Signature comparisons

[IanB]

All, Here is a new thread which may have the effect of prodding a hornet's nest with a stick - but which in reality is designed to provoke us to step back and consider what appears to be an accepted fact. In the recent thread about an Omori tsuba there comes across the general opinion that the signatures of an artist on different pieces of work should correspond exactly (although it is accepted that a person's signature may change over his lifetime). The placing, length and angle of virtually every stroke of that tsuba's signature has been taken as evidence that the tsuba is, or is not, by Omori Teruhide. I know that I never sign twice in the same way. Did swordsmiths and other artists take pains to ensure their signatures were virtually identical?

 

In an attempt to determine if this is true or not, I have spent a little time looking at two signatures by the same swordsmith. Far from being the same, they differ considerably. To avoid the effects of scale, the length of the characters of the two signatures were measured (as a fraction of the total length from top to bottom of the name). In the first signature the top character is approximately 0.6, the second being 0.3 - the gap between them being 0.1. For the second signature these figures are 0.7, 0.3 with virtually no gap, the characters all but overlapping. There are other differences but even this simple observation suggests that precision was not considered that important.

Ian Bottomley

[Ford Hallam]

Not being one to shy away from poking hornets nests myself I'll jump in with the following additional observations.

 

For starters I think we need to look at the sword mei and tosogu mei as separate issues. My reasoning is as follows;

 

With sword mei I think there is a far greater range of samples to gain an accurate impression of a given makers style of mei as a result of long tradition of making oshigata. The situation with regard to tosogu is nowhere near as comprehensive and as oshigata are rarely made of mei on tosogu we are reliant on photographs. The problem with photo's, especially many of the older ones, is that they are so indistinct at times as to give very different impressions based on the angle of the lighting. Obviously this is not a problem on oshigata.

 

The second point I'd like to make is with regard to the different technique employed in making the mei in each case. With swords (and a few, earlier steel guards) the characters are struck, directly into the metal, with a tapered wedged shaped punch giving the characteristic arrow-head marks. With most mei on tosogu the kanji are actually cut, most frequently with a kata-kiri chisel which gives the distinctive brush stroke-like effect. Of the 2 methods it is very obvious to me that the mei on tosogu are far more likely to exhibit subtle variations due to the differences in material composition ( copper as opposed to steel or shibuichi...for instance) as well as the sort of changes in stroke formation that are commonplace in normal calligraphy with a brush.

 

I think that the over reliance on the "spot the difference" approach to mei validation has come about precisely because of the lack of really well illustrated catalogues of genuine work showing workmanship and artistry, particularly with regard to tosogu.

[DirkO]

I agree with the fact that the signatures will never be identical, but I think if you were to sign a piece of paper 10 times, you would see :

1) your signatures are almost never identical

2) there are certain characteristics of your signatures which will be consistent, like a certain swirl or turn.

3) even those temporary consistent characteristics will change over one's lifetime

 

Same goes for mei in swords I guess. Some smiths can be dated by the way they signed (and not just with which name). On the other hand it makes it more difficult to be certain a mei is legit. But then there's always shinsa :-)

[IanB]

Ford, I agree the difference in technique is significant and that the engraving of a signature on a kinko tsuba or the base of a fuchi could be achieved with a delicacy. I was amazed, when watching a signature being done on a sword tang, the size of the punch being used. It was quite a hefty hunk of metal and although the smith had marked out the tang in advance, the punch itself all but obscured his view of his layout.

Ian

[Ted Tenold]

I remember a story relayed to me about a Japanese swordsmith that was a visiting guest here in the US. He has made a few small tanto while here and was signing them the morning after a long night of libation. As he was inscribing the mei, he made an abrupt stop from his pace. He grunted and shook his head obviously annoyed by his misplaced strike of a single stroke. Looking up at the observers he laughed lightly and said, "In two hundred years, this is gimei!", then went back about his business.

 

On the whole I would agree that there will be variance in any craftsman’s signature due to moment, material, and progression of time. Also, Ford's point of the vast cataloging of sword inscriptions has the advantage of decades of comparisons in any individual craftsman’s career. There are minor variations that are accepted and those that are not due to this volume of information that doesn’t seem often available in tosogu. But I would also argue that when it comes to the matter of signing something, the consistency sought in a sword or a tosogu is a higher level of intensive focus for a craftsman, and not the relegation of an everyday commonplace task of "Dad, sign my report card" or "Honey, sign this check". The inscription of a signature is just as much a part of the intensive training as the manufacture of the piece, and by nature, the truly “finishing touch” and point of pride. Look at the consistency of highly recorded works by smiths such as Hizen Tadayoshi, Inoue Shinkai, and you'll find a remarkable amount of accuracy. A signature that might appear at first glance to be obviously good, can fall apart quickly when compared to known works. One can track the variation over time by these records and therefore observe their evolution. There was once a Taikei Naotane sword I saw with a *singular* stroke slightly different than listed examples, that threw the entire lovely work into question. It was a fantastic piece and the work was gorgeous, but that one stroke cast a shadow of doubt. It was submitted with some trepidation and passed shinsa. Turns out there were only three other examples of this particular stroke recorded, but they were indeed consistent among this small group of variants.

 

Also, the tools used are also important when examining. The angles, widths, shape of the cutting face, etc, are all important factors. Some swordsmiths used a single bevel on their tagane (chisel), some flat edged, some rounded to facilitate cursive and/or smoother cutting instead of chopping. Examining mei with a 10x loupe is quite an education. These forms and characteristics were passed on over generations. It would seem plausible that tosogu also share these traits and traditions.

 

So while I agree that variation is possible, the acceptable breadth of variation is quite narrow. The signatures on swords and tosogu are more than jotting a name. They were part of the work being produced, and points of pride, training, and traditions. This is far different from an office memo among a stack of others on which a personal mark is quickly penned to prove that it was seen by the addressee. If we signed our name each day with the same intent and focus as these craftsman did, I believe we would see much more consistency in our own signature.

[Brian]

I remember a story relayed to me about a Japanese swordsmith that was a visiting guest here in the US. He has made a few small tanto while here and was signing them the morning after a long night of libation. As he was inscribing the mei, he made an abrupt stop from his pace. He grunted and shook his head obviously annoyed by his misplaced strike of a single stroke. Looking up at the observers he laughed lightly and said, "In two hundred years, this is gimei!", then went back about his business.

One of the funniest things I have read in ages.

JSSUS...here is a perfect humorous story for the next issue.

 

Brian

[Ford Hallam]

Ted,

 

I liked your post but....with regard to consistency of mei on tosogu this does pre suppose an intention on the part of the maker to sustain said consistency. I can show numerous examples of significant evolution within given artists work that might, with fewer examples be dismissed as gimei because they fall outside the accepted canon. Herein lies the problem, we simply don't have, in most cases, enough samples to judge a lifetimes output on .

 

It might be of interest to consider the words of the late "National Living Treasure" potter; Shoji Hamada, when asked why he didn't sign his work. He replied that his bad work would be ascribed to his students while their best work ( similarly unsigned out of respect to their teacher) would be credited to himself.

[Ted Tenold]

Ford,

 

We're on the same side of the fence on this, though maybe a toprail apart. :lol: I would agree and as before, I think this has a lot to do with the reletive lack of extensive recording of kinko and shiroganeshi.

 

As a return stroke I would offer that one of Shoji Hamada's students, Warren MacKenzie (also a Bernard Leach student), stopped signing his works altogether. He felt the person should buy the pot, not the signature that the dealers were inflating and driving beyond the reach of the very people he wanted to enjoy his works.

[Ford Hallam]

Ted,

 

nah...I think we're on the same bit of the fence...hope it can take our weight

 

I agree that when we finally get more comprehensive and broader ranging sample collections of the mei an artist used over the course of their career we'll have to take the artistry workmanship into account a lot more. This is the area of study that interests me most, the technical and artistic development and expressions of these amazing artists.

 

I agree also that it ought to be about the work but....people want to collect names. I suppose we all want to feel we're holding something that bears the touch of a master. I'd add though, that the work should be self evidently worthy of a master to be worthy of that reverence.

[Eric H]

So while I agree that variation is possible, the acceptable breadth of variation is quite narrow

 

To mention again Naotane, he is perhaps a prime example to the degree of variation in chiseling his "mei" and "kao".

 

Eric

[Jean]

Must have been influenced by Zorro :D

[Mark S.]

Just to highlight this topic. AOI has two Tadahiro (I assume same smith by their description) blades currently for sale. When I compared the signatures side by side, there are some differences that to a complete novice (ME) look like some of the same differences that are discussed on this board for reasons to question whether it is the same smith or gimei, etc. For example, the first character in the mei seems very different and the last two characters have minor differences. Not questioning AOI in any way! Just trying to learn and I thought it was timely that two swords by the same smith were available for discussion. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these mei's and their differences.

Mark S.

[paulb]

Mark,

I haven't looked at the swords on Aoi but if it is the nidai Tadahiro his workig life spanned over 60 years so there is a lot of variation in his signature. Also his son Sandai Tadayoshi used to produce daimei for his father.

It is possible to tie down the period of manufacture of the Nidai's work based on the variations in his mei. Roger Robertshaw's book shows great examples of this.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

Just to highlight this topic. AOI has two Tadahiro (I assume same smith by their description) blades currently for sale. When I compared the signatures side by side, there are some differences that to a complete novice (ME) look like some of the same differences that are discussed on this board for reasons to question whether it is the same smith or gimei, etc. For example, the first character in the mei seems very different and the last two characters have minor differences. Not questioning AOI in any way! Just trying to learn and I thought it was timely that two swords by the same smith were available for discussion. Just wondering if anyone has any thoughts on these mei's and their differences.

Mark S.

 

If i'm not wrong, the item 08727 is signed Musashi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro and is a blade from shodai Tadayoshi the other item 08112 signed Hizen koku Musashi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro is from shodai Tadayoshi too but clearly stated as gimei.

[Mark S.]

Probably should have been more specific - I was comparing item 09172 to 08710.

Mark S.

[Jean]

Mark,

 

"To be more specific" is to attach the links and not numbers!!!!

[Mark S.]

Not trying to be vague or difficult, just didn't have a lot of time to post last time. Hopefully this might help?

Mark

[reinhard]

When I compared the signatures side by side, there are some differences that to a complete novice (ME) look like some of the same differences that are discussed on this board for reasons to question whether it is the same smith or gimei

 

Mark,

 

There is no standard procedure of how to verify/falsify a signature. What goes for KOTETSU and Kajibei cannot be applied to nidai TADAHIRO's mei and some minor changes occuring during his long span of working. Both mei look quite allright to me and what's more important: They are placed where they should be.

 

reinhard

[Jean]

Mark, before checking the mei, which is the last thing to do, you must check the craftsmanship.

 

Hada, hamon : do they fit the era, the school, the kaji.

 

When you come to the nakago : check the nakago jiri, the yasurime : if they fit the kaji work, only then you can have a try at the mei.

 

That's what I like with koto O suriage blades, you have no pollution coming from a mei. You can concentrate on the school.

 

Kantei is about the same as wine tasting/testing