Jump to content

Theories of Funny - Mei


Recommended Posts

I would love to hear some theories on types of Mei. Specifically gimei. I see this term thrown around quite often. I would like to learn more about this gimei.

 

What I know: Gimei is a term used for a false signature. A false signature is applied in order to pass a lesser smith's work as a better smith's work. In antiquity (say pre-1900) it was used to sell a lower quality sword to a unsuspecting customer for a greater amount of money(rice) due to the better smith's name inscribed on it. It seems common to see this on originally unsigned low quality swords. The gimei is also applied to complete fake constructs by crooks of the time. It was also a signature applied by a student or another smith without the permission of the original maker.

 

What I would like to know:

 

How are we certain if a mei is fake? Besides being newer (say fresher chisel / engraving marks compared to the age of the nakago)?

 

How do we know the smith ever really signed the blades himself. Could he have had another guy(s) do it. Maybe many people sign for him over a long working career?

 

How do we know what a mei is real if the smiths (handwriting) changes as he ages? My signature does not look the same as it did when I was 15 and I doubt it will look the way it does now when I am 80, let alone if I were engraving it. (not implying that I have Japanese Swordsmith like skills)

 

Are there enough examples of a given smiths swords to make such determinations accurately? (I am sure this could vary from smith to smith and from time to time)

 

If we know that a signature is gimei is there away to determine what the reason behind the gimei was?

 

I would assume...

If a signature is fake then it would be on a mumei blade that is of lower quality then what that smith is known to have produced. (Common, right?)

Or not in the correct style, for the school and such?

 

 

There is the event of an honest sword's mei is removed and replaced with another would be an attempt at a blatant deception? (I can see this happening all the time) This would be obvious to the average modern nihonto guy right?

 

As this pertains to my sword what would the theory behind a mei where both the original mei and a suspect gimei are on the same blade. Imagine a piece of jewelry that in very small letters says TIFFANY and on the other side in huge letters says K-Mart. Theorize what would be logic behind that? Is one signature fake, are both signatures fake, how could this deceive someone. Even if the person couldn't read, they would understand that a sword is signed one way and now there is something on the other side of the nakago? I suppose that the sword could have been in koshirae but I doubt someone at that time would be willing to buy something site unseen.

 

Was this an attempt at deception?

 

Does the second signature mean something different? Is it the person who ordered the piece during the time of mass produced pieces? (Muromachi) Is this someones family name? First name?A smith's name.

 

I have scoured the internet and all the books I have looking for different types of gimei. I wish someone could post one of each of the different kinds. I believe the learning experience will benefit all. (Except those guys who only buy million dollar swords with fittings made from the teeth and earlobes of extinct monkeys.)

 

Is it possible at some point along time ago someone graffiti there own name into the nakago? Here is my example. I challenge folks out there to theorize...

 

It may take me a lifetime to figure this out, but I swear I will look at every sword ever smithed until I find the guy who made this and like swords (a different topic) I am sure by now you are all sick about me talking about and posting pictures of my one sword.

 

post-5035-14196911954269_thumb.jpg

備前國住助包 BIZEN KUNI JU SUKEKANE

 

post-5035-14196911961519_thumb.jpg

国次 KUNITSUGU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey,

bit to new to nihonto in general to add much to this but i had to post cause similar thoughts have crossed my mind several times on the changing off the handwriting etc.

 

The other day i was looking at Oumi Kami Hojoji Tachibana Masahiro and when googling him you find quite some pictures off swords he signed and looking at them always made me sort of wonder about the difference in some of the mei:

 

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Larg ... 70215x.jpg

http://www.sho-shin.com/hojo1.html

http://www.nihonto.us/HOJOJI%20MASAHIRO%20WAKIZASHI.htm

http://www.aoijapan.com/katanaoumi-kami ... a-masahiro

 

Anyway, im gonna stick my head back into the connoisseurs book and read up a bit more about basics before wondering about more complicated things make my head hurt ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These should give you a good start.

The people identifying gimei are just like modern handwriting analysts. They don't just look at the appearance, they look at how the strokes are done, and a host of other things.

 

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10183

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10088

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9780

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8859

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4998

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=264

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These should give you a good start.

The people identifying gimei are just like modern handwriting analysts. They don't just look at the appearance, they look at how the strokes are done, and a host of other things.

 

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10183

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=10088

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=9780

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=8859

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4998

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=264

 

Brian

 

Absolutely true and works quite well for Smiths that were literate and signed all their own works. Unfortunately there were some ( if not many ) smiths that were illerate. These smiths either didn't sign their works or had someone else sign for them. In many cases this was most likely an apprentice. If the smith had more then one apprentice and they signed the signatures would not be the same. The other issue is that many smiths had apprentices over many years. The other issue is that signatures change with the age and the health of the signer. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of signed swords declared as gimei that are in fact a sword made by the smith shown on the nakago.It is what it is and the experts for the most part do the best they can with the limited knowledge available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signatures naturally show variation over time but what stays relatively constant for most is the quality and type of workmanship. As has been said so many times, the blade confirms the signature, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Signatures naturally show variation over time but what stays relatively constant for most is the quality and type of workmanship. As has been said so many times, the blade confirms the signature, not the other way around.

 

 

Once again spot on. The question is not about the whether the work is reflective of a sword smith's style/work it is whether the signature reflects some " standard " of authenticity.Many examples of nakago that have had " so called " gimei erased and voila are now legitimate.Loads of examples of swords confirmed to be from a specific school with a questionable signature or is it questionable? Like I said, it is what it is. Not an exact science, at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dealt with this at the shinsa in Tampa. There were several swords that the judges said were indeed made by the smith indicated by the signature but that the signature was not genuine, something added later. These fail as gimei and when the fake signature is removed, they would be papered to the same smith. This would seem to be not uncommon. They are still considered gimei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are we certain if a mei is fake? Besides being newer (say fresher chisel / engraving marks compared to the age of the nakago)?

 

1. Work is inferior and signature is high level.

2. Signature is in the wrong place (examples: sword is suriage, and has a nice signature up at the machi, -or- sword comes from a tachi era with a smith who would sign tachi mei, and signature is on the katana side, etc.)

3. Signature is too far outside the known styles of the smith (like mismatched handwriting)

4. Unfailing chiseling habits of the smith were not reproduced (like atari that always go in one direction being absent or going in the wrong direction)

5. Work is much newer than the signature would claim it to be, or wrong type for the maker (example: ubu Shinto katana with signature of Rai Kunitoshi on it)

6. Signature breaks a pattern, such as the Sue-Bizen habit of "Ju Osafune"

7. Faker used the wrong character for a smith, not having access to good information... I saw a gimei Soshu ju Akihiro for instance that had the wrong Aki character (since multiple characters exist that are pronounced the same way).

 

 

Just off the top of my head...

 

How do we know the smith ever really signed the blades himself. Could he have had another guy(s) do it. Maybe many people sign for him over a long working career?

 

Some smiths and groups had a signing artist. In which case the habits of the signing artist we see collected in their works and this is what we document and compare against as above. Some smiths had students sign in their place, and in this case we know the student's habits from his own work. In the case of Rai Kunitoshi he would appear to have daimei from Rai Kuninaga, Rai Kunimitsu and Rai Kunitsugu for instance, as well as his own work. He has in his own work, two distinctive signature styles, one with two characters and one with three. Within the three character signatures there are signing habits, one where the Kuni character is the same as the two character signatures and one that it takes on a new style. This is likely evolution of his signature. Within the entire body of work we can look at the construction and quality and confirm them as Rai Kunitoshi then classify the signatures and compare against works of the students, overall completing a profile for what a Rai Kunitoshi signature should look like. So even with the hands of all these people in the works, we still can establish a known profile and compare any suspect work against the profile to see if it belongs with or belongs outside of the accepted body of work. Whether or not a smith ever signed for himself is not something we can determine. If in the case of Rai Kunitoshi he only ever had a signing artist doing his own work we have no way now of determining, and if he did, it is not necessarily a meaningful question. The signing artist if he is the primary signer of the work then these are considered the primary examples of Rai Kunitoshi.

 

How do we know what a mei is real if the smiths (handwriting) changes as he ages? My signature does not look the same as it did when I was 15 and I doubt it will look the way it does now when I am 80, let alone if I were engraving it. (not implying that I have Japanese Swordsmith like skills)

 

If there is enough signed work then they can often be arranged in order and you can see the change over time. As well, the dated works make signposts that allow us to certainly establish where a signature lies.

 

In the case of Rai Kunitoshi, I owned and now one of our esteemed members now owns, a very nice tanto that had a Sho-o Ninen date on it (1288). This date is remarkable because it is earlier than the dates cited in all the reference books. This is because the tanto was discovered after those books were written. It is in excellent condition. What is remarkable about the signature (hopefully the owner is reading this) is that the three horizontal strokes in the kuni are shifted to the upper left hand side of the kuni character. In the works of Niji Kunitoshi, these strokes are tucked in the upper left. Over time, as Rai Kunitoshi ages, these strokes migrate down and become distributed over the left hand side. The earliest signed work is a transition between the later style and the earliest style. This is seen in two other Juyo works by the smith where the strokes are laid out in the upper left with a three character signature. One of these looks even more transitional than this tanto. Later works, the three strokes as mentioned seem to be very evenly distributed. It is the dated works though that are the signposts and then we can theorize and arrange the other signatures accordingly (in absence of being able to see the actual work, the work itself bears hallmarks of development that can further assist placement in time).

 

Are there enough examples of a given smiths swords to make such determinations accurately? (I am sure this could vary from smith to smith and from time to time)

 

Correct, it varies smith by smith. Some, we have only a small number of signatures and no dates. A smith like Ayanokoji Sadatoshi, we have information handed down that he's middle Kamakura period but it appears from the work to be a full generation earlier than this and current scholarship is that he's early Kamakura. We don't have any information to go on from the signatures what the dates are, and there are only 13 or so that passed the NBTHK as Juyo Token. So from these 13 examples we need to make big decisions about the smith. In the case of someone like Yukimitsu the NBTHK has passed 4 works through Juyo and higher. There are probably a smattering of Kokuho / Jubi / Bunkazai signed works that the NBTHK has not passed but are legit. From this handful again we need to make big decisions and it is difficult. This is where the work style and quality fingerprints the signature. Because it is so difficult to achieve at this level, it is easy to discard the works that are inferior from the body of works that are legitimate.

 

 

If we know that a signature is gimei is there away to determine what the reason behind the gimei was?

 

The reason was to fool someone into thinking it was legitimately signed. But the reasons for that, well almost always will be for money, sometimes in order to make a nice gift to someone. There are some improperly attributed Masamune that must have been given with a bit of a wink, and in some occasions these were presented back as gifts in the future. Some of these are "it's the thought that counts" as the supply of proper Masamune outstripped the need to give them as gifts. So there were not a lot of other options other than to create some new supply.

 

I would assume...

If a signature is fake then it would be on a mumei blade that is of lower quality then what that smith is known to have produced. (Common, right?)

 

Most of the time. But there are good works too that were maybe made mumei that someone wanted to elevate and the work is correct and will be attributed to the smith, but the signature is not.

 

Or not in the correct style, for the school and such?

 

Often.

 

 

There is the event of an honest sword's mei is removed and replaced with another would be an attempt at a blatant deception? (I can see this happening all the time) This would be obvious to the average modern nihonto guy right?

 

There is a signed Soshu Hiromitsu that has only the HIRO character left. It was originally signed two characters HIROMITSU. This is of course a high level smith. And the mei is correct. Before and after the HIRO are two filed patches, one old (the lower patch). One new (the upper patch).

 

Someone in the Edo period had erased the MITSU character, and above the HIRO added YOSHI.

 

The new signature read YOSHIHIRO and this allowed the wakizashi to be passed off as the work of Go Yoshihiro. In modern times the obliterated character under the HIRO has been noted and the spurious YOSHI has been removed. So now, all we have is the HIRO and the sword has been properly attributed to Hiromitsu.

 

The Hiromitsu that I had had a long signature, likely Sagami Junin Hiromitsu. This entire signature was obliterated. It is likely that the signature of Sadamune was put in place. If it had been Go Yoshihiro then the spurious characters would be removed leaving it as Hiro. But since this has no signature at all now it seems that the likely culprit would be Sadamune.

 

So these are masterpiece swords that people were still screwing around with trying to elevate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a signed Soshu Hiromitsu that has only the HIRO character left. It was originally signed two characters HIROMITSU. This is of course a high level smith. And the mei is correct. Before and after the HIRO are two filed patches, one old (the lower patch). One new (the upper patch).

 

Someone in the Edo period had erased the MITSU character, and above the HIRO added YOSHI.

 

The new signature read YOSHIHIRO and this allowed the wakizashi to be passed off as the work of Go Yoshihiro. In modern times the obliterated character under the HIRO has been noted and the spurious YOSHI has been removed. So now, all we have is the HIRO and the sword has been properly attributed to Hiromitsu.

 

 

Since the hiro kanji from Hiromitsu is 廣 while the hiro from Go Yoshihiro is 弘. it seems it would be most difficult to pass a sword signed 義廣 off as a Go Yoshihiro....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there are no known signed examples, however his name has been known for a bit and the kanji always used for his name are as I mentioned above. All the literature I can recall has him listed as 義弘...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the hiro kanji from Hiromitsu is 廣 while the hiro from Go Yoshihiro is 弘. it seems it would be most difficult to pass a sword signed 義廣 off as a Go Yoshihiro....

 

I'm not sure what your point is, whether you are refuting my statement or if you are challenging the fakers ability to pass it over. The sword in question I think is in the koto taikan and they wrote in there that it was an attempt to fake Go. So it is possible to look it up and confirm it, it's possible I am relaying it incorrectly but this is what I think I saw.

 

As for the fakers...

 

They didn't have to be correct.

 

They just had to be plausible.

 

Plausible to you or me or anyone else is a subjective thing. They just have to fool one guy. That's the lesson of fakes. You don't have to fool everyone. You just have to fool one guy. And in the case where not everyone is literate, and in the case of nobody ever seeing any of these, let alone a signed one, and in the case where they changed the Go character over time, who is to know what kind of argument they are putting forward over a faked up signature. Are they preying on someone who can't read? Are they preying on someone who doesn't know the characters? Are they making a handwaving argument about it? Or maybe they don't even know themselves.

 

After all, what kind of guy destroys a Hiromitsu signature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe there are no known signed examples, however his name has been known for a bit and the kanji always used for his name are as I mentioned above. All the literature I can recall has him listed as 義弘...

 

His name is said to have gone through several revisions. What we use right now is the final. Fujishiro talks about a few options.

 

Traditionally they also initially used a different character for Go, I think 郷 in the beginning, I'd need to look it up to know for sure which one and I forget where I got the info from... before changing it to 江 when they talked about him.

 

It's not quite possible to go back and try to guess what particular argument the fakers were making when they did this. All we know, if I read it right, is that this sword came to the authorities with a Yoshihiro signature on it and a blanked out character after, and the Yoshi was subsequently removed. We only have to assume that in doing this, they felt they had some way to make it plausible and fool someone. Not everyone. Just someone.

 

What I can tell for sure is that it has one character in the mei and two wiped out parts, one before and after the Hiro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply saying that it would have been a very lame fake...like a fake Rembrandt with the signature Remrandt...of course I am assuming that the hiro kanji used currently was the same historically since I haven't seen any other used or referred to...Of course I could be wrong...The Kuwana Go with Honami Kotoku attribution uses the kanji 義弘 so at least at the end of Muromachi, 弘 was used....By the way, 江 is a shorthanded way to write 郷...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The name revisions were supposed to have been made by Go himself, so I'd expect the attributions to follow with what is in use now. If they are legit or not, who knows since we'll never see any signed ones. I'm just offering up possibilities for what these guys were thinking.

 

"Lame" is only from today's perspective. Obviously they didn't think it was so lame that they were not going to destroy a legitimate and precious signature to try to make it happen. Same with my other Hiromitsu. So whatever was going on, at their point in time, it seemed like a good economic decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Lame" is only from today's perspective. Obviously they didn't think it was so lame that they were not going to destroy a legitimate and precious signature to try to make it happen. Same with my other Hiromitsu. So whatever was going on, at their point in time, it seemed like a good economic decision.

 

Unless you consider that by defacing a precious signature and then using the wrong kanji for their fake they appear to not have known much about what they were doing. Who's to say they knew they were removing a precious signature? If they couldn't get the kanji correct for Yoshihiro, I would have to wonder...Mom: Timmy, why would you stick your tongue to a frozen lamp post? Timmy: It seemed like a good idea at the time....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you consider that by defacing a precious signature and then using the wrong kanji for their fake they appear to not have known much about what they were doing. Who's to say they knew they were removing a precious signature? If they couldn't get the kanji correct for Yoshihiro, I would have to wonder...Mom: Timmy, why would you stick your tongue to a frozen lamp post? Timmy: It seemed like a good idea at the time....

 

Repeating... again...

 

1. your perspective is from today with today's scholarship, which has a bias towards having more and better available information. What seems unreasonable to you in 2014 may be perfectly reasonable in 1700. There are so many things that seem reasonable in 1700 in all cultures that we now laugh at. I think it is a blind spot to not try to understand what they were doing and why they did it, and instead just dismiss it as "lame" from today's perspective. You can say that they didn't know what they were doing, however they had the means to obtain a Hiromitsu in the first place. Now, what was their motive? Was it profit based to deceive someone? Was it meant to become a gift? We don't know. We only know that they did this. We don't know the why and without being able to go back there and be on the ground, there isn't any information at hand that lets us determine how believable this would be. If it was just to make it a gift, it would be given and accepted under different circumstances than to deceive someone into buying it.

 

2. Fujishiro gives three different signature considerations for Go Yoshihiro... I have only the English with me right now as I am not home, but if you crack it open you can have a look at what he listed and share it here. Fujishiro did not accept Masamune or Go Yoshihiro but he reported what was said about the signature. This may be one of the varieties, he's either changed the Yoshi two times, or else he changed the Hiro at least once, according to this report. Have a look and see what it says and let us know. Regardless of what the three signatures are, if Fujishiro has reported that there were three versions of the signature, it gives more plausibility for someone to make a claim that this can be a fourth even if it is not included in the three. Hiromitsu was not held in as nearly high regard in the past as Go Yoshihiro or Sadamune, and if the work was very high level, certainly it can be seen as a profit motive still to upgrade it as reported in these two situations. Or, at the order of someone who wanted to make it a unique gift.

 

3. When there is no reliable signature to compare against, when there is fuzz about how the smith already signed, there is no such thing as a "wrong character". Instead, the guy who has the physical item can instead point to it and say look at this quality of work, it is grand master level, and indicate that whatever the oral history was with no known examples and some fuzz in hand already about what the actual characters are supposed to be, that this is instead the de facto accurate signature for the smith. Remember what you have just said recently? "The work confirms the signature." Well that same argument is likely made by these guys who's fakery is dismissed as "lame." So, maybe they are much more clever then than you are giving them credit for. By taking a top grade Soshu work as their target for fakery, they are buying a lot more plausibility than by slapping the mei on a piece of junk. Maybe nobody is going to think that they will deface a Hiromitsu and that is what is going to be very clever about it. By keeping one of the characters they keep a lot of antique legitimacy, and maybe they are weighing out that antique legitimacy vs. the character not being used by the Honami. Again, it's hard to say but those are valid possibilities. Dismissing them and giving the fakers no credit is not considering all possibilities.

 

These are just interpretations off the top of my head that can fit. Again, I just point out that you are talking from the point of view of modern scholarship and dismissing this out of hand is failing to understand that they are working in a very different world. Situations like this are windows into the past that help us understand how they viewed swords and what was considered valuable. I see them as an opportunity to learn more about how they looked at things. In order to understand how they looked at things, we need to drop our biases and try to understand why they did it, and you can't do that by starting with a biased value judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just point out that you are talking from the point of view of modern scholarship and dismissing this out of hand is failing to understand that they are working in a very different world. Situations like this are windows into the past that help us understand how they viewed swords and what was considered valuable. I see them as an opportunity to learn more about how they looked at things. In order to understand how they looked at things, we need to drop our biases and try to understand why they did it, and you can't do that by starting with a biased value judgment.

 

Darcy,

 

Wonderfully said. I can't thank your enough for the very clear examples you put forth and how you better helped me to understand the hobby. This thread has so far been a very intriguing and educational discussion.

 

I do have further questions. In the example that I posted, what would have been a reasoning for having a signature of one smith on one side and another smith(?) on the other side. Is this common occurrence of a fakery? If so it seems implausible to place a gimei for a deceptive purpose when one is leaving the original signature in place. In your opinion what would be the logic behind this? A dedication, paying homage to an old smith? Or passing a sword in hopes that someone does not look at the other side. Both signatures are quite old, one is a deep cut the other is comparatively shallow. Does this make one signature fake, or both signatures? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting the possibility of Go actually signing 義広 aside, let's indeed let the blade do the talking. How similar is the workmanship of Hiromitsu compared to Go? To Masamune?

 

Personally I don't believe faking is ever anything less than lame, regardless of the circumstances, time, or culture. A fake is a fake. I'm fully aware of the hows and whys in Japanese culture for faking. It was an acceptable part of their culture. Cultural attitudes aside, I personally think using a Hiromitsu as a start for your fake Go is less than ideal and shows either a lack of knowledge or ambition or perhaps both. It's an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on English idioma:

 

What is the difference in English between, fake and forgery? What term applies to a signature? Taking an example, a Yasutsugu blade (utsushi of a famous smith) is it forgery or fake (if presented as the famous smith blade) I am not talking of fraud. I know that for document, forge/forgery is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris. You're a well respected member and this hound dogging of another well respected member will do you no favours.

I say this with respect for you and in the knowledge that I just shot myself in the foot...

 

Debate, discussion, and the sharing of opinions- that is what a forum is for, isn't it? I'm not looking for favours, frankly, I am more interested in truth. I have stated my opinion, Darcy has stated his. I don't see the problem but I thank you for your concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do have further questions. In the example that I posted, what would have been a reasoning for having a signature of one smith on one side and another smith(?) on the other side.

 

Have you considered the possibility that the sword was made by two smiths?

 

Or, that one smith was signing the name of another after shortening the blade and removing the original signature?

 

Both of these examples are seen from time to time. It is also possible that both of the above examples are faked as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question on English idioma:

 

What is the difference in English between, fake and forgery? What term applies to a signature? Taking an example, a Yasutsugu blade (utsushi of a famous smith) is it forgery or fake (if presented as the famous smith blade) I am not talking of fraud. I know that for document, forge/forgery is used.

 

Fake is simply something pretending to be something it is not. A forgery carries the nuance of something printed, written, etc., that is not what it purports to be and done without permission. A forged check, etc. A signature that is forged is fake. A signature on a sword can be fake (like the Chinese ones that make no sense) without being a forgery. A forgery would be someone signing someone else's name without permission. Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris. You're a well respected member and this hound dogging of another well respected member will do you no favours.

I say this with respect for you and in the knowledge that I just shot myself in the foot...

 

Debate, discussion, and the sharing of opinions- that is what a forum is for, isn't it? I'm not looking for favours, frankly, I am more interested in truth. I have stated my opinion, Darcy has stated his. I don't see the problem but I thank you for your concern.

 

Debating the mindset of the forger from possibly centuries ago is a great pastime but not for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...