Certificates of Authenticity

Sword typology and Edge Weapons forms of the Chinese Empire and related cultures with an emphasis on their relationship to Swordsmanship.

Moderators:Scott M. Rodell, Philip Tom

Post Reply
bond_fan
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:153
Joined:Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:45 am
Location:CA, USA
Certificates of Authenticity

Post by bond_fan » Fri Dec 26, 2008 9:46 pm

I have collected game-used sports memorabilia for over 15 years and started collecting antique Chinese arms a year and a half ago. One thing I found lacking with the purchase of most Chinese arms and I think should come with any antique Chinese arm(s) sold is a certificate of authenticity.

In my opinion the certificate should include a photo of the item, description of the dimensions and other parts or characteristics of the arm, estimated time period of manufacturer and the opinion of the appraiser explaining his findings. The name, address etc. and the signature of the appraiser should also be on the certificate.

I think each of the points must be part of any good certificate, because for example without a photo and description of the arm the certificate could be switched with a different weapon or even modern fake. I am basing the above on my many years of experience in reading and writing certificates of authenticity for game-used sports memorabilia.

When I first started collecting game-used items I made it a point to go to auctions and read the certificates that went with the items to be auctioned. I learned a great deal about the format of the certificates and key points that distinguished say a real Babe Ruth bat as opposed to one made after his death. As with game-used equipment these key points are important with Chinese arms.

With the advent of digital photography, editing programs and printers it is very easy to add a photo of the item(s) to the certificate, whereas before a photo was attached to the certificate instead of being an integral part of it.

The appraisers of Japanese arms have what is known as, ORIGAMI - Appraisal certificate, and I think Chinese arms should have the same. Authentic certificates help to boost the understanding of our field of collecting and helps to legitimize it. Granted certificates are only as good as the person(s) doing the appraisals, but if a panel of experts could be gathered where they give their opinion and write appraisals for Chinese arms this will help the dating and understanding of Chinese arms and help to weed out the fakes we often see on Ebay and the such.

For Japanese arms there are two main organizations that periodically write letters of appraisal for Japanese weapons. They are N.T.H.K.. - Nihon Token Hozon Kai (sword appraisal group) and N.B.T.H.K. - Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kai (sword preservation group). Previously, origami could only be obtained by sending the Japanese arms to Japan, but now there are branches of these organizations in the US and they come to certain shows throughout the US to issue origami for the many Japanese arms that are in the US. Of course there is a fee for this, but in my opinion it is a small price to pay to know that one’s arm(s) is not a fake or to know when it was made.

Unlike Japanese arms, where the period of the piece is estimated based upon the quality of the workmanship and perhaps a name, date or other inscription on the piece, I have learned that in collecting Chinese arms it is not sufficient to base the timeframe of manufacturer solely upon the design of the weapon. With many Chinese antiques, later artisans copied styles of previous dynasties and as such patina has a great deal to do in determining the age of the weapon or if the weapon was excavated from a site where carbon dating can be used to determine the age of those artifacts that can be carbon date, which metals and jades cannot. This is how the dating of Japanese and Chinese arms differs.

I have attached a certificate of authenticity for a Chinese dao (Saber) that Peter Dekker, Mandarin Mansion (Business name), The Netherlands, sent me. I think it is very comprehensive and right on in terms of what I expected to see in a similar certificate of game-used equipment. I attached this to show the quality of what can be achieved in a certificate of authenticity. However, I cannot attest to the validity of what is written, because I don’t have enough experience in the field of authenticating Chinese arms yet. Yet, but someday soon…

I hope that some day those dealers, collectors and restorers of Chinese arms with the experience to write certificates of authenticity will come together in a group to provide this service for collectors at an affordable price. In the meantime I hope that they will read my post and strive to issue the comprehensive style of certificate that Mr. Dekker wrote. I welcome any comments you may have and I hope that if you know a person(s) with the experience to authenticate Chinese arms that you forward this to him and ask him to participate in helping to organize a panel of experts for the purpose of authenticating Chinese arms.

Thanks!

Image
Image[/code]

User avatar
Peter Dekker
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:395
Joined:Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:46 am
Location:Groningen, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Certificates of Authenticity

Post by Peter Dekker » Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:11 pm

At first thanks for the compliments, I am happy you are content with the certificate. I didn't normally do this, but at special request I'm of course willing to add a certificate with my findings on the object.
bond_fan wrote:Granted certificates are only as good as the person(s) doing the appraisals, but if a panel of experts could be gathered where they give their opinion and write appraisals for Chinese arms this will help the dating and understanding of Chinese arms and help to weed out the fakes we often see on Ebay and the such.
In the basis it is a really good idea, I like it and it is something worth working towards. What we lack at the moment is the proper resources to really execute it. I know a few people who would be very qualified for this work. I dare say more so than myself, as they are in the field much longer. But the problem is that like me they also sell antique Chinese arms. I and many others can attest for their honesty and objectivity, but when they declare a piece from another seller as "fake" or "badly represented" which will inevitably happen considering the current state of Chinese arms trade, it would be easy for the seller to say they are not objective enough because they are competitors.

For the general audience it may be hard to see through this. Outside the respected dealers, there are even very few museum curators whose knowledge in this field is adequate. We would really need a larger community of people with proper knowledge to really be able found such a committee. A danger is also that less honest people form such a committee, which exists in Asia, that publicize sizable collections of a mix or real, fake and monkeyed for the purpose of speculation.

In Japan there has been a long-time culture of appraising their own arms, while in China the connoisseurship of edged weapons is for a large part lost. So sending a piece to China for appraisal will not help in this case either, by figure of speach one could have a microwave declared antique there if need be! Those Chinese collectors that do know they stuff very well generally keep a low profile and don't want to publicly offend dealers they buy from that sell a mix of real and fake. It's the face thing that prevents transparency here.

Another thing that helps the Japanese is like you pointed out: many weapons are signed, and that there still is a large amount of data available about the various makers and styles made. Chinese makers generally didn't mark or sign their work, but were probably recognizable by certain aspects of style in their time. (I know this was true for bowyers, at least.) Information about this unfortunately went lost, as far as I know not a single Qing sword maker's name is currently known.
bond_fan wrote:With many Chinese antiques, later artisans copied styles of previous dynasties and as such patina has a great deal to do in determining the age of the weapon
This is very true. I remember having bought a blade of an archaic style which I thought was quite early, possibly Ming. When sent to my trusted restorer Philip Tom who disassembled the hilt and got to see the tang he found it to date from the 19th century instead. A pitfall for beginning collectors is also the vast amount of late 19th cent. curio arms produced that roughly imitate 18th century styles, sometimes even with Qianlong reign marks. These often sell for similar prices as the real deal on ebay. Luckily those are not too hard to tell apart from the real deal if one compares them side-by-side.

-Peter
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.


-Bruce Lee

http://www.mandarinmansion.com
Antique Chinese Arms & Functional reproductions

http://www.manchuarchery.org
Fe Doro - Manchu Archery

Philip Tom
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:153
Joined:Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:47 am
Location:Sunny Cailifornia

shinsa (appraisals) and origami (certificates)

Post by Philip Tom » Mon Dec 29, 2008 2:03 pm

To institute a system of appraisal societies and certifications on the Japanese model for non-Japanese swords brings with it certain issues and problems that need to be addressed.

For one thing, to submit a Japanese blade for shinsa, it must be in perfect polish. Ideally, all pits need to be ground out, and the surface fully revealed. Many Japanese blades won't make the cut anyway, because they've been polished too many times already and are already "tired" -- the hamon practically gone, the blade shoulder at the edge ground back practically flush with the edge of the tang, core steel exposed, etc. Not to mention tips damaged and re-ground, blisters exposed in the laminations, etc. The system of appraisals and certificates is something that matured during the Tokugawa era, when Japan was at peace for over two centuries and swords could be appreciated as art and not constantly used as battle tools.

Contrast this with the well-worn, or let me say chewed-up condition of many Chinese blades that have endured a long, turbulent history down to living memory, in a country which for one reason or another has not always treated its antiquities with utmost respect. When polishing these old war-horses, I always have to be mindful of how far to go in grinding off the blemishes (rust and signs of abuse) -- a sword's owner wants it to look as presentable as possible, but it's not proper to grind it down to a mere wisp of its former self, either. There are times in which the rust has eaten its way between the laminations of the steel (especially with the corrosion caused by uncleaned bloodstains): an appraiser would be hard-put to tell if, after a "best of of the circumstances" polish, whether it looks like irreparable deterioration or a manufacturing flaw.

Look, there are a lot of swords from around the world which are worth a lot of money and are beloved parts of many a national heritage, and they can never be brought to the level of condition that will pass muster in a Japanese-style shinsa -- the trove of medieval Arab, Mamluk and early Ottoman swords of the Topkapi, the 16th cent. south and central Indian swords and daggers in the Tanjore Armoury, and so forth. Any private collector who owns a blade like any of those, if he is knowledgeable, will be able to value it for what it is, not because some Board of Sword Gurus & Muftis has issued an official declaration that it's "good stuff".

Certificates of authenticity are fine if one wants to document via "expert" testimony that what he has is original and not reproduction or fake. Ideally, their validity is most credible if issued by someone other than the one who sold the sword to the collector who wants the certificate! If you bought a football signed by OJ Simpson from a memorabilia dealer, wouldn't you be more comfortable if it came with an authenticity document signed by someone else, with no financial interest in the sale?

As far as certificates adding to the cachet or intrinsic value of a sword, a question can be raised. In the final analysis, does a collector who really understands what he collects, and appreciates what he has (in terms of whatever criteria he deems important to him), he really need a piece of paper signed by an expert (who may have spent all of 5 minutes looking at the piece) to tell him that what he already knows? And how does he "know"? From years of study, discussion with trusted colleagues, looking at LOTS of objects in the same field, comparing decorative motifs with other aspects of the same material culture and era, etc. etc.
Phil

bond_fan
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:153
Joined:Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:45 am
Location:CA, USA

Post by bond_fan » Wed Dec 31, 2008 1:33 am

Philip brings up two matters of note:

1. Whether or not the certificate is valid depending on who issues it, which is why I proposed a panel of third party experts to whom one's Chinese arms could be sent to for an opinion.

For example in sports collecting fields one can send their cards to be graded and encapsulated by companies who give their opinion on the condition of the card, its authenticity and whether or not the card has been altered. Same for coins. My proposal was to have such a panel do the same for Chinese arms much like the two major organizations who write letters of authenticity.

The reason why I chose to use Mr. Dekker's COA was it was by far the most thorough COA I've seen for Chinese arms in that it had a photo of the sword and was signed by him as well. It is in my opinion the type of COA I hope an organization of third party specialist can issue.

2. Does the collector know the value of the item, does he really understand what he collects and the other stylistic aspects or quality of what he collects? Some collectors do, but I'd imagine the vast majority don't, nor do they have the time to do so.

I have a friend who spent one week of his vacation going through the records of Louisville Slugger to learn how many bats were made for each player, the size, lengths and measurements. He has been studying bats for over 20 year's and even learned things about dating them that superseded old information that was learned disseminated earlier. Not every collector of game-used bats has the time to do this, nor is the factory going to allow that. Fortunately, a few experts published their findings in book format.

Not everyone has the time nor the contacts to go to a museum to see their arms collection to learn about Chinese arms. To compound matters is swords are housed in museums and collections all over the world. Not every collector is going to be willing to tell others what is in their collection or even show photos of their collections in fear of getting it collection stolen. Not every private collection is available to see conveniently close to where one lives.

There are very few books with color photos showing the evolution of the different styles of swords made throughout the dynasties. That is why I propose to have properly formatted COAs issued by a competent and knowledgeable panel.

Perhaps my proposal is a pipe dream, but I believe if it can be done for Japanese arms why can it not be done for Chinese arms? Certainly it will be almost impossibility to have one book show it all, but let's get some books out there in English language and a panel of experts us collectors who don't have the time or experience to authenticate are own swords to do it for us for a reasonable fee.

And even people who do third party authentication sell the same types of collectibles they authenticate. What matters is the integrity of the authenticator to me. not whether or not they sell what they authenticate.

Thanks for listening.

Philip Tom
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:153
Joined:Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:47 am
Location:Sunny Cailifornia

Post by Philip Tom » Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:53 pm

Based on the experiences and careers of every serious collector I know, it seems that gathering knowledge firsthand has been an essential part of the collecting process, and what guides the collector in his acquisition program. "Not having time" for study is no excuse -- these guys have all had day jobs/owned their own businesses, raised families, walked their dogs, played recreational sports, ad infinitum. Yet they managed to build libraries (even in fields where the common wisdom is "nothing's in print about what I'm interested in"). Those of my generation started in the 1970s, no online info available then! If you want to achieve something, you make the time and put forth the effort. ( Unless you have the wealth of a William Randolph Hearst, who had an army of "pickers" combing Europe for treasures to put in his San Simeon castle. )

And you don't have to be an "alter kocker" to have achieved anything in this field, seniority doesn't mean much. Look at one of our younger forum members, Peter, who's blazing new trails in the study of Qing archery. He's working with older experts in the Asian archery field (Selby, et al) but his hands-on approach is taking this thing in new directions, teaching us what we weren't aware of up til now. This is a guy who relishes a challenge and never complains.

As I've implied before on this forum, there are no shortcuts and no free lunch. Those of you who know Scott realize that this is the way in his school as well--be prepared to sweat, bleed, and get bruised. The Sephardic philosoher Baruch d'Espinosa said it far better than either of us can:
"If the road I have pointed out ... seems very difficult, yet it can be found. Indeed, what is so rarely discovered is bound to be hard. For if salvation were ready to hand and could be discovered without great toil, how could it be that it is almost universally neglected? All things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."
Phil

bond_fan
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:153
Joined:Sun Sep 16, 2007 7:45 am
Location:CA, USA

Post by bond_fan » Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:24 pm

One must do hard study, that is almost always a given, but not everyone can up and move to China to go to school for years like Peter did, to learn the language and live on the cheap. He and Scott at an early age chose those paths when they had no attachments or responsibilities such as a family, house payments or a full-time job. I don't think Scott could up and leave his family for a few years to study martial arts so late in the game.

Those who are bilingual and can read Chinese language have an edge up on things. Persons who started collecting over 30 years ago have an edge up based upon experience and making contacts over the years, plus the ability to buy things cheaply back then. If I had the money I do now and the knowledge in the 70's I could have bought a lot of cool game-used bats and guitars.

Newer collectors perhaps have more resources to educate themselves, but for Chinese arms there is still not a lot of information available like Japanese arms.

There are a lot of books dedicated to Japanese arms. Chinese arms I can think of maybe four and only one being modern with color photos. Too bad Alex Huang Fu's book, Iron and Steel Swords of China is in Chinese. Makes it a difficult read for those who cannot read Chinese.

It seems we are getting off subject. Again, I am proposing getting together a group that can authenticate swords for a fee. They don't have to be Chinese or even in China. Why not in the USA? I talked to Scott Rodell at length today and he likes the idea, but his thought is people unlike myself who have been in the collecting world are not likely to want to pay for this service and those who do might not believe the truth that their item is not real after it has been looked over.

I am also proposing that those who are selling swords issue a comprehensive certificate with each sword they sell, so that if it is incorrect the buyer has recourse, the buyer can be educate and should the buyer sell his sword later a paper trail is started on the history of that weapon.

For Chinese jades people pay big money for pieces from prominent collections, even after further research items from this collection are proven to be dated from the wrong time period.

Last summer a large percentage of jades from the Avery Brundage collections housed at the San Francisco Asian museum was determined by Chinese "experts" to be jades from the Ming & Ching dynasties, not earlier dynasties as they had thought. What did the AAM do, they changed the dates and did a special exhibit highlighting later Ming & Ching dynasty jades.

So how about us collectors being more willing to share information on the dating of swords through both photos or our collections? Let's get a Chinese Sword society formed, let's insist on better COA's and those selling issue ones like Peter's. I'm willing to put the effort in, how about????

User avatar
Peter Dekker
Rank: Chang San feng
Rank: Chang San feng
Posts:395
Joined:Tue Dec 06, 2005 7:46 am
Location:Groningen, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re:

Post by Peter Dekker » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:29 am

Hi,
bond_fan wrote:Those who are bilingual and can read Chinese language have an edge up on things.
For translating old text I'd say a definite yes, but regarding most of the material written in China about the subject, we're not missing out on much.

(My Chinese, by the way, is by far not as good as I want it to be but for translating old texts this gives me an advantage over some adepts of modern Chinese: I am not biased by strong assumptions on the modern meaning of some characters and usually compare the entries of several different dictionaries. Combined with experience of seeing the items described -especially for those Imperial items that are certain to be exactly the ones in the regulations- give a good idea of what is meant which then can be used for other more vague entries. But still it takes hours to translate a certain passage.)

bond_fan wrote:Too bad Alex Huang Fu's book, Iron and Steel Swords of China is in Chinese. Makes it a difficult read for those who cannot read Chinese.
It is good for the pictures but there is a lot of wrong information in there. Sure, credit goes to him for putting together a book with so many nice pictures of swords let there be no doubt about that. But he seems ignorant of the fact that a good number of replicas are made of 18th century swords and sabers for the tourist industry (and not the military, nor officers) around the 1900's. They only resemble these earlier swords in general style but lack the detail and workmanship of the real deal and come with shoddy untempered blades. (See a grouping of these on page 170 described as mid. - late Qing officer's peidao.) He also presents what appear to be 19th century Korean swords as Ming Chinese, yes a Ming-ish style was preserved there but we shouldn't only date on style. And there are those notorious "Qianlong era Taoist jian" complete with reign marks that sometimes sell for incredible amounts on auctions but were in fact also made in a later period. Still the book stated they are "Qianlong era" as the reign marks suggest. So although an impressive collection of pictures of a good number of very nice items, it can be somewhat misleading for the collector.

bond_fan wrote:It seems we are getting off subject. Again, I am proposing getting together a group that can authenticate swords for a fee.
It is generally a good idea, but the "market" just doesn't lend for it yet. There will inevitably be questions of being partial. I don't like dealers that bring more nonsense into this world about Chinese swords as there already is, and would gladly want to help clear the mess up. But others can easily turn it around and say I have a grudge because they are effectively my competitors. The only way to really tell is for the collectors to do more homework of their own and figure out who presents his arguments best / most honestly. Dealers can even point to the sources if necessary but they will still have to read them themselves and get their own conclusions.

In the Japanese sword collecting world there is a tendency for the information to be spoon-fed by the many books, publications and experts. Which is exactly why I don't like it, there is little opportunity to do something pioneering in that well-established world. Among Chinese arms, there is still room to contribute a lot.

bond_fan wrote:I talked to Scott Rodell at length today and he likes the idea, but his thought is people unlike myself who have been in the collecting world are not likely to want to pay for this service and those who do might not believe the truth that their item is not real after it has been looked over.
Oh yes, very likely. I've talked to a guy once with a crappy reproduction sword that even proclaimed it had been in the family for over 80 years in the defence of its authenticity, while it was clearly made a few years ago at most. On taiji events some would say my antique swords are not well-balanced, and how a real sword would be floppy and balanced at the guard. When I say that no usable floppy antiques have ever surfaced they continue that these are indeed very rare, and can only be found with "special connections". It reminds of some fundamentalist religions nowadays: The less they know, the more convinced they are about being right.

bond_fan wrote:So how about us collectors being more willing to share information on the dating of swords through both photos or our collections?
A few reasons why not to:
1. Makers of fake swords also follow these forums. Scott Rodell told me he's once seen a fake sword in Beijing that was a direct copy of a sword from his own collection that he once published on the net.
2. The more they know what we look for in steel, patina and the ageing of the tang, the more they will look for ways to get it more exact.
3. Pictures can deceive. Not even experienced "daters" like to judge a piece on pictures only.
4. Dating is not an exact science, and there is no shortcut in learning it other than looking at a lot of tangs. Still it may never be very accurate as different climates are likely to have an effect on aging. I try to get better by looking at tangs that are already dated by people whose judgement I respect, or pay attention to blade types that were restricted to a certain period. What I told you on dating in an email is all that I've been told, the rest can only be done with practice.

bond_fan wrote:Let's get a Chinese Sword society formed, let's insist on better COA's and those selling issue ones like Peter's. I'm willing to put the effort in, how about????
I guess this forum is already a good medium for something approximating such a society, where antiques can openly be discussed. I welcome anybody to join.

But getting standardized COA's out as a small group, participating dealers will be likely seen as a "cartel" covering each other's back no matter how honest the participators may do their work. Professors of history don't even agree with each-other, so who are we to say he is right and he is wrong? We can all contribute to more understanding by collective study of the subject and public discussion about things on forums such as this one, while the more experienced ones can point the others in the right directions.

When profits and interests are involved suspicion will inevitably arise upon a regulated group, provoking opposition. Some of us have already been caught in a political game on SFI some time ago. I personally don't need all that. All I really like is old swords, bows, arrows, and Qing history. Let me translate texts, fiddle with my arrows, dress up as a Manchu on festivals
and leave politics and official business to others.

I am asked why I stay on the green mountain
I smile but say nothing

Plum blossom is carried far off by flowing water
I have heaven and earth in the human world


(By Li Bai)

-Peter
Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do.


-Bruce Lee

http://www.mandarinmansion.com
Antique Chinese Arms & Functional reproductions

http://www.manchuarchery.org
Fe Doro - Manchu Archery

Post Reply