Gimei and value

[Mark S.]

I think pretty much everyone falls into 2 general camps (NO JUDGMENT OF EITHER CAMP!):

 

CAMP 1: 

Shoshin blade = highest level

Mumei blade = middle level

Gimei blade = lowest level

 

or 

 

CAMP 2:

Shoshin blade = highest level

Mumei blade & Gimei blade = same level

 

I think CAMP 1 follow more the NBTHK model and CAMP 2 believe the ‘opinion’ of a mumei blade and gimei blade are the same.  The only real difference I can see is if you are comfortable looking past a gimei signature. Once again, not saying either camp is better or right.

[Franco D]

On 12/1/2023 at 6:25 AM, Paz said:

So the question is why don't the NBTHK give value to the sword itself, rather than the signature. Ie why don't they actually determine who made the sword and give it an appraisal based on the work itself even if it is gimei. 

 

The NBTHK represents the interests of the original sword smith in question. Therefore, the sword must first confirm the mei. If the sword rejects the mei that is the end of the story as far as the NBTHK is concerned at that point in time. What comes next will be up to the sword's owner. 

NBTHK's game, their rules. 

[Mikaveli]

1 hour ago, Alex A said:

Its all well and good saying judge a sword by its own merits but in reality some folks can be real fussy when it comes to owing swords that are gimei and even mumei.

 

Nothing better than a good blade which is signed by the smith, dated, the more information the better.

 

Maybe you have not owned enough what i call ? blades, 

 

They drive me nuts.

 

Want facts,  provenance,  etc, not opinions. lol

 

 

 

 

 

I actually tend to buy signed works by a single smith (with some impulse buying exceptions 😂), because I like the specific form and features of that smith.

 

Now, if one of my papered blades turns out to be gimei, I would be upset - but I'd still have a sword of the style, configuration and (to my ability to discern) quality.

 

If you can't tell the difference (without the label) - what's the difference?

 

I treat wine in just the same way - saves me a fortune 🤣

[Alex A]

Its an age old debate, nothing really wrong either way.

 

Horses for courses.

[Mikaveli]

Slight tangent, but if anyone hasn't read this short article by Markus, it's fascinating:

 

https://markussesko.com/2019/12/31/kajihei-鍛冶平/

 

(Story about Kajihei - famous meikirishi and faker)

[Alex A]

Aye, read that.

 

Must have been easier peddling gimei blades back then than it is today

[Rivkin]

5 hours ago, Paz said:

Sorry Rivkin where did you get this information from ? ( I'm not doubting it). When you say upgrade the blades they have, do you mean have them polished ect and then sign the blade. So we could have a shinshinto or edo sword, which has been mumei. And then upgraded and given a signiture of a smith of that time ?. 

 

On another note. Kiyomaro and kiyomondo, naotane are quite common in gimei from early meiji. 

 

With military decorations fakes, there are whole recognizable schools, you look at the object and you can tell who made it or in the very least general area/period where it was made.

99.9% of the time you encounter gimei its not a purposefully made fake, its later generation or a blade from the same general school or something else along this lines that had the original signature replaced with that of a famous first generation master, and usually the replacement is frankly not too convincing because its clear the signer did not specialize on this particular name.

So you have a dealer who had dozens of lower name smiths and decided to risk it with an upgrade. Since there are tons of shinto blades that imitate Sukehiro you see today very diverse works in Sukehiro's style with gimei, and sometimes you can guess whose work was actually used.

 

Now there are Muromachi period's signature which were placed on blades as attribution since they actually often match what the blade actually is quite close. At the time this was apparently not too uncommon. Those are treated with some respect and the blade can paper at any level with "to mei ga aru" note. 

Today dealers often submit those to sayagaki writers hoping "ga aru" part will be explained away. If they fail and if they are western based they then write a long text how "ga aru" does not mean gimei, "its different", "its previously unknown example of the earliest signature when the smith was drinking heavily while being beaten by his wife" etc.. The buddy-loyalty machine surrounding each major dealer then makes sure those wonderful "explanations" are not questioned too often and too openly.

 

I have couple gimei blades that I don't know what to do with because one is published in a major book, another has Shimazu provenance records. I would ordinary erase the signature but... 

[Rivkin]

Now if we go a bit deeper into esotherics, East Asian cultures have an interesting disdain for historical documents compared to opinions by contemporary luminaries. Accepting reincarnation means that the major actors of today's scene are actually the very same people who produced the very best 1000 years ago. If Masamune's reincarnation tells you its not Masamune's blade, you have to erase the signature and you can't argue your way out.

 

This attitude figures very prominently when you look at disputes regarding genealogies or matters inheritance of leadership in Buddhist schools, if there was a person in generation with a solid reputation of being Buddha with an appropriate position of leadership, he could easily condemn rather solid looking documents and arguments as fakes.

 

You see similar issues in Judaism for example, where reincarnation is commonly accepted and a contemporary leader can insert his opinion into a historical document with a feeling it "restores" it to the original clarity rather than alters the original. Reincarnation societies do not have as strong distinction between past and present.

[David Flynn]

I know this is off topic, however Kirill is not right about Buddhism and Reincarnation .      Buddhism doesn't  teach reincarnation, it teaches, re-birth.   An example of this is.    A washing machine is scrapped and  turned into a car.   Is that then still a washing machine?

 

[French nihonto]

45 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

I have couple gimei blades that I don't know what to do with because one is published in a major book, another has Shimazu provenance records. I would ordinary erase the signature but... 

This will be my last post for this topic, I must sound unpleasant 
The heart of the Gimei debate I think. We have all had, or still have, Gimei blades in our collection. Are they of artistic interest and study? yes
Are they historical artifacts? Yes
Are they worth preserving? Yes
Yet the largest organization and authority in the field thinks they're not worthy of preservation. I've always found that strange. This will cause their death in the medium and long term, because we collectors who preserve these objects are increasingly trying to avoid them because they are problematic. 
 

[Mark S.]

I do not wish to hijack or turn this thread away from its original intent, and not to try to justify gimei, but I do wonder how many blades were ordered to be shortened and the original mei lost to the suriage, but the owner wanted the smith who performed the suriage to engrave the original smith’s mei to ‘preserve’ it’s provenance?  Gimei?, definitely… but ‘wrong’ or meant to deceive?  I guess we will never know.

[Alex A]

16 minutes ago, French nihonto said:

This will be my last post for this topic, I must sound unpleasant 
The heart of the Gimei debate I think. We have all had, or still have, Gimei blades in our collection. Are they of artistic interest and study? yes
Are they historical artifacts? Yes
Are they worth preserving? Yes
Yet the largest organization and authority in the field thinks they're not worthy of preservation. I've always found that strange. This will cause their death in the medium and long term, because we collectors who preserve these objects are increasingly trying to avoid them because they are problematic. 
 

Will never be the death as most folks will always rely on papers

[Rivkin]

56 minutes ago, David Flynn said:

I know this is off topic, however Kirill is not right about Buddhism and Reincarnation .      Buddhism doesn't  teach reincarnation, it teaches, re-birth.   An example of this is.    A washing machine is scrapped and  turned into a car.   Is that then still a washing machine?

 

I can't claim major understanding of Buddhism and hope to be corrected, but many historical persons more or less openly claimed to have been reincarnations of Prince Shotoku-Boddhisatva. At this level retaining during the rebirth perceptions, awareness, even possibly basic memories is expected and instrumental to guiding others. Related are dozens of stereotypical stories about rediscovering by fate an item belonging to an ancient progenitor or school's founder, the emphasis being "karmic succession" linking the generations. 

The problem I see is that in the absence of strict canon (and with many living Buddhas strict canon is unachieavable) many preachers feel entitled to voice what real faithful should believe in, while omitting this is a rather small portion of the diversity of views.

[Jon]

My own personal view is.

 

1) human judgement is imperfect and a sword could be dismissed as a Gimei when it is not, removal of the signature on limited human judgements amounts to cultural vandalism.

2) even if it is a Gimei there are many many faked works of art that become collectors peices and an important part of cultural history. Even the great Michaleangelo started his career by making fake sculptures..he would age them and sell them as antiques..no one knows how many of these existed or how many of these fakes were later destroyed before people realised what they had….there is only one confirmed micheangelo created fake antiquity and that was the one he got busted for. Han Van Meegeren is a faker who is considered a master in his own right ( as a creator of fakes) and his faked art is regularly placed in museums…Fakes are  sometimes considered to be iconic and have considerable monetary and social value all on their own…

3) the Gimei therefore has its own place in history and the story of art swords and should be preserved not destroyed.

[Paz]

45 minutes ago, Jon said:

My own personal view is.

 

1) human judgement is imperfect and a sword could be dismissed as a Gimei when it is not, removal of the signature on limited human judgements amounts to cultural vandalism.

2) even if it is a Gimei there are many many faked works of art that become collectors peices and an important part of cultural history. Even the great Michaleangelo started his career by making fake sculptures..he would age them and sell them as antiques..no one knows how many of these existed or how many of these fakes were later destroyed before people realised what they had….there is only one confirmed micheangelo created fake antiquity and that was the one he got busted for. Han Van Meegeren is a faker who is considered a master in his own right ( as a creator of fakes) and his faked art is regularly placed in museums…Fakes are  sometimes considered to be iconic and have considerable monetary and social value all on their own…

3) the Gimei therefore has its own place in history and the story of art swords and should be preserved not destroyed.

Absolutely agree with this Jon. 

 

Gimei plays a huge part in Japanese history of arts and swords. But one of the reason people started to remove fake signatures was because of appraisal reasons. And it is true that it is part of history. It was 500 years ago and up to the showa eras. 

 

Regards 

[Franco D]

18 hours ago, French nihonto said:

Yet the largest organization and authority in the field thinks they're not worthy of preservation. 

 

At risk of repeating myself, the statement above is jumping to a conclusion which is not based in reality. The NBTHK is acting as an advocate for the sword maker. That's it! 

Does the sword confirm the mei? If the answer is negative, then the sword has rejected the mei (Arnold Frenzel). 

 

Quote

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

John F. Kennedy

 

[Jacques D.]

Who'd rather buy a fake Rollex? This is as far as I go.

[Mark S.]

A Dollar Store watch with the Rolex name on it?… no.

 

A REAL Rolex that someone put the Dollar Store logo on for a Dollar Store price?… Maybe.

[Matsunoki]

Many gimei swords were happily “accepted” by Shoguns and Daimyo etc. often presented to one another with great pomp and ceremony…..a part of Japanese/Samurai/Sword/Culture history.

So, if you own a nice blade that you know was presented by Ieyasu but is accepted as gimei would you remove that Mei just for the sake of a piece of paper?

If they could live with it, why can’t we?

…and if the NBTHK is acting as an advocate for the swordsmith and they conclude it’s gimei why can’t they simply tell us who they think did make it?

[rematron]

 

2 hours ago, Franco D said:

 

At risk of repeating myself, the statement above is jumping to a conclusion which is not based in reality. The NBTHK is acting as an advocate for the sword maker. That's it! 

Does the sword confirm the mei? If the answer is negative, then the sword has rejected the mei (Arnold Frenzel). 

 

 

Not based on reality? Well the NBTHK might not state officially that gimei swords are unworthy of preservation, but they certainly aren’t helping with their preservation and are at least partly responsible for collectors tampering with many a nakago. 
 

So what if the sword does not confirm the mei? - State that in the paper and then treat the sword as mumei and give it an attribution. 
 

The NBTHK will still be advocating for the actual sword maker by saying that the mei is a forgery. 
 

Then the blade can be papered and respected and preserved on its own merit. 

[Mark S.]

It will be probably be a matter of finances vs preservation.  IF the regular source of Shoshin and mumei blades ever slows, then gendaito will be papered more frequently and possibly a lot more WW2 blades that aren’t considered now and then they may need to paper gimei blades to keep the money flowing?  Maybe a new category?  Not quite Hozon, but maybe something else?  Someday…

[French nihonto]

19 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

Maybe a new category?  Not quite Hozon, but maybe something else?  Someday…

New paper. Clearly recognizable. That doesn't interfere with classic papers and could open up a new field of study. It would be a nice evolution. 

[Franco D]

1 hour ago, Matsunoki said:

Many gimei swords were happily “accepted” by Shoguns and Daimyo etc. often presented to one another with great pomp and ceremony…..a part of Japanese/Samurai/Sword/Culture history.

 

Do you accept with generosity or insult and offend the giver? 

How many Shoguns and Daimyo were expert enough at kantei to make the call?

And again, do they hold their tongue or offend?

 

1 hour ago, Matsunoki said:

So, if you own a nice blade that you know was presented by Ieyasu but is accepted as gimei would you remove that Mei just for the sake of a piece of paper?

 

Well, that's up to the current caregiver of the sword to decide, isn't it? 

In the words of Jim Kurrasch (paraphrasing) who was passionate about nihonto, measure three time before removing.

Decisions, decisions!

 

1 hour ago, Matsunoki said:

…and if the NBTHK is acting as an advocate for the swordsmith and they conclude it’s gimei why can’t they simply tell us who they think did make it?

 

One can and might see where problems would develop here. So, let's say someone has a 'big name' sword, but the mei is clearly gimei. Perhaps, the mei was added on un-nefariously at a later point in time. Maybe by the original owner of the sword or a family member that had direct knowledge of the sword's history. But, still, the problem for the NBTHK is that this is not the smith's mei even though it is the 'big named smith's work.' 

So now, what is the NBTHK to do? Do they certify a clearly gimei sword? It is not difficult to understand why the false mei must be removed before they can legitimize the sword. 

 

[Franco D]

1 hour ago, rematron said:

So what if the sword does not confirm the mei? - State that in the paper and then treat the sword as mumei and give it an attribution. 

 

The sword is not mumei if it's gimei. Sorry, no magic papers.  If memory serves, Chris Bowen said that these organizations must be able to defend their judgments in a court of law. Think about what that may mean. 

 

Their game, their rules. Participation is voluntary. Which means that when you decided to voluntarily participate, you agreed to play by the rules.

[rematron]

28 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

Their game, their rules. Participation is voluntary. Which means that when you decided to voluntarily participate, you agreed to play by the rules.

Of course, I realize this. The question remains: Why are their rules the way they are?  This is a topic for discussion and dismissive statements are not constructive. 

[French nihonto]

41 minutes ago, Franco D said:

Their game, their rules. Participation is voluntary. Which means that when you decided to voluntarily participate, you agreed to play by the rules.

I'm generally a traditionalist, but aren't rules supposed to evolve sooner or later? Or does everything stay the same indefinitely? The paper system evolved in 1982, after being created in 1948, 34 years later. Now, after 41 years, there's nothing ridiculous about a small update. 
Well, maybe one day 

[rematron]

40 minutes ago, Franco D said:

One can and might see where problems would develop here. So, let's say someone has a 'big name' sword, but the mei is clearly gimei. Perhaps, the mei was added on un-nefariously at a later point in time. Maybe by the original owner of the sword or a family member that had direct knowledge of the sword's history. But, still, the problem for the NBTHK is that this is not the smith's mei even though it is the 'big named smith's work.' 

So now, what is the NBTHK to do? Do they certify a clearly gimei sword? It is not difficult to understand why the false mei must be removed before they can legitimize the sword. 

 

What are the NBTHK to do?

 

I will tell you:

 

They certify that the mei is false AND  they give it an attribution. 
 

It IS difficult to understand why a false mei must be removed before they can legitimize the sword. 
 

The attitude of “it’s neccessary to remove the mei” is destructive and I doubt very much the NBTHK would recommend such an act yet that is exactly what people are *wink wink* told to do. 

[Matsunoki]

I guess in the end  it comes down to £££…..which is sad for the sword. Mei removal removes part of its history.

[Mark S.]

45 minutes ago, Franco D said:

 

Do they certify a clearly gimei sword? 
 

 

45 minutes ago, Franco D said:

No… they certify that is IS gimei, which they already do by declaring it gimei and then make an attribution based solely on the blade which they already do in the case of mumei blades.  Both could be annotated on the papers.  Other than ‘that’s the way it is’, I don’t understand it.

[Franco D]

11 minutes ago, rematron said:

This is a topic for discussion and dismissive statements are not constructive. 

 

Please, go ahead and discuss as much as you like or are allowed to on the NMB.  Please, also, be careful not to confuse being given the truth straight up as being dismissive. Collecting nihonto requires a thick skin and being prepared for disappointment sometimes.