Probably Gimei, But Why?

[jct3602]

   Been having a boy's sword (or very small kodachi) restored over the last year.  Originally purchased it for the furniture; the blade was a bonus, and at the time I was sure the signature was gimei.  I still believe it is, but I am wondering why whoever did it bothered.  The supposedly gimei signature is tanba no kami yoshimichi, with no kikumon.  that signature does not resemble any I have found from the various lines of smiths that used it.

   What is curious was recently I had a window opened by a very knowledgeable friend (but not a polisher); it looks like Sue-Bizen, with koshi-no-hiraita and no trace of sudare-ba.   The mounts are excellent; signed tsuba and signed fuchi-kashira, each from makers with typical auction prices of comparable pieces of around $700 -$900.  Menuki are very nice, 5 leaf design.   Habaki is silver in a rain pattern; gold washed seppa and gold inlaid in a pattern into the metal on the sides of the opening for the sageo.  My restorer friend does lacquering  repair for a prominent museum on occasion and says the lacquer is absolutely top notch.  Am still in the process of trying to find a kozuka to match the rest, since that was removed before I found it.   The blade has a very nice koshizori tachi shape, and is well proportioned, but very small.

   If this piece is Sue Bizen, why would someone put a gimei signature from a smith line hundreds of years younger?  Even if they did, why not go full bore and toss the kiku in?.  The Diamyo that commissioned the piece was obviously quite wealthy; was the prestige of the Tanba no kami Yoshimichi line of smiths so great in the 1720-1800 period (from the period of the tsuba and fuchi-kashira) that  a gimei was warranted?

   My old computer blew up about a month ago; when I salvage the pictures I will post the furniture, signatures, and the blade.  will see if I can get a good picture of the hamon at some point.  Anyway, just wondering about why someone might put a fake signature on a piece that might basically be better than that of the gimei signature.  

 

       thanks

 

 

 

   

  

[paulb]

Dear???

Pictures will help when you can post them but based on what you have said some points to consider:

1. Someone took a Sue Bizen blade and added a signature to increase value. Older doesnt necessarily mean fmore valuable, and certainly a Yoshimichi would be worth more than a sue Bizen mass produced blade

2. Not all Yoshimich blades have a kiku mon or sudare-ba

3. If the mei doesnt match any illustrations you have found and there are none of the common charateristics you would hope to find for the named smith then your first impresion of it being gimei is probably correct.

As said above when you can post some images it would help answer in more detail

Regards

Paul

[jct3602]

Thanks Paul - as soon as I can find some pictures I will post them; the restorer has the blade right now and I am still trying to find what I can off my computer crash.  Originally I thought the signature might be an 8th or 9th generation to make the blade contemporary with the furniture. What puzzles me is if it is gimei why would the faker not add the kiku if they were trying to increase value?  Another question is whether the later generations of the Tanba school did any works with koshi no hiraita that approaches the crab claw look (to make the possibility of an authentic signature, just one of a smith not commonly seen). 

 

Thanks again

John

[jct3602]

Found some pictures on an old DVD - the picture mei is out of focus, the rest of the pictures of furniture are ok,  The blade itself was not of interest until the window was opened, so when I get it back I will photo it and post the pictures.

 

 

Thanks all,

 

john

[jct3602]

More pictures (seems like only 1/2 at a time)

 

john

[jct3602]

And more,

 

john

[jct3602]

And tsuba signature

 

john

[jct3602]

fuchi

 

john

[jct3602]

found a later set of photos that are much clearer.

 

 

john

[paulb]

Hi John

Biggest initial problem is that someone has cleaned the nakago which will immediately reduce the value.

[jct3602]

Agreed, Paulb, but not really worried about the value.  Except to scatter more money on my coffin when I kick off, it does not matter, since I have no close heirs and like the piece itself. 

   

 However, your point is very well taken; the gimei may have occurred long after the blade and furniture were combined in a misguided effort to increase value. 

 

I understand that common knowledge is an age patina can not be accurately faked; however I know someone who has been deeply involved with nihonto and many other forms of Japanese and Chinese art for over 50 years who says he can create a patina that even he can not distinguish from a real long-aged patina.  We had an 8 year project taking a broken blade and doing suriage on the front half and satsuma-age on the base and creating most of the furniture; since a new nakago had to be formed for the top piece, he offered to add an aged patina to the keisho filing he did, but I said to leave it as it was. 

 

Will include pictures of the project here at some point in another thread (need help in placing the hamon); getting a set of pics done today in fact.

 

Thank you very much for your thoughtful input,

 

john

[Fuuten]

Its good to keep in mind, forgeries were often found in the old days, but now science will eventually improve techniques to imitate something else.. In China they're quite good in reproduces everything.