Mei removed?

[Stephen]

If so why?

[Spartancrest]

Spelling mistake? 

 

No, I am bewildered why this happens. I note that many Seiryuken Eiju tsuba have half the signature removed particularly on the tanto/hamidashi size pieces. Is this some sort of school quality control? 

Seiryuken Eiju  

 

Perhaps some signatures were obvious Gimei and were removed in order for the "true" workmanship to prevail? I have for instance a Soten school piece that was signed "Umetada Myoju" as an attempt to gain more money [poor attempt to deceive] It does make these "erased" pieces very interesting talking points.

[Stephen]

Thank you Dale what if one was to send it in for papers would they kick it out just because of that removal?

[Spartancrest]

6 hours ago, Stephen said:

send it in for papers would they kick it out just because of that removal?

I couldn't guess. It could be a kantei point for Seiryuken Eiju tanto - they all seem to have it?  One here in a museum from Osaka 

https://www.ikm-art.jp/degitalmuseum/num/002/0020164000.html   [Sorry to hijack the thread with Eiju examples, but they were a group that I am familiar with]

 

[I have never been a big fan of papers myself, I like the tsuba not the ephemera that is someone elses opinion at one time] 

[Tim Evans]

Why? No way to know for sure, but probably a sword dealer or collector playing the shinsa game with tsuba. 

• Item submitted to shinsa, and deemed gimei
• Mei removed, resubmitted, and then papered as mumei shoshin to some school
• This is frequently done with gimei swords

 

For example, here is a yamakichibei tsuba with the mei removed. It was papered to Umetada. This is unfortunate because it was probably not gimei. 

[Stephen]

I never paper anything unless it was something really spectacular

 

The other side, I think I'll make a bid on it nothing to write home about but like dragons as you guys know and I'm pretty sure it's not a repo I could be wrong nowadays