Gimei and value

[rematron]

24 minutes ago, Alex A said:

 

 

There's a reason NBTHK wont paper a sword unless the gimei is removed.

 

 

What is the reason?

[Mark S.]

Does NBTHK paper blades that have horimono or bohi added later in a blade’s life?  Shouldn’t those also be disqualified due to “not original to the blade”? or “not representing the interest of the swordsmith”?

[Alex A]

Jeremy

 

As a professional organisation wanting to show some integrity, especially when it effects value.

 

Would you want to be certifying blades that have fake mei ?, mei that are not ORIGINAL to the blade?

 

You guys are talking like all fake mei are a work of art and of reasonable accuracy regarding school/smith, when a lot of time they are utter BS and do nothing whatsoever for the blade, as i said earlier, they are just DISHONEST.

 

If you want a pink slip or whatever with who they think made the blade, then great, I'm all for that.

 

This thread seems very suited to folks that own gimei, looking for a reason for some acceptance.

 

The "everyone's a winner" mentality.

[Alex A]

10 minutes ago, Mark S. said:

Does NBTHK paper blades that have horimono or bohi added later in a blade’s life?  Shouldn’t those also be disqualified due to “not original to the blade”? or “not representing the interest of the swordsmith”?

 

Cmon Mark

[rematron]

43 minutes ago, Alex A said:

Jeremy

 

As a professional organisation wanting to show some integrity, especially when it effects value.

 

Would you want to be certifying blades that have fake mei ?, mei that are not ORIGINAL to the blade?

 

You guys are talking like all fake mei are a work of art and of reasonable accuracy regarding school/smith, when a lot of time they are utter BS and do nothing whatsoever for the blade, as i said earlier, they are just DISHONEST.

 

If you want a pink slip or whatever with who they think made the blade, then great, I'm all for that.

 

This thread seems very suited to folks that own gimei, looking for a reason for some acceptance.

 

The "everyone's a winner" mentality.

 

Alex,

 

Me and some other "You guys" are merely proposing a different way to 'certify'.  

 

You and some other people have stated that there is a reason that NBTHK does not certify gimei blades but have not stated the actual reasoning.  

 

To answer your question:  I would certify that the signature is false or questionable or whatever conclusion me and my panel came to when we looked at the sword and at the same time I/we would give the sword an attribution.  DONE.

 

What I want to know is why the NBTHK does things the way it does.  There have been some good guesses as to why.  There are also responses that are dismissive and blaming the questioners with statements like:

 

"This thread seems very suited to folks that own gimei, looking for a reason for some acceptance.  The "everyone's a winner" mentality."

 

Speaking for myself, that is absolutely not my state of mind.  I believe that the current social environment of "PC" and "Everyone is Special" is extremely problematic for society.  But, in my opinion, that doesn't have anything to do with this thread or the reason I'm asking questions.

[Alex A]

Jeremy

 

Just 2 different points of view.

 

See so much dishonesty with Antiques, i have no sympathy for fake mei

 

Its a tough world out there and plenty of folks lost money

 

For me, i guess that's all there is to it.

 

Ps, mentioned a ww2 knife a while ago where someone added a date. Didnt fool me but fooled someone else. The knife sold for £900, it was worth a lot less. Point being, still unscrupulous dealers out there and still folks playing shenanigans to add value. 

[French nihonto]

1 hour ago, Alex A said:

You guys are talking like all fake mei are a work of art and of reasonable accuracy regarding school/smith, when a lot of time they are utter BS and do nothing whatsoever for the blade, as i said earlier, they are just DISHONEST.

 

If you want a pink slip or whatever with who they think made the blade, then great, I'm all for that.

 

This thread seems very suited to folks that own gimei, looking for a reason for some acceptance.

I don't think our own collection has anything to do with this debate. We're just proposing a solution to preserve as many blades as possible for future generations. Just for the study of fake signatures, why they were made, at what time, by whom, for whom? etc... questions that are not yet fully answered. Or do you think the signature is more important than the blade? So a very nice blade with a fake signature shouldn't be studied, nor preserved? 
It's a question of study and preservation, not of personal materialism and pecuniary reasons.
In any case, there seems to be no end to this debate. 
 

[Alex A]

As mentioned, dont have the interest in fake mei

 

Love blades though, 

 

I see why you guys are interested though so best i let you get back on track

 

Cheers

 

[Brian]

Gimei is essentially a counterfeit. It's fraud. Apart from a few exceptions, they were made to deceive and for dishonest purposes.
Personally, I see no problem with professional mei removal that is almost unnoticeable if the mei has been certified fake by the leading authorities. I wouldn't want an average painting signed with the name Picasso, and wouldn't wear a Citizen branded Rolex. We collect the swords as art, and the workmanship comes before the name. Having a counterfeit name on a sword just means further down the line, someone is going to try and sell it as shoshin. Many dealers or owners wouldn't even supply paperwork that certified something as gimei when they sell it.
We don't collect "part of its history", we collect art swords. Or militaria. Not relics. That's why polishing is the goal if you can afford it. You don't keep rust and flaws just because they are "part of its history"

 

[Franco D]

1 hour ago, Mark S. said:

Does NBTHK paper blades that have horimono or bohi added later in a blade’s life?  Shouldn’t those also be disqualified due to “not original to the blade”? or “not representing the interest of the swordsmith”?

 

 I cannot speak for the NBTHK. What I can say though, is that the very first truly old blade I had the privilege of viewing and studying was a Ko Naminohira katana/tachi. What a fantastic blade. To date the best Naminohira I've ever seen. That blade at some point in time had horimono added. The horimono was primo, truly first rate. It is my understanding that one of the sword's previous owners tried a shot at having it pass Juyo. It was refused for the very reason it had ato-bori. More than that I do not know. 

 

Added horimono is not the same as gimei. Gimei is a corruption. Get over it!

[Matsunoki]

We could keep going on this for ever…..just another complex aspect to this fascinating subject with many different individual perspectives.

I always like to challenge established procedures and precedents (it was my corporate job) and it’s amazing what questions emerge……its also amazing how unpopular it makes you🙂

eg

How Do we know for sure that all the established reference books are correct?…many are quite old and the Japanese are very keen to support the opinions of their elders (nothing per se wrong with that) without challenge.

 

What about pupils signing for masters?

 

Masters signing pupils work?

 

Did smiths deliberately change calligraphy styles…..why? When?

 

Did smiths use different chisels/punches …..why? When?

 

Smiths calligraphy changing over time as they age (my writing is nearly illegible now…..were they any different?)

 

What are the actual reasons for gimei? I’m sure there are many and various

 

When was gimei performed on the sword and why? Original to manufacture or later for monetary gain, vanity etc

 

…and so on. Lots of buns there to throw at one another!

A bit tongue in cheek but do we know all any of the answers….for sure?

Happy days

Colin (who has gimei swords that he really likes and doesn’t give a stuff about them being gimei)

 

 

[Peter D]

@Matsunoki exactly!

 

The loathing of gimei rests solely on the assumption that all are (recent) attempts at fraud.

 

While this may often be the case, let's not carry away the wounded with the dead.

 

There have for example been several cases of gimei blades where signatures were removed, after which the NBTHK attributed the blade to the very maker whose name was just removed. Certainly these mei weren't fraudulent in the sense that they were trying to attribute the blade to a better maker, they were honest attributions made by someone else, accurate enough for the NBTHK to come to the same conclusion.

 

Who made the attribution we don't know. But if we remove them we are certain to never find out.

 

[Franco D]

And all this time I thought the pointed end of nihonto was the important part. 

[Mark S.]

1) Shoshin blade
2) Mumei blade

3) blade that has had it Shoshin mei removed due to suriage and is now mumei

4) blade with gimei removed

5) blade with gimei intact

 

All 5 have 1 thing in common… the blade is the same.  That is all I am saying.  

[rematron]

Here are some thoughts from Darcy in the link @Brian shared. Another relevant and interesting thread.

 

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/22402-gimei-swords/?do=findComment&comment=227379

 

Here is a bit of what Darcy said:

 

"The problem is always that books are not exhaustive and treating them as a canonical set of signatures "or else it's gimei" doesn't allow you to ever change what you know. Once written the book can't be updated. If science is frozen in time at any point of time, a lot of bad ideas remain with us. The nature of science is that evidence contrary to the theories when introduced, if shown to be true, forces the theories to be discarded or updated. 

 

The nature of swords is that when evidence contrary to the theories when introduced, causes the evidence to be destroyed. This is a bad habit. 

 

The main problem is that this process is iterative: we discover new swords. If it doesn't match the book, erase it. Keep looking for swords. This guarantees erasing of outliers. But if you got 10 outliers together in one shot and put them down and they all confirm each other, you'd have to update the book. This is the whole problem then, the process of selecting them one at a time and destroying them by pronouncing them as not matching the book."

[Jussi Ekholm]

Unfortunately I don't have accurate info on the dates when Kunimura tachi mei was removed. Jūyō 22 which is the first time I have info on it was 1974. Then when I got the Jūyō 49 book year of that session was 2003. So somewhere during that time the mei was inserted on to the tang. I tried to look into the item descriptions on both books but they just mention that original signature was lost when sword was shortened but the piece remained. I remember Darcy possibly talked about this particular sword many years ago, perhaps his posts might have had more info on the item.

 

I am not that well versed in newer swords but I was reading the end of Shinshintō book of Nihontō Kōza (it is fairly old book), where there is long discussion about gimei with examples and references. I must admit it goes well beyond my understanding... For example just for Shinshintō gimei there are 3 different categories in the book. 1. Period gimei, made around the time the sword was made 2. Recent gimei, made c. 1935 when appreciation for newer swords started to boom 3. Present day gimei, made after WWII. I must admit I am often banging my head when I read the Japanese descriptions on fine details as they are so "adjective" and hard to understand for my brain. For example, cut boldly, with strength very skilled tagane movement etc. To me this is very difficult to understand as I am not artistic person in general.

 

There are of course the really bad signature fakes but I think they are not really that dangerous as they would be quite obvious to spot. Still I think in overall it could be fun research subject. There must be people who really know a lot about these, as just reading the gimei section of Kōza kinda blew my mind...

 

I think one kind of fun and "problematic for profit" items that have NBTHK (or other) papers, are the ones where Kuni fumei is mentioned in the brackets, mostly combined with approximate age of the item. As that indicates that they were unable to put it towards known smiths but they acknowledge the signature and the date of the item.

 

[David Flynn]

[Paz]

3 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

Unfortunately I don't have accurate info on the dates when Kunimura tachi mei was removed. Jūyō 22 which is the first time I have info on it was 1974. Then when I got the Jūyō 49 book year of that session was 2003. So somewhere during that time the mei was inserted on to the tang. I tried to look into the item descriptions on both books but they just mention that original signature was lost when sword was shortened but the piece remained. I remember Darcy possibly talked about this particular sword many years ago, perhaps his posts might have had more info on the item.

 

I am not that well versed in newer swords but I was reading the end of Shinshintō book of Nihontō Kōza (it is fairly old book), where there is long discussion about gimei with examples and references. I must admit it goes well beyond my understanding... For example just for Shinshintō gimei there are 3 different categories in the book. 1. Period gimei, made around the time the sword was made 2. Recent gimei, made c. 1935 when appreciation for newer swords started to boom 3. Present day gimei, made after WWII. I must admit I am often banging my head when I read the Japanese descriptions on fine details as they are so "adjective" and hard to understand for my brain. For example, cut boldly, with strength very skilled tagane movement etc. To me this is very difficult to understand as I am not artistic person in general.

 

There are of course the really bad signature fakes but I think they are not really that dangerous as they would be quite obvious to spot. Still I think in overall it could be fun research subject. There must be people who really know a lot about these, as just reading the gimei section of Kōza kinda blew my mind...

 

I think one kind of fun and "problematic for profit" items that have NBTHK (or other) papers, are the ones where Kuni fumei is mentioned in the brackets, mostly combined with approximate age of the item. As that indicates that they were unable to put it towards known smiths but they acknowledge the signature and the date of the item.

 

This. 

 

We all know at the end of the shinshinto period, sword smiths were struggling to make ends meet. Which meant that gimei was added to swords, and this went on until the 1930s, and up to the modern period. 

 

Which means we have genuine quality shinshinto blades which have been given gimei for financial reasons, personal to the smith who needs to make ends meet. 

 

Unfortunate as it sounds. But these were desperate times for smiths.

[PNSSHOGUN]

4 hours ago, Peter D said:

@Matsunoki exactly!

 

The loathing of gimei rests solely on the assumption that all are (recent) attempts at fraud.

 

While this may often be the case, let's not carry away the wounded with the dead.

 

There have for example been several cases of gimei blades where signatures were removed, after which the NBTHK attributed the blade to the very maker whose name was just removed. Certainly these mei weren't fraudulent in the sense that they were trying to attribute the blade to a better maker, they were honest attributions made by someone else, accurate enough for the NBTHK to come to the same conclusion.

 

Who made the attribution we don't know. But if we remove them we are certain to never find out.

 

 

Are we talking about Gimei or attributions done in lacquer or gold? Because I would love to know more about these 'honest' souls that were chiseling in Mei on swords with absolutely no intent of fraud!

[Alex A]

One thing i forgot to mention so i will mention it now.

 

Not mentioning names, but aware of dealers that have basically made a living out of selling very expensive and likely gimei swords.

 

No mention of the possibility of fake mei anywhere to alert naïve newcomers (which i find unbelievably deceitful)

 

The unknowing buyer reads the description, the swordsmith name, does a bit of googling and thinks they own a sword by a certain smith.

 

You wont receive any guarantees should the sword be sent to INDEPENDENT shinsa but you will get a piece of paper saying its authentic from them.

 

Its possible some get returned within a short time, only if the buyer does that bit of homework (as some do once they receive)

 

Many folks have overpaid for swords

 

Point being, gimei swords continue in this day and age to profit some and rob others.

 

Not just with these dealers, only need look through the well known auctions etc.

 

But hey ho, its a part of the history,

 

 

[Peter D]

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

Point being, gimei swords continue in this day and age to profit some and rob others.

Not just with these dealers, only need look through the well known auctions etc.

But hey ho, its a part of the history,

 

You're going around in circles and fail to see the other side.

 

We have already acknowledged that these exist, and are a problem, and such modern mei meant to deceive are best removed.

 

However, as Darcy has pointed out, and I, and others, there are those mei that are old, not by the smith, but not meant to deceive. In some cases, we don't know too much about them other than that the style differs from the smith's own hand. If we remove them, we will never learn more.

 

So the preservationists call for not indiscriminately remove all mei that differ slightly from the known mei in the books. That's all.

[French nihonto]

2 hours ago, Alex A said:

Sans mentionner les noms, mais au courant des revendeurs qui ont essentiellement gagné leur vie en vendant des épées gimei très chères et probables.

I completely agree with you, but is it the blade that is fundamentally dishonest, or is it the merchant who decides to be dishonest? 

I'd like to cite an example of a sword that everyone here knows.
Kondo Isami's katana.
It's well known that the Kotetsu of the Shinsengumi chief is actually a fake. But at the time, Kondo simply liked the blade because its steel was pleasant and it cut really well. And it wasn't until the Meiji era that the sword was established as a Gimei. By the end of the Edo period, it was considered Shoshin. 
Now what do we do with these blades? Which belonged to these great figures in Japanese history. Because I don't think Kondo was the only big name to wear a Gimei. And even though they knew swords well, many wore this kind of blade, Gimei but effective in combat. These blades are historically important, effective in combat and therefore well made. But it's impossible to find a piece of paper confirming that they're worth keeping, or else you'd have to remove the Mei from this kotetsu? Or give it to a martial artist to train with? 

[Alex A]

40 minutes ago, Peter D said:

 

You're going around in circles and fail to see the other side.

 

We have already acknowledged that these exist, and are a problem, and such modern mei meant to deceive are best removed.

 

However, as Darcy has pointed out, and I, and others, there are those mei that are old, not by the smith, but not meant to deceive. In some cases, we don't know too much about them other than that the style differs from the smith's own hand. If we remove them, we will never learn more.

 

So the preservationists call for not indiscriminately remove all mei that differ slightly from the known mei in the books. That's all.

 

I would suggest if NBTHK call gimei, it would have a lot more to do with what else is going on with the blade then a change of style with the mei.

 

See allowances for mei all the time, just look at the variety of papered Sukesada as an example, individual smiths im talking about, obviously not the entire bunch

 

Owned blades where the mei dont match the norm, papered

 

Can only expect NBTHK or whoever to take this so far.

 

Actually, do now feel like im going around in circles because all this is OLD News

[Alex A]

40 minutes ago, French nihonto said:

I completely agree with you, but is it the blade that is fundamentally dishonest, or is it the merchant who decides to be dishonest? 

I'd like to cite an example of a sword that everyone here knows.
Kondo Isami's katana.
It's well known that the Kotetsu of the Shinsengumi chief is actually a fake. But at the time, Kondo simply liked the blade because its steel was pleasant and it cut really well. And it wasn't until the Meiji era that the sword was established as a Gimei. By the end of the Edo period, it was considered Shoshin. 
Now what do we do with these blades? Which belonged to these great figures in Japanese history. Because I don't think Kondo was the only big name to wear a Gimei. And even though they knew swords well, many wore this kind of blade, Gimei but effective in combat. These blades are historically important, effective in combat and therefore well made. But it's impossible to find a piece of paper confirming that they're worth keeping, or else you'd have to remove the Mei from this kotetsu? Or give it to a martial artist to train with? 

 

I'm not for a rampant removal cull of gimei mei. If anything has a chance of being genuine then im sure it should be left alone.

 

Also sure NBTHK or whoever are well aware of this point.

 

There's a difference between the majority and the ones we can get nit-picky about

Edited December 6, 2023 by Alex A

[Peter D]

39 minutes ago, Alex A said:

Also sure NBTHK or whoever are well aware of this point.

 

I think we need to step off this idea of the NBTHK as some sacred, all-knowing organization whose ways are set in stone.

Their opinion is probably one of the best opinions we can get on swords, but it's still an opinion based on their current knowledge. And opinions can be subject to change when more facts present themselves.

 

Have you read Darcy's article that was linked to above? From your posts, it seems you haven't taken the time to absorb that. Its a good example of only one of many instances where mei can differ but still be "correct".

 

Another good example is the gimei Kotetsu blade worn by the Shinsengumi chief. He wore it as such historically. Why should we alter it now?

 

Research is ongoing and may reveal important information later. It is important not to get stuck in dogma, especially when you're about to alter something on a sword that may have been there for centuries.

 

If one buys an unpapered blade with a big name, its a very big risk unless one really knows what they are doing, and very few people do. We shouldn't destroy potentially important information on sword tangs just to protect this group of people.

[Alex A]

Well, as for NBTHK being "all sacred", would you buy an expensive sword without papers ?

 

I mentioned mei variance in my last post and don't need to read the article. Lots written on why mei can be so different and don't have the time or inclination to start digging it up.

 

Made points about the "majority" but seems you didn't read that either. 

 

Like others here, seen so many "is this real?" threads where folk get told no, gimei. 

 

Basic kantei, blade first, too much emphasis on mei, especially FAKE mei.

 

We are looking at this from two different angles, that's all.

 

Anyways, made points, now better do some work lol

 

 

 

[Benjamin]

Hi All,

 

That's a passionate debate, allow me to introduce a neophyte opinion but I think seeing multiples bias to take in count :

 

1) not including each one purpose and point of view of the nihonto field  :

 

Nihonto is a fascinating object because it exceptionnaly cross multiple ways of appreciation : Nihonto is at the time an art object, historic witness, artifact, weapon and warrior item, martial art tool, religious and spiritual tool, object of knowledge field, legendary and fantasies pretext, exotic item (for non Japanese), expensive and resale thing with an existing market.

Some collect to resell, some collect to protect, some collect just to collect, some collect with historical interest... and maybe some collect with multiples purposes. I don't think there is dogma and none is superior to another... but your purpose on collecting will drastically change your point of view on gimei.

What would be an hollistic point of view on Gimei respecting all of each one purposes?

 

2) comparing Nihonto with what it should not be compared :

 

A Rolex watch is not a weapon and it's not a craftmenship product : each nihonto, even a Gimei is unique!! At a point there is people that plays a game consisting at recognizing them without seeing the signature... (don't do that with authentic rollex produced the same day, they are the same). I would say there is nothing more similar to a Nihonto than another Nihonto BUT there is Nothing more different to a Nihonto than another Nihonto.

A Picasso is not a spiritual object that we salute before appreciating it and in other hand owning a Picasso don't allow you to modificate it, that's a bit different in nihonto where we saw owner doing... you've got more exemples than me.

Have you heard about the second "La joconde". a picture with strong doubt about it Da Vinci authership. What yould you say if the actual owner changed it signature to enhance it theory?

Another question, If you bow before examinating your sword, do you do it with Gimei the same as mumei or Shoshin?

 

3) Applying an occidental point of view on an oriental object :

 

There is an honesty matter or what you judge honest or dishonest in YOUR reference where as in Japan it could be more an Honor matter. There is a reality conception or what you judge true but Japan is also a shintoïst country with a different conception of what is living or inert : We could conceive that swords are living : they grow old, take scars, are modified, one day will disapear...

 

4) Applying a modern point of view on an antic item :

 

Judging a 300 old gimei item as dishonest? So why not judging Oda Nobunaga himself? (And he wasn't a cool guy like you all). Why collecting historical war item and "murder tools" if it's an ethical problem? An old modification should not be judge as a recent modifcation.

 

Hoping my english (and opinion) is not hurting your eye, I am more on the side of the "respect it like it is even if it is Gimei" but I want to thankful all participant to this great debate that provided me much.

 

Benjamin

 

[GeorgeLuucas]

This whole thread is a fantastic example of the can-of-worms I try to avoid by only collecting: unpapered mumei and/or papered zaimei

For me it comes down to personal preference as the collector. I often attend militaria shows, and frequently witness people buying gimei swords over mumei swords simply because "it's signed" - with no further thought or care.

Personally, I'd rather have a sword with a big flaw than a fake signature.

I consider gimei not only dishonest, but the opposite of a conversation piece... By the time I explain all the ins-and-outs of the history of gimei, the person i'm conversing with will have lost all interest. 

I like the advice of buying the blade, and not the signature; but to get to that point I need a higher level of knowledge and need to see more shoshin swords. 

Just my two cents
-Sam

[Matsunoki]

perhaps worth considering that we don’t all necessarily collect the same things for the same reasons.
Personally I try to collect swords not blades. I like to collect swords/tanto that remain untouched since the last samurai owner put it down for the last time…..with full koshirae even if a bit damaged and grubby. You can tell if something has been mucked around with. To me that is a 100% genuine sword as carried by samurai (or of course merchant etc).  To me it is 100% honest even if gimei and it was obviously good enough for whoever owned and carried it. To me it is certainly not fake nor is it intended to deceive. It is original to its last owners taste or wealth and thus genuine.

That mindset enables me to feel far more relaxed about some of the trickier points debated in this thread.

Anyone who collects blades in fine polish and shirasaya has a totally different perspective and thus far less tolerance for gimei. Same goes for people who just collect a particular smith, school, period, province etc

I can sometimes imagine the persona of the owner….big and brutal, vain, good taste, no taste, tall, short, strong, weak, rich, poor etc etc …it just widens the hobby  beyond just the blade. Yes I know a lot of that is pure speculation but so what? It’s fun. 

I think  thats why I’m on the side of “leave it alone”. 
Happy days!  Colin

 

 

[Paz]

@Alex A some great advice. I agree that many people have fallen foul of dealers. And this is why research and papers are helpful for especially people starting out, and even advanced levels. I'm pretty sure there are 1 or 2 experienced collectors who may have been deceived, or actually taken a punt at acquiring what they may have been a genuine work to make money on.

But if I'm collecting via a certain school, smith, then yes. I absolutely want to know what I'm buying. 

 

 

Now, imagine if we are at a sword show ect or see a sword which is very attractive, well made, and you really want it,  at a good price. Would we look over it because it has a gimei signature? In that case what are people willing to pay for gimei ? I for one beleive any gimei over 3k is pushing it. But then it depends on how well made the work is and if its a ubu, katana length, smith  But im open to be wrong, just my 2 cents. 

 

But Japanese swords, of all works of art be it paintings ect. Has a well known and slightly approved history of gimei, fake signatures, deception ect. What I mean by "approved" is that some of these works were requested by their potential owners to be given famous signatures of long dead or alive smiths. Smiths purposely made gimei to make a living at the end of the shinshinto period. Its part of history.

 

But the international market in my opinion, is what has made the NBTHK take a serious position in regards to papering gimei. With so much money and reputation at stake, I understand that the NBTHK don't want to paper a gimei, which a dodgy dealer can then twist to his or her favour. 

 

But at the end of the day. Aren't we collecting for whats on the blade ? The artistic merits ? . 

 

Regards