Old Nbthk Kanteisho

[Darcy]

These are no longer recognized as anything by the NBTHK. 

 

They gave a lot of time to upgrade the papers into Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon. Now a blade with these is effectively unpapered. 

 

The long time mission was to give people a window in which to move good blades that had old papers into new papers which were more secure. Over time the pool that had the old papers would continually decrease in quality. 

 

There are some exceptions: some people are lazy, some people are out of the loop, some people are cheap, some things like tsubas with an obvious attribution and nothing exaggerated, no reason to even make the change. 

 

For swords with moderate to big names or big claims, the papers are no good now. Maybe they are a hint. 

 

There are still dealers selling these blades with these papers to people with a lah-dee-dah type of attitude neglecting to mention all of the problems with them and now that the NBTHK won't even recognize them. 

 

You need to be on the alert, what is left with these papers is a cesspool after extracting everything that had a good reason to be extracted. They are almost a reverse paper now, you can kantei it to anything but what is on the paper.

 

So in the spirit of the other buyer beware thread: BUYER BEWARE even moreso every passing hour on old papers. Dealers that refuse to acknowledge that these papers are dead or inform their clients of the risk involved with them and pass blades on with a nod and a wink are not doing anyone any favors. They burn people and eventually they come back around to someone like me to consign their blades and I say I can't take it with those papers.

 

My own stand on them is I will not sell them. People have to replace the papers if they want me to consign them. I have been destroying some of them as I come across them. If an item will not upgrade and it's mine, I destroy the paper. If it does upgrade then the paper is a curiosity.

 

Time to move this stuff into the extinction file I think. Don't accept these papers from dealers as anything more than if it were a dealer paper at this point (I can write papers to Masamune if anyone is interested, cost is $300 per). Push back on anyone trying to circulate these. If you like the piece tell them that you'll buy conditional on it getting Hozon and get that paper out of circulation. Or save your money when it doesn't pass.

 

[mywei]

I think this is very sound (and timely) advice Darcy.

[Stephen]

What a great way to keep generating money, just make the old ones obsolete ...

 

 

best place for papers

 

 

[Grey Doffin]

Sorry but I have to disagree a bit.  If the mei/attribution is a big name or if the sword is being sold by a dealer in Japan (where access to newer papers is relatively easy), no problem with what you've said Darcy.  But I often come across swords and kodogu that were papered under the old system decades ago and have been in the west ever since.  If the work is mid level (not important) there is no reason why we should suspect the authenticity and/or accuracy of the paper.  If you have a tsuba with a Kicho paper to Shoami, no one in his right mind will spend $600 to send it to Tokyo for a newer paper.  I understand that this paper doesn't add as much value as would a Hozon, but it does add value and I would sell the tsuba with the paper and make no apologies for having done so.  And, unless I knew for a fact that the paper is bogus, I would never destroy it; it is part of the history of the piece.

Grey

[paulb]

I am with Grey on this. It is correct that the NBTHK has offered ample opportunity for holders of old papers to have them changed. If I saw a big name being offered from Japan with older papers my first question would be why? and I agree with Darcy that their validity would at best be questionable.

However until very recently sending blades from Europe or the USA for papering has been a major exercise that was never undertaken lightly, so collectors chose to keep what they had.

I do not think you can make a blanket statement that all old papers are bad or worthless each has be judged on merit and circumstance.

 

For the record I have two things with older papers one a sword papered to daido, which I think may be questionable, not dishonest just not 100% sure I agree with it the other an FK which I also suspect is wrong but bought because I liked it not because of who made it. Should I sell them in the future it will be with the papers and the buyer can decide3 if they believe them to be right.

[Alex A]

Hows about the NBTHK offer a free re-call?

[paulb]

they did

[Alex A]

As the window closed?, a pity that.

[paulb]

I dont know the exact time period but it was a number of years through the 80s and 90s. Certainly anyone in Japan with something above average had plenty of warning, notification and time. I am a little sketchy because it was before my time but I know older time collectors in the UK were aware of the offer in the 90s and people were still sending swords in for re-appraisal.

The problem the NBTHK experienced was very unfortunate to say the least. I think their response to it was honest and honourable and they went the extra mile to try and rectify the problem.

The issue now that Darcy refers to (soory I am making assumptions) isn't that the NBTHK have stopped recognising old papers as a step towards new papers (we are now 20 odd years on) its that some dealers are atill trying to sell dubious high end work with older papers.

[Alex A]

I see. Out of curiosity, is it possible this can happen again, say in twenty years time they might look back and say all papers pre-2015 are scrap.

 

Do they have a system in place to cover this?

[Jean]

That's a question you should directly ask them, Alex

[Alex A]

That's a question you should directly ask them, Alex

 

Yes, fair enough Jean

 

From reading above, I have concerns that the NBTHK are an "here and now" thing.

 

You pay for an expert opinion, they give it, fair enough.

 

BUT, without a firm link between them, the sword and the papers heading into the future, there can always be problems.

 

Anyways, off on a tangent, apologies gents 

[paulb]

You can never say never. The weakness in the older system (again this opinion after the event) was that papers were issued by branch offices rather than just the HQ. There may well have been bad papers from Tokyo as well but the original and majority of false ones came from other areas.

Regarding re-papering it depends on the reasons. It has been suggested in the past that for fittings in particular that the ongoing research introduced new information which might affect the attribution. therefore items should be re-submitted every 5 years or so (not sure how popular this idea was and certainly have seen any evidence of it happening)

If there was another scandal like the first one would have to seriously question the benefit of doing it again, assumingthe organisation survived the scandal a second time.

I can understand skepticsm and concern but as I said problems and dishonesty are facts of life. It is how those problems are resolved that matters and in this case I think the NBTHK did all they could to recover the situation. I dont think their actions deserve some of the cynical suggestions that have been levelled at them, usually by those with no knowledge of the situation (I admit mine is limited) or their own axe to grind that re-papering is a cynical attempt to make money.

As Jean says if you have questions or doubts ask them. If you dont have their contact details let me know and I can forward them to you.

[Alex A]

Cheers Paul, appreciated, when you get the time pm it over to me and il fire over a few queries.

[christianmalterre]

ROFLMAO !

 

we do have plenty of so called sword societies...Not?

 

we do have for example: the old and reknowned Fujishiro, the NBSK NPO, the NTHK J.G., the AJSA,- and+, an augmenting part of various private Japanese sword fittings and sword study groups....

(i honestly do ask me why these groups did augment in numbers meanwhile? certainly there must be a reason ??????

 

​( )!​

 

looking back to the 80´s...there were just a handful.....

meanwhile- there is a good of dozend...(seemingly increasing as even dealers do jump in so to can sell better)....

 

i really do me hard in my final conclusion-

 

(there´s a lot of water running across in last years finally)- yes Stephen! (a lot of water indeed!...plus some other stuff...  of course!.... ​)

 

a candidate for your´s toilet! (nice sarcasm jbw )

(i love it!)

​

one should but keep in mind:

 

- either you preserve?

- or you do commerce....

 

(if you preserve ?- you should be least well aware about these iffs and offs, politics and habitudes)

(If you just run for fast money and "think" you "gotta" ???- finally i just could say " do wish you good luck"...it is but certainly not me feeding you further equally...!)

 

conclusion...up to the toilet maybe? - Yes!

value?

(rather...no, sorry! do keep on playing!)

 

not for me actually...as those guys next door one block apart do tell you different....(maybe? )​

 

and?

 

 

Christian

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Wow, what an interesting position introduced by Darcy! There are many strands to the issue and surely it is hard to be dogmatic.  As Paul states the problem was related to papers, I think not so many, that were issued outside the Museum in Tokyo. Those papers were done under duress or for out and out reasons of fraud by some parties, and one cannot faulty the NBTHK taking steps to stifle the potential anxiety that might have transferred to all NBTHK papers. That perhaps gave them a chance to change criteria, as was done again only a few months ago and much talked about here, however I have never seen a scrap of data as to how large or even how pervasive the generation of false papers was.

 I think we have to recognize that Tokyo issued papers when the NBTHK was under the guidance of Drs. Homma and Sato, and into the time of Mr. Tanobe, are probably entirely okay, though of course something might have slipped by them. It would be nice to know where any given Kicho paper, of any level, was issued.

 If the thrust to continue to winnow out remaining Kicho and Tokubetsue Kicho papers persists we will arrive at, probably have arrived at, comic situations where someone submits a Tokubetsu Kicho something or the other, asks for and gets a Hozon, and that becomes the measure of the blade, whereas the original paper might well have been approved by one of the three mentioned above. That person will have paid for a step down. Given the reality of costs submission for Hozon seems to be the preferred option for Japanese dealers these days.

 I do recognize that, right or wrong, the old papers have lost their value in the paper chase to Juyo Token as that requires a Tokubetsu Hozon to qualify for submission, however for the larger fraction of existing KIcho papers of any level, Juyo isn't a serious option anyway.

 Arnold F.

[christianmalterre]

me, for mine part- certainly would not "dismiss" a "Arigato-san" by Homma!

certainly not by Sasano or Sato equally...

 

this is a somehow unfruitfull discussion.....

 

Darcy was well aware so to inform the novices here! And he did seemingly very right in doing such!

Thank you Darcy!

 

the whole rest is up to personal investigation and "politics" (so far my part is ended here)

 

Christian

[Surfson]

Really?   So a blade with old Tokubetsu Kicho papers is now worth less than one no papers at all?  That can hardly be the correct view of the situation!  What percentage of Kicho or Tokubetsu Kicho papers were wrong?  1%?   5%?  It certainly can't be higher than that.  And what percentage of modern Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon papers are wrong?  Less?  More?  The same?   I agree with Grey, who has a much more reasonable view of the situation.  I'm already a bit fed up with the attitude that a blade without papers is assumed to be gimei.  Now we just tossed all the older papered blades into this heap?  Sensible collectors always use their own judgement and then take some comfort when a blade has papers, knowing that the next collector down the line will do the same.  I still take comfort from the older papers that I have for blades that are obviously good and I'm not about to throw all my older Kicho or Tokubetsu Kicho papers in the trash.  Really a ludicrous thought!  And now shaming any collector that sells an old blade with such papers.  This is really too much I think.  

[Ray Singer]

Considering two swords I own with such papers:

 

1). It was not long ago that Tokubetsu Kicho was still a valid prerequisite to submit for Juyo. In the case of an early Kamakura tachi I own with Tokubetsu Kicho to Ko-Aoe, it was submitted for Juyo and Tanobe-san gave a sayagaki at that time reaffirming the attribution. The sword did not pass Juyo in its first submission, so I still have the original papers. I cannot imagine destroying them as I feel they have both authority (issued from the Tokyo office at the time Dr Homma was there, who also helped arrange restoration by Fujishiro Matsuo) and sentimental value (having been issued to a close personal friend and decades long mentor). If I decide to resubmit for Juyo in the future, while I unfortunately would now be required to put it back through the process of Hozon > Tokubetsu Hozon, I would still keep the original kanteisho.

 

2). Another of my swords was previously owned by Masayuki "John" Yumoto. When I purchased it nearly 20 years ago it came with a Koshu Tokubetsu Kicho kanteisho that was issued to him. As a mumei Muromachi period sword it would make no sense to discard the original papers and invest in submitting again simply to receive Hozon. I feel fortunate that the sword has an established provenance to an individual who contributed so much to Japanese Sword collecting and scholarship in this country. I also personally agree with the attribution.

 

With both of these swords I would hope that the next caretakers also have enough appreciation to retain the old kanteisho as part of the sword's history, regardless of what papers are considered the new standard at that time.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Surfson]

I totally agree Ray, and have some good blades myself in the same situation, including a wonderful blade that came out of the Compton collection.  OK, so now I will wade into deep waters, and risk drowning, and I apologize ahead of time if my information is not correct.  While we are on the subject of the NBTHK, can anybody tell me the rationale behind a "tip" that is given if a blade makes juyo?  I have heard about this practice from more than one source but have never had the good fortune of having to pay one.  This is supposedly in addition to the required payment of the kantei fee from a successful submission.  What if you don't give that tip?  Does your blade still paper juyo?   Or does the next one have a tougher time of it?  If the award of a tip for juyo papers has become an accepted part of the routine, then I think that the NBTHK is setting itself up for future allegations of biased judgement.  Will the big tippers get better results than the non tippers?  If so, are the NBTHK not setting themselves up for another generation of papers that are held as questionable?  With the NTHK-NPO as a quality organization that appraises blades, the NBTHK may be setting themselves up for being dethroned as the final arbiter of the level of quality of blades.  

[Surfson]

By the way Ray, those both look like great swords!!!

[Ray Singer]

While we are on the subject of the NBTHK, can anybody tell me the rationale behind a "tip" that is given if a blade makes juyo?

 

An interesting question and perhaps worth spinning off in its own discussion thread. The last sword I submitted passed in its first attempt. I did not knowingly pay a tip at that time and have never done so unless one was factored into the agent fees.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[paulb]

Robert

I think you have a problem with terminology or just looking at a poor translation. I can stand to be corrected but giving "tips" in the way you outrline it is wrong.

With most papering systems there are two levels of payment, an inital charge when you submit and an additional one if it passes. This was true of both NBTHK and the original NTHK, I assume, but dont know, that the NPO offer something similar.

The "pass" charge if a blade achieves Juyo or Tokubetsu Juyo is described as a donation to the Museum. It is a fixed fee just as the second charge is for a hozon pass or a TH pass.

The suggestion that if you tip more you stand a better chance of passing has no basis in reality and suggests fraud and or bribery which I assure was not your intent

Please lets not start yet another witch hunt based on missunderstanding

[Surfson]

Paul, I was referring to an additional "gratuity" that is paid above and beyond the "pass" charge that you are referring to.  Since I have not had a sword pass juyo (and have only submitted a couple), my knowledge of this is second hand, but from good sources.  If others are aware of this custom, now is the time for them to speak up.  

[Heringsdorf]

I totally agree Ray, and have some good blades myself in the same situation, including a wonderful blade that came out of the Compton collection.  OK, so now I will wade into deep waters, and risk drowning, and I apologize ahead of time if my information is not correct.  While we are on the subject of the NBTHK, can anybody tell me the rationale behind a "tip" that is given if a blade makes juyo?  I have heard about this practice from more than one source but have never had the good fortune of having to pay one.  This is supposedly in addition to the required payment of the kantei fee from a successful submission.  What if you don't give that tip?  Does your blade still paper juyo?   Or does the next one have a tougher time of it?  If the award of a tip for juyo papers has become an accepted part of the routine, then I think that the NBTHK is setting itself up for future allegations of biased judgement.  Will the big tippers get better results than the non tippers?  If so, are the NBTHK not setting themselves up for another generation of papers that are held as questionable?  With the NTHK-NPO as a quality organization that appraises blades, the NBTHK may be setting themselves up for being dethroned as the final arbiter of the level of quality of blades.

 

Concerning the NTHK-NPO, I'm quite disappointed with their frequency of mistakes on their kanteisho. I just had to send back some of their certificates due to blatant errors. One one they wrote mumei when it has a clear and obvious signature!

On another they wrote late muromachi period, when in fact this school was only established in the early Edo period and only started to sign like on my piece during the mid to late Edo period!

 

These are just two mistakes, I know of many more within this past year.

I definitely give much more trust to the NBTHK papers than NTHK -NPO.

[Ed Harbulak]

I have seen the same kinds of mistakes with the NTHK shinsa where they sometimes seem unable to determine the era in which a sword was made. I submitted two, signed, obviously kanbun shinto blades to an NTHK shinsa that they said were gimei and made by shinshinto smiths. When I submitted the blades some time later to the NTHK-NPO shinsa, they both passed and were certified to the kanbun shinto smiths who signed them. I have to think that the speed with which both organizations push blades through their respective shinsas is a big part of the problem. Plus, looking at swords hour after hour for several days does undoubtedly make the sinsa team less attentive and downright tired. Haste makes waste as do long hours. You really have to do your own homework before submitting a blade so in your own mind, based on your own research, you are confident you know who really made the blade and when. Then if the answer you get from the shinsa isn't what you expected, ask questions and find out why they disagree. A number of years ago I submitted a signed blade to the NTHK-NPO shinsa that failed. I asked why they failed it and the shinsa team pointed out that the nakago jiri and yasurimei were wrong for the smith. I was younger then and learned a good kantei lesson. I had the gimei removed and submitted the blade to an NTHK shinsa. They agreed with the answer I had already determined from my own research and attributed the blade to Den Etchizen Shimosaka with which I agree.