Showa Gimei

[JamesH]

Hi everyone,

 

While I know that gimei signatures existed almost as long as nihonto have, but I have not come across any copying Showa Era smiths.

 

I have seen a few showato bearing a gimei signature of famous smiths, and a few wearing names which sounded made up (I couldn't find any info on them either). One was signed Muramasa, but with all the trademarks of a Showa Era showato, mounted in so-so late war gunto mounts.

 

From what I have been told, it was regarded as honourable to carry a sword bearing a famous name into battle - even if it was not genuinely made by that particular smith. Is this true?

 

I guess what I am leading up to ... Has anyone come across a gimei of a famous Showa Era smith such Horii Toshihide or Takahashi Sadatsugu?

 

I have seen a few iffy signatures by Nagamitsu, but I assumed that since he had a factory may be they were signed by his workers/apprentices. Also, in a couple of those cases the hamon looked a little out of his style.

 

Any and all input is greatly appreciated.

 

 

Regards,

James

[cabowen]

Fakes have been around about as long as swords themselves. There was a large increase in the faking of famous names in the late Meiji, Taisho, and early Showa eras. In Meiji and Taisho, without orders for new swords, smiths made fakes to stay alive. This continued into the early Showa era until the demand for blades for the war effort kept them busy supplying the military. Some smiths, who were usually quite skilled, continued to make fakes, because they could get away with it. Also, your average soldier knew nothing about swords, but had surely heard of the famous smiths. Japanese love their brand names and surely fake signatures were a hot commodity to bolster the courage of a young soldier.

 

Are fakes of famous gendai smith's work seen? In a word, yes. There are many gimei around of famous Showa era smiths. I have seen many of Miyairi Akihira and Takahashi Sadatsugu (all dated post war). I have seen several gimei of Kajiyama Yasunori and Kotani Yasunori of the Yasukuni Jinja as well. I have seen a few fakes of Kasama Shigetsugu and Horii Toshihide. The Horii family has an oshigata collection which contains every blade ever made by Toshihide so it is a simple matter to confirm a Toshihide signature.

 

Usually fakes are made of the biggest name smiths due to the obvious financial incentives. Blades by Ningen Koku smiths such as Miyairi and Takahashi have always been extremely expensive and thus targets. The Yasukuni smiths became popular, mostly in the West, with the publication of the articles and books that made them familiar. Once their value started to climb, enterprising scammers began to import them into the US to pollute the gene pool. As prices started to climb in the West for swords, interest in gendaito began to increase as a lower cost alternative due primarily to the lack of interest/knowledge in Japan. Again, with the increased interest, prices escalated, and voila, spurious signatures started to appear....

 

It is sad to see this as early on one of the reasons I often gave for collecting quality gendaito was that there were no fakes.....

 

As for blades by the lower ranked gendai smiths, such as Nagamitsu, Emura, and the like, I think you are safe for a while as they are generally not worth enough to make the effort to fake them worthwhile.....

[David Flynn]

Chris, I have actually seen a fake, Nagamitsu(ichihara).

[cabowen]

Chris, I have actually seen a fake, Nagamitsu(ichihara).

 

That is interesting. Why do you think it was a fake and not a daisaku/daimei?

[JamesH]

Chris,

 

For quite a while, I was also under the impression that gendaito were a pretty safe bet in terms of not being gimei.

 

Unfortunately, I have not been so lucky as to see for myself a gimei Yasunori (so I could compare to a genuine one), and as I mentioned the Nagamitsu which throw doubt could be explained by the fact that many are daimei, and most likely only a handful (if that) were made from start to finish by Ichihara himself.

 

What did pop up in my mind though ... The majority of Nagamitsu I came across had a strong and confident mei, and in my eyes the particular style of kanji is very pronounced and hard to confuse with another smith, even if you cannot immediately translate. In saying this, I do not limit this to traditionally forged gendaito, but also a few honest showato I have seen proudly bearing only 2 kanji (Naga Mitsu).

 

The ones that raised questions, looked traditionally forged (folded showing jihada, water-tempered hamon), but the nakago had all the signs of a gimei - weak yasuri, shallow carved kanji often looking 2 or 3 strokes/hammers short of how Nagamitsu or one of his students would carve it. Also, on one occasion kanji seemed slightly too small and out of place, almost as someone was drunk and couldn't carve in a straight line. lol Basically, had this been any other era I would call gimei, but as per the above preconception of gendaito being a safe bet, I thought it was most likely just not a good example and simply moved on. As mentioned on this forum time and time again - each sword should be judged on its own merits (or lack of).

 

Chris, David could you share your experiences? What gave away that it was not the real thing? It would be good to stay with Showa Era, as newer swords such as shinsakuto are a whole different animal in my opinion.

 

 

Regards,

 

James

[David Flynn]

The blade I saw, was actually similar to a Nagamitsu, Gunome/choji. However, the mei was very amateurishly done. An isntant look, by anyone who knows the Nagamitsu Mei, would pick it. Also it wasn't another Nagamitsu, as it was definately mean't to look like Ichihara Nagamitsu.

[SwordGuyJoe]

Chris, I have actually seen a fake, Nagamitsu(ichihara).

 

While I haven't seen a gimei Nagamitsu (but have heard similar stories about his signature being faked more and more), I have seen a gimei Emura. It was very clearly a seki made blade - showing the trademark 'sanbosugi', only with an Emura mei. Upon investigation, the yasurime looked a bit too 'fresh' and while some genuine Emura that I have seen demonstrate a 'sloppy' mei, this one was a bit too sloppy. It just goes to show you, regardless of the era you collect, koto, shinto, gendai, and shinsakuto it is important to know what you are looking at before you slap leather.

[Jean]

Joe,

 

it is important to know what you are looking at before you slap leather.

 

 

I wish everybody kept it in mind :D :D

[ehk]

it is important to know what you are looking at before you slap leather.

 

Ain't that the truth! Especially for beginner beginners like me :D

[JamesH]

Today I came across this .... (see image below).

 

Now I am not sure if I am just paranoid (become so after looking into the topic of gimei gendaito :lol: ), but does this mei seem a little off to anyone else.

 

For comparison, I have included a link to a recent auction for a Nagamitsu I followed (okay bid and lost ). I think the seller is a member:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Japanese-WW-II-Army ... 4aa5b53d87

 

Now the second example, even though the nakago is in a slightly worse state, raises no questions in my mind.

 

 

Any thoughts..?

 

 

Regards,

James

[cabowen]

While I can not say there are no gimei nagamitsu or emura blades around, again, the odds are quite slim.

 

Gimei are made due to the financial incentive. There simply is none in Japan (for nagamitsu or emura). Are there people in the West cutting gimei? I suppose there would be some incentive, but if someone had the skills, why not make fakes of even more valuable swords? It makes no economic sense. I suppose anyone could scratch in a "nagamitsu" but who would be fooled by anything less than something reasonably close?

 

Both of these smiths are known to have a large variety of mei and large variation in how they were cut. Workmanship and quality is also all over the map. This points to many hands making and signing the work. While a sanbonsugi might give concern, it is rare but not unheard of for smiths (and their students) to experiment. I have seen a Koyama Munetsugu (shinshinto), a smith who worked primarily in the Bizen den, in sanbonsugi. I know of modern smiths who work in the Soshu den making choji on a rare occasion. Rare, but done. Later war work often differs substantially as well from earlier work, especially among smiths with a large workshop full of "assistants".

 

For a long while, and still in some places where the sun rarely shines, it was thought that Nagamitsu and Emura were the same person. I cleared that up some time ago and that was the first and last time I gave much time to these blades...I have seen literally hundreds of these blades over the years and the overwhelming majority are mediocre gunto with poorly finished nakago. Perhaps good, utilitarian blades, but not even close to an "art" sword. Compare one to a Yasukuni blade sometime to see the difference between craft and crude....Clearly there is an interest in the West in the work of these two smiths, which remains an unfathomable mystery to me...To each his own I suppose....

 

How to tell a gimei showa era blade from the genuine???? Generally speaking, the same way you separate the two in any period-by the blade. Luckily, if someone is interested in gendaito, there are many more examples extant which expedites the study and comparison. A few guidelines also exist; pay extra attention to:

 

-anything in a new(er) shirasaya without gunto koshirae.

-anything by a Ningen Kokuho smith.

-Gassan works.

-the top tier smiths.

-special orders by famous or "known" people.

-blades being sold in Japan.

 

There are still few gendai fakes and by being alert it is, as yet, a small problem....

-