Gimei

[uwe]

Hi all,

 

some topics in the past swirling around gimei blades. It seems to me, that in such a case most of the owners try to remove this mei.

Why the heck should they do so ???? Hope someone enlightening me :?

 

Greetings from Germany Uwe

[mike yeon]

In the eyes of collectors and serious appreciators of nihonto, gimei is looked at as a bad flaw that alters the state of what the blade in question should be/represent.

 

There are many reasons for forged signatures but all of them are meant to decieve and change percieved value. Lots of negative connotations there. (this is a flaw that is less physical/more cultural/cerebral)

 

Sometimes a blade with a gimei is a quality blade. (you can't forge masamune on a crappy blade and expect to fool people). It is still looked at as a flaw. so the mei must be removed for the blade to return to its "honest" state.

 

Value is intrinsic. Sometimes a gimei blade has such history being passed down through generations, the owner would leave it alone since sentimental value trumps market value. However, most collectors collect without such provenance so the value is in the blade itself. therefore the mei is removed.

 

Gimei blades also cannot pass shinsa at any of the organizations. some people like having papers.

 

And finally there are some folks that don't care so much about the signature and like the blade for what it is and see no need to change a thing.

 

Hope this helps

 

mike

[Darcy]

To understand this one, it is as if I had a painting by an old master and I spray painted "made by Bob" on the lower right hand corner on it.

 

The appropriate thing to do is to remove the defacement and return the art to its proper condition.

 

Sometimes (rarely) a sword with fake signature removed can paper to a higher smith after removal. Sometimes it will paper to the same smith, in which case it causes sleepless nights for the person who had the signature removed. Most times it will paper to someone lower because the reason the fakery was there was to trick someone into buying the sword.

[uwe]

Hi mike and Darcy,

 

thanks for your comments. I know most of the arguments "legalizing" the removement. It seems to me, that the point is; gimei = no papers! Unfortunately without reference to the quality of the blade in question.

Consequential "we" remove the false mei. But what happens in this case?

The nakago will be modified (suffer a loss of material, rework yasurime and patina....etc) and moreover, "we" changed the history of an old and (perhaps ) honorable sword.

Note: we are only custodians of this artwork!

I myself ownes an "Hasebe Kunishige" waki :lol: ( would be nice! ). But it`s an cool little blade in old polish and i never in minde to "touch" the nakago for papers.

 

BTW Darcy, your comparison with the painting is slightly misleading. I think nobody would have the idea to remove a false signature from an Dutch painting dated back to medieval times, isn`t it?

 

Greetings Uwe

[Brian]

Uwe and others..

 

I think the debate as I see it here comes down to whether or not the gimei signature was done at the time of forging, or later.

Many of the gimei signatures were done much later than the original date of manufacture, and were intended to deceive for various reasons. I think this is the case that Darcy is refering to. If a mumei sword was taken 100 or so years down the line, and a false signature was then added to increase value, then I see every reason to remove the mei and restore it to the way it was.

Uwe..I think you are refering to cases where the sword was produced and originally signed with a different signature than the maker.

I am not sure what the percentages of each occurrence were, but i suspect that far more gimei signatures were added later, and that the original gimei's were not as common.

What are the comments about this, and is this a consideration ever?

Am I correct in the 2 different interpretations of gimei and reasons for removal?

 

Brian

[uwe]

Hmmmm.......not so easy as i thought I´ve to consult one's pillow.

Thanks Brian!

 

Uwe

[mike yeon]

The cases where the sword was signed by a student or signed by someone who knew how to sign (as many early smiths were illiterate or someone else was just a good carver) is not considered gimei.

 

It is very expensive to remove a false mei from a blade. Only a highly skilled polisher can do this correctly. The mei is carved/cut out, and the tang reshaped and repatinated.

 

Darcy was right in his analogy. Look at it this way. Some guy finds an old unsigned impressionist painting. He then decides to sign the painting "monet" and tries to sell it for the millions an original monet would fetch. Then an experienced art dealer examines this painting and realises it's not a Monet but really an unsigned Van Gogh! The value of the painting is diminished because of the "blemish." No museum or self respecting art collector would hang up Van Gogh painting signed Monet. Most would try and restore it to its original state.

 

with a blade you can correct this situation. in the above case, it would be wise and responsible to remove the gimei. In other cases, that "monet" might turn out to be made by a 2nd year art student at your community college. In this case, it is not necessary or advisable to remove the mei.

 

Just my 2 cents. As always, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

mike

[Darcy]

Just to be clear, I am not arguing, but I am trying to explain the thought process so it can be understood. It is not about papers or no papers.

 

Defacement is defacement. It does not matter if it is old defacement. If If I was able to steal the Mona Lisa, then spraypainted it on it, and 1,000 years later from now they discovered the painting from where I had hid it... this is a simplified example that should help one to understand the approach that is taken in this regard. Of course they would remove what I have done and restore the work.

 

They do this with paintings today definitely, if they find overpainting that was done in an older attempt to "restore" something they will remove it if they can and it will not harm the artwork.

 

I would very much point out that there is a clear difference between modification and restoration. In this case the actions are restoration, returning the blade to how it was as best as possible before it was defaced.

 

Fake signatures are almost always attempts to deceive someone and increase the valuation of a work. They just don't belong and the work is better off with it removed if this is possible, provided a 100% accurate judgment can be made that indeed the signature is false. When there is uncertainty, it is my opinion that no action should be taken.

[Darcy]

One more thing about the mei removal process... when a smith signs his signature in almost every case he has done so by displacing metal rather than removing it. This process is reversable, as the raised areas can be hammered and so push the displacement back into its original place and so remove the mei without cutting.

 

Hankei is the obvious counterexample as a smith who engraved his signature. Someone attempting to properly fake his signature then would engrave, and this is much more difficult to remove.

[uwe]

Well, absolutely to consider, although not quite my point of view, in case the gimei signature is done immediately after forging (who knows?).

I have to admit though that rethinking your opinion, all in all, I go along with you!

 

Thanks mates

 

Uwe

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

when a smith signs his signature in almost every case he has done so by displacing metal rather than removing it. This process is reversable, as the raised areas can be hammered and so push the displacement back into its original place

 

...hehehe... nowI need only to know how much soia sauce is needed for

re-patination... :D

[Darcy]

Some gimei are indeed made right after forging, and I did not properly address that so thank you for mentioning it again. This was especially true during the Meiji period and in these cases, the entire sword is deliberately made as a fake.

 

There is no need to remove the signature as a defacement of the blade in this situation. Then it does boil down to whether the owner wants to paper it or not, and the question of how legitimate this is is certainly more ambiguous.

 

The thinking behind the removal of mei in these instances is more that the object was made as a fraud in the first place, and the continued existence of the fraudulent mei allows the fraud to perpetuate forever. By removing the mei, the damage that blade can do to people comes to a halt, and it can then exist as an honorable sword from that point forward.

 

For smiths who are particularly infamous (there basically being only one in this category, Kajihei) I can see the desire to keep the mei in place as an example of his forgery skill.

[uwe]

.......learned a lot, the last few days

Thanks again

 

Uwe

[kusunokimasahige]

By removing the mei, the damage that blade can do to people comes to a halt

 

Eeh?

 

sorry but i think that even with a gimei removed, any blade could still do considerable damage to people.........depending on its sharpness of course...... :lol:

 

KM

[Brian]

KM,

 

Of course Darcy was referring to the damage done via fraud and misleading impressions, rather than physical damage. I am sure everyone got that, but just wanted to clarify

 

Brian

[kusunokimasahige]

Brian, thank you for the clarification, it was a joke of me, of course.......

I found the statement to have a hilarious double entendre.........

 

my sick humour, think nothing of it onegai shimasu........

 

:lol:

 

KM