Gimei and value

[Paz]

Hi all haven't posted in some time. 

 

I wanted to get a discussion going on gimei blades which are of high quality. 

 

There are swords which have been made by top quality smiths, but signed under a different name ie the signature of a top smith who lived before and died. 

 

Some of these swords are higher quality than made by genuine smiths. 

 

So the question is why don't the NBTHK give value to the sword itself, rather than the signature. Ie why don't they actually determine who made the sword and give it an appraisal based on the work itself even if it is gimei. 

 

I mean would they pink slip a sword made by masamune, but on a strange day he decided to sign it Norishige or kunimitsu? Thus gimei. 

 

Some swords were made as gifts and the would be buyer would purposely want a gimei signature? 

 

What we have are gimei swords which are of top quality, but low value because of the signature. 

 

Just a thought. 

 

Regards 

Paz

[PNSSHOGUN]

If a blade is of good enough quality, the Gimei is quietly removed and the sword papered on its own merits.

 

Edit: To clarify, this would be arranged with a professional Togishi before submitting.

[Paz]

31 minutes ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

If a blade is of good enough quality, the Gimei is quietly removed and the sword papered on its own merits.

Thank you. So if the sword is presented to NBTHK, can they reccomend to remove the signiture? And then bring it back to judge. 

 

Or is this usually done before it's given to nbthk. 

 

Regards 

Paz

[Bugyotsuji]

Paz as John said, quietly done. (Beforehand)

 

The NBTHK would not go on record recommending any such thing, even if it is the right thing to do. Also, removal of the signature needs to be done by an artisan with the understanding of nakago dynamics and the ability to repatinate invisibly. If the sword is as good as you say, it is worth getting this aspect just right. I have seen someone lifting up a blade and showing how the nakago is slightly too 'thin', i.e. considerable metal has been removed from only one side, to the depth of the deepest impression of the gimei signature.

[Geraint]

With regard to the idea of removing such an amount of metal the best technique to remove a mei relies on the way in which mei are cut, i.e. the punch used displaces metal rather than removing it.  A skilful removal of the mei would be done by pushing metal back into the mei to obscure it rather than filing the whole nakago down to depth and hence inducing the situation that Piers relates.  As is always the case the restoration that you can spot is the one done badly. 

 

All the best.

 

 

[rematron]

I think the base question here which hasn't been answered is: Why won't the NBTHK paper a gimei sword?  The comments on the paper could state that the signature is gimei and an attribution of the smith who in their opinion was the actual smith can also be given.  

 

 

[rematron]

4 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

If a blade is of good enough quality, the Gimei is quietly removed and the sword papered on its own merits.

 

Why do they require the removal of a gimei signature in the first place?  I've heard members state that a gimei signature is still part of the history of the blade.

 

4 hours ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Paz as John said, quietly done. (Beforehand)

 

The NBTHK would not go on record recommending any such thing, even if it is the right thing to do. Also, removal of the signature needs to be done by an artisan with the understanding of nakago dynamics and the ability to repatinate invisibly. If the sword is as good as you say, it is worth getting this aspect just right. I have seen someone lifting up a blade and showing how the nakago is slightly too 'thin', i.e. considerable metal has been removed from only one side, to the depth of the deepest impression of the gimei signature.

 

Again, why would they even require this approach?  My novice mind tells me that people should be leaving the nakago alone always.  Why won't the NBTHK merely add the gimei information to the paper? 

[ChrisW]

Ultimately it comes down to tradition and not wanting to be caught (on record) if they are incorrect. Easier to blame the owner or whomever removed a gimei signature even if the judges then later agree with the alleged gimei signature. That's my understanding of it anyways.

[rematron]

To possibly help answer my own question (albeit, with a very Western and collector point of veiw): I could see that for buyers who can't read Japanese yet wanting a legitimately signed blade, papered gimei blades could muddy the waters of the nihonto market.

[rematron]

3 hours ago, ChrisW said:

Ultimately it comes down to tradition and not wanting to be caught (on record) if they are incorrect. Easier to blame the owner or whomever removed a gimei signature even if the judges then later agree with the alleged gimei signature. That's my understanding of it anyways.

 

Thanks, Chris.  That's interesting.  The 'tradition' factor makes sense as much as it can given the Japanese culture, but I fail to see why people are worried about the attributions they make when that's essentially what papering a sword is in general.  I seem to remember stories of mumei blades that are given one attribution and later submitted again receiving a different attribution.  Wouldn't that also be embarrassing and best avoided?  In that case, why allow the papering of mumei swords at all?  

 

My point is that papers in general are very knowledgeable and trustworthy opinions but they're all still opinions and thus susceptible to mistakes.  So, ultimately the risk of being "caught on record" is already present with the current system.

[ROKUJURO]

6 hours ago, Paz said:

.....There are swords which have been made by top quality smiths, but signed under a different name, i.e. the signature of a top smith who lived before and died. Some of these swords are higher quality than made by genuine smiths.....

Paz,

can you give an example for this?

[David Flynn]

I've been led to believe, Gassan Sadakazu was such a smith.    Before he was appointed Imperial Smith, he was doing Gimei of high grade smiths.

[Paz]

Jean i beleive kajihei was another during the late shinshinto. 

[PNSSHOGUN]

If you are concerned with the historical aspects of Gimei, then you're best to leave the authorities that paper swords out of the discussion.

[almeister]

Wow Dave

That gets my attention  !

The "GASSAN SCHOOL " may well be regarded as one of  the most Famous Schools of All Time , that actually still practice today  !

I believe @Bryce is a serious studier of Gassan works ?

I don't collect "The Great Sadakazu " blades,  however I realise his Family/School will always be regarded as " One Of The Greatest  ! "

It would be awesome to see an example of Sadakazu putting a gimei out there 

 

I collect Kanenori and my research tells me he was given direct Imperial Orders to make copies of blades , however,  He signed them himself  ? 

Interesting....

Cheers , AlanK

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

A small note to the above that Utsushimono made as faithful replicas are a different kettle of fish again. They are often signed stating the sword was made as such, rather than being made to deceive from the get go.

[Bugyotsuji]

As to Jeremy's perfectly valid question asking why NBTHK sends back truly beautiful blades with the one comment 'Gimei', it's as much a mystery to everyone, I guess. Why no further information or advice about the blade itself? They have a set of working rules which probably don't have to make sense to us supplicants. We send, we wait, we pay, in hopes for a top quality assessment.

 

In English we have a proverb "Least said, soonest mended." (The less said the better). Minimalist NBTHK takes that to extreme. NTHK will go out on a limb and tell you a little more, but they risk entering dangerous ground as they too need to get as close to a 100% correct track record for their own credibility in the public eye.

 

Sometimes you sense a subtle vibration in the atmosphere. Have the anguished voices of NBTHK customers finally been heard? Are they offering tiny crumbs of generous extra information recently, perhaps in order to close the competitive gap with NTHK, or is it simply a chimaera?

[Nobody]

1 hour ago, Bugyotsuji said:

As to Jeremy's perfectly valid question asking why NBTHK sends back truly beautiful blades with the one comment 'Gimei', it's as much a mystery to everyone, I guess. Why no further information or advice about the blade itself? They have a set of working rules which probably don't have to make sense to us supplicants. We send, we wait, we pay, in hopes for a top quality assessment.

 

........................................

 

NBTHK’s shinsa (Hozon or Tokubetsu hozon) for blades is held four times a year. Although the maximum number of blades at a shinsa is lately limited to around 1,600, I naturally imagine that they do not spend enough time to study all blades in 2 or 3 months.

I do not know the available manpower for a shinsa, but I think that they cannot take many hours to study a specific blade.

[Rivkin]

Shinsa is how the organizations fund themselves. They are going to do absolute minimum which ensures the customers come back. NTHK has to offer "goodies" like same day judgement and always including date because its a second choice option.

Otherwise 95% of gimei are made not by Kajihei but by a team of shady Edo/Meiji period's dealer and a third rate "smith" who chisels mei of a person they think can be a match for the blade. They don't make blades but upgrade those they have in store.

If one is lucky maybe you see couple Kajihei's in real life... Its a well known story because its an exception.

[Bugyotsuji]

1 hour ago, Rivkin said:

...95% of gimei are made not by Kajihei but by a team of shady Edo/Meiji period's dealer and a third rate "smith" who chisels mei of a person they think can be a match for the blade. They don't make blades but upgrade those they have in store.

No direct proof, but my antennae tell me that this still goes on today.

[Rivkin]

I don't have any information, but I can't see a reason to fake signatures today when any big name with no papers will just generate doubt.

Cutting tests, Honami mei, Edo papers, WWII property documents are much more profitable and easier to fake.

In 1970s there used to be a lot of newly made Naotane and Kiyomaro, but I think this period ended... though I don' know.

[French nihonto]

I think the debate on Gimei blades will intensify in the coming years. The problem is that a lot of nice blades are well made. Not masterpieces, but blades worthy of preservation are being neglected because they are not attractive to collectors due to their inaccessibility to paper. This lack of appeal will eventually endanger some blades. They end up being abused by amateurs or left to rust. Do we have any solutions? Remove the signature. Not to mention the small financial hit, I've always had a problem with the idea of removing a signature that may be 150, 200, 300 years old, even if it's fake, it's part of the blade's history. The blade won't be any better after that. It's as if Michelangelo had signed a painting by Leonardo da Vinci. We don't care about the signature, it's still a Leonardo da Vinci painting, isn't it? 
Second solution that could be brought in: a special paper. In a bright, distinctive color (purple, red...) with the same information as classic hozon paper, specifying that the blade has a false signature. This will have the effect of making Gimei blades more enviable to collectors, encouraging Gimei blade owners to embark on the Shinsa process. And to focus more on the quality of the blade than on its signature.
A little freshening up in the middle, bringing some of the more neglected blades back into the limelight. 
And who knows? Maybe some pleasant surprises

Best regards

Max

[Alex A]

Some good points in this thread, 

[Paz]

8 hours ago, Rivkin said:

Shinsa is how the organizations fund themselves. They are going to do absolute minimum which ensures the customers come back. NTHK has to offer "goodies" like same day judgement and always including date because its a second choice option.

Otherwise 95% of gimei are made not by Kajihei but by a team of shady Edo/Meiji period's dealer and a third rate "smith" who chisels mei of a person they think can be a match for the blade. They don't make blades but upgrade those they have in store.

If one is lucky maybe you see couple Kajihei's in real life... Its a well known story because its an exception.

Sorry Rivkin where did you get this information from ? ( I'm not doubting it). When you say upgrade the blades they have, do you mean have them polished ect and then sign the blade. So we could have a shinshinto or edo sword, which has been mumei. And then upgraded and given a signiture of a smith of that time ?. 

 

On another note. Kiyomaro and kiyomondo, naotane are quite common in gimei from early meiji. 

 

But I agree with alot that's being said. You have gimei swords which could be much higher in value due to the smithing quality, if a signiture is removed. And then you have to understand, that a part of the swords history as also gone. 

 

I have seen some gimei swords sold for around 2.4k to less, even though the sword quality itself is superior to some papered swords 3 to 4k upwards. Of course you also have to pay for shinsa which price is taken into account. 

 

Regards 

[Mark S.]

I have 2 gimei blades.  One is a gimei Tadahiro katana that the NTHK-NPO  attributed simply to a “Kanbun Hizen” blade.  Several people whose names you would know felt it was still a well made blade and a couple even mentioned that “you can see why they selected it as a good candidate for gimei because it very closely matches Tadahiro’s work.” 
 

The second blade is a gimei Awataguchi Tadatsuna wakizashi that the NTHK attributed to a lower level Awataguchi Tadatsuna student.  I really like the activity on this one. Side note (and only my WILD speculation) on this one is the “-tsuna” kanji is clearly missing 2 main strokes to the character that you would think someone trying to fake it wouldn’t miss?  Could it been someone’s way of clearly saying “It’s close, but fake?” for whatever reason?

 

So at the end of the day, I have two blades I like that are examples that well exhibit the traits of the schools they represent for a fraction of the price.  I know many would only want Shoshin examples of the top end smiths and I respect that and understand it.  My collection is rather modest and these fit in a niche that make me perfectly happy.  Can I impress you with a Tadahiro or Tadatsuna?… clearly “no”.  If we meet and want to study blades, can we look at examples of the Hizen and Awataguchi schools?… “yes”, knowing the limitation that these are not ‘perfect’ examples.  Will anyone else appreciate these someday?  I guess I won’t be around to know.

[Mikaveli]

I think I'm also in the camp of not wanting to remove (at least old) gimei signatures.

 

It is part of the history of the blade (plenty of fake Masamunes from around the Sengoku period) and, worse, we can get it wrong. I've read Markus Sesko talking about a few known examples. Better to paint / lacquer a "suspect" marking over such a signature (in a reversible way)?

 

Similarly to how the sword that went back and forth between Sadamune and Masamune attribution, I think the focus should be on the artistic merit of the item itself. Who signed it or who is thought to have created something should be secondary.

[Alex A]

Understand why folks are saying leave the gimei mei and paper it as such

 

Though, the fundamental issue is that they are dishonest blades.

 

NBTHK or whoever could paper such a blade and describe it as such and such with a false mei to whatever.

 

Then as time goes on its possible the papers get thrown away and the blade gets sold on to fool someone once again.

 

 

[French nihonto]

This is indeed a difficult problem to solve. 
A dishonest dealer will resell a Gimei blade advertising that the Mei is good because the truth that the blade is Gimei will lower the value of the blade considerably. 
A Gimei blade is worth much less than a genuine Mei blade for two fundamental reasons. The main reason is that the blade is less desirable, but also because it cannot be papered. 
If gimei blades are paper with a special paper. It is my (perhaps dreamy) hope that the value of the blade on the market will increase. Fraudsters will no longer need to cheat, because the price difference between a gimei and a genuine mei will no longer be so great. 
If the seller throws away the special paper. It will become just another paperless blade, harder to sell, and its value will drop.
 So there's no reason to do it. 

In any case, it's a very interesting debate. 

[Mikaveli]

26 minutes ago, Alex A said:

Understand why folks are saying leave the gimei mei and paper it as such

 

Though, the fundamental issue is that they are dishonest blades.

 

NBTHK or whoever could paper such a blade and describe it as such and such with a false mei to whatever.

 

Then as time goes on its possible the papers get thrown away and the blade gets sold on to fool someone once again.

 

 

 

Isn't that more reason to judge the sword by its merits than who is thought to have made it?

 

Should mumei blades be signed with the attribution for the same reason (please don't 🙈😂)?

[Alex A]

Its all well and good saying judge a sword by its own merits but in reality some folks can be real fussy when it comes to owing swords that are gimei and even mumei.

 

Nothing better than a good blade which is signed by the smith, dated, the more information the better.

 

Maybe you have not owned enough what i call ? blades, 

 

They drive me nuts.

 

Want facts,  provenance,  etc, not opinions. lol