On the subject of Gimei

[Lindus]

Although we are all aware that fake signatures appear all the time & I remember the old proverb that if 100 Kotetsu mei were in one room,100 percent are likely to be Gimei, could someone explain how a smith from any period can inscribe his name virtually the same way with the same strokes of the chisel on each of the potentially hundreds of blades made in a lifetime?. When you consider your own signature over say twenty years I would suggest each vary and although the style of script may suggest it is you, it would always be open to congesture.

 

I remeber a conversation with a now famous polisher way back, he stated that although the signature was a good indication, the blade in polish would be the only real confirmation. I won a Ko Katana in a London compitition when Amada Akitsugu was visiting, he had made and signed the blade and for many years it was one of my prized possessions. When finall I decided to sell it via early ebay days, several potential buyers,some well respected in the sword world,questioned its authenticity as the mei appeared to differ in the most slight fashion,eg,the number of chisel strokes on one or two characters.

 

Interested if any have any thoughts on this.

Roy

[moss]

Hello Roy,

 

I guess until Dr Who's time machine comes up for sale the age old arguement will persist.

 

My thoughts are...if worried about gimei,buy mumei!

 

And surely a mei must change over time.

I would have expected a certain ammount of refining in the strokes with all the practise.

 

 

Cheers

Moss

[cabowen]

Sure, signatures and work styles can change over a craftsman's lifetime. Undoubtedly there have been some genuine works judged to be fake....Most shinsa'in are conservative and would rather err on the side of caution. Most gimei are quickly recognized by those familiar with written Japanese. Those that are very skillful require bona fide, accepted examples for comparison. When oshigata of a smith are collected and assembled in chronological order, one can see how a signature varied with time. While the style of workmanship may vary, usually the quality of workmanship does not a great deal. Of course there are some smiths, and other artists, who were very talented and able to make fakes that fooled most everyone.....

[Lindus]

I vaguely remember reading of a chap in Japan who for some years selected blades with the attributes of famous swordsmiths and applied fake mei that fooled pretty much everyone ?, cannot remember his name but arent his fakes now collectable in their own right?.

Roy

[watsonmil]

If I ever manage to get the photos done, ... I was sort of hoping to do a small article on the subject of GIMEI, ... and how the Western / European ideas and or bias towards them is often quite unfounded in the studies of the true connesseur. In short for now don't necessarily look down your snobbish noses when a gimei signature is presented. Many times you may be surprised and indeed many times you might well have had your snose sliced off ! It's a bit like love, ... the style may or may not be consistent but hopefully not always the stokes !

... Ron Watson

[Lindus]

Would enjoy seeing your work on the subject....as to "Love",the basic biological urge to reproduce a genetic similily,that seems appropriate to this subject dont ya think.....

 

Were the Chokuto that appeared some years back and were accepted as genuine untill after some study declared as modern,signed?.

Roy

[mdiddy]

a chap in Japan who for some years selected blades with the attributes of famous swordsmiths and applied fake mei that fooled pretty much everyone ?

 

Would this be Kajihei you are referring to? Nihonto Koza has a good section on him with examples. Searching the board will turn up a lot on him too.

 

I remember a post some time back that mentioned a tosho who after a sake-infused evening signed a sword the next day, grunted, and then remarked "gimei in 50 years". Something like that. Can't remember who posted it and couldn't find it to reference but I think it's an interesting take on the subject.

[sanjuro]

Whilst the study of signatures is a fascinating subject on its own, the reliance on mei to determine a good sword from a mediocre one is as we all know, fraught with dangers and pitfalls, not to mention more than a little uncertainty. The more distinguished the mei, the more scrutiny and possibly the more doubt is involved in the question of its being genuine or not. Shinsa is therefore a resource, though by no means an infallible one, at our disposal. It is a resource however, that often errs on the side of caution or sometimes declines to make a determination for very good reasons.

When we consider the very high percentage of gimei blades out there, the possibility of any mei being the 'real thing' or not is brought even more into focus and question, and it seems safer by far to doubt all signatures and dismiss them in an over simplification of the dilemma, as gimei. However, it would be as short sighted to dismiss an otherwise good sword on the basis that it is gimei, as it would be to buy a sword simply on the basis of its mei alone. The problem of course lies in that having bought a blade with a signature, although it was not bought because of the signature, one naturally wants to establish whether or not the signature is genuine....... :? The dilemma continues.......

 

From the point of view of either a newer collector or one who simply has difficulties with mei as I often do, the signature on a sword is a minefield of doubt and apprehension. For all the reasons given about the variations between the signatures on any one tosho's work over time, the fact that students often signed for their master, etc...etc, plus the numerous intentionally misleading signatures that abound, all adds to the uncertainty and difficulty. Yet the mei is but one of the features of a sword that may determine its quality. The other, and by far the most important (IMHO) aspects of identity lie enshrined in the steel itself and in the quality of the workmanship. These are things that cannot be misrepresented so easily as a mere signature. It is often said here by others, 'buy the sword not the signature'. A good sword is a good sword regardless of who signed the nakago.

A mumei blade offers less deception to the eye (generally speaking) and pretends to be nothing but what is there to be seen in the steel.

Ubu Mumei!

[drdata]

But, as I understand you cannot pass shinsa with gimei. And if there are so many out there it can cause temptation to remove and "professionally" re-patina the nakago.

 

So, is it a really ubu or simply no longer a gimei? I understand there can be ways of telling but have heard of swords passing shinsa after such treatment.

 

Sad. especially if, as above, the smith was simply hung over that day.

 

Regards

[Stephen]

but have heard of swords passing shinsa after such treatment.

 

 

and more than a few times to the smith that was removed.

[Guido]

and more than a few times to the smith that was removed.

I've seen that happening a couple of times myself, but in each and every case it was an Ubu-Mumei or Ô-Suriage blade that was "inscribed" with the smith's name/signature later on. Technically speaking still Gimei.

[Mark Green]

Stephen, Guido, and gang,

 

I understand why they do things like that, but it just seems crazy.

 

Say some samurai takes the slightly beat up old nagamitsu to the local smith to get cut down into uchigatana mounts so he can carry it around town. The smith chisels a two kanji mei of the correct smith on the newly made nakago that he has done this wonderful job fixing up.

Why on earth, would the shinsa team pink that as gimei, and pass the lacquer signed Honami next to it. If the steel matched up with Nagamitsu, why would that "gimei" not be as valid as some attribution?

 

It just seems very crazy! If they were sure it was a nagamitsu, couldn't they just pass it as such, and state on the papers that an attribution mei was added at a later date? Not destroying part of the swords history.

 

It just makes you wonder what the hell they are thinking sometimes.

[nagamaki - Franco]

Why on earth, would the shinsa team pink that as gimei, and pass the lacquer signed Honami next to it. If the steel matched up with Nagamitsu, why would that "gimei" not be as valid as some attribution?

 

Valid attribution by who? Why wasn't the original mei folded over? Perhaps the sword was never originally signed, it would then seem a pretty far reach for someone to go and chisel out a mei, hmm. While there are two sides to the debate and numerous issues, I would think that shinsa is only interested in being an advocate for the sword as originally intended by the swordsmith, and my guess is that if there is even a trace of mischief where the 'new mei' might be interpreted as being a copy of an original mei, shinsa must simply say "no", plus, taking a hard line makes sense rather than opening up a pandora's box of complaints, where one can easily imagine hearing the moaning and groaning from the peanut gallery, "hey, why did they allow this one and not that one!"

 

"The sword confirms the mei, and not the other way around!".

 

What befuddles me is why all the fuss, over and over, about this issue when collectors know what the rules are, AND, no one is forcing anyone to remove a false mei!

[mdiddy]

when collectors know what the rules are, AND, no one is forcing anyone to remove a false mei!

 

Do the rules apply to Shu-mei or Kinpun-mei (i.e. would they have to be removed if not trusted before a judgement could be rendered by Shinsa?)? I understand mischief can occur here too, but I'm curious if there is a distinction made since a lacquered-on attribution is a little different physically from a chiseled-in mei. I've heard they too have to be removed if not trusted, which to me seems intense, but would like to confirm what I've only heard second-hand before.

[drdata]

Seems clear that the pros feel mumei is a-ok. I mean, it least its not gimei.

 

But, the the facts and fundamentals book I got the impressions that as a rule all smiths signed there work unless the blade was inferior. Have also heard a smith might make a few blades for an order and then only sign the one that is selected.

 

Which is it? To me it makes some sense that, on average, a signed work is better than unsigned. I know when I'm proud of my work I take credit, else happy to let folks guess.

 

Seems clear that folks here feel there are many high-qual mumei blades. Why did some smiths opt not to sign them?

 

Regards

[nagamaki - Franco]

Do the rules apply to Shu-mei or Kinpun-mei (i.e. would they have to be removed if not trusted before a judgement could be rendered by Shinsa?)?

 

Absolutely, in fact it seems more often than not these attributions are rejected. I've also seen the case where once the attribution was removed and the sword resubmitted, the sword actually received a better attribution from shinsa. Owners never seem to complain when that happens, hmm, go figure .

[mdiddy]

Seems clear that folks here feel there are many high-qual mumei blades.

 

I would expect many high-qual mumei koto are probably mumei by virture of suriage so maybe there were more signatures prior to Muromachi.

[mdiddy]

Franco - thanks for the confirmation.

 

in fact it seems more often than not these attributions are rejected

 

This is interesting. Has any body of research ever been conducted on the overall accuracy of old attributions, particularly of the Honami?

[Lindus]

That would be very interesting,I remember that there was some discussion way back about papers being issued to donors or buyers (Big league chaps) that were not worth the paper written on. How true I dont know but one fairly recent{and may have mentioned this befor so please excuse if had} Of a chap who bought an early Koto tachi blade with good papers,when it arrived he brought it down for some of us to see, as the paper was a decade old and the sword was pretty spectacular, it was suggested that he send it back to the same society and see if the paper could be bettered.

 

It was returned from the same society by the same man who had agreed the the original paper but as he had not informed them that it had already been shinsa'd by them, this time they would not issue a paper and stated that it was not by the man and a later copy.

 

Complex subject.

 

Roy

[Grey Doffin]

This is interesting. Has any body of research ever been conducted on the overall accuracy of old attributions, particularly of the Honami?

In order to do this research, the researcher would have to know which of 2 differing attributions, the old one or the modern one, is correct. If we knew that we wouldn't call it an attribution.

Grey

[drdata]

I would expect many high-qual mumei koto are probably mumei by virture of suriage so maybe there were more signatures prior to Muromachi.

 

True. I meant to limit my points to "ubu nakata".

 

I can only think of two reasons for a smith not to sign at the time:

 

1. A lesser work he did not want to be associated with

 

2. Illiterate/known to never sign for some reason

 

I can understand that mediocre work by a great smith (and so mumei) can be far better than a signed work from a lesser. But this still means one would prefer a signed work from the better smith, unless # 2 above.

 

Another option is that what appears mumei ubu isn't. Perhaps having in the past been judged gimei and now with an altered nakago that looks ubu.

 

Interesting discussion.

[sanjuro]

I'm sure the experts will correct me if I am wrong here, but I feel its a a mistake to say that all mumei swords were inferior or that they were mumei because of O suriage performed sometime after they were made and signed. Swords of the sengoku jidai still left in an ubu condition were often not signed, and that doesn't necessarily make them inferior examples. I have two such swords in my collection, duly papered by NBTHK and a further one that will be submitted for shinsa after polishing. Also, there were unsigned blades made by tosho who were under the patronage of the Daimyo houses. Whilst special orders made by freelance tosho would certainly have been signed and so would swords made for the more important members of warrior households throughout the ages, but many swords for ordinary samurai and kenin were still produced mumei.

[ububob]

My thoughts also but, as usual, Keith has preceded me with speed and eloquence. I'm enjoying this thread. :D

[leo]

Nobody will seriously state that a mumei blade is inferior to a signed blade, as far as quality is concerned.

Different if "inferior" means lower price on the collectors market. Here the scarcity defines the value and signed and ubu blades, especially the Koto blades seem to be a hundred times rarer.

 

How though would a conservative collector who resents anything less than mint or at least "usable" blade, value a chokuto(condion: scrap! value: national treasure!)?

 

A name is not everything, still there are a lot of "Big Name Junkies" who will always prefer the poorest of blades with a paper to a perfect mumei blade from the same era and school!

 

So lets not forget: After all we are only human!

 

Regards, Martin

[mdiddy]

the researcher would have to know which of 2 differing attributions, the old one or the modern one, is correct. If we knew that we wouldn't call it an attribution.

 

I agree. I made an assumption that the modern attribution would be more correct, but that may be unfounded. So let me rephrase - has any research been done to understand the variance between old attributions and modern attributions, particularly of the Honami?

[Eric H]

Has any body of research ever been conducted on the overall accuracy of old attributions, particularly of the Honami?

1 - HONAMI KOKAN - Kinzogan mei

2 - HONAMI KOSON - Kinpun-mei

3 - HONAMI KOYU - Shu-mei

 

All have been affirmed by NBTHK and given Juyo Token.

 

Eric

[Mark Green]

I feel that in times of war, or a big order from china, many swords were not signed.

If you have a town full of smiths, cranking out dozens of swords every week (or more), I'm sure most of those swords went unsigned.

That is likely, one of the reasons why we see so many unsigned swords. Most sword makers were businessmen. If a sword was a bit "off", as long as it had no fatal flaws, it would likely be assigned to the "bin". To be sold as is, to whomever. Forever unsigned.

They still worked for what they were intended.

Once in a while you see that wonderful, ubu, unsigned sword and it makes you go hummmmmmmmm??

It is likely, that even some of these "bundle" swords were very pretty, even flawless.

 

Just another reason why.

[lotocoti]

As one who's certain knowledge of Nihonto could be comfortably inscribed on one side of a cigarette paper with a carpenter's pencil, I find the subjective nature of determining what is or isn't Gimei immensely frustrating.

For example, two Yoshimichis:

 

Is one Gimei, or just done by the same hand at a different time?

 

Geoff Mc

[Lee Bray]

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that a smiths mei will change radically over his career.

Certainly there will be changes due to new titles or depending on the size of the inscription and the relevant nakago but I don't think his writing style will change that much.

 

A smith is generally of a mature age when he starts an apprenticeship, be it in his teens or later.

Then several years of learning before being allowed to put his name to swords he makes.

Given the fact that the mei is the artists signature and forever more on show, I think they would take pains to ensure their mei would be regular and identifiable. Given their maturity and length of apprenticeship, I'd say they have the skills needed to make it so.

I guess there will be 'bad' days and perhaps some smiths truly were cack handed at signing their swords(I'm not even convinced on this one as a cack handed smith is not going to make great swords if he's cack handed ) but I don't think this would be common.

 

Consider the 9 generations of the Hizen Tadayoshi school. 9, possibly 10, smiths over roughly 200 years and their mei and kanji were very similar throughout.

To the point that the direction of an atari can be the difference between real and fake.

 

As to the Yoshimichi example above, I don't know which is gimei or shoshin or if they both are either, but I know that if I were the smith putting out the example on the left, I would not present a sword with the mei on the right.

I read an interesting comment from a present day smith regarding the quality of their work, "The material is not precious."

To me, that says the sword had better be perfect before it is presented. If it's not, throw it away and start again.

Tamahagane is easier to come by then a good reputation.

[Eric H]

Is one Gimei, or just done by the same hand at a different time?

 

The Mishina school in Kyoto was divided in 4 schools: Kyo Tamba no Kami - Fushimi Tamba no Kami - Osaka Tamba no Kami - Yamato no Kami.

 

This illustrates the difficulty for Westerners, lacking the background in language, material on hand, and knowledge compared to the Japanese experts, the very need of Shinsa.

 

Regarding mumei swords, whether suriage or ubu, I state that even those who stick up for mumei...finally tend to submit their swords to Shinsa...

 

Eric