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

[paulb]

I rather feel we are slipping in to the realms of speculative fantasy. While I have no doubt technology exists to recreate a copy of a mei it would be just that, a copy. It would have no greater validity than a shu-mei or other attribution and I fail to see how it would add to the value of a sword, unless the intention was to deceive.

[sanjuro]

If I may clarify something here... I did not actually suggest that shinsa teams make mistakes in attribution. Though this is undoubtedly a possibility. A sword pronounced gimei, then having the mei removed only to have a shinsa team attribute the now mumei blade to the original smith isnt necessarily a mistake in attribution it is more a lack of attribution in the first instance and a mispronunciation at worst...... not quite the same as a mistake in attribution. Not to split hairs however, and Chris has expanded upon that possibility himself with his own comments.

One is prompted to ask what the fundamental differences between shinsa teams is, that occasions such disparity in the amount of swords submitted to each one?

[cabowen]

One is prompted to ask what the fundamental differences between shinsa teams is, that occasions such disparity in the amount of swords submitted to each one?

 

The NBTHK is the largest and most frequently used and they are of course the traditional choice of dealers. After the NBTHK, reputation, which is usually directly correlated to their experience, is what separates the rest of the field....

[reinhard]

We all "get" it Reinhard...reasoned, logical discussion is wasted on you...simple.

 

For those of you who would like to know what this is really all about:

 

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10158

 

No need to argue about the same topic in two different threads.

 

reinhard

[nagamaki - Franco]

A sword pronounced gimei, then having the mei removed only to have a shinsa team attribute the now mumei blade to the original smith isnt necessarily a mistake in attribution it is more a lack of attribution in the first instance and a mispronunciation at worst...... not quite the same as a mistake in attribution.

 

Hi Keith,

 

It isn't completely clear what is being suggested here. It could simply be the case where the shinsa team quite correctly recognized the sword to be made by the named smith, but considered the mei itself not to be correct.

[Jean]

The signature is forged. Nothing to do with the attribution.

Shinsa rejects the sword as the signature is forged. Once removed, they make the attribution, it can be the same smith as it already happened.

[sanjuro]

OK.. I can appreciate that. Now for my own information, may I just have a reality synchronisation?

 

If one has a nihonto with a signed nakago there is a high probability in any event that it is gimei. Lets assume that you are reasonably sure it is gimei, but being what you think is a good blade.

 

If the blade is in reasonable condition and has a decent polish, and one wants to be sure that it is either gimei or genuine, one must submit it to shinsa. (Given that nothing short of a shinsa team is expert enough to make the call accurately).

 

If it is indeed gimei they give it back to you with a pink slip that says gimei, or in most cases absolutely nothing more than a rejection.

 

Off you go and get the mei removed and the nakago repatinated.

 

You then resubmit it to shinsa for yet another fee, and they supply an attrubution/and or a judgement of the quality of the sword, its age, and sometimes the school and smith.

 

At the end of all that, You have an origami.

 

Is this more or less the process?

[nagamaki - Franco]

Is this more or less the process?

 

Yes. A sword that is bounced for being gimei should paper with the false signature properly removed as a mumei sword (without fatal flaws). But, keep in mind that the paper could end up being a second disappointment depending upon your objectives. Also, an older decent polish usually does a mumei sword no favors when pursuing an attribution, especially of a rated swordsmith. For myself, a sword would have to be elgible to receive Tokubetsu Hozon papers in order to justify such an undertaking. A real challenge to say the least. http://www.nihontocraft.com/Nihonto_Shinsa_Standards.html

[cabowen]

Let me clarify a few things:

 

If the blade is in reasonable condition and has a decent polish, and one wants to be sure that it is either gimei or genuine, one must submit it to shinsa. (Given that nothing short of a shinsa team is expert enough to make the call accurately).

 

No one has said that only a shinsa team can make an accurate call. It is all about who you as an individual are comfortable with and who you wish to trust. That includes yourself. If you have the knowledge to make the determination yourself with confidence, then that is your prerogative. Everyone makes mistakes, though, including shinsa teams. Some many more than others. It is entirely your decision as to what you wish to believe, and ultimately, what you decide to do with your sword. Personally, I would look for the most informed opinion possible, which is usually obtained from a top rate shinsa team. When I am sick I seek the opinion of a physician, not a med student. Removing a signature is not something that should be undertaken lightly.

 

 

If it is indeed gimei they give it back to you with a pink slip that says gimei, or in most cases absolutely nothing more than a rejection.

 

The NBTHK shinsa supplies simply a stamp on the notification post card that says the items failed. Nothing more is said. There is no pink slip.

 

The NTHK-NPO gives a pink slip. When the sword is a good one, they will usually indicate such. They will often indicate a period as well and if the workmanship is such that it points to a particular school or smith, they will often indicate that as well.

 

I can not speak for any other shinsa groups.

 

Off you go and get the mei removed and the nakago repatinated.

 

You then resubmit it to shinsa for yet another fee, and they supply an attrubution/and or a judgement of the quality of the sword, its age, and sometimes the school and smith.

 

At the end of all that, You have an origami.

 

Is this more or less the process?

 

It seems you have it thoroughly digested.

[sanjuro]

OK .... Thanks for the verification.

 

Now.. with the preceding in mind, would it not then make the most sense to firstly submit the suspected gimei but good blade to the NTHK -NPO for an initial assessment since although they would pink slip the sword they may also supply a verification of its likely origins, whereas the NBTHK would not.

Having done that and the gimei status confirmed, plus some indication of the swords general origins and quality, then have the gimei removed being somewhat more assured that the process was justified.

After the removal and repatination You may then if you wish resubmit to the NTHK -NPO or if preferred to the NBTHK.

 

Same process certainly, but with a little more feedback in the initial stages

[David Flynn]

The NTHK (not the npo), also give pink slips for gimei. Usually though, it only mentions that the sword is worth preserving.

This is the group who will be at the Sydney Shinsa. Sensei Yoshikawa will preside.

[paulb]

David,

I am not sure what the norm is but when the NTHK (Yoshikawa group) did two events in the UK if they pink slipped a sword for being gimei but worthy of preservation they also gave an attribution.

For example I had a blade signed Rai Kunitoshi which as no great surprise was pink slipped as gimei but was noted as Yamato Tegai work from the OEI period and worthy of preservation

[David Flynn]

Thanks Paul, none of my swords have been pinked :D

[paulb]

arent you a lucky boy I am thinking of starting an exclusive collection of pink slips and other forms of rejection, but that is a whole different thread!!

[David Flynn]

7 out of 7 so far, but then again they are all Gendai

[george trotter]

It is well known that gendaito are pure and free from crooked gimei-ists... :lol:

 

Seriously, as a matter of interest...although I have seen one suspect Yasukunito advertised for sale, is there any trend of gimei emerging yet in gendaito?

 

Geo.

[David Flynn]

Yes George, there was a Gimei Takahashi Sadatsugu submitted at the last Sydney Shinsa.

[cabowen]

I have seen several gimei Yasukuni-to, and many gimei ningen kokuho works (Sadatsugu, Akihira, Masamine, etc.).....Most of these were in Japan but I have no doubt they are working their way west. There are plenty of them on ebay, for example....

[kusunokimasahige]

Yes, I have a Gunto signed Minamoto Masayuki.

 

KM

[cabowen]

Um, Masayuki (Kiyomaro) was not a gendai smith....

[kusunokimasahige]

That is why it is a Gendaito with Gimei... of course...

 

KM

[Brian]

You completely missed the point. Shhhhhhhhh.

 

Brian

[kusunokimasahige]

Brian, i know the discussion was about Yasukuni smiths being Gimei'd on Gendaito, however there are also Gendaito carrying older names. That was all i wanted to convey...

 

KM

[Brian]

Actually..no. It was about good Gendaito smiths mei being copied onto other swords. That includes Showato and anything else.

And yes..there are many. Probably spurred on by the Western interest in Gendaito. Along with increased interest comes more reference works and publications. And with that comes more interest and increased value.

 

Brian

[cabowen]

Brian, i know the discussion was about Yasukuni smiths being Gimei'd on Gendaito, however there are also Gendaito carrying older names. That was all i wanted to convey...

 

KM

 

I take it English is not your native language so there is no shame in a misunderstanding. I am both amazed at the language abilities of those in Europe and ashamed at the lack of such in the US.....Let's move along,,,,

[george trotter]

In your combined experience with viewing gimei gendaito...are these possibly mumei blades of say 1912-1945 with false mei put on...

or are they these period blades with original mei removed and false mei put on and nakago re-aged...

or are there blades new-made, signed and aged to look like 1912-1945 smiths?

 

Am I understanding that even post 1954 smiths are being made/faked?

 

Geo.

[Lorenzo]

Yes, we discussed the matter time ago about suspicious blade signed Ono yoshimitsu

[David Flynn]

George, the Sadatsugu I saw, looked as though it was made c1940s and looked like the signature was done at the same time as made.

[cabowen]

All of the ones I have seen appeared to be period fakes.

[george trotter]

Hmmm...it is a shame indeed. As Lorenzo said, I seem to remember a discussion some time ago when a member posted a shinsakuto mei and the consensus was that it was probably wrong...maybe that was the Ono Yoshimitsu.

As some of us are primarily interested in Showa gendaito, and primarily find them locally, usually in shingunto mountings from veteran's families, the chances of me coming across a gimei gendaito are quite rare...in fact I haven't seen one (unless I have and didn't know it).

My finds have not included any gendaito "great" names but do include respectable smiths such as Special Honour Noted Seat: Endo Mitsuoki, Suetsugu Shigemitsu. Ist to 5th Seats: Muto Hidehiro, Sato Shigenori, Nagao Kunishiro and Tokyo line smiths such as Minamoto Kaneharu (Kanenori school), Yamagami Munetoshi (Kasama Shigetsugu student) and regional smiths such as Seki Nakata Kanehide, Osaka Okishiba Yoshisada (Gassan associations), and such "in-betweens" as Emura , Bizen Nagamitsu etc. Having said this I doubt whether any are/were gimei as they have not come out of postwar Japan , or from the postwar market, they came home from the Pacific War in soldiers kitbags, so if any are/were gimei, they were done to the Japanese officer who originally purchased them.

While the gendai greats are already being gimei'd, these lesser known type of swords are as yet of little? interest in Japan, and are still relatively unknown in the west (but growing), so I suppose as interest is growing the gimei trade is starting to appear...how sad.

For such an honourable profession, the sword trade must surely be one of the world's most corrupt.

 

Sigh ,

Geo.