Gimei and value

[Mark S.]

47 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

…these organizations must be able to defend their judgments in a court of law. Think about what that may mean. 

 

Do they have to defend when they label something gimei?  They already determine gimei.  No change to what they do now.

 

Do they have to defend when they give an attribution to a mumei blade?  They already give attribution to unsigned blades.  No change to what they do now.

 

Combine the two and CLEARLY STATE IT ON THE PAPERS… no change and no more liability than what they do now.

[Franco D]

8 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

Do they have to defend when they label something gimei?  They already determine gimei.  No change to what they do now.

 

Do they have to defend when they give an attribution to a mumei blade?  They already give attribution to unsigned blades.  No change to what they do now.

 

Can't answer, I'm not going to be pretend to know anything about Japanese law.  

[Franco D]

18 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

No… they certify that is IS gimei, which they already do by declaring it gimei and then make an attribution based solely on the blade which they already do in the case of mumei blades.  Both could be annotated on the papers.  Other than ‘that’s the way it is’, I don’t understand it.

 

It has been more than ten years since I've played the game. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that the NBTHK has ever told/tells a sword owner anything more when a sword gets bounced. Do they now? The NTHK and NTHK-NPO may be a different story? We are talking about the NBTHK aren't we?

[Franco D]

29 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

No… they certify that is IS gimei, which they already do by declaring it gimei and then make an attribution based solely on the blade which they already do in the case of mumei blades.  Both could be annotated on the papers.  Other than ‘that’s the way it is’, I don’t understand it.

 

A blade that is certified gimei? Are we talking about an actual certification or a shinsa working paper where one knew an NTHK pink paper meant the sword failed? 

 

 

[Mark S.]

37 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

A blade that is certified gimei? Are we talking about an actual certification or a shinsa working paper where one knew an NTHK pink paper meant the sword failed? 

 

 

Not going to play nitpick word games with you and entertain foolishness.  If NBTHK won’t pass a sword because they determine it’s gimei, they are clearly stating it’s gimei.  Of course they don’t issue gimei papers, but it doesn’t change a damn thing I said.  Have fun arguing with yourself…

[rematron]

9 hours ago, Franco D said:

 

Please, go ahead and discuss as much as you like or are allowed to on the NMB.  Please, also, be careful not to confuse being given the truth straight up as being dismissive. Collecting nihonto requires a thick skin and being prepared for disappointment sometimes. 

me: “why is this the way it is?”

 

you: “because that’s the way it is.”

 

The thickness of a person’s skin has nothing to do with the acceptance of an “answer” or response such as this.  
 

[David Flynn]

Whatever happened to one doing their own research?    I have a Munetsugu.   I checked  with all the Oshigata I could find,  and found one character that was done differently.   I thought that it meant it was Gimei.    A friend of mine who knows some dealers in Japan, sent them the Oshi and both said Soshin ( he apparently  changed the way he did this character in the last couple of years of his life).   I sent the sword (via Paul Martin (whom I would highly recommend )) for polish and papers and it received Hozon.   One  of the problems of checking for Gimei is, if the blades dirty.   Then  one must rely on mei research alone.  If one buys a sword with sig.  and without papers (unpolished) then one must pay a price they believe is acceptable to Gimei.  Then it's punt that one is willing to take.  However, if the blade has been polished and doesn't have papers, then it's 99% sure it's Gimei. 

Bye the bye, I bought this sword at a price I believed would be acceptable to me for a Gimei.

[Matsunoki]

11 hours ago, Franco D said:

It is not difficult to understand why the false mei must be removed before they can legitimize the sword. 

I don’t agree. Why can they not simply state “the Mei says xxxxxxx but in our opinion it was made by yyyyyy”

Simple

Saves the nakago being abused and the decisions they make are the same ones they would make if they looked at it at two separate shinsa. Except of course they would only be paid once….or maybe they could charge a bit more for spending another two minutes on it?

If time is a problem then schedule more Shinsa.

yes…..it’s their rules but if their rules mean swords being abused that cannot be right. Yes, I view Mei removal as unnecessary physical and historical abuse. Just my opinion.

[Brian]

There is a ton of info on this forum, and with a bit of searching and going into advanced searches and filtering by author or date etc etc, you come up with some great writing.
Just one example and worth a read:
https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/15161-your-thoughts-about-this-tanto/page/2/#comment-160279
More:
https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/22402-gimei-swords/?do=findComment&comment=227330
 

 

[Paz]

Some very good discussions here.

 

I absolutely agree with the statements stating that if the NBTHK have given pink slip to a sword, they are calling it gimei there and there. 

On this same paper they can make an attribution or educated guess with their expertise of who it might be. This can at least the satisfy the owner that the sword is worthy of preservation On certain merits. 

 

Going back to the rolex example. If the watch in the dollar store is identical to a rolex in quality and look, materials, make, but was not made by rolex. But has a rolex logo on there. Would we discard the watch ? 

 

When we talk about preservation and appreciation. Are we appreciating the workmanship of a blade, or the workmanship of the attribution on a piece of paper. This goes to the story in the book by Nakahara, where the buyer tells the dealer to charge him the price of the sword and to keep the papers. 

 

But papers do influence the price of swords, and It is a peace of mind. 

 

But I doubt the NBTHK will ever change their stance on gimei. That then falls to hard study to the owner. 

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I am on the side of extreme preservation, and I am leaning even more and more towards that as the years go by. I know money talks and people will do many things for swords with profit in mind. I would advice caution even with restoration and extreme caution with removal of certain things.

 

I cannot really comment on NBTHK stance on things and why they issue the papers as they do. However as Moriyama-san pointed out earlier they have just put an upper number limitation to blades accepted to Hozon/TH shinsa. I am not sure of the number of their staff but I am under the assumption that they are not a huge organization staff wise. I remember we tried to estimate submission number with Darcy some years ago and how much time they could spend per blade, and the amount of time is not that big.

 

I think it could be a good option to possibly authenticate gimei swords but not sure if NBTHK would currently have resources to start doing it as they seem to already be at their limit with current staff as they need to limit amount of blades sent in. However I feel that it could amount to even more shady dealing, as some sellers could push them as legitimate signed items. Yes I understand in the idea there would be clear mentions of gimei but there will be people who do not read Japanese and would trust sellers.

 

To make a judgement that something is gimei can be problematic. As for some smiths (especially the old ones) there are not that many references. I know that many later time smiths are well documented but as I am fascinated by the old ones, there are many where examples are extremely rare. Now for mumei blades the attributions give a "range" being the educated guess, where are for signatures it is quite rough 50/50 genuine / fake. There is also maybe less known phrase to XX ga aru, that can apply to mei, kiritsuke-mei, kinzōgan etc. I know there are multiple ways of seeing this phrase but personally I see it just as, there is XX. It is bit of a neutral stance in my opinion, and more research could be made in the future on it. I find this very interesting but again it is problematic (and probably headache for dealers looking for profit).

 

Sometimes with more research the to XX ga aru is switched to fully legitimate. I think the opposite is not really documented if that proves to be fake it would not been updated in NBTHK papers for example.

 

As I mentioned being extra careful in removing things, here is a heartbreaking example (I have read about other mei removals too but don't have picture documentation of them)

 

 

This tachi by Enju Kunimura has had the signature removed (luckily the piece was preserved). It first passed Jūyō shinsa 22. Then mei was inserted as gaku-mei and it was updated in Jūyō 49 session. Then after that it has passed Tokubetsu Jūyō session 18. Now here is the fact that makes it so bad in my eyes, as I am bit obsessed in finding old work, I have so far found only 8 authenticated signed tachi by Enju Kunimura... Instead of highly precious historical tachi it is now "just a katana" instead, fortunately this has been documented and signature preserved as gaku-mei but in my eyes it is not nearly the same as it would have been preserved as a tachi.

 

As Mark asked about mei of original smith being added after shortening, there are examples but they are quite rare. Added mei in general is called kiritsuke-mei. There are also examples with to kiritsuke-mei ga aru, meaning the presence of kiritsuke-mei is noted but it's authencity is not yet 100%. For 100% authentic and where smith is noted this JūBi Kanemitsu is one that comes in my mind, it is famous sword Omachi Kanemitsu, it was shortened in 1442. It was owned by Uesugi Family and is now in private collection in Japan.

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

@Jussi Ekholm in the example above, when was the mei removed? Before modern shinsa?

 

At first, I thought (assumed) it was just a tachi-katana shortening, rather than motivated by removal of the mei as such?

[Rivkin]

For those concerned with mei removal there is an interesting French law which makes it illegal to own a forgery. France is also known for a plethora of institutions dedicated to publishing catalogue raisonne of specific artists, and such organizations on occasion successfully sue private collectors and museums demanding a painting with what they see as a fake signature (obviously unsigned work cannot be "fake" by definition) to be destroyed alltogether. 

 

In a sense preserving Edo period's obviously fake signature in most cases is difficult to justify as it adds to neither historic nor artistic standing of the object.

The issue in my mind is that the whole notion that a blade can be attributed with 100% certainty to a specific artist is basically untrue. With a random blades not specifically chosen by experts for kantei on the basis of it being ultra-characteristic an attribution beyond dozen is seldom achieved even by the best kantei experts and even greater disagreements are expected.

 

There are ugly, horrible Edo period's gimei signatures. There are signatures that are textbook Kotetsu, except for one stroke in one kanji. Should they be labeled gimei? Two strokes in two different kanji? Two strokes in the same kanji? Three strokes?

Where is the point where we decide even with signatures from the period which is well documented that its 100% a fake?

There are examples of mei removed and blade submitted, but there are hundred times more examples of blade being gimeied or returned with no judgement and then resubmitted and passing.

[David Flynn]

I see two separate  Issues here.  First, when acquiring a blade with a signature, one believes the signature is soshin and then disappointed  when found out it's gimei.  The second one acquires a sword with a signature and  assumes the possibility that it's Gimei.   The second one, is usually a seasoned collector, who is aware of where the chips may fall and accepts the outcome, one way or the other.    I have noticed some dealers who have dubious swords will  write something along the lines of, The sword is signed.  Some, the sword signed, but has not been verified.  To me these are direct pointing to gimei.   Again, how did one come across the sword and what are the expectations?  If the sword is signed and dirty, one must be diligent and do the research.   If the blade is clean and the features are clearly seen, then does the work match the smith.  With todays internet, it's becoming more and more easy to check Oshigata.  Today, anyone who sends a sword for polish without checking the sig. deserves what they get.  Pre internet, it was more acceptable.  So, what does one do with a polished gimei blade?    Sell it to a martial artist.

[French nihonto]

7 hours ago, Rivkin said:

For those concerned with mei removal there is an interesting French law which makes it illegal to own a forgery. France is also known for a plethora of institutions dedicated to publishing catalogue raisonne of specific artists, and such organizations on occasion successfully sue private collectors and museums demanding a painting with what they see as a fake signature (obviously unsigned work cannot be "fake" by definition) to be destroyed alltogether. 

A word of clarification. This law is used for modern objects, to protect the very frequently copied luxury goods market. But they won't destroy a 19th-century painting that's a copy of a 16th-century one.
It's not used for ancient objects. 

[Rivkin]

8 minutes ago, French nihonto said:

A word of clarification. This law is used for modern objects, to protect the very frequently copied luxury goods market. But they won't destroy a 19th-century painting that's a copy of a 16th-century one.
It's not used for ancient objects. 

Well, they did burn Chagal which many thought was real, but the court got convinced it was not.

[Alex A]

7 hours ago, Rivkin said:

For those concerned with mei removal there is an interesting French law which makes it illegal to own a forgery. France is also known for a plethora of institutions dedicated to publishing catalogue raisonne of specific artists, and such organizations on occasion successfully sue private collectors and museums demanding a painting with what they see as a fake signature (obviously unsigned work cannot be "fake" by definition) to be destroyed alltogether. 

 

I

 

Reminds me of a recent tv show about a painting.  

BBC One - Fake or Fortune?, Series 11, Joshua Reynolds

 

 "Under French law, if a picture is sold by mistake, the vendor can, in effect, cancel the sale."

[French nihonto]

Il y a 27 minutes, Rivkin a dit :

Ehbien, ils ont brûlé Chagal, ce que beaucoup pensaient être réel, mais le tribunal s'est convaincu que ce n'était pas le cas.

This chagal and most other fake chagals come from a single person, a copy artist who has since served time in prison in France. Most of copy date back to the 1970s. So considered the modern age. The decision to destroy the work was made to deter current forgers.   
 

I've already seen an interview with this men who put away the brushes long ago. And he says he sees a lot of these counterfeit paintings in big museums, obviously presented as the real thing. 

[Mikaveli]

2 hours ago, French nihonto said:

A word of clarification. This law is used for modern objects, to protect the very frequently copied luxury goods market. But they won't destroy a 19th-century painting that's a copy of a 16th-century one.
It's not used for ancient objects. 

 

Glad to hear there's some sense to the law.

 

Similarly, I think there's a difference between a fake sword, and a sword with a fake signature.

 

I'd assume (hope) that a genuine nihonto wouldn't be destroyed because of an incorrect attribution or just fake signature added later. 

 

Whereas a modern produced sword, specifically made to fool / presented as something else would be caught up.

[vajo]

There is nothing wrong producing a modern sword. There is nothing wrong producing a replica and make a signature on it when it is sold as replica. It is criminal to make or buy a replica and sell it as original one.

[Shuko]

1 hour ago, vajo said:

There is nothing wrong producing a modern sword. There is nothing wrong producing a replica and make a signature on it when it is sold as replica. It is criminal to make or buy a replica and sell it as original one.

 

Ok, then a lot of Chinese need to be prosecuted for deliberates forgeries, luckily most as so poor that anyone with a basic sword knowledge would avoid them.

[vajo]

Thats not what i have written. Thats your interpration 

[Peter D]

I've also found the "tradition" of removing signatures a strange one. If the signature is a recent addition, done with bad intent, sure. Remove and try to make the nakago look as it was best as we can.

 

But I think it's never good to remove any kind of old information from an antique. Many of these gimei signatures were done a long time ago and may be part of the bonafide history of the sword. We may not know the exact reason now, but removing them will prevent us from ever finding out.

 

One recognized instance where gimei is forgiven by the NBTHK is on blades by Muramasa whose signatures were known to be altered due to a Tokugawa dislike of the maker, especially in the hands of others but themselves. (Ieyasu kept his own!) Who knows what other legitimate reasons there may have been.

 

 

[RichardP]

Fascinating discussion.  Does mei removal also occur with non-sword objects that receive papers, like tosogu?

Having a signature / kao back-filled or chiseled off a seppa-dai in pursuit of papers seems unthinkable, but does it occur in these fields as well?

[Alex A]

All this "protect the fake mei" is coming across as a bit much now.

 

Its like PC has hit the sword world

 

Most of the time they look shoddy, at best.

 

Not one positive

[Matsunoki]

42 minutes ago, RichardP said:

Having a signature / kao back-filled or chiseled off a seppa-dai in pursuit of papers seems unthinkable, but does it occur in these fields as well?

Richard, personally I’ve never encountered it on anything other than blades. I’ve seen some many  nice tsuba with obviously wrong Mei…..mostly kinko/mixed metal…..but I’ve never seen them tampered with. Common “wrong-uns” include Natsuo, Konkan and several Goto.  They are usually still good tsuba often even superb tsuba but are described as “school of” or “inscribed”. I think they are tolerated on tsuba because of the more relaxed attitude of collectors and also if the Mei was removed it still isn’t that obvious who actually made it! They are judged on their own artistic/technical merits. I own several such pieces quite happily! 

[Mikaveli]

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

All this "protect the fake mei" is coming across as a bit much now.

 

Its like PC has hit the sword world

 

Most of the time they look shoddy, at best.

 

Not one positive

It's not "protect the fake mei" it's protect the object.

 

"PC" how / where? Not really a robust response to the debate.

[Mikaveli]

Like another poster stated, even restoration should be carefully considered.

 

Even a polish, there's finite material (before exposing other layers etc.).

[Peter D]

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

All this "protect the fake mei" is coming across as a bit much now.

 

Its like PC has hit the sword world

 

Most of the time they look shoddy, at best.

 

Not one positive

 

Historical objects have no obligation to us to look pretty. You can ignore those you don't like and the world won't be worse off. Altering them to one's own taste is permanent and to some extent, quite selfish.

 

Removing an old gimei may one day be perceived the same as home polishing a Japanese sword. It's not about being PC. Its about preserving whatever historical information is there.

 

False signatures are common throughout the sword world, from Europe to Persia. Only in Japan is it common practice to remove them, even if they are old. It is removing information that we one day may value more than we do now.

 

Gimei might preserve provenance information we are currently not aware of. It is for example conceivable that certain Japanese sword collectors or their craftsmen inscribed their mumei blades in their own hand in the 17th or 18th century. We might only later find out what deliberate idiosyncracies in signatures to look for to attribute it to them. But with this current trend, by then, none may have survived.

 

We also know that very notable smiths made gimei swords, in that case the whole sword plus the signature are their artwork. Isn't it more fair to keep the signature and just paper accordingly, noting that it's not by who the mei says it is? That's a far more honest type of connoisseurship to me.

 

In essence, if we are to be influenced by modern trends in collecting, we are contributing to the loss of information that may later become more important than we realize now.

 

[Alex A]

14 minutes ago, Mikaveli said:

It's not "protect the fake mei" it's protect the object.

 

"PC" how / where? Not really a robust response to the debate.

 

 

How does it protect the object ?

 

At the beginning of this thread i was a bit more open minded but as time as gone on i have seen the light.

 

There's a reason NBTHK wont paper a sword unless the gimei is removed.

 

"its part of the history" don't work for me either.