The Japan Mint

[fukuoka]

Just a short post because I don't have much time to write a long informative essay. Sorry.

Anyway, Peterson called the Japan Mint the 'Osaka Mint' for the obvious reason that the main mint is indeed in Osaka. However, using 'Osaka Mint' to refer to the Japan Mint is not correct, so I hope from now on we can use the latter term when referring to the place where medals, paperweights, coins, etc are made.

There were a number of branches in existence at different times. For example, Osaka, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Kumamoto, Sapporo, and Akita all had branches of the Japan Mint. That is not to say that all the branches minted medals. Although I haven't found out what each branch produced, it is certain that at least two (Osaka and Tokyo) minted medals. Maybe more, but I haven't finished reading all my sources. (I have so many unfinished still!!)

It is true that the Osaka branch produced most items (coins as well as medals & others) from Taisho 2 [1913] to Showa 11 [1936]. (With the exception of pure silver items. The Tokyo branch made about 25% of those during this time.) However, from Showa 12 [1937] to Showa 20 [1945] the Osaka branch only made about 60% of gold items, 50% of silver, 60% of bronze, and about half of the other items. The other branches (named above) were heavily involved in production.

Here is another certainty (not conjecture): The Tokyo branch had a medal minting department at least as early as 1940 (but it may have been established earlier). So even though it may be true that the Osaka branch minted most medals, some were made elsewhere.

Well, an unorganized and incomplete post. Since the Japanese refer to all the branches as a single entity, the Zouhei-kyoku (造幣局), we medal scholars should do the same. What I'd like to propose is that we refer to the Mint as the Japan Mint hereafter.

Cheers,

Rich

Edited October 23, 2011 by fukuoka

[Dieter3]

Sounds good to me. We need to be consistent if we are to understand anything! :)

[JapanX]

Well, an unorganized and incomplete post. Since the Japanese refer to all the branches as a single entity, the Zouhei-kyoku (造幣局), we medal scholars should do the same. What I'd like to propose is that we refer to the Mint as the Japan Mint hereafter.

Cheers,

Rich

I wonder if M mark was Osaka exclusive mark...

Or M mark was used as general mintmark by all branches of the Japan mint..

I prefer fist scenario

P.S.

Peterson, 3rd edition, p. 5

"some (NB!!!) of the insignia made by the Osaka mint bear

the mintmark M, but the absence of this mintmark does not

necessary mean that the piece is not of Mint (!) manufacture.

Apparently this mark was only used in the 1930's..."

[fukuoka]

Peterson was bibliography-challenged, so we cannot know where his information came from; consequently, we cannot confirm many things he wrote. And since there are some errors here and there in his book, it is possible he was mistaken in other places. Maybe the OMSA had (has) his original bibliography.

Edited October 23, 2011 by fukuoka

[Dieter3]

I wonder if M mark was Osaka exclusive mark...

Or M mark was used as general mintmark by all branches of the Japan mint..

I prefer fist scenario

I prefer the SAME! It's already confusing enough. Come on Japan Mint, give us a break! :lol:

[JapanX]

Peterson was bibliography-challenged, so we cannot know where his information came from; consequently, we cannot confirm many things he wrote. And since there are some errors here and there in his book, it is possible he was mistaken in other places. Maybe the OMSA had (has) his original bibliography.

Of course Peterson book is not perfect... And you can find some mistakes here and there...

But until now this quote wasn't disproved ;)

[JapanX]

I prefer the SAME! It's already confusing enough. Come on Japan Mint, give us a break!

We should keep ours heads high Buddy!

[fukuoka]

Of course Peterson book is not perfect... And you can find some mistakes here and there...

But until now this quote wasn't disproved

Of course, having errors in a book is common. I do not fault Peterson for that. But him not having a full bibliography for people to check the information and do follow-up research is really a disappointment.

And as for disproving a statement, isn't the burden of proof on the person making an factual assertion (Logic 101)?

Edited October 24, 2011 by fukuoka

[Dieter3]

And as for disproving a statement, isn't the burden of proof on the person making an factual assertion (Logic 101)?

Yep! One must be able to back up their claims and facts with reliable sources or solid evidence. Conjecture and whatnot is fine, so long as it noted as such.

[JapanX]

And as for disproving a statement, isn't the burden of proof on the person making an factual assertion (Logic 101)?

I don't think that there are "burden of proof"...

Translation errors mostly (and in affect - wrong atributation).

Logic 101 Rich?

If Peterson made n mistakes,

then Peterson made n+1 mistake.

Strange kinda logic

If Peterson made m right statements,

then Peterson made m+1 right statement.

True? False?

Nope, this is not logic ...

Let's just wait and see what you'll read in your mint books...

Cheers,

Nick

[JapanX]

Yep! One must be able to back up their claims and facts with reliable sources or solid evidence. Conjecture and whatnot is fine, so long as it noted as such.

Yep mate!

Let's do that! ;)

Edited October 24, 2011 by JapanX

[JapanX]

But him not having a full bibliography for people to check the information and do follow-up research is really a disappointment.

Peterson bibliography contains 17 books and articles.

This is not so bad for typical phalerstic book.

The problem - books that are included in bibliography doesn't contain statistical

information that he operates in his book. Why?

Maybe Peterson used some other non-published sources (captured documents) or even verbal sources?

I don't know.

Edited October 24, 2011 by JapanX

[fukuoka]

Peterson and Mike Quigley have done a great service to Japanese medal collectors, and Mr. Quigley even allowed me to examine some of his rare pieces when I visited him. To these two men I owe a good deal and I appreciate their work. So this will be my last post about Peterson & his sources, simply because all I want to say is that his bibliography is poor. I stand behind that. 17 sources, yes. But a closer look shows this:

Henry Sakaida's source is concerned with only one badge. I have read his report (thanks to his generous nature) and it is insightful--but it deals with a single type of badge.

Sylvester's source I have not seen, but the title suggest it is concerned with a single badge.

Decorations of Japan is basically a picture book. I have 3 different editions and they vary little.

Paul Kua's source (which is at least partially online), Manchu Ti..., and the Manchukuo yearbook deal with awards from that country, though minted in Japan. They don't deal with the vaster subject of Japanese orders and medals.

Yasinitsky's sources I haven't seen, but the titles make me think they are post-war Self-Defense Forces related.

The Statues [sic] I think are the ordinances I have translated, and they are invaluable. But 'various editions?' That's not too specific.

Ditto the 'various editions' of the RC. How is one supposed to find the ones he referred to?

So I stand by my claim that his bibliography is rather threadbare.

But I must restate that what I have written is not an attack on Peterson at all. Far from it. Simply that since it is hard to confirm some things he wrote, we cannot just accept them as factual.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

Cheers, Rich

Edited October 24, 2011 by fukuoka

[JapanX]

Simply that since it is hard to confirm some things he wrote, we cannot just accept them as factual.

Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

Cheers, Rich

Yes, I completely agree.

Nick