealers and auctioneers are often keen to identify a piece as from such and such a collection, the implication being that it has passed the scrutiny of a well respected collector and therefore must be good. The real issue is that objects work for us at many levels: an anonymous sword connects us to samurai culture at some level which intrigues most people and I imagine that most of us would have some opinion about it's quality judged by our inspection of the sword. If you knew that it had been owned by a named figure in Japanese history would you not find that appealing?

 

Some years ago I showed my sister an object which I had acquired, interesting of itself but unremarkable. While she was holding it I told her who it had belonged to and her reaction changed immediately, she nearly dropped it. Direct connection with an historical figure certainly gets you that buzz.

 

On another tack there was a very well known forger in the UK, (Sean Greenhalgh if you want to explore). A great deal of his success was based on the fact that he would find very old auction catalogues, look for pieces that had disappeared over the years, fake them and then turn up at a museum to ask if they were worth anything or not. The curators, experts in their field, recognised what they assumed were lost masterpieces and went mad for them.

 

Provenance.

[John A Stuart]

Provenance is crucial in the field of antiques and art. It refers not only to whom the piece was owned, but, other factors such as artist, period in the artists career, quality of the particular piece, is it within or outside that artists normal style,, circumstances in the piece's history. Documentation and proof are normally prerequisites. An example is the Shroud of Turin. Artful, sort of; legitimate, debatable; historical importance, huge; value in real terms, little; value as an icon, priceless. A bureau Louis xvi, from his own household worth much more than one not, and if pictured in a contemporary painting with him or family member would be astronomical. Porcelain from the Chinese court with imperial marks worth more than the same piece without. So, if you could buy a verifiable sword with proof to being owned by say, Kenshin, or one equivalent without the historical provenance, which would be more valuable? It may not matter to some, but, the market surely would raise the price to the stratusphere. John

[Loco Al]

Alan,

 

As someone who suffers from the same affliction as you, Chronic Windowshoppingitus with uncontrollable salivation, I can fully empathize with your suffering. As for your question, I think you nailed it already. Its all a matter of personal taste. I had asked a similar question about Namban-tetsu swords a while back. I was curious as to whether or not a blade marked as being made from foreign steel would have a greater value than one that did not from the same smith. The answer i got back was exactly the conclusion being drawn here. If someone one is looking for it, then it is more desirable and thus ++$$. If not, then it does not really matter.

 

I do suppose that if a blade happened to belong to the Shogun then that would change things as it would have more historic significance. Case and point, there is one particular sword with imperial provenance being offered on one dealers site for which I would personally sell body parts in order to acquire (I am sure you guys know the one). While the blade is just beyond amazing, the fact that it belonged to a prince just adds to the spice of it.

 

Well that's my 1864 two cent piece.

 

Best regards,

 

Kurt.K

 

Yes, I suppose that's it. Personal preference first. If the look of a particular blade appeals to you most, then that's the one to have. Provenance would be secondary.

 

Alan, Kurt,

 

Don't be shy Please share those sites with us

 

I guess there is no need to be coy about it. The Juyo blade with provenance is the Ima Aranami Ichimonji (Fukuoka) on Fred Weissberg's website. The blade he sold was a Tokubetsu Juyo Ichimonji (no longer on the website) which had great utsuri and a bo-hi.

 

I am not sure which blade Kurt K. is referring to (perhaps he will enlighten us), but there was a Shizu Kaneuji for sale recently on Darcy Brockbank's website which was supposed to have belonged to Prince Takamatsu. He did say that there were no documents to confirm that part of it's history, though. It has been sold.

 

Alan

[Teimei]

Alan,

 

As someone who suffers from the same affliction as you, Chronic Windowshoppingitus with uncontrollable salivation, I can fully empathize with your suffering. As for your question, I think you nailed it already. Its all a matter of personal taste. I had asked a similar question about Namban-tetsu swords a while back. I was curious as to whether or not a blade marked as being made from foreign steel would have a greater value than one that did not from the same smith. The answer i got back was exactly the conclusion being drawn here. If someone one is looking for it, then it is more desirable and thus ++$$. If not, then it does not really matter.

 

I do suppose that if a blade happened to belong to the Shogun then that would change things as it would have more historic significance. Case and point, there is one particular sword with imperial provenance being offered on one dealers site for which I would personally sell body parts in order to acquire (I am sure you guys know the one). While the blade is just beyond amazing, the fact that it belonged to a prince just adds to the spice of it.

 

Well that's my 1864 two cent piece.

 

Best regards,

 

Kurt.K

 

 

 

This blade, i presume?

 

http://nihonto.ca/gassan-sadakatsu/

[Eric H]

The Juyo blade with provenance is the Ima Aranami Ichimonji (Fukuoka) on Fred Weissberg's website

 

Named sword - is it possible that the juyo-bunkazai Tachi „Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji“ has a double?

 

nihonto.com has for sale a JuTo Tachi also named „Ima Aranami Ichimonji“

ex Kitsuregawa Daimyo family. In the description: This blade is also referenced In Junji Honma‘s publication, Nihon Koto Shi. It can be found in Chapter 19 which was published in the NBTHK‘s Token Bijutsu No. 566, page 24.

 

pic 1 - the Juyo Bunkazai blade, 69.1 cm, is illustrated in the german book Nihon-koto-shi page 95 (translated by Markus Sesko)

pic 2 - the JuTo blade from nihonto.com, 68.5 cm

 

These are two different swords, bearing the same name.

 

Eric

[Mark S.]

Provenance always seems to be a 'depends on where you sit' type of thing.

 

General rule of collecting: When YOU are BUYING, provenance is VERY important to the SELLER... when YOU are SELLING, the same provenance seems to have 'less value'... :D

[Jean]

This one comes from a Daimyo collection:

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/go-yoshihiro/index.html

[Loco Al]

The Juyo blade with provenance is the Ima Aranami Ichimonji (Fukuoka) on Fred Weissberg's website

 

Named sword - is it possible that the juyo-bunkazai Tachi „Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji“ has a double?

 

nihonto.com has for sale a JuTo Tachi also named „Ima Aranami Ichimonji“

ex Kitsuregawa Daimyo family. In the description: This blade is also referenced In Junji Honma‘s publication, Nihon Koto Shi. It can be found in Chapter 19 which was published in the NBTHK‘s Token Bijutsu No. 566, page 24.

 

pic 1 - the Juyo Bunkazai blade, 69.1 cm, is illustrated in the german book Nihon-koto-shi page 95 (translated by Markus Sesko)

pic 2 - the JuTo blade from nihonto.com, 68.5 cm

 

These are two different swords, bearing the same name.

 

Eric

 

Hmm, very interesting!

 

The Ima Aranami Ichimonji that I was referring to is the one shown on Nihonto.com, Fred Weissberg's site.

Will the real Ima Aranami please step forward!

I suppose it is possible that two old houses coincidentally chose the same name for one of their prized swords, without knowledge of the other existing. After all, it was probably just a name given to a sword. Not a title that was conferred by an organization like the NBTHK.

Personally, I tend to be sceptical of provenance given by sellers. Too often made up stories or unproven family legends. My motto in this situation: buy the sword, not the story.

 

Rich S

 

It does make you wonder about the accuracy of some of the provenances given. Unproven family legends (as Rich said), and perhaps even the NBTHK can't keep all of it straight. Searching for old documents that say such-and-such owned it once upon a time, and who knows if those old records were faithful. I wouldn't doubt that there were many old fabrications made regarding the history of a sword.

 

Alan

[Loco Al]

This one comes from a Daimyo collection:

 

http://www.nihonto.ca/go-yoshihiro/index.html

 

The venerable Go!

 

I would hope that in the case of this sword, that the records available to the attributors would have enabled them to make the claim that this sword belonged to the Nabeshima Daimyo without any doubt. Hopefully it was not based on hearsay. But this sword does not care who it belonged to, only to whom will it belong to next.

 

Alan

[Darcy]

Clarifying a few things on provenance.

 

But i‘m afraid swords with this background aren't available, they are stored in Museums or as family heirlooms.

 

There are often swords with this kind of background available. Sometimes they even show up on ebay (I found a tanto there that was made for the Minister of the Navy, Vice Admiral Shimada Shigetaro).

 

I'd say there are some various levels of provenance:

 

1. where the item itself has been marked by the maker (the tanto above)

2. where the family or their staff has verified the ownership (the Gassan Sadakatsu on my page has these papers though I do not have them on the public page, they are available to potential buyers)

3. where you can find the item in old sales catalogs indicating such-and-such a family sold it (a Gojo that I had was verified in this way coming from the Bungo-no-Kami Mori family auctioning it in the 1930s)

4. where a reliable modern expert such as Honma Junji, Sato Kanzan, Tanobe Michihiro has authenticated the ownership (the Go Yoshihiro on my site has such from two of the three above)

5. where an older Honami expert has written an authentication that the item comes from a certain family or owner (a Niji Kunitoshi I had came from the Higo Ueda family and was written up by Honami Ringa, modern scholars can then authenticate the sayagaki)

6. where old documents accompany the sword establishing a long ownership history (a Tokuju Yukimitsu I had had a 300 year old trail of documents indicating long ownership by the (Viscount) Ikeda Daimyo, including the first license it had from the US occupation authorities indicating it was held in the Imperial House Museum)

7. when an old book features your sword and has provenance information included, if you can stumble onto the reference you can find the history of the piece, an Awataguchi blade I found for a client we were able to place as the pride and joy of Count Ito Miyoji

 

In a recent case a Yukimitsu I picked out in Japan had a 300 year old sayagaki that was not so legible by anyone. I had help from Markus Sesko who had to turn to Japan and when it came back it was marked as a gift from the Tokugawa Shogun to "Bungo no Kami". That alone is not enough information to establish much, but what else could be determined was that the sayagaki was by Honami Kojo. It also had old papers by Kojo too and shumei by Konami Koson which referenced and authenticated the old papers. Since it's Juyo the NBTHK authenticated the shumei. The old papers had a date around 1688 which let me go to the Yamanaka Newsletters and start hunting for a gift of a Yukimitsu wakizashi (it was a 34cm tanto) around this date. After searching in the near periods and actually checking out every gift, there was only one gift from any Shogun to any Bungo no Kami of a Yukimitsu wakizashi, and this happened in 1697. So that placed the Tokugawa Shogun in the sayagaki to Tsuneyoshi and the Bungo no Kami was Bungo no Kami Yorimichi. The reign of this shogun also covered the period between the papers and the gifting of the piece. So overall it took an old sayagaki, an old paper, a shumei, and the Yamanaka Nihonto Newsletters to stitch the threads together into a full picture. Together it is completely consistent and stands on its own, whether someone wants to accept it or reject it, or doubt any of the items which have been separately authenticated by expert opinions is up to them.

 

Then there are some kinds of half-provenance, like another Go Yoshihiro I had once called the "Shinano Go", where the experts referred to the name but said that they no longer had any supporting material for it. So it goes down through time now with this name but we are cut off from the origin story. So that is one that you take with a bit of salt and respect at least because the experts have respected it.

 

Of lower level provenance then you have the types that go into an auction listing as "reputed" or have some old paper that no modern expert with authenticate or just comes with a story that cannot be confirmed. The Shizu referred above came to me with the information only spoken, so is "reputed" and needs to be confirmed. It should be something that can indeed be confirmed though, either by taking the blade back to Japan and getting the authorities who were there first hand to verify it or through other routes. So when something comes to me like this I describe it like this. And I would say to someone to just take it with a grain of salt unless there is some kind of confirmation.

 

Now, what do all of the above count for? It depends on who you are. A lot of top level swords came from top level families and have since been separated from their histories. This makes those that retain their connection more interesting. All things being equal between two swords at the exact same price, collectors in general will go for the item that has history because the history brings with it interest and romance. But this is not a universal feeling.

 

There are some people who will just buy the history or provenance and nothing else matters, "This car was owned by Jon Voight. These are his teeth marks on this pencil." Or John Wayne's belt buckle, without the provenance it's just a belt buckle.

 

It really does depend on what you as an individual care about and how it affects your decisions to buy something, but in terms of the greater market, provenance does mean something and does then affect the value in a positive way (which is why auction houses always trumpet provenance if they can do so). The how much does it affect it is another thing entirely, it depends again on the individual, and also on the integrity of the information as in the examples shown above of various sorts, the importance of the person, family or people who had it, and so on. It is fairly arbitrary and something that has to be taken on a case by case basis.

 

The way I always view it is as a sweetener. I am often in that position of deciding which item I want to acquire for my site or my clients and the "full package" is something that remains very attractive in these situations.

 

A Tokubetsu Juyo Awataguchi Kuniyoshi owned and beloved as the favorite sword of Count Ito Miyoji with Juyo koshirae having signed elements by 3 different grandmaster kodogu craftsmen and documented in books... this is the kind of thing that someone who is not even a sword collector can appreciate not only for its beauty and the fittings beauty but for the history helping single it out as something special. Someone who appreciates art might be inclined just to buy such an example for a collection of one because it is so complete and highly ranked.

 

So the more you can assemble in terms of history, koshirae, papers, etc., each one counts a little bit toward the interest level of the package in general.

 

Again, there are always exceptions as there will be that guy out there who doesn't care about anything except for the steel and some people don't even believe in the papers or the value of any of that at all. So to him none of that sweetens the package and makes it more interesting so it doesn't alter the value.

 

Similarly if you have say, two swords by Hankei, same price, one sword a little bit better than the other, but the other comes with crappy koshirae and was owned by some low level guy you've never heard of... well in this case most sword collectors would opt for the sword that is a little bit better. Crappy koshirae though they have value do not tip the purchase decision toward the inferior sword, nor does the provenance to John Doe. People will in fact probably pay a bit more for the better sword and dismiss the John Doe provenance and crappy koshirae has having zero value in the package.

 

So there is some threshold that these things have to cross in order to start adding commercial value. At the center is still the sword which on its objective basis dominates the "valuation" question. Everything else remains peripheral and what you will get here is a variation of subjective opinions on that peripheral value being between 0 and X but X will probably never become a multiple of the value of the sword standing on its own, the way it can with a belt buckle owned by John Wayne or a dress worn by Marylin Monroe. I think somehow too with those every day objects owned by iconic people, the thing in question has to tie in a bit to the image of the person. Like if we were to reverse those two screen icons above and say these pants were worn by John Wayne and this belt buckle was worn by Marylin Monroe it wouldn't have quite the same effect. Somehow the belt buckle invokes the image of the screen star in western movies and the dress evokes the femininity of Marylin Monroe and this is what people are trying to grab and hold onto.

 

If we could indeed say that this particular sword was used by one of the 47 Ronin and had indisputable evidence or that this Shinkai was the favorite sword of Musashi and we had indisputable evidence for that you could get a multiple, but these cases are the two most extreme I can think of and I don't think that any such claims would be easy to establish or believe in.

 

With any of the cases, what I do is to lay down the information and whatever evidence there is to establish it and I leave the decision to the buyer and I'll put which way I lean on something. Ultimately though, as always, these things may fall into matters of opinion or faith (can we believe Honami Ringa saying this was so-and-so family's sword? I think so. But do you? If you say no, I don't have any means to argue with you on it one way or another, it just depends on whether or not you're ready to accept his expertise).

 

In the case of the Tokuju Ichimonji and the signed Juyo Ichimonji with provenance, probably the guy just liked the Tokuju sword better, and preferred having higher level papers. It really does come down to that level of preference. Some other people couldn't care less about the difference in the paper level but would focus entirely on it being signed, and so that being a much more precious part of the package. Both of these swords were/are great. Me, I'd probably have gone for the signed Juyo one all things considered as both swords look great and I'll take the signature over the paper. There's always a chance that this signed piece *could* be upgraded if you really care enough, though you must try and try and try again if you want to go that road. The name aspect of it to me personally is a sweetener, that it's signed is more important to me personally.

 

This is though something that comes up fairly frequently where a top line Juyo with a signature is available and there are mumei examples authenticated by the same smith that are Tokubetsu Juyo. They need to be evaluated on a case by case basis, as for myself, I would probably encourage someone to go for the signed Juyo if the quality is very close. Sometimes the level of the papers can just hurt you by making you pay more for the same sword. Again it depends on who you are and what you care about.

 

So in conclusion, "it needs more research."

[Eric H]

Ultimately though, as always, these things may fall into matters of opinion or faith

This detailed commentary confirms the importance of provenance and its effect to value. In order of importance can be said simplified, the proved possession by a historic person, f.e. Musashi‘s sword, would be regarded as „higher important“ than f.e. a highly rated sword from a Daimyo family.

 

Back to the two swords nick-named Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji.

 

The referenced Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji from TB No. 566 is in my opinion the juyo-bunkazai meibutsu tachi pictured in Nihon-Koto-Shi.

 

Eric

[Markus]

Back to the two swords nick-named Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji.

 

The referenced Ima-Aranami-Ichimonji from TB No. 566 is in my opinion the juyo-bunkazai meibutsu tachi pictured in Nihon-Koto-Shi.

 

Yes, the sword introduced by Honma is today owned by the Tokyo National Museum and a detailed pictures can be found here:

 

http://www.emuseum.jp/detail/100465?x=& ... l&century=

 

Incidentally, over the years I came across two or three more swords with the very same nickname.

[george trotter]

Interesting discussion.

As a museum person of 26+ years I understand the importance of provenance...to a maker, an owner, a battle, a region, a time in history etc, etc. In this context may I take the discussion into our present time by referring members to WWII gunto, or gendaito, in particular between 1868-1945.

 

In these cases one does not need a paper or a line of opinions from learned appraisers as the mounts give instant provenance...the sword was used in contemporary historical events, all EXTREMELY important to Nippon's modern history, and sometimes the sword is accompanied by a surrender tag and/or a veteran's name, unit, battlefield, surrender ceremony details. Most important of all, the sword is actually made FOR WAR. Other than a handful of known examples, we can only PRESUME an old blade was made for and/or USED in war.

Sometimes the sword has additional provenance as to a maker, a date, a place, and/or an officer or officer's family who commissioned the making of the sword. Sometimes it has a stamp or a name code that identifies the higher level system that produced it (RJT, Yasukuni, Minatogawa, Gunsui etc) and some records are available through these archives. These are automatically historically provenanced items.

 

Additionally, some gunto mounts contain blades from Koto, Shinto, Shinshinto eras...these have additional provenance as they illustrate a history of sword use going back as far as koto times. It can be said also, that unless the blade is a known lost historical item, the mounts then "legitimise" the koto sword as a real sword used in war. Without the gunto mounts we can only "presume" the koto sword to have actually been used in war.

A few weeks ago I had in my hand a koto blade signed Rai Kunitomo, it was definitely from c. 1320 and had been polished many times, slightly shortened over time and now mounted for WWII in private order mounts with an Iida Patent dust cover and had a surrender tag identifying the owner as Colonel Nukina of Nukina's Butai. From the (vet) owner's son it is determined that Col. Nukina was part of the 18th Army IJA who surrendered at Cape Wom/Wewak in PNG in 1945. This is what can be termed " a perfect sword" in the sense that it covers Japanese history from 1320-1945 and even has the last user's name...what more could one ask for? IMHO these gunto mounted swords are the most "honest" blades available, they have history and are self-provenancing. Any additional archival provenance is a bonus that adds.

 

I think the above conversation has great merit, but in many ways focussed on "quality" and the proof of quality rather than "history" and proof of history. Is it better to have a "quality proven" blade (by papers and sayagaki etc) or a "historically proven" blade (proven by what it is)?

This I suppose depends on one's taste and interests and is what leads us to many vocal disagreements on this board...name collector or history collector?

 

For this reason, I think collectors should give serious thought before discarding "crappy" WWII (or earlier) military mounts and rushing out to have the quite acceptable condition blade repolished in an "out of period" polish of the 1980-2014 period, and then rushing it to a shinsa to get "proof" of what it is! Would members really repolish a sword in demonstrably acceptable "period" polish and turn it into a "2014 concept" of a perfect polish? (wouldn't this entitle us to rip off 14th century handcrafted frames from the Italian master's 14th century pictures and replace them with 21st century chrome frames? and to paint a currently admired "preservative" varnish over the original oils...just because it is a fad of today?). For myself, I keep my swords as found (unless in danger of rust etc) as this is "how it was".

 

One of the reasons I stopped collecting Koto - Edo blades was because I saw on a visit to Japan in 1980 that blades I had seen in photos in books which showed their beautiful pre-1900 polishes had all been polished in ha-dori and put back on display...ugly, and un-necessary in my professional opinion.

 

In closing can I ask two questions...

Would members discard the provenancing mounts and tag of the Rai Kunitomo and have it re-polished in put in shirasaya and then rely solely on a paper to explain its provenance?

If a member had an already provenanced blade, with written documents and sayagaki and a (still acceptable) polish that was done in Edo times ...would they have it re-polished now to get a Juyo paper etc?.

Hope this helps (this is just my opinion...I am often wrong...any respectful comments pro or con are welcome).

[John A Stuart]

Quality first, history is a bonus. For instance a beautifully polished, ubu, Bizen Nagamitsu any day over the gunto given to Goring. If it could take a polish and needed it according to expert opinion I trust; that too. Just like the need for removing old varnish from paintings to reveal their true glory. The Last Supper by Da Vinci has been under restoration for years, due to it not being a fresco it was badly deteriorated, and follows in this same pattern when it comes to art objects. Certain swords of particular condition do not meet this criteria and are artifacts only; even if found on battlefields of supreme historical importance. It isn't name collector versus historical collector; it is art versus artifact and the historical significance of each is important either way. John

[John A Stuart]

George, what do you mean fad of today? The varnishing of oils has been done for centuries. John

[Baka Gaijin]

Morning all

 

This may clarify the situation regarding Varnishing:

 

http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/1079

 

At official exhibitions, such as the Royal Academy summer exhibition, artists, in the past, would give a finishing touch to their works by varnishing them; Turner was known for making significant changes to works on varnishing day while his fellow academicians were simply varnishing).

 

Cheers

[george trotter]

Hi all,

Art object or artefact...same object...same thing...only the viewer appreciation aspect varies.

 

The OP and my comments were about provenance, so I will stick to this. So, it follows that a gunto given to Goring has (most likely) a maker's provenance, an historical provenance and (I presume) a quality provenance, while a sword by Bizen Nagamitsua has a maker's and a quality provenance only, unless these others can be proven...so therefore I ask, is a sword given to Goring of less provenance? and is its provenances of less importance than a Bizen Nagamitsu?...if so, what is it in its provenance that makes a Nagamitsu "better" than a Goring gunto?

 

What I mean about varnishing a master...let's stick with Mr Nagamitsu...would one put a modern ha-dori polish on it?...would one change its mounts? if yes, why?

In terms of the actual varnishing of masters...would one do it if it did not "need" it? If a conservator just "had" to do it, would he be using 13/14th century varnish or a "far superior" 21st century polyurethene :D Also...what about the frames and the changing of them? Should he do it? Is the original varnish and the original frame part of its provenance? Would a person who did this actually be a "conservator"?

 

And yes, quality first in swords of course, as much as possible, in swords of all ages, but is it not possible to find quality in blades between 1868-1945? and what is so "less important" about the provenance that may accompany such swords?

Regards,

[Jean]

Provenance is different from history. All objects, whatever they are, have both. What does matter is the object in itself and the kind of provenance.

 

Provenance does not necessary imply an increase value of the art object, it depends on the collecting field and of the individual purchaser. Personally, I am not interested in Goering nor in the provenance of any artefacts or art objects except if I can get it for its value as art object and resell it for a profit to people caring of provenance :D .

 

Art has nothing to do with provenance, in Nihonto, I buy art, I am not ready to pay a premium for provenance. Having a Nagamitsu repolish is not an issue, BTW, you can ask a sashikomi polish if you want. At a moment, all art objects are restored one day or the other.

 

I have seen a lot of Koto Juyo swords which clearly due to their length and state of preservation have been heirlooms of great families but with no papers proving their provenance. For sale, you won't pay any premium.

 

Collecting provenance is a bit different from collecting art object.

[paulb]

I think I am with Jean on this. Personally I collect swords because of the way they are made and the quality of the end product. However there is some confusion as to why provenance is or may be important Can I suggest the following:

1. For art work be it painting sculpture or swords in a world that is full of forgeries fakes and copies provenance can add reassurance regarding the authentcity of the work. If a Van Dyck has been in the same family since it as commissioned and has lots of supporting paperwork to prove the fact it must have greater credibility than an unknown work believed to be by the same painter turning up in a car boot sale.

 

2. A utlitiarian object gaining greater value because of its association with an important person or act in history. Someone mentioned John Waynes belt buckle or as another example Jane Austen's pen. In themselves they have little value but by association gain greater worth. People who collect such objects or are fascinated by the fact they were used by an iconic figure in history can and do add great value to basically worthless items. Another example would be some of the utensils used by a famous tea master commanding huge sums in the past for what is essentially a bamboo stick.

 

In our chosen field the sword, it's quality and condition should dictate its prime value (at least to me) provenance can add interest and comfort regarding authenticity but should not be the driving factor in choosing one work over another.

[george trotter]

Hi Paul,

all of what you say is true of course. Art and artefacts are all a matter of opinion and preference.

I too like to obtain the best quality in blade and fittings and I don't buy a sword because of an association...I have to like it for itself...the provenance is a bonus.

 

The question that I posed was to do with this gunto period provenance... about what determines a provenance to be "good" or not. I'd be interested in some comments on this, and also on the question of "altering" an historically/artistically provenanced object.

 

Regards,

[Eric H]

It is a misunderstanding to believe somebody collects Nihonto focussed on „provenance“ only. What kind of provenance...a rusted Katana from the battlefield of Sekigahara? No, provenance or background -proven- attached to an individual sword is what increases its value, and the closer linking to a historic person or family is, the higher the agio is. As people should know there are objets d‘art priceless because they are once used by very famous Individuals in Japan‘s History. (Go and buy a chawan used by Sen no Rikyu).

 

This is what I‘m talking about:

 

Miyamoto Musashi and his last sword by Ryokai, JuTo, 85.4 cm

 

Eric

[Jean]

I know people who collect Nihonto or artefacts only based on their provenance. Everybody collects what he wants. Sure, some people are snobs and like showing off. I am drinking in Lord Fauntleroy's cup of tea In itself the blade's value is what it is, the premium for the provenance is purely subjective and depends on individuals and what they are ready to pay for it. I am joining a link to a priceless blade, ridiculous price. Imagine, the only existing tanto (at the time being) by the founder of the Aya no Koji school:

 

http://www.aoijapan.com/tanto-sadatoshi

 

What would be its value had it been worn by Tokugawa Ieyasu?

 

Reason why I will never pay any premium on provenance.

[george trotter]

I think I am misunderstanding?

 

In relation to the OP about provenance, (is it important?), I detailed how I thought my field of interest of gendaito 1868-1945 in gunto mounts already is (as a group) fulfilling the "ideal" of provenance...that unlike "old" swords, these gunto mounted swords' provenance is self-evident...and I thought that the discussion had drifted off provenance towards "value" and "better sword".

So to be clear, I think provenance is important and I think quality is important, of course these enhance a sword for me...but it still has to be a sword that I like. I buy a sword because I like it... I am a collector.

 

Saying one would prefer a sword by Bizen Nagamitsu over a gunto given to Goering is no real explanation for this preference...it has overtones of pre-judging (IMHO) in that it implies that the Nagamitsu is implicitly "better" If I purchased a Bizen Nagamitsu and left a Goering gunto, it would only be because I liked the Nagamitsu more, not because it was better. I hope this makes sense.

 

It has also been said that some collect as art, with high investment value, with an eye to future financial gain...well yes, some do...but these people, while possibly well educated in swords, are not really collectors, they are investors. When you see the high prices of "top end" art and swords etc, it is an indication of this...they are not art, they are commodities. Put simply, what could possibly make a picture or a sword worth millions or maybe 2, or 3 or 50Xmillions. It is a nonsense. No human eye or knowledge could explain the features of quality which would (a) justify such prices, nor (b) explain what could make such a difference in price between two pictures or swords.

In fact, it is such a nonsense that if I went to the Guggenheim Museum, I think I would learn more and enjoy the visit more by studying the curators rather than the art :lol:

 

Let's just enjoy our preferences (and pity those who aren't "enlightened" enough to share them :D ).

Regards,

[John A Stuart]

It is elitism, no doubt about it. To be an elite collector you have to have swords of supreme quality. I am too poor to be an elite collector, but, know many. It is not a bad thing to be one of that select group. I used the Göring example to show desirability based on ownership alone rather than its use in actual combat. As to why a sword made in the WW II era will never be appreciated for craft like those exceptional examples from earlier times that does not need me to argue it. John