Japan Christie's Auction: Post-battle damage assessment map of Pearl Harbor.

[zorg]

Titled in Japanese with English translation: "Estimated Damage Report against Surface Ships on the Air Attack of Pearl Harbor," December 8, 1941," PREPARED BY MITSUO FUCHIDA, LEAD PILOT OF THE JAPANESE ATTACK, FOR A BRIEFING OF EMPEROR HIROHITO, ON 26 DECEMBER 1941.

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/books-manuscripts/world-war-ii-pearl-harbor-post-battle-damage-5754328-details.aspx?from=searchresults&intObjectID=5754328&sid=3917ec95-34ec-4db5-85dc-0fd015c15199

[Chris Liontas]

That is amazing.

[Ulsterman]

Sigh......I hope the Smithsonian gets it.

[dond]

I'm surprised it wasn't confiscated after the war....

[Chris Boonzaier]

I'm surprised it wasn't confiscated after the war....

Hi,

it says "This map or a photographic enlargement of it was employed in Fuchida's briefing of the Emperor on December 26, 1941." so this original may have been in the guys private papers.

Thats a lot of loot for a hand drawn map.... but I think the prices are based on the fact that the buyers are not militariacollectors... As a militaria collecto i would think a Churchill Signature is probably worth about EUR100 - 200... there they seen to be about USD1 500... it is simply a completely different Clientele ......

[Rogi]

Its just giving a collector false hope. You are still playing the lotto with this statement:

This map or a photographic enlargement of it was employed in Fuchida's briefing of the Emperor on December 26, 1941."

If it wasn't used in the briefing it is just a archival document that does have significance but not for the reasons employed in the title itself used for selling this item.

It would be like...buying a Confederate sword and then saying "this may or may not have been used by General So and So because it is his favorite brand of sword"

While true, it is a huge no, no for me at least, if you can't prove where it was used then you can not use such a direct title to sell a product.

In case people like the unknown and are willing to jump at something I have a slightly used plastic spoon that may or may not have been used by General So and So. :D

I find it funny if someone on ebay posted something similar we would all laugh, yet a big auction house can get away with using such terms :D

Edited November 28, 2013 by Rogi

[JapanX]

Its just giving a collector false hope. You are still playing the lotto with this statement:

This map or a photographic enlargement of it was employed in Fuchida's briefing of the Emperor on December 26, 1941."

Solid provenance

"Provenance: Lt. Commander Mitsuo Fuchida (1902-1976) -- Gordon W. Prange (1910-1980), historian attached to General Douglas MacArthur's Far East Command in the late 1940s founder of the Prange Institute. Prange interviewed Fuchida on 29 June 1947 (sale, Sotheby's, 3 May 1994, lot 104, $321,500). -- The Malcolm S. Forbes Collection."

[Rogi]

Solid provenance

"Provenance: Lt. Commander Mitsuo Fuchida (1902-1976) -- Gordon W. Prange (1910-1980), historian attached to General Douglas MacArthur's Far East Command in the late 1940s founder of the Prange Institute. Prange interviewed Fuchida on 29 June 1947 (sale, Sotheby's, 3 May 1994, lot 104, $321,500). -- The Malcolm S. Forbes Collection."

It belonged to these people, it doesn't mean it was used in the briefing, at least they are letting the buyer know where it originated from I agree with that etc but its still a lotto , you could have Royals own something and for that item not to be involved in any actions.

"This map or a photographic enlargement of it was employed in Fuchida's briefing of the Emperor on December 26, 1941."

Its still a risk on that^ being that it could be the original that someone used for the briefing, to me it would mean more if it was the actual item used for the briefing, especially at the price point I was wondering if we have professionals who could analyze any available photos of the map from the briefing and make a determination via that route?

Edited November 28, 2013 by Rogi

[Ulsterman]

If you honestly believe that this auction house with the potential legal/ financial liability attached to the sale of a document that is not THE document, well......... Good luck with that. I expect life is all actually merely the Buddhas' dream too then.

Its the real thing. Forbes didn't have much crap.

[JapanX]

It belonged to these people, it doesn't mean it was used in the briefing ...

I see " " wasn't enough

Ok

"Solid" provenance :whistle:

Edited November 28, 2013 by JapanX

[Chris Boonzaier]

It may be naive to accept sellers statements blindly, but it is equally silly to automatically dismiss them.

If anyone has a real interest, maybe they can contact the auction house and ask for further details ?

If I was to post an EK1 and say "This was Dönitz EK1" you would get 20 posts, 19 of them would be "Yeah Right! You naive fool... you think you have his cross".... and these 19 posts would be based on... nothing.

I dont have Dönitz Cross.... but someone does.... and if he DID post it... the same 19 people would automatically say "no you dont!"

Simple fact of the net.

[JapanX]

If you honestly believe that this auction house with the potential legal/ financial liability attached to the sale of a document that is not THE document, well......... Good luck with that.

I honestly believe that THE very same auction house sold five years ago very dubious (to put it very mildly) St.Andrew with diamonds for 481 k's. Good luck with that ...

[Chris Boonzaier]

Beliefs are like opinions, everyone has one... I assume if an award went for 481k there were many people watching the auction... and noone says anything? 2 Weeks ago you declared my badge a fake... and it was not....

My point is, healthy scepticim is good, but an automatic rejection of things is counter productive.

[JapanX]

... and it was not....

It wasn't?!

How did you figure it out?

By Frank comments?

Well, good luck with this one too!

P.S. To Claudius - hopefully now you understand better my PM to you.

Edited November 28, 2013 by JapanX

[Chris Boonzaier]

I am sure Claudius does... and no, it is not. Please feel free to prove otherwise.

[JapanX]

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

First of all I don't "feel free" to prove you anything.

I don't care much about you or your "rarities"

Second, as we know ;-)

Some people don't have to explain... they just "Know" ;-)

Thirdly, as you kindly put it once, I am always

...come out looking like a "quantity versus Quality" poster...

God bless you dear "moderator"

[Chris Boonzaier]

I am sure he will,

But I dont claim the piece to be a rarity, just one you know nothing about.

[Ulsterman]

An interesting discussion and here on this forum, a bit testy for once. Still, being Gentlemen and Ladies we shall keep it civil.

I am not disputing looking at objects d'art with a skeptical eye. Fakes at the upper end of the art market are superb. Everyone knows the story of the Dutch "collaborator" and Goerings' Rembrandt.

But to view an object like this as a fake in these circumstances is beyond the Pale IMHO.

Christies and Sotheby's earn their bread and butter by selling arts and antiques and an object like this, ( and have done so since the Stuarts were on the throne) certain to get an enormous of international media attention, must have been scrutinized and verified by many historians and experts. I would start by viewing this document as genuine and then work backwards. To dismiss it out of hand may be an ego boost, but is foolish IMHO. It reminds me of those people who claim that 9/11 was a US government/ Bush plot because the smoke billowed the 'wrong' way when the towers collapsed etc.. It is always nice to believe that one is the wise keeper of arcane knowledge and to have discovered dark and hidden truths, but in reality it says more about the skeptic's personally than the actual historical validity of an object. People believe or disbelieve things often for their own internal motivations.

Many, many Militeria collectors do this and think themselves experts because they are masters of second hand information...." I read it on the...." Or "well it's in Angolias' book so it's ok" etc.. There was an excellent thread on this over at the WAF @. 13 years ago in a column I used to post called "Fakes and Frauds", which was news culled from the Antiques press and law Society Journals about Militeria Fakers being caught. This led to a sharp exchange about some dealers and I well remember Rick Lundstroms' Reaganesque aphorism, " trust, but verify". Prosper Keating also wrote a very memorable post about how all dealers become jaded, somewhat bent because they have bills to pay and grow to loathe their clients, which I have often pondered at certain dealers' tables.

Bottom line the odds of this being the bone fide map are overwhelmingly good and there is very little I can see that says it isn't, beyond unwarranted ( note that word) suspicion.

Having said that, there is much to say on this topic....MUCH! Even the experts in our field are suspect and over the past fortnight I have come across certain things that have rekindled my interest in faking in Military antiques.

This is a forum that does a very good job at discussing the probity and history of these objects d'art in a civil fashion.

I apologize if my slightly sharp comment caused offense. However, a ' suspect' St Andrews' Order.....well, Id like to hear more about that. Even the experts get fooled sometimes...the question is how often.

[JapanX]

An interesting discussion and here on this forum, a bit testy for once. Still, being Gentlemen and Ladies we shall keep it civil.

Come on!

Don't pay much attention to me

Or even better idea - simply delete my previous post (if I remember correctly - this was your choice two years ago, when another "writer-moderator" got into a mess with his ridiculous "theories" ... Hope this one is still writing his "great book"...)

I apologize if my slightly sharp comment caused offense.

Naaaaa

It was of course my fault!

But at least this time it wasn't about Olympics

However, a ' suspect' St Andrews' Order.....well, Id like to hear more about that.

Posts # 184-185

http://gmic.co.uk/index.php/topic/54861-pro-fide-lege-et-rege-imperial-russia-order-of-the-white-eagle/page-10

....experts get fooled sometimes...the question is how often.

That's true!

Good thing I am not an expert ;)

Edited November 28, 2013 by JapanX

[Ulsterman]

Well, I am missing completely the reference to the deleted posts, the Olympics and the Moderator writing a book.

Having had a look at the RUSSIAN St Andrews' thread....you may well have a point. That 481k version does not look "old" or similar to the other specimens.

I had assumed the UK version.

[JapanX]

Well, I am missing completely the reference to the deleted posts, the Olympics and the Moderator writing a book.

I see ...

I had assumed the UK version.

"Made by Faberge" by the way

P.S. But this thread is not about fake St.Andrews, fake wines, etc... It's about Commanders report and my only point can be formulated like this.

I simply can't understand why Commander Mitsuo Fuchida willingly gave up the such precious (if not sacred!) personal memorabilia to an american historian during 1947 interview. Not to mention that I don't think that he (or anyone else for that matter) would dare to add english subtitles to an original report. Maybe it will be much more realistically to assume that report on Christie's is a copy (or special version) that was prepared by Commander specifically for his 1947 interview.

If Commander didn't "gave up" anything during his interview and original report was already in the possession of Prange, then why such strangely formulated provenance and English subs on original report.

[Chris Boonzaier]

Many reasons why people give other people things. Within 2 years of leaving the army i had sent about half of my stuff to some guy down in Florida because he was interested in them, and I was not. I cannot explain why I did it, so i doubt someone will be able to 50 years from now. Most of the stuff in our collection has changed hands at some time in the past and many of us say "I cannot believe XXX would have giveb his YYY to a collector!"

The English seems to have added at a later date. It has battle damage info that the original Japanese report did not have, and translates what an non Japanese speaker would need to know.

Maybe Fuchida's original in Japanese, and some 1947 additions from when the two men met, the American filling in what Fuchida could not have known....

[JapanX]

Many reasons why people give other people things.

Got it!

[JapanX]

What really interesting is a very strange after war fate of this Commander.

Especially period between 1947 and 1952.

According to the wiki, after the war, Fuchida was called on to testify at the trials of some of the Japanese military for Japanese war crimes. This infuriated him as he believed this was little more than "victor's justice". In the spring of 1947 (Prange interviewed Fuchida on 29 June 1947), convinced that the Americans had treated the Japanese the same way and determined to bring that evidence to the next trial Fuchida went to Uraga Harbor near Yokosuka to meet a group of returning Japanese prisoners of war. He was surprised to find his former flight engineer, Kazuo Kanegasaki, who all had believed had died in the Battle of Midway. When questioned, Kanegasaki told Fuchida that they were not tortured or abused, much to Fuchida's surprise, and then went on to tell him of a young lady, Peggy Covell, who served them with the deepest love and respect, but whose parents, missionaries, had been killed by Japanese soldiers on the island of Panay and Philippines. For Fuchida, this was inexplicable, as in the Bushido code revenge was not only permitted, it was "a responsibility" for an offended party to carry out revenge to restore honor. The murderer of one's parents would be a sworn enemy for life. He became almost obsessed trying to understand why anyone would treat their enemies with love and forgiveness.

Eventually Fuchida become interested in the Christian faith. In September 1949, after reading the Bible for himself, he became a Christian. In 1952, he toured the United States as a member of the Worldwide Christian Missionary Army of Sky Pilots. Fuchida remained dedicated to a similar initiative as the group for the remainder of his life.

Maybe this religious experience made him more cooperative …

I don’t know …

[JapanX]

Another interesting side of the story is that currently there are differences in opinions about his after-war testimonies

Some claim that some of his statements were false

Contra

(interesting piece from NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW)

REFLECTING ON FUCHIDA, OR `A TALE OF THREE WHOPPERS`.pdf

Others totally disagree with this point of view (another piece from NAVAL WAR COLLEGE REVIEW) the he was practically a Saint.

Pro

PARSHALL’S “WHOPPERS†EXAMINED FACT-CHECKING THE VARIOUS.pdf

Edited November 29, 2013 by JapanX