NBTHK scandals

[piryohae3]

I know that there was scandal in the 70s where swords were rated juyo that didn't merit it, and then later on some higher ups in the NBTHK had unregistered swords. Besides these 2, I can't find info on other scandals that caused the Ministry of Education to withdraw funding and support and the withdrawal of 2 special awards. Anyone have info on what the other scandals involved?

[PNSSHOGUN]

If memory serves me correctly the main scandals in the 70's involved mostly regional offices being bribed by organized crime or other nefarious organizations to paper swords to something they weren't or paper Gimei as authentic.

[paulb]

Also the problem was with lower order papers not Juyo. As John says these were produced by regional offices whereas Juyo shinsa only took place in Tokyo.

The only other issue I know of which caused a large amount of overblown comment was when the museum found a large number of swords from the war period in their cellar which they didnt know about and were unregistered. These were technically illegal and their was mass hysteria, particualrly in the West and those with a vested interest in seeing them fail. It came to nothing, no case to answer and resolved promptly.

[piryohae3]

I heard that one reason the NBSK was formed was because smiths and other sword related artisans felt that the NBTHK didn't represent their interests well. Can anyone elaborate?

[Ray Singer]

As far as I know the NBSK is not performing shinsa, so they are not acting as an alternative to the NBTHK. I could not agree with Paul more that the recent situation around the discovery of unregistered swords is vastly overblown, and cringe every time the topic resurfaces under the umbrella term of 'scandal'.

[piryohae3]

Those are the only 2 incidents in NBTHK's history?

[Ray Singer]

If you put aside the non-event around unregistered swords the only issue is the one which resulted in a new system of kanteisho. There has been nothing else of concern in the four decades since that I am aware of, though there are individuals (and Facebook groups) who seem to enjoy fear mongering.

[piryohae3]

What's the issue with new kanteisho? Is it because it makes people question the validity of the old papers?

[PNSSHOGUN]

People don't get the attribution they wanted.

[Ray Singer]

There is no issue with the new system. You will find much information on the old ninteisho if you search here for "Tokubetsu Kicho".

[Guido]

I heard from very reliable sources that the unregistered swords in the NBTHK's basement were discovered only because they were making space for the missing DNC servers. 

[Brian]

C'mon Guido....
Everyone knows they were discovered when a cleaner thought he remembered seeing the Honjo Masamune lying in a forgotten corner and they went looking for it.

Btw, are these the so-called Akabane-to?

"...the allies confiscated some 700-800,000 swords in 1946-47 and stored them at Akabane Arsenal in Tokyo. All, except 5500 or so were destroyed. The survivors had been shinsa'd and deemed national art objects so were saved. These swords lay in the basement of NBTHK? and/or Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan gathering rust for many decades."

[Guido]

Everyone knows they were discovered when a cleaner thought he remembered seeing the Honjo Masamune lying in a forgotten corner and they went looking for it.

 

 

Fake news, the cleaner was the victim of a witch hunt. It turned out he was only looking for squid in the loo, but the lame stream media twisted his words - read the transcript!

[16k]

Wasn’t there also something about stolen blank green papers? I thought I’d read that somewhere.

[paulb]

JP

I am not aware of it but there was a period when some fake (not very good ones) papers appeared on Ebay. As the old style papers have been largely disgarded it didnt and shouldnt have much, if any, impact on the current organisation and papers.

As John mentioned above the most common negativitiy we see is when people dont get the result they hoped for. Strange no one ever questions the competence or accuracy of the attributions if they get a better than expected result

[Ray Singer]

Going back and re-reading the thread above I want to make one clarification to my earlier comment. When I use the term fear-mongering, I am referring only to those who seem to jump on any recent issue related to the NBTHK as a vehicle to discredit the organization. I am not discounting the fact that there was a very real scandal in the past, nor that ninteisho from that time period should be treated with caution. The history around that situation and the reason for viewing the earlier, disavowed ninteisho with skepticism can be read at length from the archived posts on this board.

[Curran]

There has been lots of scuttlebutt yet no scandal other than those two mentioned.

Mostly just the later 1970s regional office green papers issue.

 

Paulb summed it up, and Guido added the Colbert humor skewers.

I like to gripe about a perceived drop off in the fittings shinsa around 2014, but they are getting much better by 2019.

There was a fair range of rumors that I would normally have dismissed, but it never became 'sukyandaru'.

If anything to it, -they cleaned it up internally. For me, NBTHK fittings papers dated 1983-2013 are the gold standard, and they are starting to get back to that.

[PietroParis]

I like to gripe about a perceived drop off in the fittings shinsa around 2014, but they are getting much better by 2019. There was a fair range of rumors that I would normally have dismissed, but it never became 'sukyandaru'. If anything to it, -they cleaned it up internally. For me, NBTHK fittings papers dated 1983-2013 are the gold standard, and they are starting to get back to that.

 

OUCH, my only papered item is a tsuba with NBTHK Hozon certificate issued in 2014... What were those rumors about?

 

Cheers, Pietro

[Curran]

No, I'm not going there. For the most part, they can stay in the dustbin.

 

If you question the opinion of the papers, you can:

 (1) chose to follow your own opinion, and toss the papers

 (2) wait and resubmit to the NBTHK later

 (3) submit to the NTHK

 

There is usually a flipside to most things. If something has a weak fittings shinsa weak attribution... I can buy it, resubmit it and test my own opinion. That has worked out nicely a few times.

People have been doing that with mumei swords for a decades.

    In this regard, I am praising how strong the NBTHK fittings shinsa was for a very long time. Maybe simply a wave of retirements hit the team at one point.

[Rivkin]

As always in Japan, there are 10 versions of what really happened, and none is official. In fact the official statement in such cases is limited to someone retiring. And yes, unregistered swords were found, but there are different versions regarding what it meant.

 

My very personal take:

Don't consider anything from 2x Juyo sessions overly seriously. A lot of ko mihara and strange looking Takagi Sadamune there.

If you buy green papered Suishinshi Masahide, Naotane, Kiyomaro, or Kotetsu  - you are buying good quality Gendai work with a fake signature. 

Green paper Muramasa will have tougher times being repapered today. No crookery, just the standards are different.

Green paper to Masamune and Sadamune with good sayagaki more likely than not denotes an upper grade early Soshu work, which quite likely will not paper with Masamune name today. The reasons are mainly differences in kantei.

 

That's about it.

The notion that green papers to Muromachi Uda and the rest of the stuff available in troves are somehow concealing a major Yakuza operation is basically false.

Yes, if you submit them today chances are you will get another Muromachi smiths. If you resubmit modern papered 20 years ago, mumei sword, the chances are you will also get a slightly different name. If different Muromachi attributions more or less give you the same monetary value, it is painful when green papers to major names in Ichimonji today are papered as just Yoshioka Ichimonji. I've also seen plenty of the opposite also - Ichimonji green papering today to Saburo Kanemune. To me its more or less natural oscillation between attributions.

 

The main problem - that in Japan the appraiser, dealer, government and museum advisor is one and the same person, was not and will not be addressed.

 

Kirill R.

[Tom Darling]

Hi Kirill,

 

I couldn't say it any better, you're well informed. I recently saw several Masahide with green papers, which in and of itself is incredible, without making a judgment.

 

 

Tom D.

[paulb]

Hi Kirill

 

The main problem - that in Japan the appraiser, dealer, government and museum advisor is one and the same person, was not and will not be addressed

 

 

 

 

I can agree with everything else in your post but not this one.

As far as I have seen the NBTHK go to great lengths to maintain their distance from any dealer and certainly do not take part in commercial activity. None of the appraisal teams are (or were) dealers.

Of course I could be well out of date but I don't think that has changed

 

[Rivkin]

Paul, to divert the pressure on me to make concrete accusations and shift the situation into the fun gear, I'll just point towards (a slow and somewhat boring) movie "We make antiques!". The subject of papers, appraisals and the issues surrounding them did make it even to popular culture.

Making a concrete statement/accusation will run into a basic problem it being a hearsay. I heard he was the actual owner of this sword... Well he denies it. A Daimyo family sells swords and asks a director to look through them. Its masterpiece is dismissed as Shizu Kaneuji. A decade later they see it offered for sale papered as Masamune and with a proud statement of its family provenance.

What's happened in between? Was there collusion or opinion just changed? And why should we believe the family? Maybe they are just bitter they were not paid much in 1950s. 

If a shinsa member sells a tanto does it make him a dealer? If a professional dealer serves as a clerk with NBTHK shinsa - is it appropriate? Etc. Etc.

With some other shinsa teams the personas and stories are just a little bit more public. Honorary invited members for specific sessions, with extensive personal businesses. A publication on a tanto which is cited as important reason for the split.

I am sure many will argue - why say anything altogether? If nothing is known, no one is convicted, why feed the gossip.

And I would agree. Except one cannot ignore that there are very specific Juyo shinsas, very specific types of papers to specific smiths, and even sayagaki with certain specific dates that somehow carry absolute the lion's portion of Obvious Issues.

Maybe there was no commercial underlining behind these abnormalities. They just somehow grouped together. But few believe that. And that's where the rumors regarding "what really happens" come in.

 

Kirill R.

[paulb]

H Kirill,

I certainly wasn't attempting to make any accusation or put pressure on you. I simply disagreed with your last comment based on my own experience of the organisation.

It would be very foolish to believe that at some point some strange or just down right wrong attributions occur. The motivation for these occurrng is anyones guess and depends on whether you are a trusting or less trusting soul. As I often quoted here before "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" 

As long as people are involved mistakes will happen. Fortunately in overall numbers terms this does not seem to be  great percentage.( I accept to anyone effected being part of a small number is little consolation.)

I think my main concern is when someone receives a result they are unhappy with they immediately resort to social media condemning the NBTHK or whoever and starting a hysterical witch hunt. They are not perfect but at present they are the best available and far more reliable than anything else (again personal opinion and not a criticism of other attributing bodies)

 

Another point to consider is an example of a friend recently. He spent many hours over a number of years studying and researching a blade and reached a conclusion as to what he thinks it is, he has been studying Nihonto for 50 years or more. He submits the blade to the NBTHK and they give an answer that is far removed from his conclusion. Which is more likely to be right a meticulous study over years by a very experienced collector., or a few minutes review in front of a small committee with probably  less than half the experience.

You have to make that judgement for yourself.

[george trotter]

Btw, are these the so-called Akabane-to?

 

"...the allies confiscated some 700-800,000 swords in 1946-47 and stored them at Akabane Arsenal in Tokyo. All, except 5500 or so were destroyed. The survivors had been shinsa'd and deemed national art objects so were saved. These swords lay in the basement of NBTHK? and/or Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan gathering rust for many decades."

 

Brian, I looked through the posts and don't think anyone answered your question...so here goes.

Yes,when the Occupation forces decided to destroy all the confiscated swords held at the Akabane arsenal in Tokyo (not sure what year...1949?)  there were about 5000 swords selected by the NBTHK for preservation  and these were taken to the NBTHK (at Ueno?) and stored away and forgotten.

About 20? years ago they started re-polishing these swords and as they got through them all it was proposed to return them (on loan?) to the original prefecture or city from whence they came. When I was in Hiroshima around 2010 I saw a display called  "Akabane Swords"  there. These were part of a sort of National Akabane Return Display. Whether they went back to NBTHK after a time I don't know...maybe they were actually returned to their original homes throughout Japan.

Hope this helps.

[Brian]

Thanks George.
I think the controversy came in when it was discovered that none had ever been registered and were therefore considered illegal weapons.
I guess once their history was made clear, things were sorted out and a way was found to "legitimize" them.
Kinda like finding that old BREN in the attic when your grandmother in the UK passes away.

[Ken-Hawaii]

I had a grandma like that!    We were always very polite to her!

[Rivkin]

Alas, I was away from the internet for a while. Without any personal involvement in the green paper days, I however do have generational experience with art and antique collecting, in part by being responsible for some collections I can't store, sell or even enjoy on a regular basis, but still getting slapped with some related bills.

The field  unfortunately is corrupt. A business based completely on opinions, and opinions which are unlikely to be prosecuted even if found to be financially motivated, and on top of that - the kind of business where even if attribution is solid, the price can be determined only within an order of magnitude. A painting from the Olympia Fair will cost half at Christies, and another half of that on ebay or local auction.

Add to that a maximum of maybe 10-30 serious players, who all know each other, and all developed strong sympathies-antipathies over the decades.

 

85% of issues are always between "the work of big name" and "the work of big name's circle", which can have easily 3 zeroes difference in value, but sometimes a less obvious quality distance.

13% of issues are between "later copy" and the "original".

Both involve a significant chunk of cases which cannot be clearly resolved. Yes, the work is very strong, but the condition is just so much better than anything seen previously from the artist. Or it all matches the expected, but there is this cat in the painting that really sucks and no, it was not painted in.

 

The separation of roles can help with attributions, but only to an extent. First, there is a whole bunch of fields which are so small, the greatest guru is also the greatest collector and thus the greatest buyer/seller. All roles expert. It gets somewhat easier in larger fields, but without clear government investment into Academic positions of junior rank, without clear state guidance the separation will never be of any efficiency.

Second, issuing paid opinions always corrupts. Because the important things are never clear cut, and you don't want to err on the side of caution too much because then people will use experts who don't. But then you don't want to be too optimistic all the time, because then you'll make a few obvious mistakes and competitors or those who got bad papers will put it on the internet. During the early 1900s there was this big movement to make museums into fee-based appraisors, and now they are heavily discouraged against anything like that - and there are plenty of biographies detailing exactly why.

 

What worked in Europe is publishing catalogue raisonne, which puts the entire argument and body of work into open, and then the whole issue "what is Masamune" gets at least some clear and visible boundaries.

Also - until 1970s you were expected to write serious opinions on art in actual journals, detailing your arguments. And yes, it would be bizarre to be an expert without actually discovering something new and writing a book. You kind of were supposed to see the person's arguments on paper before accepting them. And yes, typical paid expert opinion on a major work is 10-50 pages long. Yes, lost of it is water to crank up the fees, but its still definitely not a single line statement.

 

Nihonto is sort of two thirds along the path from "all roles expert" to something like 1900s European attempts of creating museum commissions to issue papers.

So some of nihonto scary stories, like the tanto publication are from "all roles expert" time. And well, there are plenty of fields where "all roles expert" is the way to go, it just tends to end either with great success or resounding failure.

 

Which brings us to the green papers. Or my VERY personal and VERY erroneous take on them.

Aside from things so abnormal, the question was whether NBTHK will retain its respectability (papering of fake gendai "copies" of Edo period masterpieces), the major issue was actually of access.

There were people who could contact the estimeed members and present to them the item together with the supporting documentation, make their case, and then solicit their advice. Things considered Masamune for the duration of Edo period had a considerably higher chance of being secured as such.

Is it wrong to do so? In fact any art commission of today with require you to submit the item's documented history. The chances of attribution to X will increase very significantly if the item was dealt with by galleries known to specialize in X. It is not seen as an issue at all, on the contrary getting "out of the woods" work accepted by today's art critiques is quite difficult.

The problems which are specific to nihonto, and which were never resolved, is that first of all not a lot of people have this kind of access. A few can present their case, most can't and are not supposed to. Second, a lot of Edo appraisals were bizarre to the greatest extent possible, with Soshu, Masamune and Sadamune being the most obvious benefactors.

So you do see that in many cases green papers give you the answer copied from Edo paperwork personally presented by the owner. Like unsigned, but attributed to Hasebe Kunishige (why not Kanenobu?).

The new papers are trying to build a greater distance from Edo appraisals. But they are also sometimes erring very much on the side of caution for items submitted by the general public with no access.

Hence a lot of attributions to very general and widely stretchable schools (Uda, Shizu, ), which are becoming even more stretchable as stuff gets piled into them.

 

Kirill R.