Goofy Gimei

[Grey Doffin]

Hi gang,

Not wanting to hijack a thread I'm starting a new one. The sword in the thread: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10115 got me thinking. The sword is signed Bizen something and dated 1189. Nothing made in Bizen in 1189 would have been signed as a katana; they made tachi back then.

So how does this happen? We all know this is almost certainly a gimei but the gimei forgers must have known the difference between a tachi and katana, and I'm sure they knew that katana didn't exist in the 12th century. I'm unable to think of a rational explanation for this; any of you have an answer?

Grey

[sanjuro]

Hi Grey.

 

Only two explanations come to my mind.

 

1. Forgers are not necessarily nihonto experts and may not have been aware of the significance of the location on the nakago of the signature.

 

2. Even knowing themselves the significance of tachi mei and katana mei they assumed that a prospective buyer would not know.

 

Either way its fairly silly, but forgery is criminal and criminals are not necessarily intelligent.

 

Maybe this is me being simplistic so I shall now go and contemplate more obscure explanations. :?

[Mark]

i think there were Gimei of big names made in the 1920-30's that were not meant to fool buyers but just made as a copy of old swords as a throw back type item. Sort of like how gun makers in the US make black powder rifles today that look like old Kentucky Rifles, everyone knows they are modern but they like the style or heritage

[Grey Doffin]

I agree, Mark, but why wouldn't they do the gimei on the correct sides?

Grey

[intosight]

Hey Guys,

 

The gimei aspect of this aside, I'm wondering how hard and fast this Katana-mei vs. Tachi-mei rule is.

 

Wasn't it more a question of custom, rather than a rule or law?

 

In dealing with Sanjo Munechika I have discovered that he was known to sign his work either Sanjo, Katane-mei, or Munechika, Tachi-mei.

 

I gather that he was one of the first, if not the first, to sign his work, so maybe the precedent was set later. But being extremely green and very focused in a limited area at the moment, I was wondering if there could be other instances of sho-shin mei that bucked the rules.

 

David P

[paulb]

Hi David,

I think when reviewing these things you have to look at probability. yes some smiths did sign on the opposite side to the norm. For instance the Aoe school which ran through the Kamakura and Nambokochu eras mainly signed katana mei. The Hizen Tadayoshi School signed tachi mei on katana and katana mei on wakazashi. However in the case of your sword:

1. I have not heard that Munechika signed different sides with different mei but it is possible.

2. Whichever side he signed I think any signed work is niji mei (2 characters) I think you said yours was 5 or 2 +5

3 Munechika has been and is one of the most highly regarded smiths there has ever been and his work cherished for 600 years plus. As a result any authenticated pieces were held in important aristocratic collections virtually since they were made.

4. While it is fun let imagination run on occassion it needs to be tempered with reality. I have attended too many kantei sessions with hopeful people explaining that their pride and joy is a "Yamato sword made in Bizen style signed in hommage to a Yamashiro master etc..." to hit a reality check when the blade is authenticated as a machine made showa-To.

5. When trying to assess a blade look at the facts first before speculating about what someone may have done as a one off . The most likely outcome for you sword is that it is gimei (more faked signatures of Munechika exist than authentic work) If that isnt the case it is most likely that it is a later smith who signed with the long mei. Further down the list of possiblities by a very long way is that it is the work of probably the most highly regarded smith in sword making history, signing in a way he never had before and on the wrong side of the blade. These facts alone would make any shinsa panel incredibly nervous about authenticating a sword.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh I promise that I have spent many years of my life trying to convince myself that what I had was a lost treasure, it never has been and in all honesty I dont think it ever will. Take a dispassionate look at what you have and enjoy it for what it is.

Regards

Paul

[Lee Bray]

As to the goofy gimei aspect, would the information that is known on signatures today have been prevalent back in the early days of making gimei? I can understand that after sword appraisal became popular(mid/late Koto?), more information became condensed into the books of the time and therefore later gimei artists had something to work from and so create more believable signatures, but earlier?

 

Would a 12th/13th century gimei artist know how Munechika signed?

Would his clients?

[intosight]

Hey Paul,

 

Nothing you said sounds harsh. I have a penchant for the truth.

I was not talking about my particular project here, just asking for information regarding practices of smiths when signing their mei, which you did address (thank you!). I'm not trying to hi-jack a thread either, but for the record, I think the chance of my blade being Munechika is about the same as the world ending in 2012.

The info I gave about Munechika's mei is, I believe, accurate according to my reading, although I think the terms used were ura and oma. I'd have to do a little thinking to remember where exactly I came across it, but there is suprisingly little info about him, so it shouldn't be hard to come by.

Truly, just honestly curious.

 

Thanks,

 

David P

[paulb]

Hi David

I think the terms you saw were Omote and Ura which simply define the front and back surface when wearing the sword.

One of the interesting things you find as you study more is that there are few hard and fast rules, a lot of time in things like Nihonto-koza you see comments like "the yasuri-mei are always kiri" and then the first illustration you see is described as something totally different. I think it is someone just trying to keep us on our toes!

Lee,

Sorry I just saw your comment. It is a very good question and one I doubt can be answered with any certainty. However my guess is that if someone knew enough to be able to copy a work style and form they would likely have information regarding the mei. I think we sometimes under estimate the amount of information there was travelling back and forth between different centres. Another guess is that such fakes as did appear were made by those in close proximity to the orignal smith perhaps even his students. If made and signed with his permission they would be dai-mei or dai-saku but could some have hit the market unknown to the master and would they in that case be simple gimei?

Best Regards

Paul

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Another guess is that such fakes as did appear were made by those in close proximity to the orignal smith

 

"hey, I ear you ! You're not signing your sword with your name but making a gimei of mine ! I've counted the strokes !" :lol:

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

about Sanjo Munechika, the sword called Mikazuki Munechika is signed Sanjo in katana mei.

[paulb]

Hi Carlo,

I had forgotten that story thanks for reminding me

Jacques

thank you for the information you have saved me trawling through my references (obviously not as well indexed as yours)

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

Sanjo on "Crescent moon" Munechika, indeed katana-mei.

 

[Grey Doffin]

Yes, but the sword that started this thread is signed Bizen something. One thing for Munechika to sign katana mei; he was early enough that he was making the rules. Quite another for a Bizen smith 2 centuries or more into the Den's history. My guess is that this is another of those questions I'll never have an answer to.

Grey

[Carlo Giuseppe Tacchini]

One thing for Munechika to sign katana mei; he was early enough that he was making the rules. Quite another for a Bizen smith 2 centuries or more into the Den's history.

 

Of course, Grey, this makes sense to me too.

[Jacques D.]

Hi,

 

There is a sword (juyo Bunkasai) signed Bishu Osafune ju Nagamitsu dated from 1304 bearing a katana mei. I guess that it was one of the first signed like this.