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

[kusunokimasahige]

It might be helpful for the members of this board if in stead of only the Nakago with Kanji which is often posted when someone would like to know what Mei or Gimei it is, more pictures would be posted of the blade itself, kissaki, hamon, zori etc.

 

I know it is not a forum rule, but I for one would like to see more pictures in those topics than only the nakago.

 

That way, people with more knowledge could comment more extensively about the entire sword in stead of just the Mei,

and people with less knowledge could learn more.

 

KM

[Guido]

Here's the Haynes entry:

[george trotter]

Thanks Guido, if I read this correctly, it is the same as Wakayama....more than one smith used Tou.

Geo.

[sanjuro]

Henke - Jan

 

It is often the case that a sword presented for comment is tired, mediocre and out of polish. No amount of photographs can change that and there is little that can be said from such corrupted condition. It isnt a simple matter of send more piccies and we''ll flood you with information. A few good pictures of an interesting specimen in good condition will always promote comment and perhaps discussion because there are features to see and analyse. A poor specimen is more difficult to comment upon when features are masked by poor polish or changed by too many polishes and neglect.

[cabowen]

I can't count how many times have I been flooded with poor, inconsequential, and usually megabyte sized pictures of a sword from someone seeking info....in fact, one needs very few pictures to determine the quality of a blade in most cases if one knows what to look for. I actually appreciate it when someone sends simply a photo of the nakago. Most of the time it is fairly clear if it is worth seeing further photos...

 

Though I do see the utility in sending at least a few additional shots when posting publicly as it could be educational.....

[Muki]

Chris, if only a nakago is seen then are we but collectors of names? It seems a bit like collecting baseball cards with only names and not images on them. Art is appreciated for its context and expression and how can this be realized without seeing the artists work? For example could not a "mediocre" smith not have made an exemplary blade at one time in his life?

 

For what its worth, you are one of the "experienced" members on this board I would dare as a neophyte to even pose this question. Your non-condescending approach in your posts is appreciated, thanks.

 

jim

[cabowen]

As the topic of this thread concerns the issue of gimei blades, when I say that initially only a photo of the nakago is usually necessary I am speaking to the issue of determining if a signature is valid or not. In most cases that is all that is needed for this singular purpose. Of course there is more to sword appreciation than the correctness of the signature....And there are cases when a forgery is quite good in which case one needs additional info, i.e., pictures of the blade....Hope that clarifies things....

[kusunokimasahige]

I would like to know what the general attitude of forum members is when seeing a posted Nakago for the first time.

 

I can imagine that with giant names the tendency will be to go for Gimei in an absolute instance, while lesser names might attract more serious investigation using Kanteisho and rubbings or photos of similar signatures by the named smith.

 

I do however sometimes get the disctinct impression that the Gimei verdict in some cases is given rash and quick. Probably the lack of explanation with a conclusion like that adds to this impression.

 

Also, like it was stated in another thread which was sadly closed, to substantiate your conclusion with an explanation is not only courteous, but helps greatly concerning the understanding of these swords and their signatures by beginning students.

The only thing which bothers me at times are the postings in which a photo is placed with the simple question: translate please. Such postings give me the idea that the poster only wants a quick resolution of the problem in order to sell the sword and thus is not at all interested in what he or she can learn from the blade. (but that is perception on my part)

 

KM

[cabowen]

 

I do however sometimes get the disctinct impression that the Gimei verdict in some cases is given rash and quick. Probably the lack of explanation with a conclusion like that adds to this impression.

 

KM

 

In many cases it is very obvious that a signature is fake- gross differences in kanji formation, size, placement, angle, depth, location, age, style, formation, etc. Sometimes it is not so obvious unless you are a native Japanese and then more subtle nuances are apparent, like the flow, confidence, and rhythm of the script.

 

Given the above, it is usually a very quick process for those that are attuned to these nuances. Many times it is simply a "feeling" that one gets- something just doesn't seem correct.

 

The ability to glance at a signature and know without references if it is fake or not is not an ability quickly or easily acquired.

 

In most cases simply knowing whether a signature is gimei or not suffices. If one wishes to acquire the skills necessary to make these determinations and/or understand why a particular signature is not genuine, then perhaps a good start would be to collect and study the Condell Conundrums published in the JSS-US Newsletter in the past. It wouldn't hurt to study calligraphy and the written Japanese language as well. While I can't speak for others, I know that I do not have the time to host a classroom every time some asks if a signature is good or not....

 

While short "gimei" proclamations may seem rash and leave some wanting for details, equally off-putting is the constant stream of posts simply asking if a signature is good or not without any visible attempt by the poster to do any self analysis. If someone posts asking for oshigata of a certain smith, then asks questions based on their own comparisons and analysis, it encourages more detailed replies and gives people the clear impression that the poster is a serious student. I for one enjoy helping serious students. When I get a short "is this signature good?" kind of inquiry, I answer in kind with a simple "yes" or "no"...You get what you give.....

[Brian]

Well said Chris.

 

Brian

[reinhard]

Thanks Guido, if I read this correctly, it is the same as Wakayama....more than one smith used Tou.

 

You still don't get it, do you?

 

reinhard

[David Flynn]

Enlighten us Master!

[george trotter]

You still don't get it, do you?

 

reinhard

 

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

 

George.

[Daddoo]

I am very new to this study and perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe that each weapon should be looked at on an individual basis regardless of smith. In my opinion Paul Bowman says it well in "Long live unpopular schools". Why should I pay more for a less perfect blade just because its marketed better, or because the "in" smith signed his name to it? If it is a fine example of workmanship does it really matter if the smiths 2nd cousin Dorothy really created it and the master smith was drunk and spelled his own name wrong? Just a thought.

Geoff P.

[Brian]

Because you are not paying extra because the smith was "in fashion" or marketed better. These smiths had the reputation they did because they were the best. This isn't about marketing or trends. We don't always understand, but we have to accept that 1000 years of tradition simply overrules our novice impressions.

Each sword IS looked at on an individual basis, but a Michaelangelo sculpture done on a bad day is infinitely better than your 2nd cousin Dorothy's clay ashtray done on a good day. I suggest everyone just back off now...this is going nowhere fast and proving why so many novice collectors out there don't get much further.

 

Brian

[nagamaki - Franco]

It has been said that the blade confirms the mei and not the other way around, and nothing could be more true. This is one of the reasons why at a shinsa one often sees the expert give the blade a quick glance and then give the mei an even quicker glance and reach for the "pink paper". The blade has rejected the mei! - Kantei Nyusatsu by Arnold Frenzel, Rochester Study Group, March 27, 1993

 

 

[paulb]

Brian,

If I might add to what you said as Geoff kindly mentioned an article I wrote some years ago, I would like to be clear about what I said or intended to say. In summary the ideas behind the piece were:

1. Swords should be judged on their merit rather than how they are labelled. I have seen swords by one of my favourite smiths, Rai Kunitoshi that held as much excitement as a yard of pump water. I have also seen his work and that of later Rai smiths such as Rai Kunimitsu that are beyond description and truly magnificent.

2. A number of schools are undervalued because they cannot be neatly catagorised in line with the main traditions. Even so amongst these schools works there are some vey fine swords.

 

I do not believe that the best Bungo Takada or Echizen-Seki blade compares to master works of the 5 traditions any more than I think Peter Howson's painting is comparable to Vermeer or Rubens, but I do think that some of them have merit and for those wishing to study and learn about the subject these schools offer an affordable way to do so. The key as always is quality and to identify that quality there is no shortcut to study.

BTW I do think Howson is pretty damn good!!

[Daddoo]

Brian,

I only mean to say that if the Sistine Chapel had been entirely painted by an apprentice and he only signed his name to it wouldn't make it any less beautiful. And more to the point, even if it was painted by a nobody. At any rate, I will keep my opinions to myself. Geoff P.

[paulb]

Geoff

I dont beleive you have to keep your opinions to yourself, but equally not everyone has to agree with them. As it happens I think in some areas you are right to mention fashion and trend.

Brian

it isnt often I disagree with you but on this occassion I think your point is a little too simplistic. For example there is little argument that the neighbouring provinces of Bitchu and Bizen produced extremely fine swords. Smiths from the Aoe school and Bizen were in the majority of Gotoba's attendant smiths. So if we assume the quality was equal why did one school flourish and the other fade away? I would suggest it was because the Bizen Smiths responded to the market better and became the fashionable style of sword to carry. Yes they were extremely fine quality but so were many others what they did successfully was produce what their market wanted.

I think we under estimate the pure commercial sophistication of the times when looking at ancient cultures, beleiving that fashion, marketing and trends are modern concepts clearly they werent as many examples of sword making history can show.

[george trotter]

It is always "blade" for me. It always comes down to the blade substantiating the mei....that is why, in some cases where the blade bears strong similarities to the work the mei is supposed to represent it sometimes takes a good deal of study to arrive at a judgement. In the case I mentioned above, the mei was immediately suspect, but the workmanship fitted well with the mei and the line that followed him...opening the possibility for the blade to be Dai mei, Dai Saku, Dai saku dai mei.

I would be interested to hear members comments on the pros and cons of this situation. If a blade does turn out to be Dai mei....etc, what would members do...leave things as they are, remove signature or just make a note on the sword details sheet...or get rid of it?. As a member has said, a gimei does not necessarily make a sword bad...is there a place for gimei blades, especially, can a gimei blade have merit?

Regards,

George.

[sanjuro]

Blade for me too. Given my liking for ubu mumei blades that is hardly surprising. To me, a signature is of little importance.One cannot ignore the signature if it is present of course, and in the case of a genuine signature, it is a definite bonus. In the case of a gimei blade however, if one is not going to take it to shinsa, then why mess with it? Note appropriately and pass that information to the next owner when it is sold. (In some dealer circles that would be considered foolhardy or unnecessary). In my own case they will in all probability be sold again at some point, and the gimei if it is not a later addition to the sword, is an original feature. There is also always an element of doubt concerning gimei. Is it Gimei, Dai Mei, Dai saku mei etc or not, unless it is so judged by a shinsa team? Any pronouncement of any thing of this nature by someone who is not part of a shinsa team is subject to the level of unrecognised expertise of the person making that call. Catch twenty two....... How many real and genuine mei have been removed because they were thought to be Gimei, so that a shinsa team will authenticate a sword, when in fact there was no need?

[cabowen]

In the case I mentioned above, the mei was immediately suspect, but the workmanship fitted well with the mei and the line that followed him...opening the possibility for the blade to be Dai mei, Dai Saku, Dai saku dai mei.

 

George, I don't mean to offend, but when you say that the workmanship fitted well, I have to ask you if you are basing this opinion on what you have gleaned from books or from actually handling enough work of the Masayoshi school to be familiar with the standard and variations seen among this group? Among the students of Masahide, Masayoshi is second only to Naotane in his ability to work in various traditions and as with Naotane this makes things difficult and gimei abundant. Also, his students, while primarily working in a florid Bizen choji, also worked in other styles occasionally. I know this because I have owned more than one blade from this school and have handled many more. I also attended several times an exhibition in Sakura city of Masayoshi and his students so I have some practical experience with this school. I have not seen enough of your blade to give any sort of solid opinion and would be happy to look at photos of the blade and more pictures of the mei as well....I just want to caution you about drawing conclusions from books as this is seldom reliable....

 

 

 

I would be interested to hear members comments on the pros and cons of this situation. If a blade does turn out to be Dai mei....etc, what would members do...leave things as they are, remove signature or just make a note on the sword details sheet...or get rid of it?. As a member has said, a gimei does not necessarily make a sword bad...is there a place for gimei blades, especially, can a gimei blade have merit?

Regards,

George.

 

First, there is no way a shinsa team will call it daimei even if it is because they have no way of knowing with certainty, and given the large number of gimei Masayoshi, they will certainly lean towards gimei. There are very few smiths with established and recognized daimei traditions- Oya Kunisada and Inoue Shinkai are the most well known, but it is very rare. I should also mention that it is not uncommon to remove a signature and then have a blade paper to the same school or smith....

 

In the case of the Kunisada smiths, daimei are recognized and papers awarded. There is no need to remove a signature.

 

As to your last set of questions, I think they have been addressed here several times. What to do with a gimei blade is a personal decision usually based on what your goals are. If you plan to maximize value, most remove the mei and resubmit. If you couldn't care less, leave it alone. Merit is in the eyes of the beholder, but given the overwhelming majority of opinions suggesting a good sword is just that, it would seem most people do indeed judge a blade on its workmanship not its mei.....

 

While my own opinion is not of much importance, I will say that in my case I do not own any gimei blades and would not. Perhaps I am not a purist as others are, I simply find there are too many attractive shoshin blades available to be beholden to a blade that is gimei....I know every time I looked at it I would be thinking "too bad it is gimei"....I have had signatures removed (have even done it myself under the guidance of a smith a few times) but I do not own any mumei blades either, not for any reason other than I collect mostly early Showa Tokyo smiths and there is no such thing as a collectible gimei or mumei Showa period blade....

[Muki]

Would the various stroke methods of the Kunisada daimei signatures be able to then be identified with the same certainty as the smith's particular method of signing?

 

jim

[cabowen]

Would the various stroke methods of the Kunisada daimei signatures be able to then be identified with the same certainty as the smith's particular method of signing?

 

jim

 

There has been enough research done that indeed daimei by Shinkai for Oya Kunisada are recognizable by style and technique and are attributed as such.

[cabowen]

Any pronouncement of any thing of this nature by someone who is not part of a shinsa team is subject to the level of unrecognised expertise of the person making that call. Catch twenty two....... How many real and genuine mei have been removed because they were thought to be Gimei, so that a shinsa team will authenticate a sword, when in fact there was no need?

 

Be aware also that not all shinsa teams are equal. Some have more experience than others and their opinions are more respected. A simple metric is the number of submissions they handle a month in Japan. Some groups get many, some much less, and some next to nothing...

 

It is always a safe play with a close call to submit to more than one shinsa team.

[paulb]

Just to add to the daimei debate There is a lot of information (which I am assuming, maybe wrongly, to be accurate) regarding Hizen work. It is well recorded that Masahiro and Yukihoro did dai saku blades for Shodai Tadayoshi and the majority of Sandai Tadayoshi's work were signed with his fathers mei. There have been various small characteristics such as direction of stroke cut which are used to differentiate the work. Chris,

When such characterisitcs are well documented how would a Shinsa team react say for a third generation Tadayoshi signed with the seconds mei?

[cabowen]

Chris,

When such characterisitcs are well documented how would a Shinsa team react say for a third generation Tadayoshi signed with the seconds mei?

 

If it fits within the established and known criteria for a daimei, the same way they judge the Kunisadas as mentioned above- they are awarded papers.

[george trotter]

Hi Chris,

you comments above are quite appropriate. I do confess that I am basing my findings (to date) on book research and other's assessments. I have handled only a Masahira of the line. I do find the characteristics of this work close to the rarer (non-florid-choji) type of the line work, close enough that that I "took a chance"...if it were glaringly false work of course I would not have purchased it.

Even after study however I would never "pronounce" it their work in a definite way as this is too presumptuous. I will merely study it and enter notes in my records. These I would discuss and pass on with any future sale. I find this exercise and my findings more satisfying and thorough than just the word "gimei".

I included my own studies here as an example of the different gradings of gimei one is likely to find in collecting and thus I appreciate your reply as I did not know the way the shinsa react to blades of the dai mei...etc...category, that virtually all not of the known dai mei groups (Gassan etc) simply go straight to a pink slip! I of course don't need to submit it to shinsa to know it is gimei. I am content to do my own research to gain a picture of it as being possibly of the line...even to point to an individual of that line, but I am not obsessed. "Possible" is fine with me on this and as it is at the lower end in value, I don't think a mei removal and a shinsa attribution would enhance it too much, better to enjoy it for what it is IMHO. You can see why sensible people stick to collecting good, honest, decent gendai smith work :lol: .

Hope this makes sense.

One thing however...what is done with gimei tosogu? Mei removal? ...or?

Regards,

Geo.

[kusunokimasahige]

This debate is getting really interesting and i learn lots of all which is said.

 

Now to continue the line Keith started, about Shinsa teams making mistakes in attribution, and that what he said last :

 

"How many real and genuine mei have been removed because they were thought to be Gimei, so that a Shinsa team will authenticate a sword, when in fact there was no need?".

 

Lets turn it around...

 

How many swords, attributed to a smith by a Shinsa team which were mumei originally would be re- Mei'd ?

Knowing the state of technique these days, it cannot be too difficult with many photos, rubbings, reference material of certain Mei, to have a skilled forger replicate them on a Mumei nakago, and repatinating it.

 

When a Mei is removed, there are repatinating techniques which are not even recongnized by experts. That implicates it can also be done the other way around, namely when a mei is applied.

 

Now this is a hypothetical question of course since I personally know of no documented case in which a sword was re-Mei'd after a Shinsa team attribution...

 

KM

[cabowen]

almost anything is possible.....may have even been done already....not something I give much thought to....