Koa Isshin With Nthk Papers

[IJASWORDS]

David, I think most of us here on Military Swords Of Japan know and understand the features of traditionally made Nihonto. And Nihonto translates to Japanese Sword. If you read my post I said "afforded recognition", I did in no way say equal status to traditionally made swords.  

There are many ways of affording recognition without diluting the status of traditionally made blades. 

Whether it is a traditional Samurai weapon, or a Showa WW2 weapon, it is still a Japanese made..... weapon. 

Recognition can be achieved in many ways. Recognition by the Japanese themselves may go along way to them accepting that WW2 made Gunto are just another period of their sword making history. The Gunto (you call it militaria) was the last sword to be used as a functional weapon, in history. The Japanese have  a long proud history of using swords in war. The Gunto should not be denied their place in Japanese sword history. 

I am very passionate about this subject, as I feel the spirit of the Japanese soldier every time I pick up a Gunto. And, as I said previously, I am equally sure the Japanese soldier also felt the spirit, traditionally made or not. 

[paulb]

Hi Neil

I think you make a very valid point and I can understand the passion and commitment shown by people who specialise in this area of collecting. It is no differnt to the passion others have for different areas of collecting.

If I have an issue/concern about papers being issued for non-traditionally made blades it has nothing to do with the sword but what papers are for. There appears to be a shift in the reasoning behind issuing papers. Again this is fine if it is recognised and specified. what shouldn't happen is it sort of creeps in through the back door and then is justified after the event. Thats what appears to be happening at the moment.

Originally (or at least as I understand it) papers were issued to help the occupying forces distinguish between traditionally made "Art Swords" and mass produced blades which were and still are regarded purely as weapons. 

The comments from the NTHK now seem to say that papers are being issued to recognise the historic significance of something and that it represents a period or a conflict in history. Again nothing wrong with that it just isn't what the authentication process and papering system was originally intended for.

In being done this way without any official policy statement change and while, as far as I am aware Showa-To are still illegal to own or purchase in Japan it offers all sorts of possible interpretation. To the cynic this might appear that someone has made a mistake and papered something they shouldn't and subsequently tried to justify it.

 

I confess military swords are not my thing but as said can appreciate that they are for others. What they are not are traditionally made Art Swords as defined in the original papering system. If they need authentication for all the reasons being suggested I wonder if it might be better to introduce a sperate system which puts clear water between true Nihon-To and military blades. 

[Brian]

Short version. Japan loses the war. The Allies say they have to destroy all weapons, total disarmament.
A small group protests and says "But they aren't weapons...they are art, unique....cultural treasures, need to be preserved"
So the Allies say ok, you can keep the art ones, but under strict rules. They must be licensed, and recognized as art and not weapons.
And so here we sit today. Japanese law allows for them as long as they are not purely weapons. In order to change their possession or recognition, they would need to change their laws I assume.
The fact that more and more are slipping through the cracks means that as we get further from the war, fewer people are thinking of them as weapons. But it will take time before they are classed as important enough to be recognised as legal.

[IJASWORDS]

I appreciate all the comments, and time may heal all wounds, where they will be formally recognized for what they are. And, as fakes grow in number and quality, some kind of system to confirm originality.   

[16k]

Short version. Japan loses the war. The Allies say they have to destroy all weapons, total disarmament.

A small group protests and says "But they aren't weapons...they are art, unique....cultural treasures, need to be preserved"

So the Allies say ok, you can keep the art ones, but under strict rules. They must be licensed, and recognized as art and not weapons.

And so here we sit today. Japanese law allows for them as long as they are not purely weapons. In order to change their possession or recognition, they would need to change their laws I assume.

The fact that more and more are slipping through the cracks means that as we get further from the war, fewer people are thinking of them as weapons. But it will take time before they are classed as important enough to be recognised as legal.

What I think is that it especially shows the hypocrisy behind the whole thing. Yep, swords are art, well tbh, they are more like craft. Before having access to mechanization, sword smiths had to make their steel, pray to the gods of Shinto and hammer their sword with every drop of their sweat. They made masterpieces (well, many of them did) but I doubt the samurai in the heat of the battle would stop and ask his adversary to see how many sunagashi his Hamon boasted. Similarly, I doubt that If they’d had access to modern steel and techniques, sword smiths would have used traditional methods.

 

Swords had one purpose, kill! And they are a product of their time, following the trends. When trends were shortening, everybody shortened their swords. If the trend in WW2 was chromium steel, I bet every modern samurai wanted one.

 

So yes, the non traditional gunto are the kazuuchimono of WW2, but still, they shouldn’t be disregarded as they have their place in history. I think that there should be a papering system for them.they shouldn’t go high into the ranking system, and certainly below Hozon, but they are still worthy of preservation because, like it or not, they are the embodiment of a sword era.

[paulb]

no swords didn't only have one purpose. While their form followed functionality and that function was to fight, and yes kill, the resultant item transended that functionality in to something that has, for more than 1000 years, been regarded as art. It also represented something much deeper and dare I say more spiritual to the man carrying it.

There is no doubt when holding a Kamakura period sword that it was a very effective weapon. The fact that so many have survived for 900 years in pristine condition suggests that many samurai regarded it as far more than just a weapon.

JP I agree with you 100% that gunto blades have their place in history and are worthy of authentication and preservation. As said previously I think this should be done in a separate system that reflects their historical importance rather than trying to qualify them in a scale and system that they was never intended for them.

[Ooitame]

Thanks Eric! Hate to say it, but I didn't even know there was a difference. It's a world I'm totally ignorant of.

No worries Bruce! Nihonto is a big field. Had it not been for your study thread, I would have never looked so closely at Mantetsu blades and come to appreciate them. My thanks for that.

 

Getting back to the subject of this thread, I think we may be seeing the start of a new trend amongst the governing bodies in recognising swords which previously didn't meet the criteria. I personally think it's a mistake but who cares what I think. I currently only have one gunto-mounted sword - a signed and dated (Bizen ju & full art name) Nagamitsu. It's not papered and I wouldn't ever consider having it papered - why would you? It is what it is and, paradoxically, a papered Mantetsu-to is still exactly that.

Hi Kevin, I agree that it is a mistake to intermingle origami of traditional forged and non without distinction. As for getting papers for a gunto, if it is good enough you should. I did as it confirmed my opinion of the quality. Not to long ago these things could only get shinteisho and Hozen. I am not personally aware of many Nagamitsu with NTHK kanteisho or NBTHK TH. But, they probably exist. Furthermore, as we see the ever increasing prices of quality gunto, it only makes sense to confirm the investment as frauds are ever increasing. One more point, I believe quality gunto are rare and this rarity will increase since so many were destroyed, lost, or just neglected over the years... As they are not held in high regards as koto, shinto, or shin-shinto. Although, I believe this view is reversing. In summation reagding papers for gunto, rising respect plus diminishing quantity and quality will drive prices higher and frauds as well as it's easier to fake a more modern sword and the ROI is undoubtedly higher. Best to be on the safe side.

[Beater]

No worries Bruce! Nihonto is a big field. Had it not been for your study thread, I would have never looked so closely at Mantetsu blades and come to appreciate them. My thanks for that.Hi Kevin, I agree that it is a mistake to intermingle origami of traditional forged and non without distinction. As for getting papers for a gunto, if it is good enough you should. I did as it confirmed my opinion of the quality. Not to long ago these things could only get shinteisho and Hozen. I am not personally aware of many Nagamitsu with NTHK kanteisho or NBTHK TH. But, they probably exist. Furthermore, as we see the ever increasing prices of quality gunto, it only makes sense to confirm the investment as frauds are ever increasing. One more point, I believe quality gunto are rare and this rarity will increase since so many were destroyed, lost, or just neglected over the years... As they are not held in high regards as koto, shinto, or shin-shinto. Although, I believe this view is reversing. In summation reagding papers for gunto, rising respect plus diminishing quantity and quality will drive prices higher and frauds as well as it's easier to fake a more modern sword and the ROI is undoubtedly higher. Best to be on the safe side.

Hi Eric,

You and I are totally on the same page regarding this subject.

 

My comments about papers are born out of a personal bad experience, so now I tend to prefer to buy swords which someone else did the legwork, and which already have them. I lost all confidence when I submitted a Hizen Masahiro to shinsa in London 2006. It received a pink paper (gimei) but they said it was Hizen Tadayoshi school c.1750. It was recommended I have the mei removed and resubmit, when, I was told, it would paper. My stupid fault, but somewhat disappointed at the outcome, I sold it. Only to see it appear on a forum some years later, having obtained papers to Shodai Masahiro. After that expensive lesson in why not to trust experts, I decided never again to go through what I saw as a flawed system.

 

My Nagamitsu, which was purchased at a local auction, is a keeper so I shall not go through the process as I am totally sure it is authentic. Incidentally, as you mentioned it, they certainly do paper and are well documented in Slough's and on Dr Stein's website.

https://japaneseswordindex.com/naga.htm

 

I've attached my oshigata, a photo of some papers to another Nagamitsu and a page from Slough's, for your interest.

[Shamsy]

I decided long ago that I'd love to learn about traditional swords and I even started purchasing some to admire. Not all cheap ones either. Then I realised that I felt no need for ownership. It was purely a study, about learning and knowledge.

 

Militaria, now that's collecting at its finest. Not to mention military history is a particular interest of mine.

 

So it was an obvious choice. Collect militaria, study books covering nihonto. I sold my swords and started a collection. Probably for the best, as militaria powers ever upwards in value while nihonto seems to have badly lagged.

[Dave R]

 Another factor here is possibly a simple recognition of market forces. Showato of all kinds are now collectable enough to fetch serious money, and be faked. Papering them is a logical step to protect and support the market for the real thing.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Another thing to note is complete and original examples in good condition, that have not been monkeyed around with post war, are getting rarer. I would dare say that has some influence on these being papered as well. 

[IJASWORDS]

Whats not to like about Gunto that are original, and not "monkeyed around with".  

[David Flynn]

Again, to reiterate, Gunto are mountings (Koshirae) and not swords.   However, as you all know, many different types of swords may be found in Gunto Koshirae.  Please,  get the terminology correct.  If you mean Showato, then say so. If you are only discussing Koshirae, then fine. Otherwise, please be more specific.

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Again, to reiterate, Gunto are mountings (Koshirae) and not swords. However, as you all know, many different types of swords may be found in Gunto Koshirae. Please, get the terminology correct. If you mean Showato, then say so. If you are only discussing Koshirae, then fine. Otherwise, please be more specific.

Interesting David. I looked it up on The Japanese Sword Index and they agree:

“GUNTO - army or military sword mountings”

 

I had always been told that “gun-to” meant “army-sword” so it’s weird that the word is actually applied to army koshirae (KOSHIRAE - sword mountings or fittings).

 

Seems odd.

[Brian]

Cannot agree. It translates to army sword. Yes the koshirae is the only thing that differentiates it from other swords, but a gun-to is a military sword, and not just the fittings.

[BANGBANGSAN]

軍Gun（Army）刀To（sword）.

拵Koshirae（Mount/Fitting）,do not meaning army fitting only.

[Bruce Pennington]

There are separate words for the blades in military fittings - nihonto, gendaito, showato - and these words apply regardless of the koshirae they are fitted out with. A family sword, whether 100 years old or 500, once bought buy or donated to the war department became a military possession, therefore an army sword or navy sword. A nihonto in military fittings is a gunto or kaigunto as is a showato in the same fittings. They have become war swords owned by the government - gunto.

[Shamsy]

Interesting discussion on gunto. Like Bruce, I read that it translated to army sword.

[Bruce Pennington]

Here’s the official word from Nick Komiya, Warrelics:

 

“No, Gunto means "Military Sword" and refers to its whole structure "Lock, stock and barrel" so to speak. An Army sword is Rikugunto and by the same principle, a Navy Sword is Kaigunto. If you wanted to say "Military sword fittings" you would have to say either "Gunto no Gaisou" or "Gunto no Koshirae". Defining gunto as a "sword in military fittings" is also acceptable, but not really to the point.”

[Ooitame]

I find that the term showato is more used for non traditionally made blades vs gunto for traditionally made. Even though showato is translated as "wartime sword"?, and refers to any sword made during that time period. Never heard the term "Rikugunto" before... good stuff.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Is that specific enough for you, David?  

[IJASWORDS]

Now the terminology is settled, lets recognize Gunto for what they are.... important swords (blades and koshirae) in Japanese sword history. 

Whether they lost the war or not, or some one came up with the term "art swords" to differentiate traditionally made blades or not, they need to be preserved, appreciated and recognized, not just as militaria or weapons, but as an historically important period in sword making lineage.   

[David Flynn]

Funny, in Japan,  Showato are classed as Gunto and Gendaito, are classed as Showato.

[IJASWORDS]

The Japanese meanings......

Gunto, any sword in military mounts.

Gendaito, "modern sword" 1876-1945.

Showato, any sword made in the Showa period, 1926-1989, in the time of Hirohito. 

[Bruce Pennington]

A follow-up from Nick:

 

"Kyugunto" and "Shingunto" are not historical terms. Throughout Japanese military history, any outdated military sword was called a Kyugunto and the latest model a Shingunto. Thus the Type 32 was also naturally referred to as "Shingunto (new model sword)" when that was the current model. So what specific model you are referring to is all a matter of where you want to freeze the picture in the flow of time. Those using that lingo have decided to pin themselves down to 1945 and by doing so lose relevance to the modern day perspective and language.

 

Current Japanese refers to Japan's WW2 military in its entirety as "Kyugun", so for a normal Japanese speaker all swords belonging to the IJA and IJN are "Kyugunto".

 

I'm checking with him for clarity on Nihonto, Gendaito, and Showato.

[paulb]

Gentlemen,

Please don't let an interesting thread sink in to a tit for tat debate. In reality it doesnt make any difference as long as you are clear on what you are talking about. My understanding has always been

Showa-To- a sword made in the Showa period

Shingunto - A new army sword.

Over time they have come to have different emphasis but are not wrong.

Coming back to the main point

Should Shingunto have some form of authentication purpose that recognises their importance as a part of history? personal opinion Yes

Should this be through the current authentication papers via NBTHK or the NTHK's?  personal opinion no with the exception of those made using traditional material and by registered smiths. 

Regardless of how good the others are they are not Nihon-To in the true definition. To argue otherwise detracts from the value they do have as historical artefacts. With this in mind they should have a separate  system (could still be via the previously named bodies) which clearly differentiates them from the original subject of papers but confirms their authenticity.

I admit as a non Shingunto collector I feel I am trespassing a bit but I think the current situation has the potential to confuse and be detrimental to all.

[16k]

Gentlemen,

Please don't let an interesting thread sink in to a tit for tat debate. In reality it doesnt make any difference as long as you are clear on what you are talking about. My understanding has always been

Showa-To- a sword made in the Showa period

Shingunto - A new army sword.

Over time they have come to have different emphasis but are not wrong.

Coming back to the main point

Should Shingunto have some form of authentication purpose that recognises their importance as a part of history? personal opinion Yes

Should this be through the current authentication papers via NBTHK or the NTHK's? personal opinion no with the exception of those made using traditional material and by registered smiths.

Regardless of how good the others are they are not Nihon-To in the true definition. To argue otherwise detracts from the value they do have as historical artefacts. With this in mind they should have a separate system (could still be via the previously named bodies) which clearly differentiates them from the original subject of papers but confirms their authenticity.

I admit as a non Shingunto collector I feel I am trespassing a bit but I think the current situation has the potential to confuse and be detrimental to all.

Although I 100% agree with your comment, Paul, I have a question though. I know it’s already been treated in other threads but I think the replies I have read were never really satisfactory.

 

So from my understanding, Nihonto = tamahagane, hand forged traditionally, water quenched, polished traditionally and of course, made in Japan.

 

Therefore, any sword missing one of those elements isn’t traditional, thus not a true Nihonto (e.g. Many Gunto)

 

So what about those early 17th century swordsmiths who used proudly Nanbantetsu? Why are they considered as true Nihonto when they skipped a stage of the whole process?

[paulb]

JP

its a good question and unfortunately there isn't a conclusive answer. I think other than through destructive analysis once a sword is made you cannot conclusively tell whether it is made from Tamahagane or not. Some would argue that many of the features you see are in part due to the composition of the steel and you can get a very good indication but not 100%. The only way to be sure is to see it being made.

Regarding smiths such as Yasutsugu who proudly inscribed they were using Dutch imported steel I dont think they were using it exclusively but as a component. The bulk of the blade was still made using traditional material.

There is some debate as to whether it offered any benefit. The main one seems to be it was cheap and available. Also it offered an exotic twist in the sales approach "Using the latest innovation and foreign steel"

[16k]

Thanks, Paul,

 

I’d read that theory stating they mixed foreign steel with tamahagane, but is this a theory or is this based in documented fact. Basically, what I mean is have we a proof of that or was it just made up so that the rules could be bent and they could be included in the Nihonto list? As you said, unless scientific analysis is made, I’m not sure it can be determined for sure what material was indeed used, and I wonder if those blades have been analyzed at some point.

[Bruce Pennington]

Final installment on terms from Nick:

 

"To a normal Japanese person, Nihonto 日本刀 simply means Japanese-style sword, in comparison to Yoto 洋刀 or Western-style sabers. But sword collectors developed the additional words you mentioned as collector jargon and then for gun and sword control laws a separate legal definition became necessary in connection with what constitutes artistic value.

So meanings will change depending on whether you are talking with a layman, collector or lawyer, but Nihonto has the first meaning in 99% of the cases."

 

So, it boils down to simply getting the group we converse with regularly to agree on terms. They, as all words, are created to convey an idea. They simplify. Instead of saying "I just bought my first Japanese sword made with tamahagane without any hydraulic hammers" we can say "I just bought my first nihonto" etc.