Gimei blades

Hi,

I’ve a question about gimei blades, or more precisely blades with signatures by notable smiths with no authentication.

What are the factors to consider in determining if a blade is gimei? If a sword has the characteristics you would expect of the smith in question are there other warning signs of a gimei blade, or is sending it to a shinsa the only way to be confident?

Also, and this may be a silly question, but in general were gimei blades made to try and deceive people, attempting to mimic the style and characteristics of the smith who’s signature was used, or a blade not necessarily resembling the work of smith who's name was put on the blade?

Any insights or information would be very welcome.

Many thanks,

Adam.


gimei

Gimei determination (and shinsa in general) is a very imprecise thing. Even if you get a top expert in Japan to give their opinion, it is still an opinion. They don't have any magic abilities.
I think only the most advanced collectors can even attempt to make a gimei decision. Of course, if important features are "way off", then it might be easy to say gimei.
A less-advanced collector will attempt to simply compare the "handwriting" of the mei to examples in the famous books. But I wouldn't be very confident in the results.
One gimei parameter that is not mentioned much is that the chances of gimei are much higher with certain names. Two that come to mind are Bizen Yasumitsu and Sukesada. I was told by a collector/dealer in Japan that Bizen Yasumitsu has about a 70% chance of being false. If the name is obscure, it is quite unlikely to be gimei (in my opinion).

The general belief is that blades were falsely signed for monetary reasons, to sell to unwary customers. Swordsmithing has always been a business, so there is incentive to make blades that sell for higher prices.

Pete

Gimei

Thanks Pete, That's what I wanted to know. I have two blades with signatures that might be gimei as they have never been to shinsa, I had resigned myself to never being sure about them. One is a good clean blade that looks to my inexpert eye to display the features I would expect if the blade was genuine, although the signature is not typical of the smith in question. The other is a rusty wreck, the signature is so badly rusted it's nearly impossible to read but I think I worked it out. However the blade is too far gone to see anything beyond the outline of the hamon, and not worth getting polished to find out more. I'll just have to be content with not be sure about either. Thanks again.

unknown students

Another possible explanation for a non-matching mei is that it could have been done by a student in the "family" that is simply not well known or not well documented.
There is also the situation of a blade made by the "master", but signed by a student (I forget the word for this).

Also, if a smith made blades over many years, his "handwriting" can change somewhat. For a big-name smith, this will be well documented, but for most guys...

All of this uncertainty is why I try to advise new collectors to not focus on signatures and gimei and such. Us Westerners tend to get fixated on these things, and it distorts our perceptions.
A quality blade is a quality blade, regardless of what the mei says. It is valuable to learn how to recognize and appreciate a quality blade without reading the mei.

Pete

Gimei

Thanks for the additional information Pete.

The issue with the mei is not so much the style but the wording. When I was in contact with Markus Sesko about it he seemed to feel it may be an early signature before the smith was given his honorary title. There don’t seem to be any other examples of this exact signature though.

For all the research I’ve done looking for other examples of his work to compare my blade to, I’m not confident about my ability judge what I’m seeing.

I don’t want to get too caught up in wanting it to be genuine. My feeling is that it is based on other examples in pictures, but maybe I’m seeing the things that back that up not the things that undermine it.

I understand what you’re saying about not getting hung up on signatures. I suppose my reason for trying to assess if the mei is genuine or not is mostly that as a novice I don’t really know if it’s a good blade or not, and if the mei is real I would think it should be good, and study it as such.

I’m not in a position to look at any blades other than my own, except in books and online.

Maybe one day I will get a chance to have someone look at it who could tell me more. This blade is the one that got me looking at nihonto in depth and sparked a real interest for me, so even if it is gimei, it’s given me a lot.

Thanks again.