docliss

Come on guys, is there no member out there who can add something to this thread? John L.

Attached are images of a pair of iron fuchi-gashira, decorated in high relief with the pentagonal star of the Abe family. One of these is on the kashira and two on the fuchi, protruding above its ji. This pair is ex the Joly, Peak and Blockley collections. It is described in the Joly sale catalogue as being by Yoshitoki and this artist is listed as Y268 in Joly’s Shōsankenshu, where the author adds ‘Tempo 13’ – clearly the entry was taken from this pair in his own collection, and there is no reference to this artist in any of the other literature. They passed through the Peak collection, and were purchased by Blockley at the third Peak sale. They then appeared as lot no 581 in the Blockley sale, accompanied by a note in Blockley’s hand stating that ‘in Joly’s sale catalogue this is wrongly stated to be signed Yoshtoki, an erroneous reading of Kichi Shin which is really “Lucky Time” or “Lucky Season.”’ There is thus some question regarding the inscription on the fuchi, which is presently translated as: TEMPO JU SAN MIDZUNOYE TORA NEN (Tempo 13 (1842) 39 Tiger Year (1842) MORISEIKA YOSHITOKI. The pair has been attributed as late Umetada work. Any observations will be gratefully received. With thanks, John L.

Michael, I have never personally seen any of the smaller fittings reliably attributed to a Bushū worker, but in the Baur Catalogue are listed three such kozuka. D191 is signed Okada Masatoyo, D201 Ito Masanari and D202 Ito Masahiro. The first two are of iron while the third, illustated on p.240, is of shakudō. John L.

I agree with Jason that most of the gilding on Edo Kinkō work is achieved by the reduction of a mercury/gold amalgam by the application of heat. This process, known as ‘fire–gilding’, was outlawed in England by the end of the 18th century because of the extremely poisonous nature of the mercury vapour it releases. It was discovered in China during the Warring States period (480 - 221 BC) and was widely used in Japan in the Heian period (749 – 1185 AD), where it was known as yakitsuke. Cold mercury leaf gilding, achieved by the adhesion of gold leaf to a surface previously treated by the application of mercury, is an alternative method of gilding which does not necessitate the use of heat. Hawley, in his publication The Application of Gold on Japanese Sword Fittings, states that the surface has to be a soft-metal or alloy and that this process will not work on iron; that the higher the percentage of copper in the base metal the better the gold adheres; and that when the amalgam is applied directly onto iron ‘it runs off like water on waxed paper’. Nevertheless, a modification of this gilding process does enable its use on iron artefacts. Anheuser affirms in An Investigation of Amalgam Gilding and Silvering on Metalwork how, by electron microprobe studies of 16th century, gilded plate armour, he was able to detect the presence of a layer of copper between the iron and steel artefacts and the applied gold. He also describes how such a layer may be fairly simply achieved. Further studies might detect the presence of copper underlying the gold on iron tsuba and indicate the use of such modified gold/amalgam gilding. This would be of particular relevance to the decoration found on many tsuba of the Namban group. John L.

Thank you both for your responses. I think that I favour Ludolf's SADANAGA as the most probable attribution, in view of the very marked similarity between his posted mei and that on my tsuba. The expertise in this group never ceases to amaze me. John L.

Are there any suggestions as to a possible attribution for this tsuba? I believe that the mei reads KISHU (NO)JU SADAKANE, but the vertical yasurime on the plate make it very difficult to identify the kanji with any certainty. It measures 7.0 – 7.0 – 0.3 cm , and there are granular tekkotsu on the mimi. There are dark copper sekigane in the nakago-hitsu and, sadly, the shakudō umagane in the kōgai-hitsu has lost some of its patination. Any suggestions will be gratefully received, John L.

I have recently purchased a tsuba from that site, and cannot praise it highly enough. The tsuba was better than expected, arrived promptly, and was beautifully packed. To his credit , the vendor also includes surface postage in his stated charges. John L.

Attached are the scans of Haynes catalogue #7, as requested by Steve. Jiohn L.

Thank you, Mariusz, I do seem to be outvoted on this one, but remain unconvinced by the opposing arguments. Most members claim that the quite convincing mei has been 'added later', but I am puzzled by the way the vertical stroke of the 'shu' kanji has been impinged upon by the zozuka hitsu - surely suggesting that this latter was a later modification in the tsuba's timescale? Kind regards, John L.

Dear Roy There has been a sad lack of response to your query regarding the mei on your fuchi. I agree that TOSHIHARU is the correct reading, and Haynes lists three artists using these kanji, of whom two are possible attributions. Of these two the second, H 10318.0, appears to be the most likely artist of your piece, the mei being very like that illustrated as T305 in Joly’s Shosankenshu. This artist is described as atudent of Fujita Toshinaga, and was working in the second half of the nineteenth century. Nara Toshiharu, working in the second half of the seventeenth century is a much less likely attribution. In reply to your second question, Ko Nara work should include the work of the first four masters – N.Toshiteru, N.Toshimune, N.Toshiharu and N.Toshinaga, their students and co-workers. N.Toshiharu was the first of these artists to sign his work. John L.

It is my impression that, possibly as a result of the excellent threads that have recently been posted on this noticeboard, the ‘pendulum has swung the other way’ and there is a tendency for members too readily to dismissively label posted examples as being cast copies. It is certainly wise, in the current market, to retain an index of suspicion when assessing tsuba, but perhaps the ‘innnocent until proved guilty’ maxim should be more frequently applied? I agree with Brian that the sekigane do look a little suspicious, but would point out that if the ana are ‘off’, as suggested by two members, this is not an indication of casting, but would have been a feature of the original tsuba from which the matrix was taken. This tsuba – is it of sentoku or bronze? – is a depiction of Gama Sennin and his attendant toad. The ura surface shows some evidence of previous mounting, and the kozuka-hitsu appears to be a later modification, impinging as it does upon a very acceptable mei. It is my opinion that this is an original work by one of the later members of the Suruga school. It is certainly later than the third generation master, who died in 1788, and might possibly be considered as evidence of later Suruga generations, for example Takayuki, who died in 1895. John L.

Yes, The Index of Japanese Sword Fittings and Associated Artists by Robert E Haynes. John L.

Dear Edward, your tsuba is, as Robert suggests, typical nineteenth century, Bushū work. It depicts, in low relief engraving, the branches and blossom of a cherry tree upon what is essentially a solid-plate tsuba. Haynes lists three Bushū artists using these kanji, which are very formally inscribed on your tsuba` (H 04592.0 – H 04594.0), but he gives no further details of any of them; presumably one of these three artists is the maker of your tsuba. I am attaching an image of a further tsuba signed BUSHU (NO)JU MASATOSHI, but the mei differs to some extent from that on yours and it is probably by another of Haynes’ three named artists. John L.

How about 'both are copies, taken from a single matrix by the lost wax method'? John L.

Dear Roy Is the collection that you refer to that of the Truro City Museum? I have in my library a Catalogue of Oshigata & Index of Signed Pieces: Part (2) that you collated in 1984 and, speaking personally, I would love to see the original photographs of this collection. Nice to have contact with you again after our little E-bay connection some years ago. Kind regards, John L.

As is to be expected with the number of artists using this mei, the quality of Kunihiro work is very variable. The attached image demonstrates the better quality of work which may be found, and also incorporates the decorative sekigane to which Haynes alludes. John L.

KUNIHIRO (H 03588.0) W: Bushū jū D: 1700 – 1800 NTS: though in most sources this name is listed as a single artist, it is much more likely that it was four or five artists working during the above hundred year period. The difference in the style of the signatures is far too great for it to be but one artist. The fact that in almost all cases they used copper plugs at the top and bottom of the nakago ana has never been explained. Ex Haynes’ Index, p.744. John L.

Oh dear, what is it with some NMB members that makes them respond so defensively to any opinion expressed that is at variance to their own? While personally I see no aesthetic value – that word again – in the several illustrated tsuba, I do find it of considerable interest to see evidence of the Onin/Heiangō transition that may be seen on early Heiangō-zōgan work. John L.

Dear Joe Although I am unable to suggest a definite attribution for your tsuba, I believe the design to be representative of a waterway, with rocks and gabions. I am attaching images of two tsuba from my own collection that are very similar to this – even to the faintly engraved lines, from which the inlay has been lost, which resemble the fern-like decoration that is visible at 7 o’clock on both of your images. The second tsuba has a shakudō fukurin and a single kozuka-hitsu: the plate may have been reduced in size. The gabions on all three tsuba appear to have been pre-cast before being inlayed. All the tsuba obviously have considerable age, and quite a lot of the crude inlay has become detached. A fourth tsuba is illustrated on p.90, #71, of Illustrated Catalogues of Tokyo National Museum: Sword Guard, where it is labelled ‘design of gabions, Heianjō school, Edo Period, 17th century’. Regards, John L.

Surely this is simply a hamidashi tsuba with an unusually shaped kozuka-hitsu? John L.

Personally, I would interpret this design as being that of a butterfly. John L.

My only observation would be upon the remarkably unworn state of the nakago-hitsu for a tsuba of its supposed age. John L.

Thank you, Ford, for your observations - insightful as always. John.

Subsequent to my earlier posting, I am now able to add a sixth tsuba to this group: 6. #402 in the Christie’s sale of Japanese Art and Design, held on 12 May, 2010. This is mumei, unattributed, and the theme apparently unrecognised, but is clearly very similar to the others in this group. Is there not sufficient consistency among these tsuba to posit that they are possibly the work of a single group of tsubako? John L.

Thank you, Christian, for your kind comments. I do agree with your observation that these tsuba demonstrate a strong Western influence, and would be very interested to hear Ford's observations upon how he views them. Kind regards, John L.