The Influence Of Papers

[paulb]

As often happens following a sword show shinsa there has been a lot of activity on the board in recent days relating to comparison of NBTHK and NTHK papers, the validity of some papers vs. others and trying to obtain the last syllable of meaning out of comments on sayagaki and papers. It is no longer enough to take what is said at face value we have started to look at deeper significance in the presence or lack of presence of a particular comment. As a result all the focus goes to the paper and the sayagaki. Inevitably the discussion of comparative commercial benefit then also creeps in to the discussion, demonstrating yet again that as a collective body we are becoming increasingly obsessed with papers rather than the object they are describing.

Please don’t misunderstand me or my motives. I regard attribution and papers as an extremely important part of the collecting process. This has become increasingly important when so many swords are now purchased at distance and unseen, relying on the sellers description and often (in my case anyway) some less than perfect images. Papers offer reassurance and confidence to the buyer that what they are buying is what it claims to be and in acceptable condition. The problem comes when starting to compare the relative merits of Hozon vs. Tokubetsu Hozon vs. Juyo. We are all guilty on occasion of looking for a too simplistic solution and hoping to find greater significance in what is or isn’t said as we attempt to become comfortable with handing over a larger sum of money.

We seem to lose track of sight of the fact that these papers relate to an object. Also they the paper issued is comparing them to the standard or the norm of that smith or school, it is not a ranking system as to which smith or sword is better than another.

As an exercise I have listed some hypothetical swords for sale below. This is not a competition there is no right answer it is just intended to help realise where our thinking and priorities are. Please be honest with yourself, no one needs to post answers but put yourself in the position where you had a finite but fairly large war fund to spend on a single sword. This could be a once in a lifetime opportunity so you want to be confident that you are doing the right thing. Of course there is no correct answer but the order you place them in might give you an idea of what your own priorities are when buying a sword.

For arguments sake all of these are priced within a 5% of each other.

1. Yamato Tegai blade with Juyo papers from the 1980s
2. Yamato Tegai blade with Juyo papers from 1960s
3. Bizen Kanemitsu with juyo papers from 1980s
4.  Fukuoka Ichimonji blade with Tokubetsu Hozon papers
5. Fukuoka Ichimonji with 79 point paper from either of the NTHK bodies
6. Awataguchi Hisakuni with Hozon papers

In terms of quality and condition they all look the same. You have no isdea of their papering history (have the lower ones been submitted and failed to obtain higher papers or have they just not been submitted?)

So your money is burning a hole in your pocket you can pick one which is it going to be?

[Brian]

#4.

Why? Because Ichimonji.

Assuming condition (and quality) appears to be the same...this one just ticks my boxes. TH to confirm the mei/maker, and the rest based on personal taste.

As you said, no right or wrong answers here.

[Jean]

6 - Awataguchi Hisakuni

[christianmalterre]

# 1 or 2 !!!!

(because Yamato) (what else )

 

(most probably i but would decide me for the 1960 one papered- due the political happenings in NBTHK during the 1980´s)

 

 

Christian

[DirkO]

6 - Awataguchi Hisakuni 

[Jussi Ekholm]

3,4,5,6,2,1

 

I think that would be my order at this moment. Of course the are lots of factors to be considered. For example I am personally putting a large value for signature, and I think I might choose "weaker" ubu sword with signature over a "better" suriage sword. It's a complicated matter, and interesting to think about.

 

Now I'll have something fun to think on my 3 hour bus trip.

[Jacques D.]

To see the real influence of papers it would be more relevant listing the same sword with different papers. Here you are comparing apples and pears.

[Kronos]

6, 4, 3, 2, 1, 5

 

Hisakuni because he's one of the top smiths of all time, then the TH Ichimonji as it's not "limited" to 79 points unlike 5 so could go a lot higher. Then it's very hard deciding between Kanemitsu and Tegai when they're all juyo as any of them could be better than the other.

 

6 is an easy Juyo, prob Tokoju if it's same condition etc as a Juyo Tegai.

[Jamie]

Hisakuni

Kanemitsu

Ichimonji-TH

Ichimonji-79

Tegai, 60s papers

Tegai 80s papers.

[paulb]

Jacques

I look forward to the day when you are able to say something positive but I am not sure  I will live that long.

The whole point of the exercise is to compare different work and see how individuals assess compartive value and how that is influenced by the papers they have.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough or as often the case you just wanted to say something negative.

[b.hennick]

Awataguchi Hisakuni is an excellent Smith. The hozon paper confirms the mei. Have you ever seen one for sale? All the others are common compared to this one. It may be the most expensive one. Note all are within 5% So a hozon blade id's as expensive as 3 juto and a potential yusaku blade.

[paulb]

Hi Barry

I have seen one Hisakuni tanto for sale some time ago. In reality seeing any Awataguchi blade for sale is a rarity. As you say Hisakuni is amongst the best  of all smiths. I was going to ask those who have opted for Hisakuni how many had actually seen or held one?

I have only seen and held about 5 Awataguchi blades in 30 years+ collecting. But having said that I can also remember being extremely underwhelmed with my first encounter, A Yoshimitsu tanto at a Chrisites sale some years ago. Some 10 years later I saw it again and was amazed at how much better it looked second time round and with a lot more study in between.

They are nowhere near as eyecatching or magnificent as some of their contemporaries but once you really start to look at them they are really something very special.

It is an interesting spread so far Of those listed by far the most commonly available I would suggest would be the Kanemitsu, then the Ichimonji.

Something I always tend to overlook when thinking of monetary value is rarity and how much of a part that plays in the market value. Its obvious but often ignored(by me anyway) still focussing on those that make the hair on the back of my neck stand up!

[Kronos]

The fukouka ichimonji's may be common (I have no idea) although I don't see them for sale often, but a good comparison would be Hizen work, it's as common as sh#% but despite there being dozens of Omi Daijo's available at any time they demand a premium over 90% of other shinto swords because the quality is very good.

[Curran]

Hisakuni

Kanemitsu

Ichimonji-TH

Ichimonji-79

Tegai, 60s papers

Tegai 80s papers.

 

I exactly agree with Jamie.

Call me a copycat.

[Jean]

According to Jacques, if I were to choose between Hisakuni blades with Hozon or TH or Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo, I think I will choose among all these blades the Hisakuni At the opposite of Jacques, I don't care about papers when it comes to such a smith, taking into account all Paul's others hypothesis (blades in the same healthy condition and at the same price).

 

Edit to add, I will choose a Fukuoka Ichimonji before a Kanemitsu.

[Darcy]

 

For arguments sake all of these are priced within a 5% of each other.

1. Yamato Tegai blade with Juyo papers from the 1980s
2. Yamato Tegai blade with Juyo papers from 1960s
3. Bizen Kanemitsu with juyo papers from 1980s
4.  Fukuoka Ichimonji blade with Tokubetsu Hozon papers
5. Fukuoka Ichimonji with 79 point paper from either of the NTHK bodies
6. Awataguchi Hisakuni with Hozon papers

In terms of quality and condition they all look the same. You have no isdea of their papering history (have the lower ones been submitted and failed to obtain higher papers or have they just not been submitted?)

 

 

 

I can kind of see where you're trying to hit with this... I have a major in CS and a minor in mathematics and it's making my brain trip over a failure state because there's a contradiction in the test. 

 

If they are all the same quality then some of the attributions are wrong. This gets back to one of the fundamental points I keep raising where attribution is the primary component in the communication of quality. Bad blades don't get attributed to the grand master smiths and grand master blades don't get attributed to bad smiths. So putting a Hisakuni down as a similar quality and price blade to a Tegai is a fundamental contradiction in terms and as such, if we have to accept the axioms the only thing to question is the attributions. 

 

To simplify the example and get to the answer (because I disagree, there is a right answer unless you want to add the papers are accurate as an axiom in which case you get an immediate failure because the axioms contradict)...

 

You can throw in a Masamune and a Sue Seki and say condition and quality they both look the same and are the same price, but one is Juyo Masamune and the other is Hozon Sue Seki. What do you choose?

 

If the blades are fungible but the attributions are not, then one of the two attributions is no good. 

 

What to do depends on your ability to evaluate swords and what the prices are. Provided you are not just "buying what you like best" and legitimacy is an issue: You get something that is a decision matrix. 

 

1. quality: high, price: low -> Masamune ... world is insane, you have a choice between a cheap Masamune and a cheap incorrectly attributed Sue Seki, the Masamune has less balance of risk

 

2. quality: high, price: high -> Masamune ... this is appropriate and expected on the Masamune, the Sue Seki you could perceive as incorrectly attributed and will go to someone high but Masamune has less balance of risk

 

3. quality: low, price: low -> Sue Seki ... this is the inverse, it is probably accurate and legitimate and the Masamune will be quesitonable or fake ... this is reality.

 

4. quality: low, price: high -> Masamune ... this is also reality... but in this case the attribution could be correct on the Masamune and just condition is poor and the Sue Seki is just a scam. 

 

Now, if you hide information, such as price, we use something called game theory. With only knowing the quality being high, you always choose the Masamune regardless of price because the results are correct regardless of the price dimension. If you only know the quality is low, then you pick the Masamune again. Because if it ends up that the price is high then you ended up in situation #4 and you picked right. If you picked wrong you are in situation #3 where you should have chosen the Sue Seki. However, in this case you are wrong AND you didn't spend much money. 

 

If you hide the quality information and only know the price (this represents the real world situation of buyers who have difficulty assessing quality and use the papers to dictate to them instead of guide them): if the price is high then you pick the Masamune because you will make the right choice either way. If the price is low and you don't know the quality, you pick the Masamune again because if you're wrong then again you have only lost out on a legit Sue Seki and who cares. If you're right you won the sword lottery.

 

So without knowing anything we need to assume even distribution of probabilities then the Masamune is still the right choice because 3 out of 4 times you end up where you want to be and in the one case where it's wrong you still end up just missing out on a cheap Sue Seki.

 

This means that overall without knowing ANYTHING and YOU MUST CHOOSE you pick the Masamune. Only in very limited cases does picking the blade of least reputation make sense in the dilemma. 

 

The situation of the six swords is the same problem but more complicated and with more cases. If all dimensions of knowledge are open, then this is where a mathematician will let you know the answer is to pick the Hisakuni but the room in the margin is not large enough to write the proof down. 

 

In the problem given, there is a solution again. The trick is to use the case of two swords as a generic case. You need to know the price and you need to associate the swords by reputation. They are in order: Tegai, Kanemitsu, Fukuoka Ichimonji, Hisakuni. The air space is very thin between Kanemitsu and Fukuoka Ichimonji though but if we have to order them this is the ordering.

 

So you have group A: {Tegai, Tegai, Kanemitsu} and group B: (Fukuoka, Fukuoka, Hisakuni}

 

Based on what price you're given, you use the matrix above. 

 

Now you are left with a set of three swords and you partition them again. You partition them by the biggest gap in the reputations. Possibly this means we should have put Kanemitsu in group B to begin with but that's requiring more in depth thought (i.e. fine tuning the algorithm). 

 

By continuing to partition and choose based on the decision matrix it's possible to get a logical answer for the question based on the prices. If price or quality is hidden it reduces as illustrated above. 

 

...

 

Now in the case where all the attributions are said to be accurate, and all the prices are accurate, and all the quality and condition is identical, then it's case where the axioms contradict and it's not possible to have a useful answer out of it. If I said take for argument that 2+2 = 5, and 2+2=4, then ask you to make some conclusions on this, we can't proceed because the axioms contradict, no conclusion is relevant or of any interest. 

 

In the case of the swords if we say all things are equal with the six, then its the equivalent of saying: all attributions are useless and furthermore, are impossible. 

 

In which case: there is still a valid answer. Which is to just choose the one you like best. 

 

This is a useful result because it represents the situation of someone who does not know anything whatsoever. The information may exist but is beyond their ability to understand or access. This person is throwing darts at a dart board or rolling the dice and so there is no way to control the result. In either the artificial world where attributions make no sense and are of no value as everything is equivalent -OR- in the world where the buyer truly is not exposed to a single bit of information game theory says any choice is as good as the others. That means 100% subjective, whatever makes you happy. 

[Kronos]

Agreed with Darcy, however there's a couple of issues. I would suggest Paul may of just meant identical condition, e.g. no flaws, same state of health, O-suriage, mumei, with the buyer being ignorant of the quality or photo's unclear.

 

in this instance you order them Tegai, Tegai, Kanemitsu, Fukuoka Ichimonji, Fukuoka Ichimonji, Hisakuni as above. However you do have a few indications of quality. The level of paper for NBTHK papered swords and the score for the NTHK papered Fukuoka Ichimonji to start.

 

We'll assume Juyo and Yushuto are equal for this, so the Juyo papered swords could be anywhere from just scraping above TokuHo up to top level TokuJu and just not submitted. The NTHK paper however is a very clear 79 points so you know exactly where it stands on the scale which from what I gather is the equivalent of just scraping into the mix for Juyo.

 

From this you can place all the Juyo swords above the Fukuoka Ichimonji with 79 points as while they could be equal at just scraping Juyo they have a probability of being greater compared to the Fukuoka Ichimonji which has zero chance of being greater provided we assume the NTHK papers are accurate so you can't lose. They're either equivalent or better.

 

With the Hisakuni and the other Ichimonji we're only told the minimum level of Hozon/TokuHo respectively so you need to take that with a pinch of salt and rely more on the original order of reputation.

 

In regards to 80's vs 60's papers you go with the 60's as the quality was overall higher so you have better odds of getting a better sword, while that doesn't rule out the possibility of the 80's Tegai being a masterpiece that for whatever reason wasn't submitted until the 80's but we have to gamble with the probabilities as that is all we have to go on.

 

Therefore we get: NTHK Fukuoka Ichimonji, 80's Tegai, 60's Tegai, Kanemitsu, TokuHo Fukuoka Ichimonji, Hisakuni.

 

The only other question is how much did the quality drop in 80's Juyo papers and would that mean the probabilities would make it more worthwhile to drop them to the bottom even if Kanemitsu > Tegai and so on.

[paulb]

wow this has got a lot more intense and in depth than I intended. My fault for not being more precise. Thank you James you are right I should have said condition rather than quality. there is a big difference and the use of quality is or can be missleading. Let me explain what stimulated the quetion in the first place and what I was pointing to.

I admit that I have increasingly been dependent on papers. This is in part because as said above most of the swords i have bought were purchased unseen. It was also that some of them represented significant outlay for me and I wanted some reassurance and to feel I wasnt depending totally on my own judgement. But also I was becoming lazy. It is easier to decide to buy something with a certain paper than it is to look and decide for myself whether the quality (here using the word in the correct context) was there.

Now having recognised that weakness in myself I have been reading more and more posts which talk about papers, which papers were better than others or what was meant by a particular comment in a sayagaki, did the ommission of a comment detract and make that sword worse than one with the comment etc. No one talked about the sword.

Now if you take the human frailty out of the equation what are the papers really telling you and how should they be used to guide your thinking and buying. Again I can only talk from my perspective because thats the only one I know it may also apply to others.

 In the list above I chose swords for the following reasons:

1.Yamato Tegai the most commonly found of the Yamato traditions. It appears that if a Yamato sword turns up and the shinsa team arent quite sure Tegai is the safety net. We have seen examples on the board where something which to many looked screamingly Hosho was papered to Tegai. I thnk I have seen Senjuin and Taima examples in the past as well. So of all Yamato swords these are most common but Juyo examples of Yamato swords are much rarer than say kanemitsu..In 2000 there were 156 Mumei Yamato Juyo swords whereas there were 40 Bizen kagemitsu (Han Bing Seoung paper).

 

2. Kanemitsu were much more prolific at their best incredible but there is a considerable range and variation in quality. So there can be a substantial difference between Juyo kanemitsu examples.

3. Fukuoka Ichimonji have always been incredibly popular and commanded attention. They are flambouyant, in your face and many beautifully made. I have seen Juyo and TJ examples that are absolutely incredible but have also seen other Juyo examples that look well below that standard. Not uncommon but variable.

4.Awatagchi Hisakuni (or indeed any of the other Awataguchi smiths) the basic paper confirms authenticity. The schools reputaion is second to none. There is a strong argument that having got confirmation that it is right there is no need to try for anything more. The quality should speak for the work and higher papers are just confirming what the holder should already know, what they have is high quality work.  They are also incredibly rare. I have been obssesvie about Awataguchi work for the major part of my collecting career  having seen less than 10 over thirty years and half that number in hand. So when looking at this type of work the paper or level of paper becomes meaningless. The work, and the quality speak for themselves.

I was impressed that of those who responded a high percentage opted for the low papered Awataguchi blade as first choice. I wonder how many have done so based on reputation as opposed to direct experience of seeing and holding them.

But the basic point I have torturously been tryng to get to is that we are increasingly focussing on the wrong thing. I do not believe this is how papers are used or viewed in Japan (opinion I know) This obsession with trying to find extra meaning or to understand why a particualr term is used is analysed to a far greater depth by western collectors than the originators intended. I am sure that this has been fuelled in part by dealers looking to support their overseas sales.

The basics are:

1. Do I like the sword

2. Has an authenticating body confimred that in their opinion it is correct and in an acceptable condition

3. Do I think it is worth the asking price

4. If in years to come I do not recover my full investemnet I will regard the difference as money well spent for the enjoyment the sword has given me.

 

If the answers to the above are yes then that probably is the right sword for you. If not then we should perhaps look for something else regardless of what the paper says.

[Kronos]

I think part of the problem is that papers are becoming the new brand as it is for smiths, so you can fall into the trap of not buying the sword but the paper attached to it in the same way that if you find a Hisakuni with Hozon (only to confirm the mei) you may be tempted to buy that despite it being tired, flawed and overall in such bad shape that it no longer exhibits the qualities that gave that smith his reputation to begin with. You may be better off buying the sue-muromachi sword sitting next to it which is in mint condition and the quality is top notch but it's by an unknown smith.

 

The way i see it is me and Darcy are coming from the perspective that whichever sword you buy, it's not a lifelong commitment so you may be obsessed with Yamato and show little interest in Awataguchi but would buy the Hisakuni because you can always sell it and probably get 10 Juyo Tegai's with the proceeds.

[Rivkin]

1. 6 - because Awataguchi is a great school, and Hozon to Hisakuni would not be awarded without much scrutiny.

5 and 4 are very similar to me.

The rest I would not make an offer without seeing the blade in person. I simply may not like it even at a discount.

[Rivkin]

 Bad blades don't get attributed to the grand master smiths and grand master blades don't get attributed to bad smiths. 

 

 

If accepted as Masamune over many centuries - they do occasionally.

If signed by the grandmaster - they do even very often. Signed and dated Shizu Kaneuji nakago, if accepted as genuine,  how bad the blade has to be not to pass Tokubetsu Juyo....

[Jean]

For obvious reasons, no bad blades are attributed to Masamune. Bad does not mean tired. Darcy is talking about o suriage mumei blades.

[Rivkin]

I would strongly disagree.

Rarely heard any significant collector truly questioning quality of attributed, mumei, Norishige or Go. Never heard anyone seriously saying - this horrible blade passed as Shintogo Kunimitsu, what are they thinking at NBTHK.

 

Masamune - everything about him is a very questionable subject. What is canonical vs. what is not changes a lot. Lots of burned blades, lots of questionable attributions, lots of very simple work accepted as Masamune over the course of centuries. Lots of speculation why some work today is attributed to Shizu Kaneuji, while some, supposedly inferior - is accepted as real Masamune.

 

With my level of knowledge, I would run from buying Masamune as fast as I can. 6-7 figures investment, which overnight can become "previously attributed as Masamune". Happened many times before, and likely will happen quite a few times in the future.

[Rivkin]

I'll try to extend my answer a bit, as I think Masamune is a great example.

Last year afaik there was "new" Masamune receiving Juyo papers. At the time I was at a party with a few dealers and collectors. As always in such cases, some expressed surprise that this particular piece papered Masamune and not something less controversial. As always, I arrogantly argued that even in full polish its hard to see much in this sword. And as often before I got a reply - "You American, you see ware (nb: its like 10cm long and wide) in this sword and think no good, we Japanese see even if only 1cm shows great work - we don't care, its still Masamune".  BTW, I also heard often "American buy sword, not papers" - with a hint of respect. Obviously from people who were selling swords that these (insufficiently good gentlemen) at NBTHK did not appreciate well enough.

 

So, back to the point, Juyo is not a great sword per se. It is an important cultural asset, judged as such by a group of today's experts. It could be that it carries a very rare and important signature, which sets a standard for future attributions. It could be that some features clearly hint towards the work of some very-very top smith, though much of activity is gone and overpolished. And it could be a great looking work, therefore attributed to great smith (additional condition that it is early enough, if unsigned). But as the time passes, things change. Experts 50 years from now might put higher premiums on what is "acceptable" condition (i.e. succumb to evil Americans), which will exclude much Heian and Kamakura; they might have different perception of what "great work" is, putting Bizen on backburner and elevating Soshu once again. And for Soshu guy, at Gentoku 4, what golden age if nihonto - you've seen almost nothing yet! Finally, some "close calls" from today will clearly be reevaluated. And often, having a personal opinion by someone known to carefully research this specific school helps a lot, as it opens up many nuances that NBTHK papers either do not go into, or even missed.

 

So basically if someone would call me and say - hey I have Shintogo with Hozon in decent condition at 35% discount, I'll post money right away. The quality varies from very good to exceptional, if condition is not an issue, what is? If somebody calls me and says - we have Juyo Masamune at 35% discount, I will most likely turn away. No disrespect towards Masamune, I hope. But they are asking you to buy into most controversial attributions in nihonto history, which historically had a tendency to change drastically, with the highest "autograph premium" (not the same as zaimei premium) possible - and the kind of premium that ensures even things in strange condition can do Juyo+.

Its possible that tomorrow some of such pieces will go Kaneuji or, if things are really crazier - even Tsunahiro, while others, dismissed today, will be accepted as "real" Masamune. Its a contentious subject that very few people have enough personal rather than papered experience to be comfortable with.

Now one can feel more secure by collecting zaimei blades, but then the whole discussion "sword as an art form" is no longer that relevant.

[Jean]

You did not understand well what I wrote, reread my post. I am not mentioning papers. Attribution and paper are totally different things.

 

Attributing a sword to Masamune does not means it will go Juyo but means surely it is not a bad sword. Do not mistake bad and tired.

[Rivkin]

I think I understand your point, but I don't think that any of the discussed swords are bad, as in showato bad. It is not an issue here. I don't think however bad and tired are completely uncorrelated. A tired sword requires more in terms of induction or assumption on the part of the appraiser regarding what it could have been. Which means that any attribution will be shakier and appraisal of its basic quality - less certain. With very tired sword it is impossible to tell how much is bad from the beginning, and how much is tired.

 

But for myself, the question concerns the paper premium and autograph premium.

The latter meaning that certain names in Nihonto come with special rules and special prices.

If you collect papered Muramasa, you should expect to pay substantially more for the same condition/quality and comparable style, then you would do with Tsunahiro or Ujifusa. For reasons obvious, Muramasa is more famous, and more popular. It is not true that in order to be papered Muramasa the sword has to be outstanding vis-a-vis Hiromasa or even against average Soshu work of the time. Being papered to Muramasa means that the sword exceeds certain minimal quality requirements (which for some smiths are narrow and for some are quite substantially wider) and exhibits all the traits of Muramasa craftsmanship (hamon, kaeri, nakago, hada). For Muramasa specifically I would argue that the quality range is rather wide, while the autograph premium is substantial. 

 

If you want to collect Masamune, you must accept that tiny sway of public opinion, tipping the appraisal from Masamune to Kaneuji or Yukimitsu means close to one zero slashed in sword's price. Would bad bungo be attributed as Masamune - ofcourse not. But it could be a decent Kaneuji, which exhibits more than usual of Masamune style, and not much more.

And while Masamune is mostly immune to condition issues, Kaneuji is not. And even the immunity to condition issues varies with time. It used to be that burned Masamune was simply retempered and still accepted as a very prized sword - however today most of such examples are being sold for quite reasonable sums of money. I am not arguing that they are showato. I am arguing that with comparable work against smiths of essentially the same school, the quality difference might be debatable, the condition will as a rule be considerably worse, and the price - considerably higher. Yes, you are buying a Substantially worse sword (i.e. a relatively bad sword) for more money - because it is more historically important and it belongs to the area of collecting which operates with a different set of rules. If it were signed and accepted as signed, then the premium on the signature alone could have outweigh anything related to the blade itself.

Juyo Masamune is not the same as Juyo Shintogo or Juyo Akihiro. Juyo Akihiro is different then Juyo not-well-known-shinto-smith. And in the end one might prefer to collect what he likes, providing attempts are made to improve one's taste, rather than what papers well today.

 

Same things exist in every collecting category. Example I know less about, but mass produced portraits by Rembrandt studio will come with full Rembrandt premium, if they have decent history and do not exhibit obvious issues. How much work was done by Rembrandt himself is debatable. The same period, same general style, same quality portrait in poor condition, with no provenance - is a mile away from being accepted as Rembrandt. It can start as period Dutch, slowly gain acceptance as Rembrandt school and eventually even get "Rembrandt studio(?)". If it is actually outstanding it can become Rembrandt - but share this title with much more average work, which however did not have to jump through so many hoops in the process. And yes, early Rembrandt will be substantially and substantially worse, because its attributed on the basis of style matching other early Rembrandts and some provenance. It just does not mean its great quality in 100% of the cases.

[christianmalterre]

so here we are ?

 

i do think, Mr.Brockbank did already give the most sophisticated answer here...

 

funny post Paul

 

Christian

[Jean]

Rivkin,

 

A few precisions, Muramasa is saijo saku smith, the others are not (Ujifusa, Tsunahiro). At the opposite of Rembrandt, I don't know of any Masamune early/youth works .... But I understand your point of view

[Shugyosha]

Thanks to Paul for sparking this interesting discussion. I happened across this sword on Seiyudo and thought that it might be interesting in the context of this thread:

 

http://www.seiyudo.com/ka-080313.htm

 

In summary: a healthy 73cm katana, ubu, slightly machi okuri, ni ji mei signature "Toshitsugu", hozon papers to "province unknown, end of the Muromachi period".

 

Good tachi koshirae (I think, it's not really my thing), though I find the tsuka maki and sageo a bit gaudy, koshirae not papered. 

 

I'm not able to take into account anything in the description as it's in Japanese, but leaving that aside and "fat finger" errors, how does one reconcile the low level papers attributing the sword to no one in particular with the price of $29,000? The sword was registered in 1951 but it seems a bit of a stretch to think that this and the koshirae are worth around $20k of the package (based on Darcy's scale of relative paper values of $7,500 max for Hozon). 

 

Any thoughts?

 

Best,

John

[Jussi Ekholm]

Like usual Darcy made few killer posts on couple topics during the weekend and I really have to take the time to ponder them and try to suck the information in. I've been also reading some articles by other well known persons about nihonto collecting lately. It has really become clear to me that I don't personally have what it takes to be a "full on art sword connoisseur". Maybe I won't ever reach that level. Maybe (hopefully) my thoughts will be different lets say 15-20 years from now but currently I am living in a different world and even the "mid game" seems unachievable for many years to come. I'll try to still repeat the same mantra for myself, you don't need to own stuff to be a sword collector. Of course owning something is amazing but seeing stuff is almost equally amazing.

 

The Toshitsugu was for sale at Seiyudo for 1,000,000 Yen. Then they had the koshirae made for it few years ago and bumped the price tag to (in my opinion ridiculous) 3,300,000 Yen.

 

Now I'm going to throw a little more fuel into this great discussion. It would be nice to hear some thoughts from more experienced collectors and I believe their view might be much different from my personal view. I can present you 3 swords that I would much rather have in my own collection than for example a "basic" mumei o-suriage juyo sword (I know basic is a horrible term in this case as even the lowest juyo are way above me).

 

https://www.touken-matsumoto.jp/product_details.php?prod_no=KA-0112

http://www.nihonto.us/KO%20SENJUEN.htm

http://www.tokka.biz/sword/mitsunori.html

 

Seeing these three swords I think it is quite easy to understand my own collecting preferences. For me each one of these three is an amazing sword and I have reasons why I like each one of them. I understand that it might be bit difficult to discuss about actual items that are/have been for sale.