Thoughts On Provenance

[Alex A]

School........... straightforward.

 

Particular smith.............straightforward?

 

Work and mei look good, but is there a chance that the work or mei are by someone else in the same school.

 

A student blade?............... indistinguishable from the work of the main man.

A student signing the mei on behalf of the main man.

 

So what we would have then is a copy of the masters work. Are you 100% sure your blade is by that of who is stated?

 

Another thread got me a wondering, just looking for opinions folks.

[SwordGuyJoe]

Simple answer. Shinsa. Then (in most cases) trust the opinions of those that know far more than me.

[Alex A]

Hi Joe, I'm talking about Shinsa

 

Odds are that there are blades out there with a few unknown truths, cant be 100% sure of anything when we are dealing with the past, history we don't know nothing about.

[dig1982]

The problem is that the most expert (shinsa) can made valutation error too. I think many of the forum members read Nakahara's book and what he said about paper, mumei blade and gimei.

[Alex A]

Hi Diego, i understand the error bit, they are just educated opinions afterall.

 

What im getting at is stuff we may not know about, who else may have worked in busy forges and who may have done this and that. I'm talking 300+ years ago.

 

Speculating I know, but curious

[Alex A]

An example, this is what I would assume would happen on some occasions (amusing scenario maybe)

 

A customer turns up.

 

Theres a dozen katana unsigned in the back, half by master, half by student.

 

Boss don't like the look of the customer (doesn't have much cash, possibly a poor Ronin), so he picks up a student blade, hands it to the student and says "run me my signature over that whilst i have a brew".

[dig1982]

Yeah Alex i understand, and not only for blade made 300+ years ago but in shinshinto too...probably many blades was made by student... and maybe if the blade was good the main smith put his signature...

[Kronos]

I'm of the opinion that if the blade is good enough to pass as the master it might as well of been made by the master. After all if Masamitsu for example could make a sword as well as O-Kanemitsu then his work should be just as valuable/appreciable so does it matter which hand crafted it if the quality was there?

 

The reason these famous smiths are famous is because of the quality they churned out so a poor example is imho no better than a sword by an also-ran smith of the day. This is of course by direct students not utsushi of old Koto masterpeices by shinto smiths etc.

[dig1982]

I don't understand what you say James...you don't mind to know who made the blade if there is the quality?

[Kronos]

It's always nice to know but when it comes to things guarded by the annals of time you have to accept that many times you cannot know for sure so shinsa is just a best guess. It's not so important in the grand scheme of things to know your blade was made by a guy who you know practically nothing about or his brother who you also know nothing about. After all, why do you want a blade by this particular guy other than quality?

[SAS]

I think I understand what James is saying and i also agree....in the days when these swords were used, the quality of the sword was what counted....this is why smiths became famous in their own time. Collectors may have different values for other reasons, but in the beginning a sword was a tool (weapon) that could not fail its owner when needed. 

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Interesting topic, but probably under the wrong heading. Provenance, taken literally, means "coming from", and the term is usually used in the context of the history of ownership of a blade. Auction catalogs love to tout the previous ownership of an art object to try to enhance its status in the mind of prospective buyers. The Christie's catalogs for the Compton sale were full of such information, and it seemed to me that it carried little weight in the ability to sell or on price unless the blade had a good paper and/or was signed. In the case of blades without a mei or high status papers, once again we saw that the uncertainty of that condition was not easily overcome by provenance.

 The issue in this thread is one of daimei, wherein the blade is master made and student signed, or daisaku, wherein the blade is student made and master signed. There are a number of examples of daisaku in the case of a smith who lived a long while and when elderly would do little more than sign. The same would go for an injured or infirm smith. I do not think it is likely that a shinsa would make note of such a situation if they could identify it, as daisaku are considered legitimate. There is a third case and that is where the blade is made by a son or student, and signed by him with the mei of the master. I am not sure what such a blade should be called and whether it is legitimate to any extent. Does anyone know how such a piece would be assessed? Would it be a gimei? The master might have agreed to such a situation, but how would one know?

 Arnold F.

[Alex A]

Hi Arnold, silly me, thanks for the clarification, I link the word with "authentication", should have used that in there instead maybe.

 

Lately, I'm wondering if a lot of big name blades with papers may have an hidden ?

 

One may own a blade with a ?, but alas, ignorance is bliss

 

Maybe I think too much lol

[paulb]

A couple of things to consider

1. If you are doing kantei if there is a relationship between the smith who made the sword and your answer, i.e son or direct student then the answer is considered correct. This suggests that the work is effectively indistinguishable by the panel setting the kantei questions. In many cases they happen to be the same people who carry out appraisals in shinsa.

 

2. We can all spend a lot of time worrying about who signed what was it their own work or some elses etc. The reality is we will never know. The only one who does is the man who signed it and not surprisingly he isnt telling. If it fits the two criteria of the work being of a style and quality you would expect and the mei looks to be right then that is as close as you can get and further fretting soul searching etc will gain you nothing other than a headache and a few sleepless nights.

 

3. Supporting the comment made above by James a smiths reputation was important, they would not jeopardise this by allowing their name to be put on anything of lesser quality. It would be a potential road to ruin.

 

I have to admit when reading so much about mei dai-mei gimei etc it makes me rather happy I have only one signed sword all the rest are mumei. At least that means I can only focus on the workmanship to decide what they are (or are not!)

[seattle1]

Hello:

Points well taken Paul. Of course the blade is the thing, signed or unsigned. I have some unsigned blades too as a consequence of suriage and sometimes we can be quite confident of the period and tradition, but I always have to have some skepticism as to maker, though that can be buffered to some extent by a Tokubetsu Hozon or higher paper, and hopefully with a respected sayagaki too.

Arnold F.

[Jean]

Paul,

 

You cannot imagine how I can agree with you considering my only signed sword is my Yasumitsu, all pthers are Osuriage

[Alex A]

Perhaps I could sum up my thoughts in a different way.

 

A fictitious example 

 

Lowry the painter works with a few sons, possibly two or three students, their work is indistinguishable, he has taught them well.

 

He signs his name, they sign his name, all a bit confusing. Buyers want his name, Lowry likes that, he charges more!

 

Now, back up to date, Mervin, the buyer in the future buys a Lowry with an authentication paper, stating its by Shodai Lowry (1st), he pays big bucks.

 

BUT, and its a BIG BUT we don't know its a Lowry 1st lol, the Tardis had broke.

 

So maybe the papers should state.........." Lowry school, possibly by Head Lowry 1st, we don't know for sure".

 

so, how can authentication papers state that it is by Shodai Lowry 1st?

[paulb]

If the work is as you say indistinguishable then you cant tell the difference. Continuing your painting analogy that is why you have the Rembrandt committee or the Renoir commitee etc. Generally if these bodies say the work is authentic then it is regarded as so by the market and achieves the price accordingly. This is why such weight is put on papers by dealers (especially those selling in the west) and why the market panics if papers are called in to question.

Bottom line is there is no substitute for study, satisfy yourself what you are looking  at is what you like and want. Dont buy the name, buy the sword.

papers should confirm the conclusion your research has reached. Originally shinsa was to determine the age of a sword and it's quality, to some extent it still is. there will always be uncertainty as in all areas of art history you have to decide the risk and determine your willingness to accept it.

@ Jean

Yes I remember and it is another thing we share, except my signed blade is probably gimei

All those I regard as important are O-suriage with various levels of attribution, all of which I think to be believeable based on the work I am looking at.

[Alex A]

Im joining you and Jean in the Koto missing mei department

[paulb]

A very wise path to sanity (or not)

[Alex A]

Ye, I know a lot of head scratching goes on in there too, all fun