Gimei and value

[Matsunoki]

34 minutes ago, Paz said:

I for one beleive any gimei over 3k is pushing it.

Paz….I’m guessing you refer only to a blade? Sometimes the koshirae alone (if there is one) can be worth hugely more than 3k….maybe even just the tsuba alone.…..

But I’d love to know what notice the NBTHK take of the International market!

[Alex A]

Hi Paz,

 

Buying swords at shows i find really difficult.  You never quite know what's going to turn up.

 

You might see a signed Koto Mino tanto which is relatively straightforward to work out but then on the other hand come across an Hizen wakizashi by a well known smith which appears ok but making a call on the spot i find impossible, especially if it seems pricy.  Then a case of taking pictures of the mei and going home to do your homework. Kind of annoying for the seller. It never quite works out.

 

Back when i was first interested in swords then maybe gimei  would not have been so much as an issue. Over the last few years ive become a bit of a minimalist regarding collecting. In the sense i don't want to accumulate anything of no meaning or anything outside of my collecting standards .  Would end up selling eventually, so what's the point. 

 

Looking over some Japanese sites. I notice that gimei swords where the work is good and the mei in the ball park seem to sell fast. Often wondered whether these get snapped up by sellers wanting to sell them as Shoshin. 

 

If someone's knowledgeable enough to spot a diamond in the rough, even with a gimei then it depends how deep their pockets are. Personally,, too many hassles ahead for me in that respect.

 

As i said earlier. Must have been a lot easier selling gimei to tourists at the end of the Edo period than it is today.

 

Only ever bought one blade at a show, gimei in fact. Only bought it because it was very cheap

 

A tourist piece

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alex A]

On the point of "gimei being a part of a blades history"

 

Well, suppose it is. 

 

The problem i have and wished id made it more clear earlier in the thread and it seems to have gone unmentioned.

 

If "HISTORY" is so "IMPORTANT" to some folks then why the hell would you buy a sword without an original mei?. 

 

Think about how much HISTORY is lost with gimei or mumei. and just becomes OPINION.

 

Yes, for a lot of swords we can get reasonably accurate opinions but they will always be opinions. Then we have the oddballs, oddballs that even have different organisations giving different opinions.

 

With a mei, bang, there it is.

 

Smith/line of smiths

Time they worked.

 

Not, "attributed to whatever"

 

Now you have some REAL HISTORY added to the sword. They signed it for Gods sake!

 

There are reasons why folks would buy a gimei sword and i get that. Colin mentions old koshirae, well even id be tempted as it adds a lot, other than just the sword.

 

I would love to see a gimei blade so spectacular that it prevents me buying a genuine signed blade of matching quality, as there are many out there.

 

Ps, Well aware there are some fantastic and very old blades out there where the mei was lost to suriage (well, we don't actually know whether a sword was signed or not as its cut down lol).  Im not dismissing such blades here, im  purely talking blades that could or should have an original mei.

[PNSSHOGUN]

If the NBTHK was papering gold bars, and was viewed as the lead authority on saying a gold bar was really fine gold, why would they start to issue papers for tungsten scrap with gold paint on them because it was owned by someone famous?

 

 

[Mark S.]

1 hour ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

If the NBTHK was papering gold bars, and was viewed as the lead authority on saying a gold bar was really fine gold, why would they start to issue papers for tungsten scrap with gold paint on them because it was owned by someone famous?

 

 

You wouldn’t want that… but wouldn’t you want them to paper a real gold bar that someone stamped “Tungsten” or “Platinum”?  A gold bar is still a gold bar even if stamped with something else.

[Mikaveli]

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

If "HISTORY" is so "IMPORTANT" to some folks then why the hell would you buy a sword without an original mei?. 

 

Think about how much HISTORY is lost with gimei or mumei. and just becomes OPINION.

 

Even with a mei, it's still opinion...

You don't know if it signed by the smith, the apprentice, how many were involved in the blades creation. Mei added after suriage. Deliberate gimei at creation, added later etc.

 

A mei just helps to confirm a more precise answer to who, when and where - if we didn't already know the tradition, school, era etc. how would we identify gimei? Other works? That's a circular argument.

 

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

Ps, Well aware there are some fantastic and very old blades out there where the mei was lost to suriage (well, we don't actually know whether a sword was signed or not as its cut down lol). 

 

Actually, there are extant works where the blade has been suriage, and we still have the piece of the removed tang, kept together with the blade.

[Alex A]

Michael, well aware about how some mei were preserved, quite a rarity really. Again, lets think about the majority. You don't see them too often, take a look around all the dealer sites.

 

As for the mei and it still being an opinion.  Your not seeing the wood for the trees, so to speak. First look at the blade characteristics (kantei), then the mei.  Folks can reasonably attribute a blade without a mei to a school by judging the blade characteristics, the mei then backs it up.  Who signed the sword is irrelevant as we will never know for sure unless we were stood there at the time, we know about Dai mei etc.  We do have examples of mei to compare with but still you will see discrepancies for reasons we may never know. The FACT is they are period signed (name) with ware matching that of the rest of the nakago. More often than not we can confirm mei. Other times (as mentioned) you will see NBTHK give allowances. Its not a "one size fits all". Its not just fake mei either, folks fake cutting test inscriptions, the NBTHK will not award Hozen if they suspect a sword has a fake cutting test, even if the mei appears genuine.

 

You look at a sword, mei, if it all adds up............ then it all adds up.

 

By the way, there could be many folks involved in a swords creation. Take mass produced blades of the Sengoku as an example. The reason we so many Sukesada with dodgy looking mei, but still with Hozen.

 

Deliberate forgeries of the Late Edo.  An experienced collector or enthusiast will detect something that don't quite add up. That could be anything from the colour of the steel, the nakago ana and on to the condition and patina of the nakago and so on etc etc. 

 

Ps, a mei added after suriage. Well, its a mei added after suriage so would be in the wrong place and stick out like a sore thumb, you would only have to look at the sugata.

 

 

[Winchester]

This is being overthought; although good discussion follows.

 

OP’s question, to paraphrase: Why does the shinsa team stop if gimei, rather than provide details based on the objects merit and then note gimei?

 

 The major premise: They cannot as a trusted entity start to declare specifics when the subject is false from the start.

[Mikaveli]

19 minutes ago, Winchester said:

This is being overthought; although good discussion follows.

 

OP’s question, to paraphrase: Why does the shinsa team stop if gimei, rather than provide details based on the objects merit and then note gimei?

 

 The major premise: They cannot as a trusted entity start to declare specifics when the subject is false from the start.

 

The mei isn't the subject, it's just one of the many data points.

 

And gimei or not, isn't boolean. There's the more obvious "Dremel" job, where the cited smith doesn't remotely match the presented mei, through to period mei which doesn't 100% match the style of other known works.

 

What isn't clear to me, is what percentage of certainty is required for an NBTHK certificate - and what level of risk of potentially genuine signatures are removed as a result?

 

If the NBTHK requires 90% to pass, I'd worry that the 60-90% range were destroyed as a result.

[Winchester]

Subject = item. Still being over thought and expanding beyond scope. 
 

All good though, just my opinion. Cheers

[Alex A]

1 hour ago, Winchester said:

This is being overthought; although good discussion follows.

 

OP’s question, to paraphrase: Why does the shinsa team stop if gimei, rather than provide details based on the objects merit and then note gimei?

 

 The major premise: They cannot as a trusted entity start to declare specifics when the subject is false from the start.

Agree, splitting hairs.

[Gakusee]

Please excuse the crude translations below as they are machine translations which I have minimally redacted. 
 

1. Nowhere in the NBTHK rules or purpose etc does it say they should certify or opine on gimei swords. They are focused on art swords and in general the Hozon rule below stipulates “correct”, ie legitimate/ genuine/acceptable, mei for those swords that should be signed in order to pass a certain level.  So any and all expectations beyond their rules are not justified. 
 

Now, informally one could probably receive some guidance from them, if one knew the right people and right processes. In fact, I was in such a session where one of the shinsa panel explained in Japanese to my accompanying friend what he thought about my sword and why it had not passed ToHo shinsa and stayed at Hozon. 
 

That paragraph below is also informative: “Signed works that are challenging to authenticate based on inscriptions and style or unsigned works with indeterminable authenticity may be labeled as "pending." “

So they adhere to their rules and in fact lately the criteria are being enforced tightly (many submissions, few passes) and limits on the numbers of swords to be submitted at Ho/ToHo level are being implemented. 
 

2. Paz: no, Masamune would not sign as one of his students. The master or teacher would sign with his name but will not “lower” their status by signing with a student name. At best, you have a master signing jointly with a student (this being the topmost recognition of the quality of the student work and most lavish praise a master could confer). So going back to point 1 above, the NBTHK concern themselves not only with quality but also authenticity (to the extent they can establish it), importance, historic significance, merit etc. It is a composite and multifaceted approach. 
——————————————

Purpose of the organisation (machine translation): The purpose of the association is to preserve and release valuable swords as arts and crafts, and to contribute to the preservation and improvement of technologies such as the production and polishing of Japanese swords as intangible cultural properties, as well as swords and equipment, and to secure materials necessary for sword making.
We will conduct research and appreciation guidance on this and contribute to the spread of Japanese culture and the protection of cultural properties.

 

Criteria for various levels of certificates: 

 

Hozon

Swords from various eras and schools, not limited to the Edo period, with correct inscriptions (mei), or even unsigned ones that can be identified by era, country, and lineage.

Swords falling under the previous criteria, allowing for minor wear or scratches on the cutting edge while still being suitable for appreciation.

In the case of repairs on the cutting edge, they should not significantly compromise the aesthetic appearance.

Works by swordsmiths from the Meiji era onwards must be signed and of excellent craftsmanship.

Blades that have undergone re-forging are deemed unacceptable, except for renowned swordsmiths' signed works from the Nanbokucho period. In such cases, re-forging (yaki-naoshi) may be accepted if noted, and if the blade has high historical and minimal wear characteristics on the cutting edge or tang.

Signed works that are challenging to authenticate based on inscriptions and style or unsigned works with indeterminable authenticity may be labeled as "pending."

 

 

Tokubetsu Hozon

Exceptionally well-made and well-preserved swords among those already Hozon.

Among the aforementioned, certain types are not eligible for approval: (1) Re-forged blades, unless noted for historically significant works from the Nanbokucho period. (2) Unsigned works from the Muromachi and Edo periods, except those recognized as superior in preservation.

 

 

Juyo

Subcategories of Tokubetsu Hozon swords, meeting the following criteria: (1) Exceptional craftsmanship and preservation, comparable to nationally certified important art objects (JuBi). (2) For works from all eras, including those from the Nanboku-cho period, unsigned works are eligible, and for works from the Muromachi era onwards, a tang with a signature is generally required.

 

Tokubetsu Juyo 

Exceptional swords within the Juyo important swords category, distinguished by outstanding craftsmanship, excellent preservation, and extremely high historical and artistic value.

 

[Nick Theo]

Hello everyone. 
This is an interesting thread. 

Last month there was an auction in Osaka. The collection belonged to one private collection. Many beautiful and notable works. However everything was selling fast way beyond budget and anticipation. In the heat of the moment I bid on a few items.
 

The one I won was signed “Izumi No Kami Kunisada” not papered. Days later through this forum I learned that the characters were not accurate to how the smith signed. Yet it was found decent enough to be part of one’s collection.

 

However the sword is beautiful and impressive quality. 
 

It does have me wondering further. Why would one sign a name a as a pun? It seems quite poetic and absurd in one sense. Perhaps it’s how an artist would sign something he didn’t quite love?  

I agree this debate is fascinating, even if only as a history of counterfeit. 
 

 

[SteveM]

If I recall correctly, your sword had Izumi written with the characters reversed, right?

Something like 泉和 when it should be 和泉. 

 

My gut feeling is that the kanji would have been written by a Japanese person (possibly Chinese person) with the intention of selling the sword overseas. Or, at least, selling it to a foreign customer. The signature looks plausible enough to foreign eyes, but Japanese people, particularly those from Osaka, would notice the error instantly. 

 

Actually, Izumi is a funny place name because there are several ways it can be spelled, depending on the usage. The inversed kanji might catch some people off guard. But as I said, foreigners would be especially vulnerable to this. Maybe an unscrupulous dealer had the name added at some point in the sword's history, but purposely inverted the kanji to give himself plausible deniability that he was trying to perpetuate a fraud. 

 

Or, it might have been added by a Chinese fraudster. A Chinese person wouldn't intuitively know that the Japanese place name is written 和泉, as it's a spelling that is unique to Japan, so it could be a careless mistake. Well, it could be a careless mistake made by a Japanese fraudster also, but its a little less plausible.

 

Anyway, the important thing is to focus on the sword itself. Your sword might be worth considering having the fake signature removed. When the signature is removed, you can then submit the sword for authentication. You can submit it to the NTHK already, and they will evaluate it regardless of the signature. But the NBTHK in Japan won't give you any kind of judgment until you remove the fake signature. (They'll send it back to you with a pink card telling you your sword is a fake). So the NBTHK sort of forces you to get the fake signature removed before they will spend some time appraising it. Its a controversial policy that deserves some debate/reform, but I'm not in charge of the NBTHK.)