Any stats on gimei?

[Mikaveli]

So, do we have any idea how many gimei blades are out there?

 

For example, do we know how many swords fail NBTHK Hozen (for that reason)?

 

Do we know which smiths are most frequently targeted (Masamune 🙈 Kotetsu 🤔)?

 

Also, is it common for naginata and yari to have gimei?

 

Finally - do we have a rough idea (anecdotally is fine) how many are "good" fakes - showing research around the smith's style and mei, trying to fool experts - versus "bad" fakes - where the blade and signature are very obviously wrong, and would only fool the most ignorant?

[Alex A]

 

All i will say is that i think i have seen more Tadayoshi gimei pass through here than any other smith name,

 

You see some on blades that are obviously Hizen but the mei looks real bad.

 

Others on blades that look more Sukesada.

 

People always say "buy the blade, not the papers", but there's a time when they are needed, from what I've seen.

 

 

[Mikaveli]

4 hours ago, Alex A said:

People always say "buy the blade, not the papers", but there's a time when they are needed, from what I've seen.

 

Indeed. 🙂

 

In my case, I'm trying to build a collection of particular smiths of the same school / lineage.

 

Previously I've only bought papered blades, but I've just recently taken a punt on an un-papered blade. Sugata, workmanship and condition all look very good - but I'm only 60% confident on the mei. 

 

It's going to shinsa in June, so fingers crossed 🤞

 

At the very least, I'll have a very nice blade - but if it's gimei it doesn't really have a home in my collection.

[Alex A]

Nothing wrong with an educated punt, good luck with that.

 

There are folks that are happy enough owning swords without papers, confident of their own knowledge enough so they don't need another opinion.

 

Think certainly there are swords that don't need papers

 

It is interesting to meet different folks with differing opinions regarding papers

[Mikaveli]

3 hours ago, Alex A said:

Nothing wrong with an educated punt, good luck with that.

 

There are folks that are happy enough owning swords without papers, confident of their own knowledge enough so they don't need another opinion.

 

Think certainly there are swords that don't need papers

 

It is interesting to meet different folks with differing opinions regarding papers

 

Funnily enough, the Tadayoshi gimei was one of the main areas of my concern. There's a reference gimei (in the Nihonto koza?) that is a very close copy to the authentic mei. With the differences laid out side by side, I can see the delta - but being honest, I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion of gimei.

 

So, I've seen a few obvious gimei, and I'm confident enough to identify them as such - but once things get "close enough" - the blade is plausible, the mei is very similar - I don't know enough to say with any certainty that it's genuine.

[Alex A]

When everything about the sword matches that of the smith/school but the mei is SLIGHTLY off.

 

Don't know about you but that sets me off on a whole world of speculation as to why that may be the case.

 

Busy forge, Dai mei etc.

 

Must be a number of authentic swords noted as gimei. 

 

Many rational reasons why but guess they have to have boundaries.

 

Could live with such a sword, probably wouldn't be too bothered about sending it to shinsa. Though obviously price would have to reflect lack of papers, for potential re-sale.  Some folks rely on papers for every blade they own, for one reason or another.

 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

That's very much how I think too.

 

Consider these two mei

 

One has very obvious multiple-strike strokes in the Kanji, the other is much smoother (both are NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon).

 

For this smith, he's know for his tang file marks becoming finer with age - and his mei aren't as deeply cut, but it's still quite a style change.

 

[Mikaveli]

And compare the above with these two apparent gimei:

 

 

[Alex A]

You know what, sometimes when books/folks talk about mei you would think they were talking about mass produced machine stamped, like Sam Colt stamped on a pistol or something.

 

Even with those you see oddballs where someone did something assways, human nature, worn punch etc.

 

So when you add the human handcrafted/inscription into the equation then i guess that opens up many doors for discrepancies over a long period of time with much unknown thrown in for good measure.

 

Someone once said to me, you would need a time machine.

 

 

[Paz]

@Alex Asome good points. 

 

I agree that not all swords need papers. The reason being they can be easily identified by hamon or other standout characteristics, also yasuri file marks. The signature isn't always right, but the hamon doesn't lie. Or does it...hmm

 

I'm currently studying two works. One is a gimei kiyondo, but the style of work is soshu. Looks meiji era. Another is mumei easy to research as the hamon is toranba, which narrows down schools. 

 

 

Regards. 

[Jacques D.]

You can't detect a gimei based on just one example, you have to look at the whole of a swordsmith's career as his signature can evolve over time. 

 

 

Quote

I agree that not all swords need papers. The reason being they can be easily identified by hamon or other standout characteristics

I totally disagree, it's precisely when the work resembles that of the copied swordsmith (hada hamon etc.) that you have to pay attention to the signature.

[Paz]

51 minutes ago, Jacques D. said:

 

 

 

 Regarding to signiture differences 

 

Some smiths were known to be drunk at times of signing. Or they had aged, or a student signed on their behalf. 

 

This then adds to op point that many gimei, may not actually be gimei. And we can never ever find out, even if the work matches. But im guessing this is rare. 

 

Regards 

[Alex A]

Hi Paz, when i mentioned swords that don't need papers i was thinking of the swords that are obvious what they are. Your signed and dated Sue Bizen, Signed Sue Mino etc

 

Then one could jump on to unsigned Sue Bizen etc, why bother paying someone to tell you what for the most of the time is clearly obvious or with a little effort, worked out.

 

Other stuff like Edo ubu mumei. Say you come across a sword thats obviously Hizen with Konuka hada etc, why pay someone to tell you what can be worked out. Other mumei like Shinto Ishido etc etc etc

 

As said earlier, some folks are happy enough with their own working out, seems like there's an obsession with getting things papered.

 

Sometimes its just a waste of money, other times not.

 

On occasion folks must hold one of their signed blades thinking wow, signed and made by the man himself, unaware that he had no hand in its making or signing.

 

 

[Paz]

Thanks for the clarification Alex. 

 

Their are certain dealers who want the blade signed, over papers. Because a signiture can be sold. Not knowing weather its authentic or not. 

[Alex A]

Aye, know those types. 

 

 

[Mikaveli]

11 hours ago, Paz said:

 Regarding to signiture differences 

 

Some smiths were known to be drunk at times of signing. Or they had aged, or a student signed on their behalf. 

 

This then adds to op point that many gimei, may not actually be gimei. And we can never ever find out, even if the work matches. But im guessing this is rare. 

 

Regards 

 

I like the idea of a drunken master signing his work 😂

 

I wonder whether there's any value in the NBTHK publishing "confidence ratings" on their attributions 🤔 maybe a minefield...

 

But I'd assume they must encounter some definite gimei, and some where is more of a maybe / probably / almost certainly etc.

[Alex A]

When you look around at other collectables, then look back towards Japanese sword collecting and papering then it strikes you as bit of an oddity 

 

I'm not aware of any other antique arms collecting where such a papering system is involved.

 

Example. .......Antique pistols can be an utter headache and your on your own. Yes there are forums and dealers may offer a certificate but they are to be taken with a pinch of salt. They don't add any value whatsoever, just some reassurance for some buyer not in the know.. 

 

There is so much uncertainty with Japanese swords, especially mumei.  I'm not big on relying on other folks opinions about what i own, as we all know its not factual.

 

So you end up with attribution, they think so and so made it..

 

I bet an awful lot out there is attributed wrongly, we have all heard of contradictions.

 

I find old mumei swords without papers, without attributions somewhat more interesting. 

 

The blades im interested in now don't need them, quite liberating. 

 

Japanese swords seems to be one hell of a unique hobby!!

 

Anways, gone off on one again, just thinking out loud

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

[Matsunoki]

On 2/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, Paz said:

I agree that not all swords need papers.

Swords don’t need papers and never have needed papers. It’s the owners that need papers.

As Alex says, papers do not bring certainty anyway.

A good comparison is in the Fine Art world. There are many many superb paintings with dubious signatures and experts argue over whether they are “right or wrong” …and opinions (and values) often change in both directions.

Either way they (the “fakes”) are often still superb works of art. 
I guess my point is that you can seek out wonderful works of art (in our cases - swords) and enjoy them for what they are despite uncertainty or lingering doubts. Depends on your priorities and objectives. 

If you want 100% certainty you need to speak to the smith that made it. Could be tricky🙂

If on the other hand the £value of the sword is the issue then yes…..you need papers.

Just an  alternative viewpoint 🙂

On 2/29/2024 at 11:30 AM, Paz said:

[jesup]

An example I've mentioned before: I have a naginata-naoshi wakizashi blade with NBTHK kicho papers (yeah, older), NTHK papers (Kanteisho), and papers from a known expert, Suiken Fugunaga ("very good").   NTHK and Fugunaga agree on Mutsu no kami Kaneyasu (modulo a 20 year difference in date, 1624 vs 1644).   NBTHK kicho papers are to a close possibility, Daido (aka Mutsu no kami Kanemichi).   While both seem reasonable attributions, I (and IIRC Gordon Robeson) think it's Kaneyasu.   While I don't count myself a kantei expert by any means, I noted all the examples of Daido's hi go under the habaki, while all of Kaneyasu's end just above it, and that's what mine do.

 

But regardless of which papers are right, they all agree it's a really nice sword, which is the reason I bought it.

[Alex A]

Randell, interesting, 

 

Can i ask you a couple of questions?

 

If you like the sword and you know roughly when it was made, does it really matter to you who may have made it?

 

Would you have bought the sword without papers ?

[Paz]

There have been recent discussions about the validity of even the NBTHK accuracy. One good video was by Ray Singer,  when he got a different attribution second time on a sword. 

 

My question would be,

 

Have gimei signitures been given papers by NBTHK? And I be there have been genuine swords given pink slips.

This would be quite amusing. 

[Franco D]

4 hours ago, Paz said:

There have been recent discussions about the validity of even the NBTHK accuracy. One good video was by Ray Singer,  when he got a different attribution second time on a sword. 

 

There are any number of factors why the same sword may receive different attributions. Not the least of which is that the current polish does the sword no favors. A sword can only be judged by what the shinsa team is able to see. Not what they think they can see. Not what they think might be there. An improper polish will unsurprisingly draw indefinite results.  As for the judges themselves, ability is a fixed factor, while skill is learned. Think about what that means. This emphasizes the importance of submitting a sword for judgment in the best polish. That, along with the importance of selecting a shinsa team that it is up to the task. Also, it is important to choose the right sword. An experienced knowledgeable collector will be careful in their choice of swords. Think of this entire exercise as a test. 

 

 

[jesup]

8 hours ago, Alex A said:

If you like the sword and you know roughly when it was made, does it really matter to you who may have made it?

 

Would you have bought the sword without papers ?

 

Without papers?   Yes, probably.  I didn't look over the papers before I asked if they would accept my offer, though I knew it had 3 sets of papers.  I forget now if I knew to whom they papered it to.   It's a very nice, full polish, healthy, nice sugata.   Just a very nice blade.

I won't say I'd ignore papers.   In this case they provide some insurance/confirmation that other people/organizations have a positive opinion of the quality of the blade, as I am not an expert.   They reduce the chance that I could end up taking a loss were I to ever sell it.  (Which I don't plan to with this blade; I have several others I may well sell at some point, as I've learned what I can from them and they're not that good - but they were something I saw for sale at a gun show, or what have you.)

[jesup]

I'm sure some gimei have papered; given the number of papers....

And then there are the older green kicho papers; perhaps it's likelier with those.  (They aren't all bogus; you just can't count on them in the same way as current papers, and maybe much older papers/sayagaki)

The judges are human.   And in some cases, maybe the gimei is really well done - including not just the signature.)

Most gimei are pretty easy to spot... and remember the signature confirms the blade.

And (I'm told) blades have been failed at shinsa, had signatures removed, and then attributed to the original smith.   Which could be a gimei signature that wasn't an attempt to hide the maker, but to put the 'correct' name on it.   Or blind chance.   Or it was a shoshin mei, and they didn't agree/believe it -- but the blade confirms it.

[Franco D]

22 minutes ago, jesup said:

I'm sure some gimei have papered; given the number of papers....

 

That is an irresponsible statement! If anything these shinsa teams error on the side of caution. 

If they are not absolutely certain about a mei, they will not pass it! 

And, remember, the sword confirms the mei. Which is one reason why you will see an out of polish signed sword not paper. 

 

 

Regards.

 

 

[jesup]

My point is that they are human.   No one was sitting watching smiths sign.   Signatures change with time.   Forging can change with time (get better or worse, or better then worse perhaps with age).  Some gimei makers were more talented than others; had better examples to copy (from books or swords).   Given the number of swords papered, and all those factors, I would be very surprised if it never happened.   It is likely very, very rare.

 

[Franco D]

6 hours ago, jesup said:

I'm sure some gimei have papered

 

Let me put it this way; citation required? 

 

4 hours ago, jesup said:

My point is that they are human.

 

Humans that error on the side of caution. Your statement demonstrates a lack of understanding. 

If uncertain they will not issue a paper. 

[Alex A]

11 hours ago, Paz said:

There have been recent discussions about the validity of even the NBTHK accuracy. One good video was by Ray Singer,  when he got a different attribution second time on a sword. 

 

My question would be,

 

Have gimei signitures been given papers by NBTHK? And I be there have been genuine swords given pink slips.

This would be quite amusing. 

 

 yes,

 

Don't forget the sword is evaluated and the mei backs it up, most of the time here you will see folks go straight to the mei.

 

Back in the day someone had an unsigned blade, lets say Tadayoshi, then got someone skilled enough to copy the mei.

 

How would a shinsa team these days tell the difference?, impossible, Its effectively legit. so they would have to pass it. How often this happened i don't know

 

Mentioned a while ago i had an Hizen blade with an unusually large mei, with hozen. An Hizen expert pointed it out, strange things occur.

 

Seen Sukesada on Aoi with Hozen years ago with really questionable mei, as in you would think it was gimei, it was that bad. If the work was correct then i guess with mass produced stuff like that then Shinsa teams likely give some leeway. 

 

A signed sword was always more desirable than an unsigned sword, so expect some shenanigans. Many skilled with a chisel, especially in hard times.

 

Hers the most famous that added gimei Kajihei (鍛冶平) | Markus Sesko

 

Some information here " Even today, they are treated as genuine sometimes."

Kuwana blades (ksky.ne.jp)

 

As said earlier, Shinsa teams are only human. (yes Franco, only human)

 

Quote............. Human League 

 

"we're only human born to make mistakes"

 

 

[Alex A]

6 hours ago, jesup said:

 

Without papers?   Yes, probably.  I didn't look over the papers before I asked if they would accept my offer, though I knew it had 3 sets of papers.  I forget now if I knew to whom they papered it to.   It's a very nice, full polish, healthy, nice sugata.   Just a very nice blade.

I won't say I'd ignore papers.   In this case they provide some insurance/confirmation that other people/organizations have a positive opinion of the quality of the blade, as I am not an expert.   They reduce the chance that I could end up taking a loss were I to ever sell it.  (Which I don't plan to with this blade; I have several others I may well sell at some point, as I've learned what I can from them and they're not that good - but they were something I saw for sale at a gun show, or what have you.)

 

Thanks for the reply, appreciated

 

You know what, i have a signed Mino tanto. Without the mei i bet there is at least a dozen smiths that could have made it, maybe more, as the work between a lot of the Kane^^^^s was so similar. I first noticed a Kanefusa tanto that looked just like it, that got me browsing. Nothing really distinguishable, apart from the mei, obviously.

 

That's why i say i wouldn't be too bothered with papers for an unsigned (of that type), as there are too many open doors, so to speak.

 

Saying that though, i guess it is a lot safer to buy with papers and they are kind of nice along with the blade when it comes to selling, as you point out.

 

 

[Franco D]

16 hours ago, jesup said:

and remember the signature confirms the blade.

And (I'm told) blades have been failed at shinsa, had signatures removed, and then attributed to the original smith.   Which could be a gimei signature that wasn't an attempt to hide the maker, but to put the 'correct' name on it.   Or blind chance.   Or it was a shoshin mei, and they didn't agree/believe it -- but the blade confirms it.

 

The excerpt quoted below was taken from a paper written and presented by Professor Arnold Frenzel as part of a RSG study session on March 27th, 1993, Titled; KANTEI NYUSATSU

Quote

It has been said that the blade confirms the mei and not the other way around, and nothing could be more true. This is one of the reasons why at a shinsa one often sees the expert give the sword a quick glance and then give the mei an even quicker glance and reach for the "pink paper". The blade has rejected the mei !

 

Further;

Shinsa judges are advocates for the sword maker. So, when a signature on a sword is determined not to be genuine for any reason despite correctly naming the sword's maker, it will get bounced. We are not talking about proper attributions here. 

 

And, again, please give us an example of a sho shin mei getting bounced? 

 

While there are legitimate criticisms and concerns to be leveled at shinsa organizations. Those criticisms need to be accompanied by actual examples that are applicable to present times. Coming onto a forum open to the public and citing what amounts to hearsay without presenting actual evidence is irresponsible. 

 

10 hours ago, Alex A said:

As said earlier, Shinsa teams are only human. (yes Franco, only human)

 

Desire is the cause of suffering.

 

 

Regards,