Since
the inception of the Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyōkai (NBTHK) and the
sword collecting boom of the post-war period, the issuance of
kantei-sho (authenticating papers) became widespread to the general
public. Whereas swords with false inscriptions are not awarded
kantei-sho, the allegedly spurious inscriptions of many blades have
been removed in order to obtain an attribution. In some cases, the
attribution of the kantei-sho was in accordance with the inscribed name
that was removed from the nakago. Such occurrences actually support
Nakahara sensei’s theory on the subject: the blade already had a
spurious signature to enhance its worth, but now that it has become
mumei its credibility is higher than one with a questionable signature.
The fundamental problem is that authenticating papers are based solely
on opinion. Unless one was there at the time of an unsigned blade’s
manufacture, there is no guarantee of an attribution being absolutely
correct. There are many instances of unsigned blades receiving
different attributions depending upon when or to which scholarly group
it is submitted. This is not a surprising matter as the workmanship of
swords is very subjective to the viewer. The variables involved in the
blade’s history (number and quality of polishes, the polisher, shade of
nugui, shape changes, damage) can alter a sword beyond normal
recognition. In addition, there have been occasions when living smiths
have been handed their own work and asked if it was theirs, and they
answered, “probably”.
Even
today in Japan there are occasions when blades may require attributing
inscriptions due to unusual circumstances. Swordsmiths usually have a
stock of blades in various degrees of completion. I have heard of
instances in modern times when a swordsmith has passed away, and the
remaining blades have been given to friends as gifts. Occasionally, the
owner may get another smith to quench it, and if it is unsigned, have a
kinzogan attribution added to the nakago.
This
kind of debate on mumei blades is not limited to the ones submitted to
hozon or tokubetsu-hozon. The questions raised by mumei blades are
debated right up to National Treasure level. Until the technology is
invented to conclusively appraise mumei blades (or questionable mei for
that matter), this kind of problem is not likely to be resolved anytime
soon.
*Translator’s
note: In the previous chapter Nakahara sensei requested that sword
enthusiasts study harder to reduce the necessity of kantei-sho,
therefore limiting the opportunity for unscrupulous persons to
manipulate market prices or fool anyone into thinking a sword is any
better than it actually is. This applies to all blades, but
particularly mumei blades.
Most
collectors want to identify what they have and whether it is genuine.
However, for many people (Japanese and non-Japanese alike) the amount
of study required for this level of skill is more than they are willing
(or able) to invest for what most regard as a hobby. For people not
living in Japan this is pretty much impossible, as access to the
quality and depth of examples of all schools, periods and makers (let
alone a range of one person’s workmanship) is not readily available.
Ultimately, the majority of sword enthusiasts have no option but to
rely on the opinion of those who they regard as authorities on Japanese
swords. This translates into modern kantei-sho.
I
used the word ‘opinion’ specifically, as the world of sword appraisal
is full of pitfalls. Given the difficulty of the subject, and the
subjectivity of appraising blades, an appraisal is ultimately that
person’s or group’s opinion. Consider Masamune. To some he is seen as
the greatest smith to have ever lived. However, this fame is not
without some controversy. Many examples of Masamune’s work are unsigned
and even among the top scholars there is disagreement on several of his
attributed works. For example some scholars feel that one of the Hocho
Masamune is actually the work of (Rin) Tomomitsu. The sori does not
correspond with the timeframe within which Masamune was active, and the
blade displays utsuri. In addition to this, it is claimed by some
that definitive examples of meito by various smith illustrated in
several taikan are in fact gimei. Again, these claims cannot actually
be proved or disproved as they are subject to opinion, and opinions can
change from one generation of scholars to another.
Given
the amount of smiths who have been active in the last 800 or so years,
it is likely that a large number of them still remain unrecorded.
However, the thrust of Nakahara sensei’s point is not that you have to
become a master of kantei, but that if you master the fundamentals of
swords you can distinguish a good sword from one that is not quite what
it is trying to appear to be.
To
compound the problem of kantei-sho, there are also many forgeries in
existence. Some of these are very good. The only way to be truly sure
that a kantei-sho is genuine is to check the serial number with the
issuing authority. Also, please thoroughly inspect the kantei-sho
and the blade and ensure that they belong together.
All
kantei-sho are the opinion expressed by that group, and even if a blade
has a kantei-sho it is the responsibility of the interested party to
thoroughly investigate it and the blade’s authenticity before a
transaction commences.
..» |
