On the subject of Gimei

[drbvac]

I always have another - to make a gimei blade mumei or even with a blade that is mumei to begin is one not then in the position that is outlined in NOKAHARA;S new book. He seems to state that there is no valid reason why any blade that is worth anything being mumei even if greatly shortened as the mei would have been moved as well.

 

IF the blade is ubu and mumei one would think it a lesser blade to start with even if the blade itself exhibits great characteristics.

 

DO others feel mumei is a mark against to begin with - I quite like them myself if for no other reason that they are often not as expensive if not been through shinsa.

[Henry Stewart]

Gentlemen

 

In the dying embers of this well fought argument,I am searching around for a paper by the late great Hawley; In it he clearly infers that the greater majority of the signatures of the better known Smiths are false. Does anyone recall this paper?

If my memory is correct ,one must ask what pursuaded such an accredited expert to profer such a view?

Henry

[cabowen]

Gentlemen

 

In the dying embers of this well fought argument,I am searching around for a paper by the late great Hawley; In it he clearly infers that the greater majority of the signatures of the better known Smiths are false.

 

I have no doubt that this is indeed the case, especially so with Shinto and Shinshinto blades. I have certainly seen more gimei Tadayoshi, Shigekuni, Sukehiro, Kotetsu, Kunihiro, Kiyomaro, Masahide, Naotane, Masayoshi, ad nauseum, that the genuine.....

[drbvac]

IF that is in fact the case and I can see no reason to doubt that it is true, removing one of the gimei signatures and sending it to shinsa one has to wonder a couple of things. If the blade passes and is attributed to another smith it would seem, it is a pretty decent blade in its own right and why would the smith rather add a gimei signature other than to increase its value at the time it was forged. IF it passes shinsa as mumei it is really unfortunate he didnt think it worthy of his own mei in the first place. The other is I guess it would be heresy to doubt the accuracy of the shinsa team

[sanjuro]

Brian.

 

IF the blade is ubu and mumei one would think it a lesser blade to start with even if the blade itself exhibits great characteristics.

 

Whilst I can see your line of reason in this statement, I cannot agree with the sentiment. Given the preponderence of gimei blades out there, a signed but unpapered blade arouses more scepticism (certainly in my own case) than an ubu mumei blade. Moreso if the signature is a famous one. For reasons I have already stated in a previous post I prefer an ubu mumei blade to one that has a possibly spurious signature. Cost aside, although you are correct in saying an unpapered mumei blade is usually cheaper, there exists a sizeable body of ubu mumei blades from particularly the sengoku jidai. Some of these blades are indeed quite excellent despite being the work of a less than illustrious smith (or perhaps they are the work of an illustrious smith that simply didnt sign it). Such blades in my view are surely no less collectable than signed works. Surely it is a somewhat shallow view that sees as a negative factor, the lack of a signature on a blade with otherwise excellent characteristics?

[drbvac]

Keith:

 

The quote was a paraphrase of the thoughts expressed in Nakahara's book where he makes the point that no --one would ever remove a true mei and there is really no reason for a blade to be mumei "other than trying to pass off second class blades as first class" which is similar to the reason for gimei.

 

He really doesn't like them and makes the arguement if not suriage there is no other reason for mumei and if suriage the actual mei would be transfered.

 

All that said, even thought he is positive there is no reason why an unshortened blade would be mumei I still personally do not agree but what do I know other than what I read!

 

I also have several mumei blades and some of them are my favorites and I suppose and unshortened mumei blade could be very early work and teh smith felt it unfit for his signature or some other such explanation ! :?

[cabowen]

While I don't wish to put words in Nakahara's mouth, I wonder if he hasn't been a bit misunderstood or taken a bit too literally. Perhaps he is referring to top quality blades/works by famous smiths primarily....in that context his text makes more sense....

[John A Stuart]

Even then, Chris. There are many high ranked swords that are osuriage with no signature. John

[Eric H]

In the dying embers of this well fought argument,I am searching around for a paper by the late great Hawley; In it he clearly infers that the greater majority of the signatures of the better known Smiths are false.

Yes, „Of the very famous names, it is said with some truth, that there were many more forgeries than genuine signatures. In all cases, examination to determine whether the characteristics of the steel, temperline, shape of blade and tang, correspond to those listed for the man or his school“.

I have certainly seen more gimei Tadayoshi, Shigekuni, Sukehiro, Kotetsu, Kunihiro, Kiyomaro, Masahide, Naotane, Masayoshi, ad nauseum, that the genuine.....

And nowadays we are confronted with forgeries by contemporary forgers, I refer to a gimei Ono Yoshimitsu that was treated on the board, but unfortunately a clear and unmistakable answer on this subject has never been delivered...IMO

 

IMO Nakahara's statement on mumei blades is one-eyed as well as his view on polishers in general.

 

Eric

[drbvac]

Well I am glad I am not alone in that thought if for no other reason than I have several mumei blades only a couple that are not suriage.

 

That said - under what "normal" circumstances would a smith that went to all the trouble to create one of these works would he then NOT place his mei on his work?

 

Thought it not his best, dropped dead on completion, bulk order , felt at the time utilitarian, apprentice work ?

[John A Stuart]

It crops up from time to time that mumei ubu swords that were commisioned for regular troops within a particular han were not signed and could take the smiths years to complete when the contract was in the hundreds. John

[sanjuro]

I am tempted to think that more than a few of the unsigned mumei examples we see today, particularly the better ones are the work of senior apprentices, since smiths were not allowed to sign their work until they had finished their apprenticeships. It seems to be the only explantion that makes sense other than the multiple commissioned blades made for regular troops. However, with such large commissions comes the probability of slightly lower quality overall, and this is certainly not the case with all ubu mumei blades. :D

 

This begs the question 'Were smiths obliged to sign their blades?' Masamune for example is credited with a few blades that he did not sign. If that is so, then he may well have not been alone in the practice. Shinsa is also accrediting ubu mumei blades to well known smiths from a range of periods. Obviously those smiths did not sign their work either if the results at shinsa are to be relied upon.

[drbvac]

Mumei, maybe O-suriage, but some don't think so - I happen to think it was cut down tachi ?-

 

That said I dont think it was ever signed - hope not !~ It is out for polish - will re=post new pics but this isn't too bad a blade and whomever mounted it agreed, I hope it may be a late apprenticeship situation as it is late kamakura - early muromachi. Mumei or not - I still like it!

 

 

 

[cabowen]

Looking at the nakago and boshi, I would be tempted to believe it is a bit later than early Muromachi-Late Kamakura.....more like Mid Muromachi at the earliest....

[bone]

A few questions about suriage. Most of the pics I've seen that were suriage the nakago was cut straight off and the ana were left empty. But the one in the previous post is rounded on the end, as mine is. Also the old hole was filled with copper on mine. Was there a certain time period when they were shortening blades that it was the norm to round the end off after cutting it down? And why were some holes filled? ((Love that blade btw.)

 

I love having the opportunity to read through threads like this one. You guys rock!

[drbvac]

Wasn't my call - but when returns from polish - should be soon will re=take pics and maybe see if anyone can give it an attribution other than the one I have which is NaoeShizu.

 

 

Does it not look suriage to you though?

[bone]

Yes. I'm sure it's been cut down.

[mdiddy]

He really doesn't like them and makes the arguement if not suriage there is no other reason for mumei

While I don't wish to put words in Nakahara's mouth, I wonder if he hasn't been a bit misunderstood or taken a bit too literally. Perhaps he is referring to top quality blades/works by famous smiths primarily....in that context his text makes more sense....

On the subject of ubu mumei top-quality works, I would be curious to understand how Nakahara's reasoning matches up with this sword: http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_ ... 31627061d7

 

For that matter, I myself am very curious why this sword is mumei. Any thoughts?

[drbvac]

Have no idea why unsigned but it is papered and besides its unbelievable as are the mounts, If you read all of Nakahara's comments he's not crazy about papers for mumei blades either

[cabowen]

Hard to say from the pictures but is it possible that it is not shortened, but rather had a mei removed?

[drbvac]

Chris:

 

Could be other than the length is pretty good for school. but these areas of the nakago do look a liitle odd and then I have a mumei, of a possibly gimei blade

 

Opinions on these part of the tang?

[cabowen]

Hard to say without the blade in hand but it does look a bit suspect. What does the nakago look like from the top? Is there any concavity where the mei would have been?

[drbvac]

I will take some pics when back from polish of the whole package and get some opinions with all measurements etc. Thanks Chris

[Surfson]

Just finished the Nakahara book after reading the discussion on NMB. A great read and very informative. As far as his attitude about mumei blades and osuriage, I have to say that his comments were a little inconsistent. He seemed to be saying that nobody would cut down a sword with a mei on it without making an orikaeshi or an inlaid mei, but then elsewhere seemed to be aware that during muromachi there was not so much concern over collecting or honoring makers so much as there was focus on the use of the swords as tools. It's easy to see how one might cut down a sword and not bother about the mei. I loved his discussion about changes in the shape of the nakago, especially when a signed blade was cut down.

[Icepic]

How many people purposely buy gimei swords? Clive Sinclaire states in his Samurai book that Tokugawa Ieyasu had a smith named Yasatsugu make some gimei swords that he gave away as gifts. I would like to have one of those swords, but still, the swords I collect need to have a correct mei. Thats just me I guess. Did someone mention something about westeners outlook on gemei swords are somewhat different then the Japanese? I wonder if there is a difference what that might be?

[Marius]

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.

 

Nobuo Nakahara would disagree.

[drbvac]

IMHO and with all due respect Marius I am not sure he would disagree that the mumei blade doesn't stand on its own for what its worth - I believe his point is any blade worth anything had been signed or the mei carried on if shortened. He is really not keen on shinsa attibuting blades to famous smiths as he feels there would be no circumstances where they would be unsigned.

 

Thats one guys opinion mind you and only in the latest book on nihonto to hit the market.

 

BB

[sanjuro]

Mariusz

 

Having read some of Nakahara's opinions which are quite valid from his point of view I suppose, his disagreement with my opinion would not surprise me. I think however he would not care much or place much store in the opinions of any Gaigin. (Unless of course they coincided unwaveringly with his own opinion). Neither of us however, Nobuo Nakahara on the one hand and Myself on the other, are going to lose much sleep due to our differences on the subject. :D

[Eric H]

UBU MUMEI...it does exist... :lol:

 

Nagasa 64.1 cm - unsigned with ubu nakago - attributed to Go Yoshihiro - Kamakura-early Nanbokucho period

NBTHK Tokubetsu Juyo Token

64.1 cm - ubu - extremely short for the period

 

Go Yoshihiro @ http://www.christies.com/LotFinder/lot_ ... 31627061d7

 

Nagasa 71.2 cm - unsigned with ubu nakago - attributed to

Fukuoka Ichimonji - Kamakura

NBTHK Juyo Token

 

Ichimonji @ http://www.aoi-art.com/sword/sale/10478.html

 

Eric

[sanjuro]

So much for Mr Nakahara's opinion on ubu mumei blades. No doubt he overlooked these examples, or perhaps he disagrees with the attributions.