Shinsa assessment

[Peter Bleed]

Sword collectors have often discussed the inconsistencies of Shinsa assessment. The fact that experts can – and do – disagree seems well established. I want to describe an instance that goes in a different direction. This case demonstrates that sometimes experts screw up! I think it also illustrates when and why a shinsa judgment is worthwhile.

I will try to avoid specifics. I submitted a blade to this particular team and I REALLY liked their assessment. Self-interest keeps me from criticism! I also have to believe that working on a Shinsa team is tough. Maintaining the flow and doing the necessary work involves lots of detail. Mistakes can creep in. Furthermore, with something like 17, 000 recorded swordsmiths, nobody can recall all the potential details

Since I collect swords of the Sendai Han, especially blades by the Kunikanes, my friend Tim Ott thought I’d be interested in the papers he got on a sword he had submitted to shinsa. The origami Tim showed me was for a sword signed: Sendai Ju Kunitomo　仙台住国倫。That signature is NOT listed in any source I can find.

BUT, if you look at the image of the nakago on the origami, the sword in question is certainly, signed 仙台住国友, Sendai Ju Kunitomo, as in KUN 1328. In fact there were two generations that used this name. The first of them was a Kanbun era student of the second Kunikane. Now that‘s pretty interesting, Kanbun , nidai Kunikane – wow!

The Sendai Han Tosho Meikan, shows that there was a late shin-shinto/meiji era smith who signed “KUNITOMO” 圀倫, but note that he used an odd Kuni and the Tomo shown on the origami, not the one on the sword. His signature is not on this sword.

But wait. Remember that there were 2 main swordsmith lines in Sendai, The Kunikanes and the Yasutomo安倫 line. There were nine Yasutomo smiths. They used the TOMO shown on this origami 倫, but remember that is NOT the TOMO 友that is one this sword.

And the broth gets a bit thicker. The comments box of the work sheet seems to have a note to Kanbun (1661) but it was crossed out and replaced by Tenbo (1830). There is also a note saying that this sword was by a “later generation.” Well, gee, there were only 2 generations of Sendai Kunitomo 国友, and they worked in the mid-1600s.

My personal suspicion about what happened is that when the Shinsa team got a sword signed “Sendai Tomo-something” they confused it with the Yasutomos. They did not look at it as closely as they should have. They did not check the meikan. They took a hip shot and they got it wrong. They liked the sword – it got 76 points – and initially somebody thought it looked like a Kanbun Shinto. But confusion won out so this paper adds little value.

In telling this story I am not trying to be critical of this shinsa team or the shinsa process. We need them both. What this case tells me is that there is a limit to what a sword owner can expect from a shinsa. We can’t expect Shinsa teams to know details of every sword maker. We should do our own research and form an opinion about the quality of the items we submit. We should go to shinsa with specific questions in mind and hope that they can provide a useful answer. There are worthy swords that don’t require shinsa evaluation.

Peter

[1tallsword]

well spoken. with no disrespect to anyone or any organization i too have quickly found discrepancies, especially between organizations, which in any respect is expected. we are all human no matter whom we are,what organization we belong too,age,gender,ect. regardless of what we profess to know we all make mistakes, No one is ever done learning this study we call LIFE! now with that out of the way... I have attended two different shinsas. Both ran very well and organized, for the most part. all i can say is no matter what anyone says take that knowledge and do your own studies, not to prove anyone wrong or out of disrespect,but to learn yourself. if for some reason an error has been discovered in the process it can only teach us further knowledge..... cheers,Jeremy scott

[seattle1]

Hello:

Well said Peter, particularly the last sentence of the last paragraph. So many blades go to shinsa with just the question in mind: "Who made it?" The answer comes along saying the mei is right, or if mu mei that it is so and so; if wrong there will often be an notation for a signed blade that it is perhaps made by someone or the other. I would like to see a process, with a higher fee to cover the extra time required, that says why it is "x" if "x" is the mei, and if not "x" then why exactly it should be "y" instead. If "x" is submitted and it is "x" the descriptive information is just that "descriptive" and does not address the why, which is critical to learning. With regard to the above a sayagaki these days by a master scholar, such as Tanobe san for example, will often address some of those issues directly and at some length, and of course in the extreme case, the Juyo document will tend to go even further.

Arnold F.

[cabowen]

I would like to see a process, with a higher fee to cover the extra time required, that says why it is "x" if "x" is the mei, and if not "x" then why exactly it should be "y" instead. If "x" is submitted and it is "x" the descriptive information is just that "descriptive" and does not address the why, which is critical to learning.

Arnold F.

 

Kantei-kai, as it is held in Japan, is where the "process" is explicitly put out there as a learning exercise. Education is the purpose of kantei-kai while the purpose of shinsa is to provide an origami. It would indeed be nice if the shinsa team provided a full and explicit account of their reasoning but unfortunately, since that isn't its purpose, it is not structured that way. This does not mean that an origami can not be educational- like a zen painting, one must complete the picture one's self. The considered opinion from an experienced shinsa team should allow one to work backwards from the answer to uncover the reasons why the team came to their conclusion.

[Peter Bleed]

The considered opinion from an experienced shinsa team should allow one to work backwards from the answer to uncover the reasons why the team came to their conclusion.

And that is exactly what this origami did more me. It caused me to scratch my head, get out some books, and learn how to embed kanji in text. I also think I "uncovered the reasons" behind the paper. They screwed up. This origami did not depend on the team's judgment but rather on their knowledge of local historical details. In my opinion, they gave a bad answer to a bad question. They might want to be a bit embarrassed, but I do not offer this as a criticism of the Shinsa process.

Peter

[seattle1]

Hello:

In response to Chris Bowen's post above I do believe that I know that kantei guessing contests don't issue papers, and shinsa do not invite the blade's owner to be brought into a rationalization process about why or why not it is or isn't it "x". I thought I was suggesting something different and value adding. I know that sometimes if a blade fails, particularly a signed blade, an alternative call might be noted, but what is not noted is just why "x" failed. Of course I exclude the situation where it is saiba, too badly flawed, over polished and the like. Sometimes shinsa organizers say that a question can be asked, but there is hardly time for much of that under existing time constraints or situational attendance. For those interested an additional charge for one on one discussion could be very educational. It is just a suggestion.

Arnold F.

[John A Stuart]

Sure, time constraints and all, I get it. But, for the money involved a paragraph or two, like seen in the NBTHK kantei results wouldn't be amiss. John

[Peter Bleed]

We would all love to be able to sit down with Tanobe-sensei or another accommodating expert and say, "What do I have here?"

I'm sure that some serious collectors - people who spend a LOT of dough - get to do that. For the mass of us, tho, this doesn't happen and shinsa offers the best alternative.

A couple of recent experiences illustrate what might be the best that can be expected of the shinsa process.

1. I recently got the papers - Tokubetsu Hozon, thank you - for a big tachi. I could read only "Osafune" in the mei and "tenth year" in the the date. But as a well made, 28" ubu tachi, I got my hopes up. I am sure that if this sword was shown to the right folks in Japan, they COULD read the signature and say more about this sword, but that didn't happen. The NBTHK c/would only certify the parts of the Mei/nengo that I could read. They also recognized it as Kozori school work. That is what the papers say and I had to be a bit disappointed when they arrived. I was disappointed because this was not the conclusion I had been hoping for. As I have examined this blade, tho, I've decided that the Shinsa results were all right. This sword is not "important" but it is a good old weapon that fits into a particular pigeon hole. So there we are, . . . next blade...

2. Several years ago I fell heir to a real dirty gunto that I cleaned and cleaned to discover a katana-mei right at the jiri that said "Izumi no Kam". The other side in a very different hand said that it was a Kunisada shortened by somebody named Tsugutoshi. The nakago had a good look so I go it polished and I liked it, but I couldn't be sure because I have never seen another Kunisada in hand. I submitted it to shinsa because I needed a expert judgement. They gave me a positive assessment so I was happy. A negative reaction would, of course, have been just as useful.

If all you want is a pat on the head or assurances that your sword is "nice", shinsa is a waste of money. If you are prepared to use the kind of reactions a shinsa can provide, the process can be informative.

Peter

[cabowen]

Hello:

In response to Chris Bowen's post above I do believe that I know that kantei guessing contests don't issue papers, and shinsa do not invite the blade's owner to be brought into a rationalization process about why or why not it is or isn't it "x". I thought I was suggesting something different and value adding.

 

I apologize if you took my response as an insinuation that you did not know the purpose and goals of each as surely I am aware that you are well informed. I was making the distinction in general, as this type of question/discussion comes up from time to time and there are many who seem to have a misunderstanding as to what exact purpose a shinsa serves.

 

I agree, some back and forth would indeed be educational and value adding. It is unfortunate that a variety of restraints prevent this from becoming a part of the process. What might be interesting is to have a small selection of swords chosen for a detailed discussion outside of, and after, the shinsa.

[Surfson]

I think that it is important that the shinsa process be at arm's length, so it can have as much objectivity as possible. Once a "give and take" of discussion, questioning or opinion becomes part of the process, there is the potential to undermine the objectivity of the appraiser. I believe that this is part of the reason that the blades are presented to the appraiser anonymously, and their judgement is made without ostensibly having awareness of the identity of the owner. Having said all of this, as we all know, the system has broken down many times over the years, and there are many examples of opinions that have been influenced. As mentioned in this thread, opinions are always subject to variability, and I have heard tell of more than one collector who has resubmitted a mumei koto blade until a shinsa result that they liked emerged.

[cabowen]

I think that it is important that the shinsa process be at arm's length, so it can have as much objectivity as possible. Once a "give and take" of discussion, questioning or opinion becomes part of the process, there is the potential to undermine the objectivity of the appraiser.

 

Very true, have seen this first hand.

[seattle1]

Hello:

One last comment in response to Robert S's post, and just by way of clarification. By no means was I suggesting anything other than a sort of after the fact and after the shinsa teams decision more detailed explanation for the rejection of a blade, in most situations probably only arising in the case of a mei judged to be wrong. By all means the shinsa process should be at arms length.

The issue of multiple submissions is an entirely different thing. When that happens it is usually on a mu mei blade and simply because the rejection was not specified as to rationale. Sometimes that can work wonders: I knew a collector who submitted a mu mei that was first judged as gendaito, another shinsa placed it in the Shinto era, and finally the NBTHK called it, Shikkake, I believe, and awarded Juyo Token to it. Needless to say my friend was both delighted and highly distrustful of the who shinsa process, with the delight probably outweighing the distrust!

Arnold F.

[nihonto1001]

Ultimately what we are paying for is experts' opinion, and that is what we get.

 

What we are looking for is validation of our own many times, less than expert opinion, and we are often disappointed.

 

Regarding mumei, a good sword is a good sword, and will thus, be attributed as such.

 

As for a signed piece with a mei that cannot be verified, is it better to give it papers, or bounce it? If the motivation is to protect the validity of the Shinsa organization, it is better to err on the side of caution and bounce the sword.

 

If you did have a sword come back "gimei", don't rush to have the signature removed. An old timer once told me, "shinsa three times before having a signature removed".

 

In shinsa, "gimei" seems to be a general term used to say "mei cannot be verified".

 

Some reasons why a signature may not be verified are:

-Unusual (but real) signature of a particular smith.

-Obscure smith, with the same working name.

-Signed by a student on behalf of his Master.

-Signed by a polisher who attributed the sword. (Such was the case with many Kotetsu blades, because many times he did not sign them).

-Gimei (False Signature).

 

As you can see, many variables are in play, and mistakes can be made. Shinsa results should be the beginning of more serious research, not the end.

[Mark S.]

I have heard tell of more than one collector who has resubmitted a mumei koto blade until a shinsa result that they liked emerged.

 

Another thread got me thinking about this issue again, and rather than start a new one, I'm resurrecting an older thread to keep this information together. I've also tried to write out my questions many times, but it always gets too long for various reasons (too many justifications, or nuances), so I am just going to ask my questions and let chips fall where they may.

 

Can someone explain the reasoning behind always submitting blades 'blind' to Shinsa teams, especially if re-submitting a blade to the same organization? I guess I can understand always wanting an unbiased assessment, and not 'pitting' organizations against each other, but if (for example) a good condition, out of polish blade is submitted to a specific organization, and the blade is later polished and resubmitted to the same group, is there any specific reason they WOULDN'T want to know about the prior attribution, and work from there? Is the idea of changing an attribution (even with the new information that could be learned from a fresh polish) REALLY that strongly frowned upon?

 

Also, shinsa results are given 'identification numbers' and I would assume are 'cataloged' in some way. Wouldn't it be more useful to 'update' existing blades as opposed to always getting a new catalog number? Or am I misinterpreting the use/reason behind the identification number. Is it simply a 'house-keeping' item, or is it used for any other type of research, record, etc?

 

Sorry for the beginner view of such things...

 

Mark S.

[cabowen]

Is the idea of changing an attribution (even with the new information that could be learned from a fresh polish) REALLY that strongly frowned upon?

 

Why do you think it is frowned upon? By whom?

 

 

Also, shinsa results are given 'identification numbers' and I would assume are 'cataloged' in some way. Wouldn't it be more useful to 'update' existing blades as opposed to always getting a new catalog number? Or am I misinterpreting the use/reason behind the identification number. Is it simply a 'house-keeping' item, or is it used for any other type of research, record, etc?

 

Sorry for the beginner view of such things...

 

Mark S.

 

The NBTHK keeps track of blades submitted by their registration number. If you submit a sword to them and it fails, and you resubmit with the same registration number, they will tell you to refrain from resubmitting the same sword as they have given their opinion. If you reimport the sword to Japan so it receives a new registration number, then they have no way to know if it was previously submitted and you might get a different result. The numbers for the NTHK-NPO are housekeeping...

 

Most people resubmit things hoping obviously to get a better result. I know one collector who keeps resubmitting the same blade over and over every shinsa he attends. He told me he would keep doing so until the shinsa team "gets it right". I told him that logically, he should be resubmitting the blades that have passed as well because mistakes can be made in either direction....Apparently he knows better than the shinsa team...I think if you have submitted an item to 2 or 3 teams with a failing result you should accept the fact that it isn't what you want it to be.

[Jean]

Jon has written:

 

In shinsa, "gimei" seems to be a general term used to say "mei cannot be verified".

 

No Jon, as I have already experienced it with a Muromachi tachi with NBTHK shinsa, you get a Horyu paper and not a gimei result.

 

Horyu meaning that, at the time being, shinsa with all its database is unable to certify if the mei is good or faked, just for the reasons you have listed.

[cabowen]

Jon has written:

 

In shinsa, "gimei" seems to be a general term used to say "mei cannot be verified".

 

No Jon, as I have already experienced it with a Muromachi tachi with NBTHK shinsa, you get a Horyu paper and not a gimei result.

 

Horyu meaning that, at the time being, shinsa with all its database is unable to certify if the mei is good or faked, just for the reasons you have listed.

 

NTHK-NPO policy is the same: if they can't be certain either way, they give a "horyu" result. This happened several times at their last shinsa in Tampa.

[Curran]

I expect some blowback on this one from the dogmatic pro NBTHK members:

 

For the better part of 15 years, I've regarded the NBTHK as the gold standard for fittings. Last year I was impressed when they TH a shodai kinko Kanshiro I'd found. I was about 80% sure when I submitted it, but felt they might go with a safer attribution.

 

I had heard there were some retirements and the fittings team was going through various growing pains. I did not take it too serious. Then from shinsa I received papers with the tsuba upside down in the photographs. I chalked this up as an administrative error. I heard and saw from others that the NBTHK failed to paper Hozon various things including a ko-Mino kogai on my website that I now own. The former owner's frustration with the NBTHK was my gain.

 

Complaints were varied. Never the less, I subsequently submitted a number of items to shinsa for myself and other members. The results were….. shotgun blast. Not the usual Olympic archery precision I've so appreciated for 15 years.

 

Bad? Mmmm….depends. I'm just going to say "all over the place". One item was submitted without its prior NBTHK papers and went from "Waki-Goto" to Tokubetsu Hozon specifically to a mainline ko-goto master. On the flipside, a pair of classic Nidai Kanshiro three crane design menuki got 'Higo' papers. The two choices there should have been 'goto work' or 'kanshiro'. Maybe Nishigaki at worst. Many things are only getting 'Higo' papers now. A Japanese dealer expressed frustration about it , in an unusual display of complaint. There was a nice Hayashi Shigemitsu that was rather obviously his work to those of us interest in Higo, but recent NBTHK just gave it to Hayashi. At least it wasn't yet another 'Higo'.

 

On the flipside, these weak papers create some buying opportunities. That Shigemitsu went to a good home.

 

Very hesitant to send anything to the NBTHK fittings team at present. We found a good Khorin (Higo dilettante) tsuba recently, and those are very rare. AUNTIE had a nice TOkubetsu Hozon one on display at the last DTI. Just dread the idea of NBTHK saying 'Higo'. C'mon Captain Obvious shinsa team….

It has greatly shaken my faith in the NBTHK fittings team, and I hope to hear better things in the next year.

[cabowen]

It has greatly shaken my faith in the NBTHK fittings team, and I hope to hear better things in the next year.

 

All organizations/bureaucracies go through change. Team members come and go along with their opinions and interpretations, admin changes bring new policy, etc. so there is a lot at play. As a consequence, continuity and consistency can be hard to achieve. This is a major reason why mining historical results to draw conclusions going forward is often times deceptive and a waste of time. The NBTHK has had a lot on its plate the last few years and perhaps it will take a while for them to reach a new equilibrium.