Lindus Posted October 19, 2011 Report Posted October 19, 2011 Question asked today that perhaps members could answere. A sword went to shinsa in the UK, was declared as a first generation of that line but paper declined as the signature is not right and added later. What should the owner do?. Roy Quote
Grey Doffin Posted October 19, 2011 Report Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Roy, To some extent it depends on which smith is mentioned in the signature and on the paper, and it also depends on the reputation of the organization issuing the paper. Generally though, unless the signature is of a very early and very important smith for whom there are few extant signatures, and once the owner is comfortable with (believes) the designation of gimei, if the signature isn't cut so deeply that it can't be removed without seriously damaging the nakago, the signature is removed so the paper can be received. If the mei is too deep the owner gets to live with a gimei blade. Many times I've heard griping that a blade was bounced because it was gimei and the owner had the mei removed and resubmitted the blade to shinsa and it then papered to exactly what the mei said before removal; how is that fair?. This shouldn't surprise any of us. Just because the work is right for a smith doesn't mean the mei is correct, and shnisa teams don't paper gimei blades. Grey Quote
NihontoEurope Posted October 19, 2011 Report Posted October 19, 2011 Roy, It is my believe that NBTHK does not paper any blade where the mei has been erased or tampered with. /Martin Quote
Grey Doffin Posted October 19, 2011 Report Posted October 19, 2011 Hi Martin, I own a sword that was sent to the NBTHK for polish & paper. When sent there was a mei. The NBTHK had the polisher remove the mei (gimei), and they papered the sword, Juyo Token to Ko-Mihara. Grey Quote
drdata Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 As to not papering blades that have been de-gimeid When expertly done, and when not cut too deeply, the mei can be removed and the nakago repatinated so that few are the wiser.... This strikes me as a bit "dirty", but you are bringing it closer to what the original smith intended/produced. Regards Quote
runagmc Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Lindus said: Question asked today that perhaps members could answere. A sword went to shinsa in the UK, was declared as a first generation of that line but paper declined as the signature is not right and added later. What should the owner do?. Roy Be very carefull and get as many expert opinions as possible. Would be ashame to remove a zaimei/daimei on one person or one shinsa's opinion. I think removing signatures should not be rushed into... you can always remove it later... but once it's removed it can never be restored... Quote
Grey Doffin Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Hi Jean, Kunimura, as in Enju. Grey Quote
nagamaki - Franco Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Jim Kurrash's answer to this question time ago was basically submit three times, remove once. Personally, if bounced twice, especially by two separate and notable shinsa teams, then I would look into removal, if worthy. Those that gripe about an added on gimei being removed and then the sword papering to the same named smith don't seem to understand that the shinsa team is in essence protecting the original smith's interests along with their own integrity, not to mention the next owners interests. Quote
Ted Tenold Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Removing an undoubtedly bad signature is a matter of making the blade "honest". But removing a questionable one is only something that should be pursued after it is researched diligently, especially so if the work looks adequately correct for the signed maker. This includes submitting to shinsas to confirm or deny it. I once saw a tanto signed Nobukuni that was sent through and judged gimei. The mei was removed and the nakago respectably restored. It subsequently passed as a mumei to....yes.... Nobukuni. Work is work but a false signature is a blemish. Better to leave it, or remove it? I think it depends on the overall work, health of the piece, and the effect it has on it. As an example, would this be better as is, or just taken off completely?? The problem becomes complicated with different periods. While this is easier to accept in a Koto piece, the later the period, the more unpalatable it becomes. A Shinto gimei is disappointing, but tolerable if the work is judged to a high ranking smith once resubmitted as a mumei. Shinshinto mumei are very disappointing and though the work may be excellent, the lack of a mei casts them in a low appeal. Gimei Gendaito are pretty much a travesty as a mumei gendaito is either illegal, junk, flawed, or of little worth because of a lack of mei. Each sword has to be judged individually. Moreover, a mei should never be removed without due diligence. I would also point out that a good removal of a mei isn't a matter of just filing or grinding off a signature. The metal should be preserved by closing the mei up through techniques of manipulation and displacement. Metal removal should be very minimal. Mei can also be filled if required, much like umegane repairs in a blade. Time consuming and expensive, but for the right blade, a dignified approach. **Franco posted while I was writing this, and I agree. Jim's approach to things like this were, and still are, good advice. Quote
Jimmy R Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 I just wanted to add my two cents. I have a koto katana that has obviously had a signature poorly removed and it passed with 76 points, NTHK-NPO did the papers. I wonder if it lost points because of this fact. Does anybody know if this is a factor in assigning points? Jim Quote
Lindus Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Posted October 20, 2011 Apparently it was seen to be the work of the first generation Kanefusa. The blade is in good polish,very elegant with full length Hi, the hamon appears to be right for the mans work, sadly the chap is so upset he has asked if I would put it as a consigned sword on my website. Seems it was NTHK shinsa involved. Will let the members know when pictures are available. Roy Quote
cabowen Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 While removing a mei said to be gimei and then have the sword paper to the smith's name that was judged gimei may seem a travesty, a mei, even if correct, that is not judged to be the work of the original smith, is considered gimei. I saw two of these at the recent shinsa. The workmanship was spot on, the mei named the right smith, but the mei itself was not by the original smith. These are judged gimei..... Getting a second opinion, from a reputable shinsa team, is always a good idea before doing anything to a sword. Quote
Lindus Posted October 20, 2011 Author Report Posted October 20, 2011 cabowen said: While removing a mei said to be gimei and then have the sword paper to the smith's name that was judged gimei may seem a travesty, a mei, even if correct, that is not judged to be the work of the original smith, is considered gimei. I saw two of these at the recent shinsa. The workmanship was spot on, the mei named the right smith, but the mei itself was not by the original smith. These are judged gimei..... Getting a second opinion, from a reputable shinsa team, is always a good idea before doing anything to a sword. See above,seems it was an NTHK shinsa. Roy Quote
cabowen Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Getting a second opinion, from a reputable shinsa team, is always a good idea before doing anything to a sword. Quote
Jean Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 There were a lot of questions about NTHK Shinsa results lately. From what I understand there are 2 different organizations, One is the NTHK NPO One is the NTHK Question: with which organization there were complaintsa? Who are the leaders of each organisation? Do they "shinsa" the same way? What is the cost of such organization? These are things interesting to know in old Europe if we wish one day organize a shinsa. Other question: does for both organizations, yushu is only obtainable in Japan? Do both organizations deliver work sheet with points? Quote
David Flynn Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 I believe the split came when Yoshikawa Sensei died. There were two claimants to the throne. This was taken to court and Yoshikawa's son won the right to be the head of the NTHK. The outcome caused the pretender, to change their name to NTHK NPO. Quote
Jean Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Thanks a lot David for this first reply. Quote
cabowen Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 There's a little more to it than that.... When Yoshikawa senior died, he left no successor. Many of the senior people, including members of the shinsa team, wanted to set up the group as a non-profit rather than continue on with it as the Yoshikawa family business, which it had become under Yoshikawa senior. Some people supported Yoshikawa junior and family which didn't want to loose control and have to segregate funds, file financial disclosure, etc. So they split. They both used the NTHK name. There was a lawsuit. The court, in Japanese fashion, allowed them both to use the NTHK name. The group that wanted to form the NPO did so, and appended NPO to their name to differentiate themselves. They now file financials with the government every year and operate in the open. The NTHK-NPO had most of the original shinsa team members from when Yoshikawa senior ran the group. The Yoshikawa junior version had/has mostly new shinsa team members. A few of the original members were so unhappy with the whole turn of events that they quit altogether. The NTHK-NPO receives more items per month in Japan for shinsa than they did when Yoshikawa senior was alive. They rarely do overseas shinsa because they have more than enough shinsa work in Japan. The Yoshikawa junior NTHK, the last I heard, gets very few items in Japan for shinsa. They use to publish the items that passed shinsa in their journal every issue but stopped at one time, presumably because there was little or nothing to publish. I have not seen their journal for quite a while so I do not know the present situation. They do, however, travel to the US, Australia, and Europe frequently for shinsa. There have been many posts here regarding the results of the Yoshikawa junior NTHK shinsa. Search and ye shall find.... Quote
cabowen Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Jean said: There were a lot of questions about NTHK Shinsa results lately. From what I understand there are 2 different organizations, One is the NTHK NPO One is the NTHK Question: with which organization there were complaintsa? The only complaints I have seen here have been focused on the for profit Yoshikawa junior NTHK. Jean said: Who are the leaders of each organisation? Do they "shinsa" the same way? What is the cost of such organization? These are things interesting to know in old Europe if we wish one day organize a shinsa. The NTHK-NPO is headed by Miyano Teiji. I am not sure who the current head of the NTHK is....Tom Helm, a member of this board, was an officer of the Yoshikawa NTHK and probably still is....Perhaps he will answer your question... They perform shinsa in roughly the same manner...but with greatly differing results, judging by the recent shinsa by each group. Jean said: Other question: does for both organizations, yushu is only obtainable in Japan? Do both organizations deliver work sheet with points? Yes to both questions.... Quote
Jean Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Thanks a lot Chris for this thorough information. Time to go to bed and dream collecting some heads with my Yasumitsu Quote
Henry Wilson Posted October 20, 2011 Report Posted October 20, 2011 Thanks Chris for that detailed explanation. I have attended afew of the NTHK NPO shinsa in the past as an observer and were great experiences. NTHK-NPO is the way to go... :D Quote
NihontoEurope Posted October 21, 2011 Report Posted October 21, 2011 Jean said: Thanks a lot Chris for this thorough information. Time to go to bed and dream collecting some heads with my Yasumitsu I now have a new name for you, Jean. "France no Kami Kubikiri Jean" /Martin Quote
Lindus Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Posted October 24, 2011 First let me apologise re the mistaken "1st Generation" The owner thought this was the comment but as Jean pointed out in the Sale section, if 1610 is correct it could not be. The Interesting thing now I have both the sword and Paper and can see why he was confused , are the circled comments. Historically valuable.. Yes Worth preserving...Yes Needs polishing ...No "The workmanship is by this smith, but the signature is wrong" It would infer that the shinsa were comparing and judging against a known & well thought of smith,to late to ask but why not add to the comment the smith ?. Perhaps a silly question but I can see why he was confused. Roy Quote
Jean Posted October 24, 2011 Report Posted October 24, 2011 Everything could have merged in the sale section but as I am leaving for Japan in twelve hours, I let Brian do it. This a simple question: Shinsa issued a rejection slip as Gimei. They are saying that the mei has been adder later and not by the maker, but that nevertheless it is indeed a blade forged by a Kanefusa smith lineage. The blade is by a Kanefusa who worked around 1610 and not by a Koto Kanefusa, as the gimei signature is probably crude Quote
Lindus Posted October 24, 2011 Author Report Posted October 24, 2011 Have moved the conversation to sales Jean. Bon voyage Roy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.