mei comparison

[Bungo]

anyone has sample mei " Goto Harumitsu with kao " available ?

Need that to compare with this mei.

Thanks.

 

milt

[Bungo]

At first glance, it's just a rooster of uniform silver color until one looks closer und closer.......

silver/gold zogan on polished iron ground.

enjoy

 

milt

[nagamaki - Franco]

According to > http://www.artfact.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?lotCode=exkYa2cC , an example of Goto Harumitsu's signature (valid or not) might be found in Christie's 2000 London auction catalog. Perhaps, someone in the forum has a copy.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Milt,

 

what is even more interesting is that the decoration is very clearly nunome-zogan. Apart from the rarity of Goto work in iron, the use of nunome-zogan is, to my knowledge, unheard of. This type of work is quite late in any respect, if that helps at all.

 

regards, Ford

[Bungo]

actually I have another " Goto " school iron tsuba, the mei compared very favorably with that in Kinko Meikan.

 

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2724

 

 

the " nunome " tech. may be in voque in late Goto works..........

 

milt

[nagamaki - Franco]

NOTES Goto Harumitsu was the 7th generation Goto Seijo

 

Yes, Ford's thought did cross my mind as well. IF, the notation above is correct, it invites a study of Goto Seijo's work to determine the likelihood of possibilities.

 

actually I have another " Goto " school iron tsuba, the mei compared very favorably with that in Kinko Meikan.

 

Milt, please don't tell me you're one of those nihonto autograph collectors after all these years of collecting.

 

"workmanship confirms the mei, and not the other way around"

[Bungo]

" please don't tell me you're one of those nihonto autograph collectors "

 

of course I am all depends on how much they charge for the autographs........

 

milt

[Pete Klein]

Haynes index lists only the kao, but in 'Studies in Kyo Goto' by Koju Kasahara and Shigeo Akimoto, edited by Tadao Tsujimoto, Goto Harumitsu is listed as the seventh generation master Seijo family; "He was born in ? and died in ?. His other name was Harumitsu (in different letters) and he also used a pen name, Sekishinsai. He is said to have died in Meizi period. He was a good maker". (note -- I believe they were referring to 'Meiji' period as the sixth master died in 1836).

Here are the mei and kao from the book.

[Pete Klein]

"workmanship confirms the mei, and not the other way around"

 

Well then I must disagree with this concept. Both workmanship and mei (signiture) are important. I have in my collection a Nobuie tsuba which pretty much everyone thought was gimei because the style of workmanship differed from what all were used to seeing as shoshin Shodai Nobuie (Akiyama method of ranking). The mei was dead on. It papered Hozon to Nobuie. In this case mei confirmed workmanship.

 

How many times have you read where a major oil painting or other work of art was found to be a forgery by a master copyist? Sometimes the forger is a better artist than the original master but at the end of the day the original's work will be the one worth more both historically and monetarily, not the brilliant forgery (although it may have interest in it's own right). To give equality to the forgery demeans the work of the original master and this is why confirmation is considered so important and is vital to the understanding of the evolution of the body of work. Without it we might as well just look at everything as 'just another pretty piece of art' and lump them all together as curios from a by-gone era. This confirmation of legitimacy (to the best of current ability) defines the difference between collecting and scholarship. If one wishes to simply collect there is nothing wrong with this. If one wishes to research there is nothing wrong with this. They are two different paths with different destinations. However, what comes into question is when anyone tries to justify an item as legitimate where the workmanship or mei cannot be proven with attempts such as 'school works' or other. If in doubt leave it as a work in question (Horyu) but do not try to justify it in vain hope of some form of pseudo-legitimacy. IMHO.

 

BTW: 'School Work' is an old term used by someone who knows they have a gimei piece and wants to sell it to someone who doesn't know the difference. As W. C. Fields once said, "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump"! I wonder if he was a Ferengi? LOL

[nagamaki - Franco]

"workmanship confirms the mei, and not the other way around"

 

Well then I must disagree with this concept. Both workmanship and mei (signature) are important. I have in my collection a Nobuie tsuba which pretty much everyone thought was gimei because the style of workmanship differed from what all were used to seeing as shoshin Shodai Nobuie (Akiyama method of ranking). The mei was dead on. It papered Hozon to Nobuie. In this case mei confirmed workmanship.

 

 

Pete, I would hope that you are not suggesting (hypothetically) a false work with a valid mei would ever pass shinsa, should the false work be removed leaving behind only the valid mei, this is total absurdity! Like the rabbit says, "Ehhh, what's up doc?"

 

Yet, that would be your logic in disagreeing with "the work confirms the mei and not the other way around." On the other hand a valid work with a false mei (removed) or no mei will paper.

 

Remember 8th grade science, true + true, true + false, false + true, etc.

 

Moving away from theoretical, let's take your real life Nobuie example. What counts is not the fact that everyone believed it to be gimei, but rather that the shinsa judges had the experience, that is, they have seen far more examples, including the unorthodox pieces, which allowed them to determine whether or not your piece was acceptable as a "Nobuie workmanship". Otherwise, heaven forbid, tongue and cheek, you might be suggesting the absurd, which is raising the possibility that you're the proud owner of a invalid Nobuie tsuba with a valid signature. NO, it is first his work and then his valid mei. It could not be otherwise!

 

Say Pete, ya know what, , if you care to prove me wrong, have your valid mei removed and resubmit it and see what they paper your tsuba as. If it comes back Nobuie, then the "saying is correct" . If not, then I will be eating crow pie ala Klein!

How about it, have we got a bet? Loser pays all the fees, and you still get to keep the tsuba

 

Please understand, I'm not trying to be difficult for the purpose of creating friction, I'm only attempting to be difficult to be difficult

[Pete Klein]

Franco -- How can a shoshin mei be placed on a gimei piece unless the artist signed a piece not his own which I doubt any artist in his right mind would do? Your arguement leaves me a bit bewlidered. My point was that 'BOTH' are important in verification.

 

And no thank you, I will not have the mei removed 'just for arguement' or any other sake any more than I would remove the ear from a statue on Easter Island.

[Brian]

I'm only attempting to be difficult to be difficult

Yes, we get that. :lol:

I see what Pete is saying, and agree with it in principle.

He is not saying the mai is more important than the work, but they both play a part. Let's say that an important smith decided oneday to veer totally off track from his usual work. Maybe he is experimenting with a new technique, or just fooling around that day. Everybody might say that it isn't his work, as none of his usual traits are to be found. However if the mei is good enough to be his beyond most doubt, it lets us go further into examining the piece and it might be papered to him. No, we don't collect signatures, but while the "work confirms the mei" is a good and valid point, we mustn't discount the mei. That is why we have Japanese books full of mei. Otherwise you could just submit a sword that bears all the traits of a smith, and it would paper. But no..they still look at the mei to confirm the work, no? There is still a LOT of learning that we all have to do into many smith's works. Even the NBTHK says they come across undocumented smiths regularly. A mei is not by any means the way to come to a definite conclusion, but in the case of Pete's tsuba..if it was mumei, I bet that it would have gone to another smith. (Can't prove that, but there is every chance)

The mei probably added to the research process, made them look at it harder, and come to that conclusion. Not all smiths made each and every sword or fitting according to a set formula, and while they have tendancies in work styles, I bet there are an awful lot of mumei swords out there that were made by good smiths working outside of their usual style.

I know this can be debated to death, and there are points of mine that can be torn apart, so I should just mention this is just my opinion, and not carved in stone

Work first...but don't discount the mei.

 

Brian

[Bungo]

so everyone likes my rooster ?

p.s. even carved in stone is no longer permanent........ala that Finnish tourist Pete is referring to.

milt

[Brian]

Milt...sometimes the work is too far from the original style to be shoshin :lol:

There are limits. Style and mei doesn't match and the work seems to be too late according to Ford? Would go well with my rooster vases though

 

Brian

[Pete Klein]

Hi Brian -- yes, the tsuba in question would almost certainly have gone to someone else, most likely Toso Myochin. The small size and fine mimi are rarely seen and this particular shape is not seen on any other recorded Nobuie, shodai or nidai. An interesting point in this case is that the form of hanare mei utilized is seen on but a few other pieces and they all share the fine mimi and delicate workmanship. There is a lot of debate amongst the Nobuie scholars going on as to the whole concept of two generations vs. a school of several members, possibly a family of coworkers. It was a lot of fun doing the research on this piece and a bit of an exoneration when it passed shinsa as I was beginning to feel as the village idiot in the matter. It is rewarding when a lot of hard work pays off.

[nagamaki - Franco]

OK, let's try one more time.

 

valid workmanship + valid mei = true

 

valid workmanship + invalid mei = false

valid workmanship + invalid mei removed = true

 

invalid workmanship + invalid mei = true, but false

 

invalid workmanship + valid mei = " Ehhh, what's up doc?"

invalid workmanship (removed) + valid mei = " Suffering Succotash"

 

any disagreement so far?

No, good!

 

While valid workmanship can be found with both, a valid mei (we are in full agreement here), and an invalid mei as well, the opposite of a valid mei on an invalid piece, as far as we know, does not happen! (of course every time someone makes an absolute statement regarding nihonto, the exception pops up somewhere, leaving fools in its wake)

Therefore, "workmanship is the determining factor and confirms the mei, and not the other way around!"

How's that? Fire away ............

 

be nice

 

PS Milt, nothing wrong with roosters!

[Brian]

Reading that gave me a headache.

:lol:

 

Brian

 

PS - You forgot unusual style + valid mei = true

[nagamaki - Franco]

sorry Brian, let's blame Ford for all of this , after all I was only trying to help Milt find an answer to his original question, when all this zogan business, which I happen to agree with, got raised, and then Pete jumped in, and well, you know, I just couldn't let that pass by without a , and, well, so how does your headache feel now anyway? :|

[Bungo]

thanks dudes,

I wasn't too concerned about the mei anyway since I have two other Goto signed koz with mei matched , not one, but to few different sources ( strokes for strokes, even the kao ) . One koz even has the same design ( and " workmanship ) as illustrated from a famous collection.........anyway the oversea shinsa pinkied one ( must be a bad hair day ).

The important thing is I like the design,( the rooster i.e..........)

and the importance of having those magifying thingies Barry Hennick always has when hunting for goodies at the sword shows.

 

milt