Adding Signatures To The Nakago...common Pratice?

[barnejp]

Hello Everyone,

 

I posted a thread about a possible Kunimune.

 

What interested me the most is that a couple of replies stated that the inscription was added later, perhaps 100 plus years later.

 

Did this occur and how often?

 

Thank you,

Greg

[Ray Singer]

Gimei (fake signatures) are exceedingly common. Especially so when you are talking about such famous smiths as Bizen Saburo Kunimune.

 

Best regards,

Ray

[Grey Doffin]

Old saying out of Japan: Put 100 blades by Kotetsu in a room and for certain 101 of them are fake.

Grey

[chrstphr]

Kotetsu was handed a sword bearing his mei.  He looked at it and said, the sword is mine, the mei is not. 

 

 

Chris

[seattle1]

Hello:

 With all due respect I think Greg might be asking a somewhat deeper question than the obvious.

 We all know that signatures are found on swords from very early times, and that some smith made swords from all periods remain unsigned to this day. We also know that gimei have been added to many swords, sometimes after removal of the real mei. What we don't know much about, at least in Western language literature, is when and why did added signatures, presumably for value adding reasons, start becoming a real issue chronologically and satistically. I suppose it might have had something to do with the arrival of, for the lack of a better term, a "personality cult" creeping into the sword world. Curiously some products, like ko-tosho and ko-katchushi, and I believe kagami-shi and some other early pieces were never signed. Some famous mingei (folk craft) potters of recent times like Shoji Hamada and Kawai Kanjiro never signed, and one of them, Kawai, even refusing Living National Treasure status.

 We also know that in some traditions, signing was less general than in others. While some of the well known Yamato makers in the Nara area did sign, often they would not. Some were doubtless priests themselves, and perhaps the ego expressed by signing would be seen as self-destructive. We also know that swords, until quite recent times, were often prime gift objects, and that some famous mei or attributions, such as those for Masamune probably exceed what he could have done in a lifetime, yet all his recognized daito length are unsigned for one reason or another, including suriage.

 Just thinking (?) out loud here. I would be interested to know the opinions of the Board or if anyone knows of a serious treatment of the subject.

 Arnold F.

[peterd]

Hi, i read on here i think that a famous Japanese potter was asked why he did not sign his work. He said his poor works would be put down to his schools work and a great school work would be put down to him. 

[barnejp]

Thank you everyone and, especially Arnold.

 

I feel this is an important topic.

 

For example, if a blade was made by a famous swordsmith but the nakago wasn't signed, which was common practice with certain swordsmiths, is it possible and even likely that another swordsmith knowing they have a acquired a famous blade, add the famous swordsmith's signature?

 

Wondering what other members think?

 

Thank you,

Greg

 

 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Anything is possible in the sword world, Greg, especially if it puts money in someone's pocket.

 

Have you read up on dai-mei, daisaku-mei, shu-mei, & ato-mei? If not, please check out http://www.ncjsc.org/gloss_mei-1.html.

 

Ken

 

[Jacques]

[truelotus]

and it's getting more murky when we consider shumei, kinpun mei, or kinzogan mei 

as I am aware, families like Hon'ami do add gold mei on the nakago bearing the name of the smith they thought making the sword

[PNSSHOGUN]

Yes generally a mei inlaid in gold is perhaps more reputable than one simply inlaid normally. However this practice is sometimes viewed negatively by some as more of a "showing off" of the appraisers skill.

 

If a sword is of such quality or made by a famous smith surely it can be identified by the fine qualities of the blade alone.

[Bruce Pennington]

On 2/9/2017 at 6:47 AM, PNSSHOGUN said:

Yes generally a mei inlaid in gold is perhaps more reputable than one simply inlaid normally. However this practice is sometimes viewed negatively by some as more of a "showing off" of the appraisers skill.

 

If a sword is of such quality or made by a famous smith surely it can be identified by the fine qualities of the blade alone.

Looking for a good thread to post something I've just read. 

"In feudal days when one of the nobles of the court or one of the Samurai acquired a sword on which the signature of the maker did not appear, he had the name of the maker inlaid in gold on the nakago.  Therefore the name of a sword maker inlaid in gold always indicates that someone other than himself put it there."

page 27, "NIPPON-TO, THE Japanese SWORD" by Inami Hakusui, 1948.

[Dave R]

 From the KASHIMA sisters

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/ubumumei.html 

 

A gold inlay of smith's name is maker's name that was done at the same time of shortening the blade, being sorry the signature disappears.
Names that written with lacquer are attributed name.
A red lacquer is on the original unsigned tang. A gold lacquer is on the shortened tang.

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/tang.html

[Jim Manley]

I think the kikumon on the blade on the left has been added. Mon on the right is from a NBTHK papered Wak, 1’st generation Hisamichi. Blade in the left has not been through shinsa. I’ll post a follow up photo of the two signatures . I considered starting a thread for just Gemei signatures. We could possibly gain something from comparing multiple gemei’s to each other rather than to legitimate signatures.

Jim

[Jim Manley]

Hisamichi 1’st generation