Papering Gimei

[Gabriel L]

Note: the musings below are made solely in the general/abstract sense, and do not pertain to nor are critical of any specific examples. In other words, this is not intended as a criticism of anyone here. :-)

 

The mission of the NBTHK, ostensibly, is to protect and preserve the "Japanese Art Sword." Be that as it may, economic reality is that NBTHK papers drive price. The NBTHK will not paper blades judged gimei, but will paper mumei. The natural result is that historical mei are subsequently removed when a blade either fails to paper or when the owner suspects it has a better chance of passing appraisal as mumei.

 

Sometimes (often?) this is fine. A mei may be so obviously false that it does nothing for the sword, even detracts from it in an aesthetic / philosophical sense. And there is an argument that gimei can be used to deceive less wary/schooled collectors. But other times a mei may seem questionable to some people yet good to others. There have been stories of mei being removed and the sword subsequently papering to the same smith. Common? No… but it has happened. We all know as well that shinsa, as good as it is, is not an absolute judgment; swords fail one session and pass the next, paper to different smiths in different sessions, etc.

 

Here is something to consider: papers are transient and extrinsic, post-hoc opinions represented not only by the paper but in the records of the issuing organization. A mei on the other hand is intrinsic and historic, existing only as a part of the sword itself. To remove a mei is an irrevocable change and represents a permanent loss of potentially useful information. It does not directly improve the sword itself, except in the case where the gimei was so obvious and so poor that it might as well be looked on as an ugly defacement.

 

I think that in the wider perspective, such trades (of historic data for current opinions) happening regularly can only serve to gradually reduce the amount of available information for comparison and scholarship. Perhaps the ratio is 99.9% bad data destroyed yet 0.1% good data also destroyed… is that worth it? Academic opinions and understandings change with time; who can say that 50 or 100 years from now, some of the genealogies and mei records may have been re-organized to fit better research? It has happened before and it will happen again. It seems a shame to look back on a decision born out of temporary convenience, just as we all wish more kotō swords had not been shortened for the sake of Edo fashion.

 

The solution seems pretty simple… the NBTHK should paper gimei blades as if they were mumei, with an included description that the current mei is judged to be false and the new appraisal ignores it. The economic pressure to remove borderline mei would be greatly mitigated,* no possible shōshinmei would ever be lost, win-win. The bad data would be identified as such, with the caveat that future generations can do their own fact-checking. I can think of no particularly good reason why this shouldn't be acceptable. Of course, I am not holding my breath that this will ever be the case.

 

Anyway, this is just my own opinion on the matter. I don't mean to treat gimei in general like precious artifacts that we mere mortals dare not touch… :lol: Rather as someone who spent a lot of time in research fields, I find the idea of altering an antique to fit our current personal narrative to be fundamentally suspect. It is bad science; if you think the data is bad, you say so, you don't pretend it never existed. Of course, not everything in nihontō is always very scientific. I welcome any contrary arguments and discussion.

 

Cheers, —G.

 

------

 

*Unfortunately I can still imagine reasons someone might remove mei, e.g. if "gimei papers" are looked down on as one might expect…

[John A Stuart]

I've said this for years. In fact just the other day where Guido put the Rembrandt with crayon signature as a point made. It has validity though. Until the moustache Pete's are gone and a modern consensus in place nothing will change. John

PS, I had to track this down. I was left hanging in air at the original post site. :lol:

[Brian]

Valid points, but to keep John's tanto a separate discussion, I have moved this discussion to a new topic.

Doubt you will find anyone who disagrees with you though. Except of course for the fact that people will sell gimei swords without that paper that says it is gimei, and the same swords will be sent for papers over and over...failing, and being resubmitted. But then that can happen with a gimei call anyways, if the person does not remove the mei and sells it.

Some say that the gimei is a desecration of the original work. Like graffitti. However not all gimei are modern, some were done at the time of manufacture and have to be factored into the history of the sword. It's all complicated I guess.

 

Brian

[nihonto1001]

the NBTHK should paper gimei blades as if they were mumei, with an included description that the current mei is judged to be false and the new appraisal ignores it.

 

I agree with this in special cases, such as when they would paper the sword back to the same smith anyway (if the mei was removed). Another would be cases involving non recorded smiths. It may even end up better preserving history.

.

I think they could possibly issue a different color paper for such swords.

 

I can't help but think how many 'false signatures' are actually attribution mei, by some togishi who shortened the sword, removing the original mei.

 

I bet we will see it, when it is realized they are running out of swords to paper.

[cabowen]

I have read this comment here several times:

 

There have been stories of mei being removed and the sword subsequently papering to the same smith.

 

I have seen this happen several times. Let's be clear though: the mei in the cases I am familiar with was judged to be an ato-mei, that is, it wasn't by the original smith, it was simply cut later by someone other than the smith. These are not considered to be historically valuable.

 

I think that in the wider perspective, such trades (of historic data for current opinions) happening regularly can only serve to gradually reduce the amount of available information for comparison and scholarship. Perhaps the ratio is 99.9% bad data destroyed yet 0.1% good data also destroyed… is that worth it?

 

That is a very good point, but apparently the answer is yes....perhaps if more people felt this way things might change. As long as collecting involves large sums of money, and the collecting community is reliant on the opinions and validation of organizations that do not share this outlook, I see little chance of change in the way things are done.

 

HIstorically, kantei-sho have the word "正真" at the top which means "genuine". If a blade is signed, it is then taken to mean that the mei is genuine. The NBTHK papers make no such claims, only a sword is "worthy of preservation", "especially worthy of preservation", "an import sword", or an "especially important sword"　under the current system. One could make the argument that therefore the NBTHK has some wriggle room and could paper a gimei blade with the rationale that a spurious mei has no bearing on the intrinsic value of the sword from a preservation standpoint.

 

The reality though is that people take the NBTHK papers to mean something other than what they actually say: there is an implicit understanding that if a sword passes NBTHK shinsa, the mei must be genuine. Conversely, if a sword is considered gimei by the judges, it will fail and you will be told "gimei" as a reason and that if you remove the signature, it will then pass.

 

The only explanation I have been given for this that makes any sense is that it protects the NBTHK from lawsuits due to errors. I do not know if there is any truth to that but it makes sense.

 

No doubt there have been valid mei removed by accident but usually, if it is a big name, most prudent people in cases I am familiar with, do not rush to judgment and seek many opinions, carefully weigh them and then a choose a course of action. Perhaps mistakes are still made, but that is the nature of the game when there is money on the table and people are self-interested.

 

Japanese swords are each unique; art by its variable, organic, and changing nature is not so easily classified or pigeon holed in any sort of absolute and artificial matrix. It isn't a science where computers and data mining are going to give you an exact answer when you punch in a few variables or tick a few boxes. The whole Go-ka den concept is rather recent and an entirely artificial construct- a stab at organizing a large number of smiths and schools into something coherent and some what navigable. As anyone who reads this board with any regularity should know, exceptions are the rule. Kantei has never been an absolute science-but one based on experience, knowledge, and some will even say a bit of intuition . Thus, it should come as no surprise that opinions will differ even among experts at times. And opinions can change over time; gimei today, shoshin tomorrow, gimei again the day after...In many of these cases, we can never know with certainty. This is not to say that a rationale, deductive approach is not helpful, only that one needs to recognize the inherent nature of the art and the limitations in predictive power of working with a limited and fuzzy data set.

 

I can understand leaving a gimei signature alone if it is so close that no consensus can be reached among experts. I do not understand people who say a gimei signature should be left alone because it is part of the sword's history- by that logic, hakobore should be left alone, as should bends, twists, and all other signs of "history". Maybe swords should never be polished because it is removing history? We are back to the art vs artifact dichotomy. Personally, I take most gimei to be unfortunate damage to a blade which should be repaired the same as any other damage. Notice I said "most".

 

To play the devil's advocate a bit, I also know of many swords that were dissed as gimei and sold for cheap. Smart dealers had the mei removed, the sword restored, and not only profited handsomely, but much like Kunitaro san's story, turned a toad into a prince that would now be respected and preserved. In the long run, the sword survives when it might not have otherwise.

 

Finally, there is little that can be done to change the fundamental nature of Japanese sword collecting, that being, it is, like most collecting, about the exchange of money. Profit drives people to sell. We can each make the choice when the opportunity presents itself to forgo profit and preserve what we think is more important and simply get off the paper carousel. As Guido said, and I find it quite profound, "no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to get papers". For those concerned about removing signatures, the solution is right there...

[nagamaki - Franco]

HIstorically, kantei-sho have the word "正真" at the top which means "genuine". If a blade is signed, it is then taken to mean that the mei is genuine.

 

Life becomes so much simpler when one has a straightforward and clear objective.

[Brian]

If a sword was signed (attributed) by the person who shortened it, and signed as such, will it pass shinsa and get origami?

 

Brian

[cabowen]

If the person who shortened it is known and his signature is valid, and the mei he adds is correct in the eyes of the shinsa team, then, speaking only for what I know of the NTHK-NPO, I would say yes...

[kusunokimasahige]

The official organizations could of course attribute a gimei sword to the name on the sword if all points are compared and found valid and then state on the paper that it is ato-mei or gimei.

 

When a sword clearly does not fit the Gimei name they can still refuse a paper and ask for that mei to be removed, and then it is to the discretion of the owner whether or not he wants to remove that part of the sword's history.

 

Simple solution really.

 

KM

 

(kind of like polishing is it not ? The polished sword loses a lot of metal throughout the centuries. can one still say it is original ? Or does it still have it's original essence..... ? [i know, silly ZEN question] )

[Uechi]

Lest people forget many smiths were illiterate neither reading or writing. It was not uncommon for smiths to use literate students or others to sign works. I don't have enough knowledge or information but it wouldn't surprise me to have nihonto signed in the smith's name by more then one individual. Lord knows how many swords have had so called "gimei signatures" removed when in fact they may be legitimate. In any event, like almost anything thing else in this world people are often more concerned with dollars. Don't see the practice of removing mei changing nor a change in shinsa requirements.