So it's Gimei? What do we do with it?

[george trotter]

In the interests of promoting better scholarship and learning on NMB may I observe two "things"...

Firstly, time after time the swords and tosogu presented here are immediately pronounced gimei. Almost never is there any discussion of why/how or of the possibility that there may have been other artists with the same name. The pronouncement "gimei" is always given in the context that the name presented HAS to be a gimei of THE greatest artist. The most recent examples of this are a kodzuke signed "Tou" and a sword signed "Bizen Kuni Osafune Shichibeijo Sukesada". The immediate assumption of the "pronouncers" in these cases is that there was only one "Tou" or "Shichibei Sukesada". No explanation or evidence is ever forthcoming to assist the enquirer to learn about the field of study or his particular object. At the very least it should be accompanied with evidence or the words "in my opinion" (preferably accompanied by the additional words "based on..."). At least this will prompt a reasonable level of discussion on the object/maker. So, can we have a higher standard of learned assessment please?

Secondly, as virtually all objects from Heian to Taisho presented here are gimei, what do we do with them? Keep them? Remove the mei? Stamp the kanji "Gimei" mext to the name? Collect only Showa-Heisei swords and tosogu? What is the learned advice here?

George.

[estcrh]

That is a good topic George. On top of that how are swords determined to be "dai mei" or "dai saku mei" as opposed to gimei? How are these types of legitimate signatures dealt with at shinza etc, I have not been able to find this explained any were.

 

Dai Mei :This is a signature of a smith which is chiselled on a nakago by his family or students, with his permission. It is regarded as a genuine signature.

 

Dai Saku Mei :Swords made in a smith's style by his students with his permission were often signed personally by the smith. This is called dai saku mei and is regarded as genuine.

[watsonmil]

Dear George,

In response to your observations, .... I would respond by saying that the serious student of Nihonto should not / does not collect names.

He may collect by School, by Era, by Type, by above all Quality. Far too much emphasis is and has been placed on the signature rather than the quality. There were many reasons for Gimei signatures NOT only deception. As an example I have in my collection a wonderful Katana bearing the signature: Izumi ( no ) Kami Kanesada ( Yes No Sada ) obviously Gimei. The signature is quite obviously incorrect, ... and the sword is Kanbun ! Ah, ... now here's the catch the URA reads : Seki San the owner of this blade presents to Matsudaira Hanjiro of Noshu in the town of Takasu this blade as a gift. It is a flawless high quality blade in full polish and free of any faults having a Nie based notare/midare mixed hamon with many workings within the hamon. It is known ( see John Yumoto ) that presentation blades can quite often be Gimei ( because that is all the town could afford but they wanted the blade to be considered important and worthy of the recipient ). The recipient quite often would realize the fact that the sword is Gimei, but in good taste would accept the sword with much adulation ( good manners ). This same sword might then be returned as a special gift to the town's headsman on the dignitaries next visit perhaps a year or two later, ... ALL IN GOOD TASTE. Now then I prize the sword not because of the signature NOR the dedication but rather the high quality.

So called Gimei may also be seen where a student of a prominent swordsmith was allowed to sign the masters name because the sword met with the master's approval, ... conversely a sword which was deemed good enough might also be signed by the master himself even though it was a students work .... now we have a fake Kanesada with a genuine signature ! Far too much emphesis is placed on the correctness of signatures ( unless an outright FRAUD ). Who is to say, the swordsmith may well have had a friggin migraine when he signed, and one stroke is now reason to pronounce Gimei ! Variations in signature vary over a lifetime, ... I know mine has. Thank goodness the bank accepts my cheques, ... as if compared to a signature a week ago it might not just be 100% the identical ! I am sure that as a Smith grew older, ... signatures were often left to students to sign the Masters name, ..... Christ it was a business not a bloody ART SHOP !

It is this writer's opinion that far to much is made of SIGNATURES and too little attention is paid to quality. The NBTHK, ... and their rival the NTHK are somewhat to blame for this as let's face it both are somewhat Political, ... and often offer a Pink Slip where if a REAL service were to be provided an ATTRIBUTION would be forthcoming in many cases. It would be wonderful if there were no such thing as Gimei, ... but we live in the real world and there are of course forgers. What I hope to get across to the reader is that not ALL gimei are unworthy nor are they necessarily Gimei just because some so called expert Japanese or otherwise decides the signature is just not quite right.

... Ron Watson

[kaigunair]

Secondly, as virtually all objects from Heian to Taisho presented here are gimei, what do we do with them? Keep them? Remove the mei? Stamp the kanji "Gimei" mext to the name? Collect only Showa-Heisei swords and tosogu? What is the learned advice here?

George.

 

Gendaito for me! Actually, this is the main reason why I felt I should become more active on this board, to learn about older nihonto. I've stayed away from anything older because of this exact problem: fakes and gimie blades. Would love to see more knowledge shared in this area, as well as kantai. As of now, I am looking towards the local nihonto club to get real help in this area, although they only meet once a month...

[cabowen]

Since I have jet lag and can't sleep, here is a topic full of issues which I can try to shed some light on....

 

Here is my take on some of this based on comments and info I have received over the years from collectors, dealers and researchers in Japan:

 

Firstly, on the question of why a big name signature that doesn't match the known examples is always considered gimei work rather than the work of some lesser known smith of the same name, there are several answers: the most obvious is that fakes are and have always been common and it is always safe to assume gimei when confronted by a big name that doesn't match especially when done in the style of the famous smith. There have surely been more than one Masamune, Nagamitsu, etc., but when the workmanship, meikan, and other resources are consulted, it is nearly always the case that the signature is not genuine.

 

With Shinto and Shinshinto it is usually much more obvious as it was not quite so common with titles and such for an identical mei by a different smith.

 

Smiths working in the same tradition in the same period tended not to use the same mei, especially when there was an established smith of note.

 

There are always exceptions and thus the course of prudence is to consult meikan and taikan to find evidence of a smith with an identical mei.

 

As to what to do with gimei items, that is always a personal decision. There are certainly examples of gimei work that are of a high quality and some people appreciate quality on it's own merits despite the false mei. Others can't. There is no right answer to this question. One collects according to one's own taste and rationale. In Japan, signed works, especially in later periods, are always preferred.

 

Dai mei, dai saku (not dai saku mei), and dai mei dai saku are another rather complex matter. It was a common practice, especially in the workshops of successful smiths who trained many students. There are many well known examples and researchers have identified the traits of many of the more well known groups, such as the Hizen Tadayoshi group and others. This tradition was very common during WWII in the shops of well known smiths like Kasama Shigetsugu, Gassan Sadakatsu, and the like. Of course there are honest examples of each that have gone unrecognized and mislabeled as gimei. One needs to remember that a key feature of Japanese sword appreciation is that top quality works are those that are rather typically obvious as to the maker. If it isn't clear, it isn't top shelf! Surely there are many smiths that made work outside their usual pattern- a sanbonsugi Koyama Munetsugu I saw recently springs to mind- but these are nearly never valued as highly as the smith's usual work.

 

And the reasons for false signatures were not always monetary, as has been correctly pointed out. Gifts are the oil that keeps Japanese society running smoothly, as it has always been. It is truly the thought that counts.....

 

I often hear arguments that rationalize a questionable signature-the smith changes his signature through time, he was drunk, he signed that way only on his favorite work, etc. One needs to remember the mantra that the blade confirms the signature, not the other way around. There are many sources of oshigata for well known smiths that one can compare across working periods to check for variation, etc. This is also the function of a shinsa team. No blade is rejected because one stroke is not identical- blades are rejected because they do not meet the standard and characteristics of known work by the smith. Do they make mistakes? Certainly. This is why an experienced shinsa team is essential to get an accurate opinion.

 

One also needs to remember the context in which kantei sho originate- in modern times the NBTHK primarily and the NTHK to a lessor extent, serve primarily a Japanese dealer clientele. Swords with a pink sheet and an attribution do not sell on the Ginza in Japan. The use of kantei sho as a learning tool is a Western construct- in Japan it is part of the sale. And while there is a market for gimei in Japan the feeling I most often see expressed is that unless the sword is of high quality and can have the signature removed and high level papers received, there is little to no interest in any sort of attribution. The fascination with names in Japan existed long before the NBTHK was even a dream and we can't hardly lay the blame on these organizations for meeting the needs of a culture that worships brand names.

 

I do agree and have said here more than once that I think people put too much emphasis on names and kantei sho and not enough effort into identifying quality first. But there is no denying that signed works of art, in most cultures and fields, are the most highly sought after and valued....

 

Maybe I can sleep now....

[sanjuro]

This is purely a personal observation, but after a longish period of exposure to and collecting of nihonto, I have a particular preference for ubu mumei blades. Not because of any particular intellectual reason, but simply because although I am aware of the significance of quality over whatever signature happens to be on the nakago, I simply find that a signed Nakago often clouds my estimation of a blade when it should not. When there is a signature present there is the immediate question of is it gimei or does it conform to the smiths usual style etc. One canot help but to judge the blade to some extent at least in the light of those considerations. When a blade is unsigned it can only be what is there to see. If it is then thought to be the work of some particular smith, then there are ways of finding out via shinsa etc. At the end of the day however, it is still the blade that you bought and the reasons that you bought it still prevail. Hopefully, those reasons are that you were attracted to the blade before looking at the nakago. the signature gimei or otherwise is therefore unimportant. There must be quality in the blade before any consideration of who signed the blade.

You either collect swords because of what you see in them or you collect signatures in order to satisfy some other motivation.

[kusunokimasahige]

I agree with Keith, but also with Watsonmil and thank George for posting the question and CaBowen for the thorough explanation on Mei.

 

Personally i would buy a sword which i would have in hand on the following merits:

 

Strong and curving, cloudy hamon which attracts me ( i do not like those straight line hamon one bit )

Zori depth and overall shape of the blade.

Strong kissaki and blade, as little ware/flaws as possible.

Sharpness of Ji.

Ubu if possible.

Strong shinogi-ji, not a flat mune.

Nicely shaped nakago with patina and file marks, name is utterly unimportant to me, the quality of the blade is.

preferably with nice koshirae, a shirasaya blade would have to be remounted at one stage.

(yes i know that the shirasaya is meant to keep the blade pristine when not in use)

Strong tsuka, no loose fit.

Nice fittings of the Koshirae, as well as Urushi without too many chipped parts.

Kozuka/kogatana and kogai do not matter to me that much, they are a nice addition.

 

I also would like to state that in my opinion a smith's Mei could differ with almost every sword, and highly likely did.

It is true what was said about signatures being subject to change. Not only by illness or feeling weak after a night with too much sake, but also because you cannot sign a sword in the same manner EVERY time. That is impossible and i am not convinced there were copying tools like we find in engraver's shops these days. Apart from that most mei were chiseled.

 

KM

[paulb]

Chris,

Thank you for the well presented note on kantei-sho. I think in future I will try writing with Jet lag I might make more sense

Touching on a couple of points you made and that Ketith followed up, I think many of us have commented in the past on the over reliance and interest in papers rather than the sword. I think this has increased over time because our method of buying has changed. Many of us now buy swords based on an internet image rather than with blade in hand. We are therefore dependent on the quality of image and integrity of the seller. The fact the blade has been examined by a shinsa panel and awarded a level of paper does offer some confidence and comfort to the would be buyer.

Having said that I do think we spend too much time looking at signatures trying to determine aunthenticity at the expense of examing the sword. Like Keith I find I get more out of looking at mumei blades and trying to understand the work than I do sigend pieces. This is due more to my ill discipline than differences in sword quality. Without a shadow of a doubt my favourite swords, and the best ones I have seen anywhere (with a few possible Hizen exceptions) have been mumei. Most have also been suriage, but that is another debate.

 

KM you would be my ideal buyng partner 90% of my blades are variations of sugu-ha. You can buy all the blousy loud ones and I will take the plain connservative pieces :D

[Marius]

I have a particular preference for ubu mumei blades.

 

Keith,

 

while not disagreeing with you, I would like to add that some interesting thoughts about mumei blades have been recently expressed in Nakahara's book (which is widely seen as very controversial).

 

The only review of this book I could find online is unfortunatelly mine, so I hope you will not regard me as uncouth if I post it here?

 

http://gomabashi.blogspot.com/2011/01/r ... s-and.html

 

@ KM

 

Henk-Jan,

 

Your preferences will possibly change the more exposure to good swords you get. This is an experience I have made, when, to my own astonishment I have rediscovered a forgotten tanto as my best piece (yes, you've guessed correctly, it had a suguha :-)

 

If you allow a word of advice - try to see the blade as something separate from the koshirae. I know this is difficult, given the European tradition, but most koshirae you can buy with a blade are a haphazard affair, regardless of how well the tsuka is wrapped Making a good new koshirae is an art involving several artisans and it does not come cheap. I recommend you do not get distracted by the koshirae when buying a blade. The mountings will be ususally nearly worthless, but you will be asked to pay a premium, because only a mounted sword is a "real samurai sword" in the eyes of so many inexperienced enthusiasts...

 

Sorry about the OT

[Brian]

I agree with Keith, but also with Watsonmil and thank George for posting the question and CaBowen for the thorough explanation on Mei.

 

Personally i would buy a sword which i would have in hand on the following merits:

 

Strong and curving, cloudy hamon which attracts me ( i do not like those straight line hamon one bit )

Zori depth and overall shape of the blade.

Strong kissaki and blade, as little ware/flaws as possible.

Sharpness of Ji.

Ubu if possible.

Strong shinogi-ji, not a flat mune.

Nicely shaped nakago with patina and file marks, name is utterly unimportant to me, the quality of the blade is.

preferably with nice koshirae, a shirasaya blade would have to be remounted at one stage.

(yes i know that the shirasaya is meant to keep the blade pristine when not in use)

Strong tsuka, no loose fit.

Nice fittings of the Koshirae, as well as Urushi without too many chipped parts.

Kozuka/kogatana and kogai do not matter to me that much, they are a nice addition.

 

I also would like to state that in my opinion a smith's Mei could differ with almost every sword, and highly likely did.

It is true what was said about signatures being subject to change. Not only by illness or feeling weak after a night with too much sake, but also because you cannot sign a sword in the same manner EVERY time. That is impossible and i am not convinced there were copying tools like we find in engraver's shops these days. Apart from that most mei were chiseled.

 

KM

Sorry, but your personal tastes are quite irellevant to the topic at hand. Your ending statements also show a lack of understand of the basics of Nihonto. These points have been addressed by Chris, and yet you gloss over them. Gimei has little to do with the way the strokes are shaped, and everything to do with HOW they are cut and how confident they are. Similar to a signature expert, the 2 signatures do not have to be identical to note that one is false. You need less opinion, more time studying, and less need to interject constantly.

 

Brian

[Mark S.]

And there it is... only ten posts in and this extremely interesting discussion "jumps the shark". Now we get to watch it devolve into personal attacks and defense of personal positions rather than an extremely interesting discussion of the original subject. Why does this hurt so much!?!

Mark S. (sorry forgot to sign)

[sanjuro]

Mark.

 

Now that you have jumped to that hasty judgement it probably will devolve into personal attacks and defence of personal opinion. Had you kept your big mouth shut it may not have, particularly since the administrator of this forum is one of the posters. Perhaps you should read more and offer less ill informed and hasty judgement. You may just learn something that dispells the mists of your bloody ignorance.

 

Now... Gentlemen, we were discussing mei gimei and the advantages etc of each were we not?

[Mark S.]

Point taken... and my point made. Congrats

Mark S.

[kusunokimasahige]

I will not react to personal attacks nor reply to them, whether they are biassed or not.

I know full well a few of the people on NMB hate my interjections, for which i am sorry.

Shikata ga nai.

 

The discussion at hand, in how far Gimei / Mei are important or not in the attribution of swords, as well as the complaint stated earlier that

on this forum often the answer is GIMEI without any explanation which helps the poster to learn more about his sword is a valid one.

 

Mariusz thank you for your points, they are well taken since i am absolutely sure that the further i get with my knowledge, the more my opinions will change. On the koshirae story and some of the other preferences I posted, like not really liking sugu-ha but loving Gunome, choji, notare and hitatsura better (a personal preference mind you) I would like to say that the Koshirae to me completes the swords overall appearance. This means that when i will buy a beautiful blade in shirasaya I will have it remounted in a koshirae of equal beauty, newly made or old, as well as have a new shirasaya made.

 

Peter, when I have saved enough I will be glad to take some of your more flashy blades off of you

 

On the signature issue Brian addressed, of course I know that Gimei and a difference in signatures does not mean the signature is false, and of course I know the strenghth of the strokes does matter as well as the confidence which with they were made. I learned that the first time when i posted my Masayuki Gimei after which forum members stated that there were delibarate errors in it which might have been done by the person signing it out of some sort of respect. I study about 1 hour a day the connaisseurs book of Japanese swords, and sometimes I devote my entire weekends on reading, looking, learning, searching, and reading again.

 

KM

[Lee Bray]

At the very least it should be accompanied with ... the words "in my opinion"

 

Isn't everything we post here 'in our opinion'? At least unless we explicitly state the source from where it came.

I think some are reading too much authority into peoples words and perhaps reacting to it. We all write here with our personal opinions and we all judge each others writings based on our opinions of the words and writer.

 

As to gimei, I see it as black and white. Which do you prefer?

Some one, some the other. Both are valid and without either there wouldn't be the accompanying shades of gray in between.

I see the argument for mumei blades of high quality and I see the reason why mei are important to some.

I see no real reason to draw lines between the two.

 

KM - if you read that book an hour a day, try looking at the title in more depth...

Humour...

[sanjuro]

It is the practice I believe of shinsa teams (Correct me if I am wrong in this), to reject swords they see as gimei solely on that basis and not offer a justification or attempt to rectify for the record what that sword is and by whom they consider it to be made. This intimates that a good blade with gimei, regardless of how well it is forged or expertly crafted, is somehow rendered not worth the trouble of judgement. Is the blade then of lesser quality because of the gimei. On the other hand, is a poor example of a smiths work properly signed , somehow better than a higher quality blade that has unfortunately been signed gimei?

[george trotter]

Further to the discussion on the topic of why do some immediately say "gimei" rather than explore/explain the object a bit further, can I say the following.

I too join with most here and confirm that I buy the blade first, and usually the blade that attracts me to it in the first place by its hamon, workmanship, shape and nakago finish. I occasionally buy a blade that shows quality, even though the hamon etc are not to my taste (a good sword is a good sword). After the nakago shape and finish is inspected, then the mei is the last thing approached, and the way of writing gives the first clue, and the mei itself is then assessed and researched if necessary. The mounts are of least importance to me in that I assess them separately (sometimes they are a bonus to the sword, sometimes not).

When a member posts a few pics of blade and mei, some assess the mei immediately as gimei and no further comment comes from them...I think the member deserves a bit more feedback if it is possible...what leads me to suggest this is that there is sometimes more to say than just "gimei of so & so" is that which Chris and others mentioned...Dai mei, Dai saku, Dai Saku Dai Mei. For example, from shinshinto times at least, there is reasonable information on some of these swordsmith lines, families, students etc. Sometimes it is possible to give a bit of a hint/suggestion to the member of where to look to find out more about his "gimei". I have an example myself. I bought a blade in shirasaya which I knew was not a correct mei for the name and date on the nakago...however, apart from being a bit thin in the kasane for this shinshinto smith's work, all the rest fitted. So I started researching...there are 6 more dai down to Showa who could have done this work, with my research (so far) narrowing it down to two. From the date (Ansei 5), the mei style suggets either Dai mei or a particular later man of the school who died Meiji 11. So, my point is, had I posted the mei here, I am certain that I would have got an instant "gimei of so & so" and no more. Were I a newbie, I may never have become aware of all the other interesting possibilities. Please don't think I'm grizzling, I just think a little more assistance should be forthcoming to newer members if it is possible.

On the point of what to do with it, well I knew it was "not quite right" when I bought it...my personal choice is to keep on researching as I think it is a good sword, and worth owning...even if it is bordering on Meiji...gendaito "gimei". From my research so far I consider it "of the school" and hopefully, "of the line"..

Hope this helps.

Geo.

PS to prove I am a "gimei" heretic, I may say that papers are of little interest to me. I would never buy a sword just because it has papers, nor would I reject a sword because it does not have papers. As with the wise man who said it is the sword that verifies the mei...similarly, it is the sword that verifies the origami, not the other way round.

[cabowen]

Chris,

 

Touching on a couple of points you made and that Ketith followed up, I think many of us have commented in the past on the over reliance and interest in papers rather than the sword. I think this has increased over time because our method of buying has changed. Many of us now buy swords based on an internet image rather than with blade in hand. We are therefore dependent on the quality of image and integrity of the seller. The fact the blade has been examined by a shinsa panel and awarded a level of paper does offer some confidence and comfort to the would be buyer.

 

It is certainly a valid point that kantei sho offer a safety net of sorts to those purchasing over the net and this new found purpose has no doubt stimulated the demand at those organizations issuing papers. It is always preferred to study a blade in hand before purchase but recognition of the fact that not all collectors have the luxury of a local market and the ever increasing role of the internet in sword purchasing certainly has added a new wrinkle...

 

Mumei blades are a simple and safe alternative to the signature merry-go-round and is something all good gimei blades should aspire to be...

 

Again, collecting is an extremely personal activity and there is no right or wrong way to collect. One should keep in mind however that tastes and preferences in collecting do have an established history in Japan and if one wishes to collect according to the tenets the Japanese have established through history then there are certain established criteria that need to be followed. Heads are often butted when those that follow these criteria interact with those that do not. Certainly there are pros and cons for each view and room for both methodologies....

[max]

Hello all,

 

I realize I am new and don’t have much to add but I found it interesting that on this shinsa rejection for a fake signature they mentioned it to be a good blade. From what I have been reading I thought this was uncommon. Unless the original translation written on here was incorrect as I didn’t translate it, any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Max

Sword_Paper (fake papers)1.pdf

[cabowen]

Hello all,

 

I realize I am new and don’t have much to add but I found it interesting that on this shinsa rejection for a fake signature they mentioned it to be a good blade. From what I have been reading I thought this was uncommon. Unless the original translation written on here was incorrect as I didn’t translate it, any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Max

 

The NTHK shinsa team when conducting shinsa in the US will often make these kind of comments as they know that the added info is valued by those in the west and that most of the people submitting are collectors rather than dealers and may not have the same level of sophistication as their Japanese counterparts....

[cabowen]

It is the practice I believe of shinsa teams (Correct me if I am wrong in this), to reject swords they see as gimei solely on that basis and not offer a justification or attempt to rectify for the record what that sword is and by whom they consider it to be made. This intimates that a good blade with gimei, regarless of how well it is forged or expertly crafted, is somehow rendered not worth the trouble of judgement. Is the blade then of lesser quality because of the gimei. On the other hand, is a poor example of a smiths work properly signed , somehow better than a higher quality blade that has unfortunately been signed gimei?

 

When looking at a NTHK kantei sho, centered large are the kanji　正真 which mean genuine or authentic. If a blade is gimei, it can not be considered genuine. Kantei sho are not meant to rectify any record, only to authenticate.

 

NBTHK kantei sho offer only an opinion as to the importance or worthiness of the sword vis-a-vis preservation. If it is gimei, they will not issue kantei sho as collectors and dealers in Japan have no need for a kantei sho that reads gimei, with or without an attribution.

 

People can and do have the spurious mei removed and then receive kantei sho which then usually does indicate a school.

[sanjuro]

Hi Chris and thanks for that. I probably slanted my question wrongly. In my post I asked, Quote: "Is the blade then of lesser quality because of the gimei. On the other hand, is a poor example of a smiths work properly signed , somehow better than a higher quality blade that has unfortunately been signed gimei?" By this I was wanting to establish the general attitude of the Japanese shinsa teams as to how they view a gimei blade. As In, Do they think of a gimei blade as being inferior because of it being gimei regardless of the quality of the forging etc? I realise that authentication does not and cannot extend to blades that are gimei, and I can appreciate the reasons for that. Do they give any gimei blades recognition for being well made and of high quality, outside of the fact that they are gimei?

Also, when a blade has had a gimei removed it must be obvious to the shinsa team that the nakago has been altered. Does this then have any negative impact on the judgement given?

[cabowen]

When a member posts a few pics of blade and mei, some assess the mei immediately as gimei and no further comment comes from them...I think the member deserves a bit more feedback if it is possible...what leads me to suggest this is that there is sometimes more to say than just "gimei of so & so" is that which Chris and others mentioned...Dai mei, Dai saku, Dai Saku Dai Mei.

 

Perhaps no further comment is given become further comment is difficult to impossible to make without a very high level of knowledge and experience, never mind in hand viewing of the blade......

 

It is not that difficult in most cases to simply judge a signature real or fake. Taking that next step is a step beyond for nearly anyone not on a shinsa team.....

 

For example, from shinshinto times at least, there is reasonable information on some of these swordsmith lines, families, students etc. Sometimes it is possible to give a bit of a hint/suggestion to the member of where to look to find out more about his "gimei". I have an example myself. I bought a blade in shirasaya which I knew was not a correct mei for the name and date on the nakago...however, apart from being a bit thin in the kasane for this shinshinto smith's work, all the rest fitted. So I started researching...there are 6 more dai down to Showa who could have done this work, with my research (so far) narrowing it down to two. From the date (Ansei 5), the mei style suggets either Dai mei or a particular later man of the school who died Meiji 11. So, my point is, had I posted the mei here, I am certain that I would have got an instant "gimei of so & so" and no more. Were I a newbie, I may never have become aware of all the other interesting possibilities. Please don't think I'm grizzling, I just think a little more assistance should be forthcoming to newer members if it is possible.

 

It is often the case that a gimei was not made by anyone affiliated with the school or group of the original maker. I don't wish to burst any bubbles but unless you are intimately familiar with the both the work of the original maker and that of his students, and by that I mean you have handled in hand dozens of genuine blades, you are really chasing your tail as the odds that this blade was made by one of these Showa forgers, rather than some obscure later generation/daimei, are much much higher. In any case, trying to make these kind of assessments from pictures and oshigata, while a interesting exercise, is next to impossible. There were several talented smiths well known for making extremely good fakes in the early Showa era. They had both the talent and access to real examples with which to make these copies. They made many of Shinshinto blades, particularly Kiyomaro, Naotane, Masahide, Masayoshi, Munetsugu, and the like.

[cabowen]

Hi Chris and thanks for that. I probably slanted my question wrongly. In my post I asked, Quote: "Is the blade then of lesser quality because of the gimei. On the other hand, is a poor example of a smiths work properly signed , somehow better than a higher quality blade that has unfortunately been signed gimei?" By this I was wanting to establish the general attitude of the Japanese shinsa teams as to how they view a gimei blade. As In, Do they think of a gimei blade as being inferior because of it being gimei regardless of the quality of the forging etc? I realise that authentication does not and cannot extend to blades that are gimei, and I can appreciate the reasons for that. Do they give any gimei blades recognition for being well made and of high quality, outside of the fact that they are gimei?

Also, when a blade has had a gimei removed it must be obvious to the shinsa team that the nakago has been altered. Does this then have any negative impact on the judgement given?

 

Quality is inherent and independent of the signature, I think we all would agree on that and certainly a shinsa team is aware of that as well. Kantei sho are not given, as stated, for gimei blades and while the NBTHK does not provide any written documentation attesting to anything outside of pass or fail, the NTHK-NPO does indeed indicate on a worksheet, in most cases, when they believe a gimei blade is of good or better quality and sometimes will give an indication of school and period. I would assume that if asked privately the NBTHK would indicate their thoughts on the possibilities for kantei sho for a gimei blade should it be resubmitted with the signature removed.

 

It is not that difficult for a blade to pass shinsa, as long as it is of decent quality, in decent condition, and without any fatal flaws. If the signature has been removed and the nakago repatinated in a proper manner, it is not generally in itself a reason to fail a blade at shinsa.

[reinhard]

The most recent examples of this are a kodzuke signed "Tou"....The immediate assumption of the "pronouncers" in these cases is that there was only one "Tou".

 

Well, there was only one TOU. Prove me wrong or shut up.

 

reinhard

[george trotter]

Well, there was only one TOU. Prove me wrong or shut up.

 

reinhard

 

see page 504 of Toso Kinko Jiten by Wakayama for the other Tou (same kanji) and the other Tou (more complex version of the same U kanji).

 

Chris, you are right of course...I may be seeing what I "wish" to see...but the point is again, as you so eloquently explained...there are possibilities other than just "gimei of so & so". In my case there is a fertile field of study (even if it eventually does just come down to "gimei of so & so by unknown Showa smith". In the case of Shicibeijo Sukesada there is the possibility of two other smiths of the name and as for Mr Tou, there is one other who used the same kanji and another who used the same kanji written a little differently...so 3 possibilities. Even if the original "pronouncers" eventually prove to be correct, they could always have aided the member's learning curve by adding a little bit of information to help the member with exploring the other possibilities. Just my opinion.

 

I do recognise that shinsa are there to appraise the sword in hand and not to do research to find the "possible" maker, but i am pleased to see the comment that they sometimes consider the western view that an "in house" or "in line" attribution is of value to the submitter.

Regards,

George.

[sanjuro]

George.

 

To get back to the original question "So its Gimei? What do we do with it?. I think that what is being said basically that having establishes a sword is gimei which can be done by those of us who are not in a shinsa team, then there are some basic choices to make. Firstly one can research etc as you are doing and take the clarification of that gimei as far as possible within the knowledge and resources available to the individual. At that point some decision will need to be made as to whether the blade in question is worth sending to shinsa to verify the conclusions you have reached, or to live with a gimei blade and enjoy/appreciate it for what it is or may be.

The other course of action is that having established the sword is worthy in the first place, and unfortunately gimei, then to have the gimei removed so that a shinsa team may attribute it as correctly as possible. In which case all that research will be unnecessary at worst, or at best an interesting platform from which to launch one's own further studiesalong the lines of the shinsa teams' findings

All of this is self evident of course, and I state the obvious very deliberately that in the process of arriving at these conclusions we have discovered some interesting things about shinsa and the limitations of even very experienced collectors in making correct attributions. Furthermore that expanding upon a simple judgement of gimei of so & so, is difficult for the members of this forum even though that judgement may be correct. Yet in knowing that a blade is gimei, we have exhausted most of the skill we may have unless we are vastly experienced in all aspects of nihonto, and have access not only to the sword being judged but to a wide variety of examples across all periods, schools and individual smiths, with which to compare it.

Is this about the same as everyone else sees the answer to the original question?

Now this being so, can those members of the board that do give such advice be reasonably expected to expand upon a simple gimei judgement by sending the querant on a possibly wild goosechase based solely upon photographic evidence?

[george trotter]

Hi Keith,

Well said...I agree with most of your analysis with one proviso...that of the two original instances I mentioned where the objects were "pronounced" gimei. Even a cursory skim through the most readily available book (I quoted Hawley) indicates that "gimei" may not be correct...there are possibly two additional smiths who are listed from Japanese sources as signing "Shichibeijo Sukesada....this should have been mentioned. In the case of "Tou", the "gimei" statement was made also, but a cursory glance at Wakayama lists another identical kanji "Tou" mei with the words "different man from Yasuchika" (Tao) and a third Tao with the same characters except the "U" has an extra stroke or so but could well be the mei on the tsuba posted for query. Either of these two "additionals" could be the man who signed "Tou" on the tsuba that had been posted. For all we know, the collector went away distressed and threw the "Gimei" tsuba in the river.

All I am saying, and all I meant by suggesting it would be good if members added the little bit of "additional" info (if available) to the "gimei" response, is that it gives the fuller picture...it is not a question of whether the member "can be reasonably expected to expand on gimei" like a teacher, just add the extra data... the poster can then search on or not as he sees fit. To just say it is a "gimei of so & so" may be correct, but it may in reality be a correct mei for someone else. To search or not is a personal decision...it is not for us to say that we should withold additional information (even if available) for fear of sending the enquirer on a fruitless chase (Crikey, we should all be slapped for being enthusiastic about swords and encouraging new collectors when we all know that as 99% of swords from Heian to Taisho are gimei, it will all be a fruitless exercise for them). :lol:

Regards,

George.

[cabowen]

George-

 

While there is no doubt that there are many examples of more than one smith using the same nanori and there are certainly cases where it would be a mistake to say gimei without consideration of this possibility, in the case of well known smiths, this is a very very rare situation.

 

I should also mention that Hawley's is the last place one should look for this type of confirmation as this book is full of multiple entries for the same smith which gives the mistaken impression in many cases that more than one smith used the same mei. I gave up on Hawley's many years ago for this very reason- it was never properly edited. You are much better served by using the Nihonto Meikan....

[george trotter]

You are right about Hawley's of course Chris. I know it has problems and I have fallen into its traps several times, once publically on this board, but I still use it as a quick guide and then use the Japanese sources. As you say John, for those who are bewildered by kana/kanji etc, Hawleys is a useful first stop.

I am not stating categorically that there are several Sukesadas, I just mentioned that there are indications (from Japanese sources listed in Hawleys), and that it is worthwhile eliminating or establishing if this is so, rather than just accepting the blunt "gimei of so & so" as the final result. I also think that if possible, these "additionals" if listed somewhere like Hawleys, should be mentioned when stating that the mei posted is a "gimei of so & so". It gives the queryor? the chance to research further.

In the case of the three separate "Tou" makers in Wakayama, I am prepared to take Wakayama's word for it that there are more than one "Tou". I don't think the same reservations exist for Wakayama that exist for Hawley. I don't have Haynes, but I have the two important Japanese authored books Haynes used to base his compilation on...I don't know if Haynes has doublings in it but Reinhard will certainly let me know when he gets around to responding I'm sure.

regards,

George.