Seeking advice on Tanobe & NBTHK different appraisals

[atm]

I recently purchased this katana from Aoi Art: https://sword-auction.com/en/product/20194/as20427-katana-yoshi-transmitted-as-aoe-school-青江nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

 

As stated, it has a partial gold mei and NBTHK appraised it as Aoe school. I asked Aoi Art to arrange for a Tanobe sayagaki. Aoi Art just relayed this to me from Mr. Tanobe after his examination:

 

Mr. Tanobe judged this sword to be top-class Ko Mihara Masaie, not Aoe.

He said that this sword looks really similar to the Juyo Bijutsu Ko Mihara Masaie.

 

So he does not want to write the Sayagaki as Aoe.

If you want to get his Sayagaki and new NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon paper, we have to remove the gold signature completely and re-register the sword.

It would take a lot of time (at least a year) and cost.

There is no guarantee that it will be Ko Mihara Masaie because Mr. Tanobe and NBTHK have different views.

In any case, Mr. Tanobe praised this sword as a rare good one.

 

So, here's my dilemma. Do I ask that the sayagaki be done as Ko Mihara Masaie and have it different than the HBTHK appraisal (if Mr. Tanobe is willing to do it) or do I try to have it reappraised with the removed mei? If going through the time and effort of removing the mei and reappraisal, why not try for Juyo rather than reappraising Tokubetsu Hozon, which it already has? I lean toward the first option, as I greatly value Mr. Tanobe's opinion, it would not require messing with the sword, and it would get to me more quickly. But I am mindful that one day I (or my heirs) will need to sell this sword and am I better off taking the time now to hopefully (but no guarantee) align the appraisals or even shoot for Juyo?

 

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

 

Adam

 

[Rivkin]

1. It will not pass Juyo.

2. Its a Nambokucho blade with bo utsuri, weak mostly nioi hamon and lots of masame with a bit of hotsure.

Why it was appraised Aoe remains a bit of mystery since there is no ko choji, no dan utsuri, no chirimen, no fine tight itame. Boshi is consistent with Aoe.

 

I guess the suggestion is that the only reason it passed as Aoe is because of kinzogan (kimpun? can't see). If you remove it, submit to TH it will be Mihara... and will cost 50% as much.

[Katsujinken]

I also think Tanobe made it clear he would not contradict the current NBTHK appraisal — you‘d have to pick one route or the other. 

[DoTanuki yokai]

Had a crazy thought and the NBTHK tries to preserve the blade as it is with this paper.

[atm]

42 minutes ago, Katsujinken said:

I also think Tanobe made it clear he would not contradict the current NBTHK appraisal — you‘d have to pick one route or the other. 

I need to clarify this with Aoi Art. If those are the only options, then I'm inclined to just have them send me the sword without the sayagaki. I don't think the time, effort, and risk of reappraisal at TH is worth it.

[Katsujinken]

I would agree. 
 

I’m not in the top echelon of experts here (or anywhere) but Aoe surprises me and Mihara does not. I’d love to know what the discussion was like during the shinsa. 

 

Buy the sword and not the paper, as they say…

[SteveM]

Keep the blade as is. 

 

The kinpun mei is mostly illegible, but there is enough to deduce the word "yoshi". This is why yoshi (吉) appears in a box on the appraisal paper. The part above yoshi is completely illegible, which is why there is a blank box on the appraisal sheet. 

 

Then, under that blank box, the paper says "den Aoe" in parenthesis. "Den" is already a hedge, and there has been a ton about this written on here. The shinsa team is saying, "there is a previous attribution which we do not completely endorse, but neither do we wish to reject it outright".

 

The placement of the "den" attribution in parenthesis is one step farther away from an endorsement. It's their way of saying, "we respectfully note a previous attribution" and that's about it. So they are not really on board with the previous attribution, but they hesitate to reject it completely, probably because ↓

 

The kinpun mei is attributed to Hon'ami Kōson.

 

Kōson's signature (光遜) cannot be read completely, but there is enough evidence to deduce it as Kōson, and we know this because his name also appears in boxes on the authentication paper. Again, the boxes around the kanji mean the kanji is virtually illegible, but there is enough to deduce what it must be. Maybe they can tell from the kaō. In any event, they are confident enough to declare it as a Kōson kinpun mei, which means presumably the "yoshi" was also put on there by, or at the request of, Hon'ami Kōson. 

 

So given all this, you've got a very good sword which was attributed at one point by Hon'ami Kōson to Aoe school, to somebody with "yoshi" in their name. The modern shinsa team said, "no doubt this is a TH sword, and we can sort of see why Kōson made the attribution to Aoe, but we're not so sure". So they validate the sword, and they note the previous attribution, but they don't quite want to accept or reject Kōson's attribution. Tanobe, who is free from the constraints of consensus-building at NBTHK, can be more decisive. But who wants to grind off a kinpun mei from Hon'ami Kōson, who is attributing it to Aoe? 

[cju777]

I’m not sure if Tanobe Sensei is not willing to do a contradictory sayagaki.

 

I had one done in 2023 that contradicted the previous Koson sayagaki and NBTHK paper (both different at opposite ends of quality), of which both he was aware of and even noted the other sayagaki and an illegible kinpunmei in his own sayagaki opinion. 
 

This is a higher level blade so maybe why he is less willing to do it. Could also be a mis-translation somewhere between him, AOI, and you?

 

I personally wouldn’t want to remove the old kinpunmei. 

[Katsujinken]

It’s true — even though the kinpun mei is illegible it’s a bit of history in its own right. 

[Franco D]

14 hours ago, atm said:

Mr. Tanobe judged this sword to be top-class Ko Mihara Masaie, not Aoe.

He said that this sword looks really similar to the Juyo Bijutsu Ko Mihara Masaie.

 

Sounds definitive.

 

Suggestion:

Highly recommend following up on this information being given by going to the books/library and researching Mr. Tanobe's judgment. 

Having done so myself, I believe you will find a number of important insights that lend even further support to Mr. Tanobe's call, including reaching the conclusion of, why this sword is not an AOE blade. Specifically, the detailed description of Ko-Mihara found in Albert Yamanaka's Newsletters revised Volume I on pages 372-373, at least for me turned on the lights (so to speak). In addition to supporting Mr. Tanobe's determination of Ko-Mihara, one can also begin to deduce why and how the call of AOE might have been reached. 

A side note here: Albert Yamanaka was a student of Hon'ami Kōson. 

 

Further: It is critical when swords are being described that the descriptions are precise and accurate. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. An error in description can lead to incorrect conclusions. Words matter. 

 

Remember, "the sword confirms the mei and not the other way around." So, regardless of what is decided here Ko-Mihara, AOE, the sword will remain what it is, and not what it is not. Reality vs delusion. 

 

Does anyone know when this sword was polished last?

 

Hope this helps in some way.

 

Regards,

 

[atm]

Thanks all for the thorough explanations and advice—it is all super helpful. I’ve confirmed that Mr. Tanobe will still write the sayagaki as Ko-Mihara Masaie despite the differing HBTHK appraisal, so I’ve asked for that to proceed without any modification to the kinpun mei. I knew the sword was a very good work; having him confirm that with his sayagaki is even better!

[Franco D]

5 hours ago, atm said:

I’ve confirmed that Mr. Tanobe will still write the sayagaki as Ko-Mihara Masaie despite the differing HBTHK appraisal

 

Look forward to reading how Mr. Tanobe addresses the gold attribution, and possibly the NBTHK paper, in his sayagaki.  

You might also wish to ask Mr. Tanobe for his thoughts about submitting this sword for Juyo consideration. 

Congratulations! 

 

p.s. don't forget as Darcy revealed, Juyo shinsa is a contest.

[Katsujinken]

This was a good thread! Please keep us posted. 

[Kanenaga]

Another take-home point may be that when Aoi-Art uses the phrase "transmitted as ..." it suggests that the attribution (in this case, to Aoe) is being questioned, tactfully.

 

BTW, nice tachi koshirae with this sword. Late, but handsome.

[atm]

Mr. Tanobe completed the sayagaki. Here’s the translation I received (he had a lot to say about it!):

 

Bingo Koku Ko Mihara Masaie 

Osuriage Mumei 

On the Nakago, there is an Hon'ami Koson's gold powder signature.

But it is peeled off and illegible.

The blade is wide and O-Kissaki, a magnificent figure.

Shaped like a Enbun(1356-1361) and Jogi(1362-1368) era.

The Itame Hada flows close to the Ha. There are beautiful Utsuri.

Calm and elegant middle Suguha Hamon with Ko Nie.

Boshi is Tsukiage shape and small round back.

Yamato Den mixed with elements of Aoe.

Komihara swordsmith masterpiece representing a master craftsman.

 

This sword is very similar in appearance to the important artifact sword with the Keio date written on it.

Blade length is 2 Shaku 3 Sun 7 Bu Han.

Written by Mr. Tanobe in Feb 2024.

[Kanenaga]

Seems he liked it!

[SteveM]

Adam, I sent you some comments, and I wanted to note here that there are some loosely translated bits that don't quite provide the full impact of what Tanobe is trying to say. (And there is a glaring mistranslation of the date noted on the Juyo piece he's comparing it to: Tanobe says the sword resembles a Masaie sword from the Ōan (1368-1375) era, and the person who did the rough translation mistranslated it as  "Keiō" era). 

 

At first, I wasn't so sure it was a wise idea to get Tanobe to write a sayagaki that would be in conflict with the TH attribution, but I've done a 180° turn on this. Tanobe-san is strongly hinting at the Jūyō quality of this sword. 

 

 

[Jacques D.]

As Tanobe sensei charges for his sayagaki (one Japanese polisher I know even says he'd do them on umbrellas if he was paid well), he's inclined to "embellish" reality. That said, he's fallible like any human being, and that's why a college of experts is preferable to a single opinion (In science, it's the same thing: there are books and peer-reviewed articles).

[Jussi Ekholm]

I was going to comment that regardless of the attribution to Aoe or Mihara it will be a nice sword from Nanbokuchō period. I am really pedantic about attributions while classifying items however in reality I am extremely lax when it comes to them Most important is to enjoy the items.

 

It was really nice to see such sayagaki from Tanobe and Steve can give you many good pointers with better translation.

 

Here is the tachi that I believe Tanobe is referring to

[Franco D]

 

6 hours ago, Jacques D. said:

As Tanobe sensei charges for his sayagaki (one Japanese polisher I know even says he'd do them on umbrellas if he was paid well), he's inclined to "embellish" reality. That said, he's fallible like any human being, and that's why a college of experts is preferable to a single opinion (In science, it's the same thing: there are books and peer-reviewed articles).

 

Jacques words are worth repeating. In the end, as students, we must search for and seek out what is truth and reality vs myth and delusion. 

When someone like Mr. Tanobe renders his thoughts and opinion, our homework is beginning all over again.

It is important to learn and understand things for ourselves, and not simply accept something just because .... .

How well do you know your own sword? 

 

 

Regards,

 

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteveM]

Here are some of the things on the sayagaki that got "lost in translation" (mentioned to Adam in pm). 

 

・Tenshō-age - this is a term specific to the method of suriage, mentioned on the sayagaki, but untranslated. 

・Enbun-Jōji shape - another specific term relating to the shape of the sword, somehow mangled in translation. An "Enbun-Joji shape" is the key point for a Masaie attribution.

・Shirake-utsuri - Here too, he is hinting that this can't be Aoe, since Aoe wouldn't (or shouldn't) have shirake-utsuri. The translation of "beautiful utsuri" just misses the target completely. 

・Taki-otoshi style of boshi - another strong indicator of Ko-Mihara. Why this was missing from the rough translation is a mystery.

・One of the few outstanding works in excellent condition - A final word of high praise, before he mentions how much it resembles the Jubi Masaie. I'm interpreting Tanobe's use of the word 健體 to refer to the sword's condition (the characters literally mean "healthy + body" ). Hopefully Moriyama-san or Morita-san will provide a correction if they think it has another interpretation. Again, it felt to me like a comment specifically included to point out the fine condition of a sword that is many centuries old, and therefore worthy of attention.

 

I think Franco's comment above is very appropriate to this conversation. The attribution on the paper or saya is important, but how that attribution was decided is also important. We don't have this information on the TH paper, we just have a very qualified "said to be Aoe" on it. Tanobe spells out his thinking in his sayagaki, which is a great help to those of us who don't have the eyes or the memory that he has. 

 

 

 

[Shugyosha]

Lovely blade Adam, congratulations. 👍

[atm]

Thank you all for the input and especially to @SteveM for generously correcting the rough translation. The sword is finally on its way to me, and I am very excited to study it in hand.