Jump to content

Adding Signatures To The Nakago...common Pratice?


barnejp

Recommended Posts

Hello:

 With all due respect I think Greg might be asking a somewhat deeper question than the obvious.

 We all know that signatures are found on swords from very early times, and that some smith made swords from all periods remain unsigned to this day. We also know that gimei have been added to many swords, sometimes after removal of the real mei. What we don't know much about, at least in Western language literature, is when and why did added signatures, presumably for value adding reasons, start becoming a real issue chronologically and satistically. I suppose it might have had something to do with the arrival of, for the lack of a better term, a "personality cult" creeping into the sword world. Curiously some products, like ko-tosho and ko-katchushi, and I believe kagami-shi and some other early pieces were never signed. Some famous mingei (folk craft) potters of recent times like Shoji Hamada and Kawai Kanjiro never signed, and one of them, Kawai, even refusing Living National Treasure status.

 We also know that in some traditions, signing was less general than in others. While some of the well known Yamato makers in the Nara area did sign, often they would not. Some were doubtless priests themselves, and perhaps the ego expressed by signing would be seen as self-destructive. We also know that swords, until quite recent times, were often prime gift objects, and that some famous mei or attributions, such as those for Masamune probably exceed what he could have done in a lifetime, yet all his recognized daito length are unsigned for one reason or another, including suriage.

 Just thinking (?) out loud here. I would be interested to know the opinions of the Board or if anyone knows of a serious treatment of the subject.

 Arnold F.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you everyone and, especially Arnold.

 

I feel this is an important topic.

 

For example, if a blade was made by a famous swordsmith but the nakago wasn't signed, which was common practice with certain swordsmiths, is it possible and even likely that another swordsmith knowing they have a acquired a famous blade, add the famous swordsmith's signature?

 

Wondering what other members think?

 

Thank you,

Greg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Yes generally a mei inlaid in gold is perhaps more reputable than one simply inlaid normally. However this practice is sometimes viewed negatively by some as more of a "showing off" of the appraisers skill.

 

If a sword is of such quality or made by a famous smith surely it can be identified by the fine qualities of the blade alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 2/9/2017 at 6:47 AM, PNSSHOGUN said:

Yes generally a mei inlaid in gold is perhaps more reputable than one simply inlaid normally. However this practice is sometimes viewed negatively by some as more of a "showing off" of the appraisers skill.

 

If a sword is of such quality or made by a famous smith surely it can be identified by the fine qualities of the blade alone.

Looking for a good thread to post something I've just read. 

"In feudal days when one of the nobles of the court or one of the Samurai acquired a sword on which the signature of the maker did not appear, he had the name of the maker inlaid in gold on the nakago.  Therefore the name of a sword maker inlaid in gold always indicates that someone other than himself put it there."

page 27, "NIPPON-TO, THE Japanese SWORD" by Inami Hakusui, 1948.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 From the KASHIMA sisters

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/ubumumei.html 

 

A gold inlay of smith's name is maker's name that was done at the same time of shortening the blade, being sorry the signature disappears.
Names that written with lacquer are attributed name.
A red lacquer is on the original unsigned tang. A gold lacquer is on the shortened tang.

 

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/tang.html

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the kikumon on the blade on the left has been added. Mon on the right is from a NBTHK papered Wak, 1’st generation Hisamichi. Blade in the left has not been through shinsa. I’ll post a follow up photo of the two signatures . I considered starting a thread for just Gemei signatures. We could possibly gain something from comparing multiple gemei’s to each other rather than to legitimate signatures.

Jim

856BAACA-3575-42AD-B2C3-B74B7E2F0E0A.jpeg

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...