samurai sword 1450-1550 a.d.

[reinhard]

You are wrong. Genuine Shu-mei are only to be found on ubu-mumei blades. Shu-mei on shortened blades are always fakes.

I was refering to that sentence

 

Of course you were, Jacques. I wonder what took you so long? Of course you will provide us with some more details about when, where and by whom this shu-mei was done and what it says, for your link doesn't give much informations so far.

 

@Franco,

Like Guido said: There's no reason at all to trust in shu-mei on shortened blades. Many Japanese scholars made this clear beyond doubt. If there happens to be one single exception to the rule (although I haven't seen one by now, including this YOSHIHIRO), it is not very helpful encouraging people to believe, shu-mei on their shortened blades might be genuine. BTW, you should have realized by now, what kind of game is played here.

 

reinhard

[nagamaki - Franco]

I don't deny that (Ô) Suriage blades with Shumei *exist*. And I would be surprised if a Shumei on an extremely valuable sword was removed if the attribution is supported by other evidence. My statement, however, that it's against all conventions still stands - if you can name one serious (Japanese) source that says otherwise I'm only too glad to expand my knowledge.

 

Hi Guido,

 

yes, the NBTHK.

 

@Franco,

Like Guido said: There's no reason at all to trust in shu-mei on shortened blades. Many Japanese scholars made this clear beyond doubt. .... it is not very helpful encouraging people to believe, shu-mei on their shortened blades might be genuine.

 

reinhard

 

Hi Reinhard,

 

It is not my intention to encourage anyone to believe that their shortened shu mei sword is genuine or not genuine. As for game playing, the game is simple, if someone believes that such a sword in their possession is genuine then there are clear steps to follow for submitting the sword to a shinsa, no games. But, to those contemplating taking on a shinsa with a shortened shu mei nihonto, please understand that Guido is correct with his words of doubt!

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Reinhard,

 

Always you want to have the last word. Always you say you are right, it's not true, sometimes you are wrong (like the tsuba's purpose) and you cannot admit it.

 

Of course you will provide us with some more details about when, where and by whom this shu-mei was done and what it says, for your link doesn't give much informations so far.

 

 

That's all i have.

 

 

Now if you don't agree this fact, you can write to the Sano Museum and tell them they are wrong.

 

 

If there happens to be one single exception to the rule (although I haven't seen one by now, including this

YOSHIHIRO),

 

Reinhard words are not gospel truth. You said "You are wrong. Genuine Shu-mei are only to be found on ubu-mumei blades. Shu-mei on shortened blades are always fakes." You should say i have not seen any one but that does not mean it cannot be.

 

 

 

 

Once, when i was young Mochizuki Minoru had said to me, "come closer those who searches the truth, shun those who claims having it." I try to do that.

 

Without any acrimony :D

[Guido]

Hi Guido,

yes, the NBTHK.

Could you please elaborate on that?

[Mark Green]

Hi Gang,

As this thread has now become a debate about Shumei, I asked Jeff to start another on the Nihonto list when he has new pics.

Feel free to continue the Shumei debate, although I don't feel it will be resolved.

There is obviously a Shumei on this sword. Was the appraiser there when the sword was shortened? No way to tell. The lacquer looks kinda new to me. But the pic. is very fuzzy!

My guess would be no. The rust on the newer part of the Nakago, looks pretty old. But I wasn't there.

Could it have been done buy the appraiser Jeff's grandad found? Who knows? It does look very well done though.

So we could go on and on about this. Like any, this sword will have to prove the shumei. and that will still be just an educated guess, at any level.

I just hope this sword is still alive.

Mark G

[reinhard]

All authorities I've checked are pretty affirmative in their statements about shumei. Ogawa Morihiro f.e. says about kinzogan-mei: "usually on shortened tang" but also about shumei: "on the intact tang". Point. No "usually". Ogasawara Nobuo and other scholars are affirmative in similar ways: On ubu mumei nakago is the proper place for shumei. This leaves me with hardly any space for speculation. This is also important to know, because there are so many false attributions (kinzogan-,kinpun-,shumei) added to increase the value of swords. Shumei on shortened blades are literally "red alert". Collectors and sword dealers had them put on all sorts of unsigned blades for commercial reasons. By late Edo and Meiji period, the authority of shumei, established by early Hon'ami appraisers, had been corrupted by the new ones. If one of those commercial attributions accidentally turns out to suit the blade, it's great luck and this cannot be a guideline nor expected. I agree with Franco though: A good blade should be submitted to shinsa anyway; no matter what's written on it.

 

Proudly presenting the one (possible) exception to the rule doesn't make much sense on a board like NMB, where many newbies are looking for guidelines. It is just confusing and misleading them, where they should be given reasonable advice, especially when exceptions are presented without relating their insignificance compared to the rules. This is "having fun as I can" at the expense of reasonable advice.

 

Oh,and Jacques, the one about "always having the last word" was really funny since it came from you.

 

reinhard

[stekemest]

First of all, I think this is an interesting discussion and it would be sad to see it drifting into some personal quarreling.

 

By late Edo and Meiji period, the authority of shumei, established by early Hon'ami appraisers, had been corrupted by the new ones.

 

Here's the tang of a katana of mine and it shows traces of what must have been a shumei. I would guess that it's older than late edo or meiji....?

 

Best regards

Peter

 

 

PS: If this discussion is getting off-topic, I would propose to divide this thread.

[Tokaido]

Hi,

some fuel for the fire:

Do you call this nakago ubu?

http://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2009/0910_3011syousai.htm

Do the Hozon Kanteisho state that the shumei is genuine?

 

Kind regards

Andreas

[Brian]

Jacques, your point is made. Reinhard's point is noted by everyone too, and I think everyone is quite capable of understanding how rare it is, and that there are always exceptions to every rule. That could have been shown with 2 or 3 sentences instead of constant attempts to prove the other wrong. That does it for that debate, thanks. Futher bickering on the debate about who was right will be deleted.

Feel free to continue the discussion about shumei though...as long is it does not veer towards who "is, was and will be right."

 

Brian

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

sometimes even sholars can be contradictory :?

 

 

Hon'ami Koson one of the better known recent Hon'ami and the teacher of Albert Yamanaka & John Yumoto, was a highly regarded appraiser, particularly for those appraisals done prior to the War. Kinpun-mei, along with kinzogan-mei and shumei are three of five appraisal modalities which are inseparable from the blade. Origami and sayagaki are separate and sometimes can be mated with blades for which they were not originally done. These nakago inscriptions are a specialty of the Hon'ami family. According to Yamanaka, op. cit., Vol. I, No. 3 (March, 1968), pp. 2122, kinzogan-mei are gold inlays found only on suriage blades, red lacquer shumei "only on a blade which is ubu, " and gold lacquer kinpun-mei " has the same purpose as the shumei." He goes on to point out that shumei were not done on shortened swords, and therefore, by implication, neither were kinpun-mei. There must be some contradiction as this Norinaga is obviously o-suriage and to be allowed to retain the kinpun-mei, issued prior to its Juyo status, must mean the attribution is correct and genuine. Ogawa, op. cit., p. 70, takes a more liberal view and says shumei are on an "intact tang," and yet he illustrates a shumei on an obviously o-suriage nakago. He goes on to mention kinpun- mei without a qualification, and points out that kinzogan-mei are only "usually" on a shortened nakago.

 

http://www.jssus.org/articles/6.html

[nagamaki - Franco]

Greetings,

 

In response to Guido asking for elaboration, when the NBTHK issues papers on a sword with a shu mei which has been shortened this is now documentation and published information, is it not?

 

For a person seeking authentication and thinking of submitting a shu mei sword to shinsa for an origami, what they should understand is; first, because of the shu mei the sword will be judged very critically, which means that the shu mei (attribution) has to be correct beyond any and all doubt according to the workmanship present in the sword. If the shu mei sword is not in a proper state of polish where an accurate judgment can be determined, the judges will almost surely fail the sword. If the shu mei sword is in excellent polish (correctly polished) and the judges determine that the workmanship casts any doubt on the given attribution, the sword will almost certainly fail. At this point if the sword fails shinsa only due to the shu mei, the shu mei can be removed and the sword can be resubmitted where it will almost undoubtedly pass shinsa being mumei. Now, if the sword is shortened with a shu mei {(late edit) 'which breaks the rules to begin with'}, not only does it have to pass the rigors described above, it must also be determined by the judges that the sword would have not been originally signed (as already mentioned in this thread). Which in the face of how significant a role tradition plays in Japanese nihonto culture, places the sword in a kind of shinsa double jeopardy. Here, again, it will be the sword itself that has to provide the shinsa team with ample information that is beyond any and all doubt to this end. In other words be prepared for failure!

 

The simple reality, as previously stated, is that a shu mei is the kantei opinion of one person (often unknown), which tends to set the odds against the shu mei being valid. The wise and experienced collectors I know treat all shu mei as being false until proven otherwise.

[jrs]

For arguments sake, isn't it possible for a blade to be shortened after receiving a shumei? Would tradition require that the shumei be removed, or, would the shumei be left near the end of the nakago as part of the blade's history?

James

[Mark Green]

Hi gang,

Franco, great pionts!

I was wondering if Peter's Nagi/wak with the mucked up shumei ever went to shinsa?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3107

On his, my guess would be that it was done when shortened. To say who the smith was. But it looked very damaged. I'm sure that putting on/removing the tsuka would tend to wreck these.

Peter, let us know if you will.

The nice Hon'ami shumei, have been most likely better cared for. On the most part.

 

This has been a great talk. We all know a lot more about lacqured mei now.

 

Mark G

[paulb]

Not sure how this relates to the debate but I have spent the last 9 months looking at a suriage blade that has a very old looking shumei attributing it to Aoe Tsunetsugu. This attribution is confirmed in a sayagaki by Honami Cozon. The Juyo papers state that it is an Aoe blade from the late Kamakura period, that it has a shumei to Tsunetsugu but this is not the ko-Aoe Tsunetsugu.

Obviously the presence of the Shumei did not cause the blade to fail shinsa, I assume because the workmanship left no doubt as to school and period but the NBTHK felt the need to clarify rather than discard the shumei attribution and have it removed.

I am assumimg the shumei is old because of the discolouration of the lacquer. I am guessing it is from an earlier member of the honami family but have yet to tie it down. I also assume that when appraising it the panel took the view that the shumei was part of its history.

 

I am away from base at the moment but those NBTHK members with the recent Tanobe-san article on recognising gimei, isnt there a definition in that about what type of blade shumei are applied to? I am sure I have read something recently about this.

regards

Paul

[Guido]

@ Franco:

In response to Guido asking for elaboration, when the NBTHK issues papers on a sword with a shu mei which has been shortened this is now documentation and published information, is it not?

Although I agree with everything else you write in your post, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Does the NBTHK paper Suriage swords with Shumei? It seems the answer is "yes". But does that mean the NBTHK recognizes Shumei as a common practice when it comes to shortened blades? I don't think this theory holds water.

 

@ Paul:

Are you the lucky bastard who bought that sword from Fred? I liked it a lot myself, but lacked the funds to buy it. Beautiful sword, great Koshirae, a *very* nice package.

 

I, too, wondered why it received Jūyō papers despite the Shumei, but then again, they couldn't rule out 100% that it wasn't made by a Aoe Tsunetsugu. I think it's a borderline case, and I can appreciate why they papered it despite the non-convincing Shumei.

 

@ all:

I spent a lot of time going through my books recently in regard to Kantei-Mei. (Almost) all sources state that Shumei is exclusive to Ubu-Mumei, and Kinpun-Mei and Kinzōgan-Mei are meant for Suriage swords. Are there exceptions? Obviously, but they are few and far between, and usually can be explained one way or the other. Not everything found on the internet or even books by Japanese authorities should be taken at face value, nobody is infallible.

 

I also agree 100% with Reinhard that the OCB of certain individuals to prove others wrong at every turn doesn't help in providing guidelines for beginning and intermediate collectors. In his inordinate, abnormal concern with exceptions to every rule our "spotter" is like the specialist in pathology examining diseased tissue under a microscope or the monkey searching for lice.

 

Let me give an example: we know that Hitatsura is a trademark of Sōshū smiths, and the sword posted shows this feature. But before we can discuss the blade, our owl-eyed friend points out that it is also often found on Owari-Mino blades - even if the blade presented is clearly not. Yes, he is basically right, but we yet again missed the chance to go step by step through the motions, explaining to newbies how to properly Kantei a sword. Instead we get lost in minutiae, authoritative statements and rebuttals, not realizing how the new forumite threw his towel along the way, never to come back. There are sometimes complains that some NMB participants (including me) tend to be too brutally honest, but I wonder how many newcomers would rather get a straight opinion, like it or not, instead of the constant bickering and confusing elaboration on exceptions.

 

I haven't ranted for quite some time - aren't you glad to have my evil twin back or what? :lol:

[Bazza]

After all that has been said, mostly to good advantage for the persistent reader, I come back to my first feeling on viewing the fuzzy photo of the putative shumei. I thought (as someone else commented) that the lacquer looked "fresh" (synonym "new") and very much the wrong colour, as if a 'modern' aniline dye/pigment was used in the urushi instead of the cinnabar of old (red mercury sulfide (HgS), or native vermillion). The sword itself could of course be polished and put to Shinsa without removing the shumei, then removing it if and only if the Shinsa result was divergent. I learnt some fine points in this protracted thread, as I hope some of the participants did!!

Regards,

Barry Thomas.

[paulb]

Guido

Yes I am the lucky B******D :D

[Guido]

Guido

Yes I am the lucky B******D :D

Is it o.k. with you if I hate you intensely for a day or two?

[paulb]

no problem it is an emotion I am used to!!

[nagamaki - Franco]

But does that mean the NBTHK recognizes Shumei as a common practice when it comes to shortened blades? I don't think this theory holds water.

 

Hi, agree, in retrospect (previous post now edited) the exception swords do not and will not change the rules or definitions, nor rewrite the books. Ubu unsigned is alive and well!

That is one of the wonderful things about nihonto study, just when you begin to think you've got it completely right, you discover you don't! And, now I think I will go change my wet socks, hmmm.

[Brian]

I'm tempted to start banning and deleting to prevent this constant bickering from continuing.....but isn't it odd that we get our best info and discussions when you buggers have your arguments

Great info, and I am sure more about shumei than is written in any current texts.

 

Brian

[pcfarrar]

I was wondering if Peter's Nagi/wak with the mucked up shumei ever went to shinsa?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3107

 

Yes it did papered as Echizen Shimosaka circa 1620.

[Mark Green]

That is great to hear Peter.

I love Shimosaka stuff.

Mark G

[paulb]

I found the piece in Tanobe-sans article I referred to in the earlier text. I quote:

"We know during the Edo period The Honami family applied Kinzogan-mei to blades which got mumei after the O-suriage process. When an attribution was done on an ubu but mumei blade, it was inscribed via a Shu-mei (red lacquer signature) From time to time we find blades which show a kind of shu-mei but which can be identified as O-suriage by the way the yakiba goes over the machi. Such attributions were done from the Meiji period onwards, and are not called shu-mei but shu-sho (red lacquer inscriptions). Also Kinpun-mei were not applied during the Edo period but also from the Meiji period onwards"

I hope this may help to clarify and confirm peoples views

 

Regards

Paul

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hi Paul, very helpful, very informative, thank you. Shu-sho, now why in the heck didn't they say so in the first place.

 

Darn, more wet clothes to change .....

[edzo]

One more

 

It looks right for the time period Jeff. Detailed pic would be great asap

I think some of the early Satsuma Naminohira group guys worked in that time period.

that would be very cool, and a wonderful gift!!

Or maybe one of the Bizen guys?

Your sword has been shortened from the tang (Nakago) This is called Suriage. Many very old swords were shortened in the 1600's due to sword length restrictions, and just because shorter swords were in style. I can see many nasty finger prints on your blade. These need to be cleaned off. Surf around, on this site and others linked above to learn how.

I'll crack some books.

Congrats Mark G

 

Hi Mark,

I understand from several reading sources that blades were shortened, particularly the older ones because it was necessary to adapt them to be more efficient weapons for the type of battle over time as the nature of the battles changed. From on foot, horseback etc. The blade shapes also changed as i'm sure you know as well as adaptation to the blades for balancing purposes.

 

Ed