Japanese supervised Chinese fakes?

[george trotter]

Hi all,

I was talking to a Chinese doctor friend today, a nihonto collector of 30+ years experience, and he said that he had "heard" that Japanese tosho were going to China to "supervise" the production/signing of Chinese fake nihonto....while I suspect this is the old "someone said" / "I heard" type of rumour, I thought I'd ask here if anyone else has heard (or better yet, knows) anything about this...?

 

Regards,

[Tcat]

George,

 

I have also "heard" this rumour before, or actually deduced it myself from knowledge acquired from talking to some London and Paris dealers and a top expert at a certain auction house...

 

Without being able to go into too much detail, my anecdotal experience is this: A sword which looked to me to be a perfectly legitimate (and signed) nihonto was rejected by a Shinsa panel (in an undisclosed location) as being not only gimei but also a fake that was fabricated in China. I am very familiar with the various offerings of reproduction j-sword forges in China and none of them are anything like as close to the genuine article as this particular sword, which I personally was convinced was Japanese.

 

How the shinsa panel deduced that it was a Chinatana I do not know, but suffice to say I do not think they like to release this information for fear that the forgers will get better.

 

My only explanation (to myself) was that it had been made in China by a Japanese tosho or that it had been made under the direct and strict supervision of someone trained in the traditional Japanese techniques (but in kantai I am no expert, barely a novice). I believe that it is more likely that there is or are some unscrupulous Japanese tosho who travel to China to fabricate batches of fake swords which would be harder to get out of Japan and where there are no penalties for such a "crime" as in Japan - thus avoiding the possible revoking of their license to manufacture nihonto(??).

 

Note: The blade was good enough to not only "fool" a collector of some 20 years or so, but also a very well respected nihonto dealer and all the specialists in the Japanese department of aforementioned unnamed vary big and famous auction house. It was the Shinsa panel only that raised the red flag.

 

Now...drifting slightly off topic, not wanting to harp back to recent but thoroughly worn threads, (but doing so anyway ); a new and interesting question is raised: is a Japanese sword made with traditional steel and forging techniques by a traditionally trained Japanese smith still considered a Nihonto when it is made in China? (Apparently not... but I thought that it was now widely accepted that swords made in China by Japanese smiths during the WWII are true Nihonto...) We enter another murky realm...

[cabowen]

Shina teams can make mistakes, some more than others. I would not assume out of hand that everyone was fooled and that the shinsa team was right....it could be the other way around....

 

That being said, during the was there were Japanese in Manchuria making swords and running sword factories. I have seen a few gendaito that were made during the war in various Japanese colonies. They are considered nihonto.

 

The Japanese government has a love hate thing going with modern Japanese swords. They support the craft, but do not want large numbers of modern blades loose in the country. They do not want to allow import of blades made outside of Japan, even if made by licensed Japanese smiths. The problem they have is they have no way of telling where a modern made blade was made- that is, they can't tell if a blade made in Japan and exported is being brought back, or if the blade was made outside the country. I had an interesting conversation at the licensing shinsa once when trying to import a blade that was made in the US at a workshop I organized. The Mombusho employee said to me,"if we let this in, then other smiths will go to the US and make swords..." to which I replied,"and what exactly is wrong with that?"

 

There isn't any formal law that I am aware of that should prohibit blades made by licensed smiths outside of Japan from being imported....rather, this seems to be some sort of ad hoc policy to close a "loop hole" in the law.

[Bruno]

A sword which looked to me to be a perfectly legitimate (and signed) nihonto was rejected by a Shinsa panel (in an undisclosed location) as being not only gimei but also a fake that was fabricated in China

 

What kind of sword copy was it: koto, shinto....shinsakuto?

 

I would think modern swords are easier to copy as one does not have the patina issue, natural wear of use etc...

 

Does anybody know if they copy every styles and every periods?

 

Thanks

[paulb]

Reffering to Alex's story regarding a Shinsa panel describing a sword as a Chinese fake. I am not sure if it is the same sword but certainly one seems to have achieved fame and even some years later continues to raise it's head, usually quoted as an example of a shinsa panel getting it wrong (in the mind of the owner). I think I may have been present when this sword was submitted and party to the discussion that followed. I am not sure if it is the same sword but it does share many common features Alex describes owned by a collector with more than 20 years experience, seen by a well known and respected dealer and signed.

The sword fooled me. From what I could see it was a fairly standard shape WWII gendaito. Little to see in the hada but with some sporadic nie running through the hamon. Not in the best of polish but not the worst blade we had seen on that day by a long way. The comment from the shinsa team was that it was oil quenched and made in China. I queried the oil quenched because of the presence of nie, I was told that nie can be seen in oil quenched blades but it is sporadic and unintentional. This blade was certainly sporadically populated. It is true it was signed, but it was signed in Chinese. The owner was of the belief that it had been made in China by a transplanted swordsmith but I am not sure what evidence he had to support this beleif . I do not think he disputed that the mei was Chinese caligraphy not Japanese.

I think based on the view that it was oil quenched signed in Chinese and without any supporting evidence regarding the origin of the smith the panels conclusion was not unreasonable.

However if I had seen the blade at an arms fair, based on what was visible I would have been confident it wasnt a fake and reasonably so that it was hand made and water quenched. If it was Chinese I have not seen a better example.

[cabowen]

Obviously if it was signed with a Chinese mei it would give pause....

 

I do not recall seeing nie in an oil quenched, western steel blade....I do not recall seeing nie that wasn't sporadic, nor do I recall ever meeting a smith that could place nie in an intentional way....

 

There were indeed swords made in Manchuria during the war, as I said above. It is possible it was one of those....One would need to determine when it was made to follow that lead.

 

Simply solution is to remove the mei and resubmit....

[paulb]

Hi Chris,

My turn to be less than clear. I think the nie was not frequent and in small random patches, it gave the appearance of being accidental. On more richly covered blades I think the pattern looks to be more intentional. I guess it comes back to the old argument repeated in "Modern Swordsmiths" about whether Nie was planned and created or just happenned. Whole different debate

[drbvac]

Does everyone recall or remember the 10 dollar Rolex watches available from "a guy" on the corner made in China that looked like they were made in someones bathroom ??

 

Have any of you seen the new "replicas" - no longer called fakes - costing over 100 bucks with Japanese insides or 5-600 if swiss = I have had ROlex dealers have no clue between a 200 "replica" including holographic stamps and paperwork and an $11,000.00 real one.

 

Where there is a market and a way there will be some underhanded crooked SOB willing to put in the effort to get a return on investment. Spend a little more on production - even if it includes using pretty excellent people - and your margin goes through the roof !

 

Keep your eyes open - the rule that still works is "if it looks or sounds too good to be true"

[Bruno]

A bit off topic, but presently there are a few modern swords for sale by a famous seller on Ebay.These swords are new but the price quite cheap. I have always been told these modern swords shinsakuto cost around 15 000/20 000 USD.

 

So why for example, these two ones are so cheap? Are they iai to made by good smiths? If yes, an iai to can cost such money?

 

I asked seller if they were iai to or shinsakuto but he answered he had no clue to tell.

 

What do you guys think? Are they copies, "expensive" iai to or cheap shinsakuto?

 

PS: From what year/date one can tell a sword is a gendaito and not a shinsakuto and vice versa?

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/140729922934?ss ... 1423.l2649

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/130666605200?ss ... _715wt_724

 

Thanks

[cabowen]

Hi Chris,

My turn to be less than clear. I think the nie was not frequent and in small random patches, it gave the appearance of being accidental. On more richly covered blades I think the pattern looks to be more intentional. I guess it comes back to the old argument repeated in "Modern Swordsmiths" about whether Nie was planned and created or just happenned. Whole different debate

 

 

I have talked with many smiths about this and the consensus seems to be that the smith can only coax the shape of the hamon and provide the right environment for activity- what actually results is created by nature. They can not place hataraki where they want it....

 

Many smiths have compared yaki-ire to what happens to wood fired ceramics in the kiln. You can control the shape of the pot and to some extent the direction of the fire path but the exact location and amount of ash accumulation and any other effects that result are not directly controllable.

[paulb]

I have talked with many smiths about this and the consensus seems to be that the smith can only coax the shape of the hamon and provide the right environment for activity- what actually results is created by nature. They can not place hataraki where they want it....

 

 

I think that is a very reasonable position. creating an environemt to allow the natural evolution of the materials has a poetic feel to it. What is interesting is how consistantly some makers were able to achieve this activity while others demonstrated great variation.

[george trotter]

Hmmm, this is interesting, and disturbing, especially as the sword mentioned as a Chinese copy was a WWII gendaito, and especially to me as it is stated to be signed with a "Chinese mei". What is meant by this?

I ask because when I showed a pic of my reisho script signed WWII gendaito? blade (see my post on unusual inscriptions ) to Yoshikawa sensei at the 2011 Sydney shinsa, he said words to the effect that it looked like a "Chinese mei"...this is a worry now as it seems to me there is an implied criticism of it actually being CHINESE made?...and it is confusing as to what is meant, especially as there are a fair amount of very similar examples of reisho script "Chinese" mei on blades of undoubted Japanese make (here is one from Bunkyu era, I can post more). Can you comment Paul and Chris...and others. Any pics of this sword mentioned, or of a "Chinese mei"?

Regards,

[paulb]

Sorry George, you now know as much as I do. I dont think I actually even saw the nakago at the time and certainly havent seen the sword since. My impression, and it is only that, was that the mei had no resemblance to any form of Japanese title or name.

[Clive Sinclaire]

Gentlemen

I was sort of involved in the fake Kanenori business. If you go to http://www.To-ken.com and look under Articles, the Sophisticated Forgery article deals with the subject abd illusrtrate the sword in question.

Regards

Clive Sinclaire

[Tcat]

Hi All,

Shina teams can make mistakes, some more than others. I would not assume out of hand that everyone was fooled and that the shinsa team was right....it could be the other way around...

Indeed Chris indeed. I was thinking this was a possibility, of course

What kind of sword copy was it: koto, shinto....shinsakuto?

It was a shinshinto tachi.

Does anybody know if they copy every styles and every periods?

Japanese copiers make fakes of pretty much any smith that can turn a buck or two. Could be oldest koto right upto gendai.

Reffering to Alex's story regarding a Shinsa panel describing a sword as a Chinese fake. I am not sure if it is the same sword but certainly one seems to have achieved fame and even some years later continues to raise it's head

This little upset took place about 4 years ago. The mei was cut like the "originals" were supposed to be.... not with Chinese. It was definately a tachi mei.

Have any of you seen the new "replicas" - no longer called fakes - costing over 100 bucks with Japanese insides or 5-600 if swiss = I have had ROlex dealers have no clue between a 200 "replica" including holographic stamps and paperwork and an $11,000.00 real one.

Brian, so many high end luxury goods are made almost entirely in China, then they are shipped to the "country of origin" (lol) where they have an extra label sewn in or a button added or a strap toggled (or something) which then allows the manufacturer of whatever it is to claim it was "Made in Italy" or "Made in Switzerland". I cant help but laugh and tut-tut. Tut tut at the lax consumer protection laws that allow this to be the case and tut tut at the brands that think they can have their cake and eat it. It serves them all right for outsourcing everything in the name of greed. Move production to China = compete with counterfeits of your own goods - in fact, they arnt even counterfeits, they are unfinished products coming straight out of the backdoor of your factory bwahaha.

Some day they will learn.

As for watches... I know where they keep the "good" fakes (the secret is, they arnt fake...).

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I have just spotted the post above by Clive - Thanks Clive, the sword in the article you mention is the exact same sword I was talking about! I showed to a certain member of the European To-Ken society at Sotheby's after it was returned (much to the house's ire).

 

I tried to find out as much information as I could at the time but got barked at by Christian Bouvet for sticking my nose where it didnt belong. I also tried to make the house an offer for it (but got shot down by Bouvet) because I thought it was an interesting example of a "nearly perfect" fake. I would wager it still sits on a rack in the Chinese works of art department in the London office where last I saw it, by this time having developed a nice layer of oxidation as it sits ignored - a total loss. Oh well...

[paulb]

Hi Alex,

sounds like a different blade to the one I was talking about (that means there are a number of them kicking around!!)

[george trotter]

Hi all,

I appreciate the discussion...especially as the article linked by Clive points to an example of the unusual placing/choice of kanji in the mei and date etc.being taken as a pointer to the sword being a Chinese copy...it is interesting (if I read it properly) that it was not the workmanship of the blade which flagged the fake, but the mei etc.

 

I can't say there is a workmanship problem in my sword, except to say that although the mei makes perfect (Japanese grammar) sense, the swordsmith's name is "SEISUI", a gago (so far an unidentified smith)...a gago is very unusual.

 

On the other hand, if you look again at the date, the kanji for "Gatsu" is omitted, which either means it is the 12th lucky propitious day of 1944 (12th Jan 1944) or 1944, 12th (month missing), a lucky propitious day...hard to conceive of a Japanese "mistakenly" leaving out a gatsu if that was what was intended as the date.

Any comments on this mei/date?

 

I notice in Clive's link it was an important late Edo - Meiji/Taisho smith that was faked...so far, no Chinese fakes (of this quality) have been seen for WWII gendaito (is this right?), I must say, in my case these WWII fittings are special order Type 3 , surely the cost of setting up a series of moulds to cast these fittings and make such scrupulous kiku edged seppa etc would cost more than I paid for the finished product?(so far, a one-off specimen).

 

While I think it would be wise to have this sword shinsa'd at the next opportunity, I would still be interested in your comments, and info/pics of Chinese mei examples if any know of others.

 

Regards,

[cabowen]

George, I would relax and not worry about this sword being a Chinese made copy.

 

The Kanenori is interesting...The mei is indeed strange but I would not necessarily conclude that it was made in China. There is always the possibility that it was a mumei blade left in China and someone simply added the spurious mei. The blade seems too well made to have been made by any of the usual suspects. One wonders about the koshirae and how it found its way to England....

[george trotter]

Hi Chris,

Yes, I agree...this sword of mine shows all the evidence of being genuine, just unusual...a special order blade made by, or for, a trained swordsman who wanted an uchigatana...but when I heard about the highly deceptive "Chinese mei" that fooled dealers etc, it seemed natural to pursue the matter further. (One can't help but worry when one can't slot the sword precisely into a known maker). Knowledgeable people who have had it in hand have been just as fascinated as me, and have commented that it seems right...just can't say an answer for "who is he?" (it's not fair that tosho play tricks on future collectors by leaving us with little brain-teazers to solve!!!).

 

About the Kanenori (I had one by his pupil Minamoto Kaneharu)...if it fooled the dealers and then was only pinked because of the mei, then maybe as you say, a genuine blade, but false mei.

I suppose these fakes keep us on our toes...I never worried about them as I am gendaito 1926-1945...but now even this field is under threat, that's why I jumped when a Japanese/Chinese production rumour appeared...then the link to a gendaito by Kanenori with a "Chinese mei".

 

Of course, I still have confidence my sword is right, but I will continue to research (including negative rumours)...so don't forget to let me know if you find a WWII gendaitosho with "kiri-sujikai" yasurime...it's about the strongest clue to finding out who he might have been.

Regards, and thanks to all for your comments.

[kusunokimasahige]

Quick question :

 

Are we talking about present day made "fakes" ? Or are we talking about WWII showato, which are known to have been made in occupied territories like Manchuria and Korea (the Inchon arsenal springs to mind).....?

 

KM

[george trotter]

It's hard to say...

I was posting about an "it is said" type of rumour that someone traditionally trained in Japan is going to China to help them produce more convincing fakes...

 

The link from Clive seems to be about a blade by Kanenori made in Meiji era...whether it was a blade by him and cut with a ato-mei (not by him) or whether it was a modern fake from China with fake blade and mei and then aged is not spelt out...the comments centred mainly on the fact that the mei grammar was unusual for a Japanese and open to interpretation that maybe someone in China had signed it.

 

I was curious on my own behalf because I had not heard this rumour before and because I have a (what appears to be) a WWII gendaito with an unusual mei/date that a shinsa sensei commented (from the pics I posted) that to him they "looked maybe Chinese" ...he did not say it was a fake or anything.

 

So we are open to comments and feedback about any connection with possibly a better class of blade/mei that we suspect is from China, but improved through Japanese supervision...(we are all hoping it is not so...!!!).

 

Regards,