docliss

Dear Ford Thank you for your recent posting regarding the etymology of the word ‘kebori’. But, while you have clarified this beautifully, you have also created considerable confusion regarding its use. Are you suggesting, then, that we should utilise it to describe ‘any line that is cut by means of a ‘V' shaped chisel’ – surely that could also apply to katakiri-bori – or should it be used, as I understand it, solely to describe the ‘line-carving’ such as one sees in, for example, Nobuie work? Kind regards, John L.

I regret that I have come rather late to this thread but, while all the pieces share a common legendary theme, the quality of the work on the fuchi-gashira is markedly superior to that on the tsuba. Are we then agreed that the former are probably genuine examples of work by Takase Eiju (H 00436.0), and the latter a later copy, made by another Mito artist, to match the f-g and complete the set? Regards, John L.

Dear Jimi, I am sorry, but kebori it ain’t! Literally ‘hair-line carving’, kebori comprises thin lines, of constant width and depth, engraved by a V-shaped tagane. Supposedly, no metal is removed from the plate during this process; clearly this cannot be the case with your tsuba. Regards, John L.

Oh dear, I appear to be going out on a limb here ... In my opinion there are no grounds whatsoever for labelling Jimi's tsuba as Nobuie work of any shape or form - apart from the mei, which is almost certainly gimei. The decoration is crude and unskilled and, if as I suspect, it originally contained soft-metal inlay, bears no relation to any known work by these groups. The form of the mimi (especially if it was gilded, won't do and, finally, the quality of the plate disqualifies it. I now sit back and await your comments! Regards, John L.

Some observations on Jimi’s tsuba in order to further the discussion. The carved decoration appears to be too deep to be kebori, and may originally have contained soft metal inlay. Is that a remnant of such that I see at 12 o’clock on the omote surface? While the kōgai-hitsu is probably original, that for the kozuka appears to be a later modification. And is that remnants of gilding that I detect on the mimi? Regards, John L.

Thank you very much, John, for the information on hiirodo. I had read previously a posting by, I think, Ian Bottomly suggesting that the red coloration was obtained by 'heating a copper-containing alloy to a red heat and then plunging it into boiling water'. Is this an alternative method, I wonder? John L.

On p. 201 of the recently published catalogue of the Arts of the Samurai exhibition, currently at the Metropolitan Museum, New York, it is stated ‘machi-bori artists … employed a wider range of material, including hiirodo, a type of copper that is dark red’. Can Ford Hallam please tell me anything about the make-up of this metal; presumably it was an alloy of copper admixed with other trace metal(s)? With thanks in advance, John L.

Come on guys! This tsuba of Steve's is late, Heianjō-zōgan work, with a naturalistic, karakusa design, of not very good iron and with fine lines engraved around the channels for the missing brass inlay. Yes, it is quite unusual for all of the inlay to be missing, but who knows what indignities the tsuba has suffered in its past. Wabi-sabi might dictate the omission of some of the inlay in order to present the impression of wear, but not to this extreme extent. Regards, John L.

Oh dear, I seem to be disgreeing with everybody who has posted to this thread. I cannot agree with Mark that this tsuba 'was about as covered with gold as any you see'. The gold overlay on the stems is very fine in quality, and that on the blossoms has, I am sure, always demonstrated the deliberate appearance of wear that it now shows. But I do agree that it is a fine tsuba. John L.

You may be right, but it is normally the ginko biloba that is illustrated in Japanese art, and that this certainly ain't. John L.

I bow to Richard Stein’s expertise, but both Chōshū and Bushū attributions seem to me to be appropriate. The black colouration of the iron suggest the former, while the high quality of the carving and the generous gold overlay favour the latter. I would suggest C18 Bushū work as an alternative attribution. But what is the design – peony flowers and foliage perhaps? I await Richard’ comments with interest. John L.

What a fascinating and erudite thread this has been - NMB at its very best. John L.

Am I missing something here? Since Shingen tsuba are supposedly made by the decoration of pre-existing, sukashi, iron tsuba with woven wire, what is to prevent this original tsuba from being a signed one? Presumably Nobuharu was the maker of such a tsuba? Incidentally, is not Jean's posted example one of the Mukade rather than the Shingen style - not at all the same thing. Regards, John L.

Oh dear, Rich, I have to share Ford's doubts about the use of uttori on Hizen tsuba. Nunome-zogan, surely? John L.

The kozuka of tanto54 appears to be of good quality. Can any member make any observations upon what appears to be a square nanako, and quite unlike any that I have previously seen? John L.

I agree with Steve that this very attractive tsuba is not the work of Itō Masatsugu (H 04687.0). This artist, the supposed founder of the Itō school, was working ca 1650-1700, and Andrey’s tsuba has nothing like that age. Neither is the mei like that of the master, illustrated on pp. 409a and b of Kinkō Meikan. It is more probably by the later Itō artist (H 04688.0), working ca 1800. Could Andrey really decipher this mei as ‘Odawara (no)Ju …, or was that the eye of faith? As for Stephen’s queries re the large kōgai-hitsu and the aperture on the seppa-dai; apart from wondering if the latter was a method of enlarging the nakago-hitsu, I am awaiting further enlightenment. Regards, John L.

Dear Mariuisz I am by no means ‘the expert of the forum’ to whom Sebastien refers, but I agree with him that this, also, is an example of Chōshū work. While more 3-dimensional in its depiction of the rice plant, it lacks the quality of your previous posting, with the latter’s sharpness of detail. Its provenance is confirmed by the black patination of the plate; the ubu-sukashi depiction of its subject, with a similar depiction on the reverse side; and the scanty gold decoration. It is probably C19 work, and is rather in need of some TLC. Regards, John L.

Dear Mariusz While admiring your collection, I fear that you have one gimei tsuba to add to your collection of gimei blades! I regret that your 'Miboku' tsuba is in no way the work of that Meiko artist, Hamano Shozui. But you can't win them all! Regards, John L.

Dear Mariusz Thank you for sharing your collection with us. Your modesty is very touching - your collection is selective and interesting, and puts a number of our less discriminating members to shame. My only comment would be upon your 'sukashi 1 and 2' which, interestingly, has recently featured as a tsuba kantei in the the latest Northern Token Newsletter. It is inscribed CHOSHU (NO)JU MASASADA, and is an example of late C18 Choshu work. Regards, John L.

I had intended to avoid commenting upon John’s tsuba until he has posted some better images, but David’s suggestion of a Kinai provenance has prompted an earlier reply. One might initially accept such a provenance on the basis of the dragon motif, which has sadly become inseparable from the common perception of the school; the black colouration of the metal plate, acquired from a Chōshū influence; and the broad ryō-hitsu, reflecting the school’s Shōami origins. But here any similarity ends …. Most Kinai tsuba are openwork, demonstrating very detailed carving; they are almost always signed (is that a mei that I see on the omote surface of the seppa-dai?); and the seppa-dai is wrong for those of this school, which are usually koban in shape. No, for all of these reasons I cannot accept a Kinai provenance, but Shōami is a very real possibility, is it not? Regards, John L.

Deare Mikolaj I am not convinced by the mei and kao, but doesn't that read Ikkin rather than Ikkei? As to the meaning of the kanji, I am sure that one of our Japanese experts will be able to translate those for us. I love the tsuba, though - thanks for sharing it with us. Regards, John L. Oops - sorry Koichi!

Dear Charles GOSHU HIKONE JU The town of Hikone in the Province of Omi -living at SOHEISHI NYUDO SOTEN SEI Soheishi is a go, or name Nyudo, a Buddhistic title Soten, the family name Sei, to produce or create I will leave suggested book titles to another member - I don't know where to start (in the literal sense) Regards, John L.

Dear Charles Your tsuba is a good example of Hikone-bori work, such as was introduced by the Sōten family, in Hikone in Omi province, in the early C18. Most of such work is but a poor imitation of their original style, and was made in the late Edo period, but your tsuba is of far better than usual quality, and may be by one of the later Sōten generations. Of iron, with copper, shakudō and gold decoration, it depicts the Seven Sages in the bamboo Grove. The inscription reads SOHEISHI NYUDO SOTEN SEI, and on the reverse GOSHU HIKONE JU. Regards, John L.

Mark B’s resurrection of Mark G’s C19, shibayama fuchi-gashira has prompted me to post the attached images of a similar pair. Ex the Peak and Trower collections, it is inscribed TOMOMASA with kao. Haynes lists this artist as H 09954.0 in his Index …, giving the kao and noting ‘no additional information’. On the other hand, on p. 235c of Kinkō Meikan, the same mei and kao are illustrated as being those of Hasegawa Tomomasa, thus suggesting that Hayne’s two entries, H 09954.0 and H 09952.0, are, in fact, those of a single artist. Hasegawa Tomomasa, the artist of this pair, was a student of Omori Hidetomo and of O. Tomomasa, and was working in Edo ca 1825. John L.

In reply to Rich’s query, no, the centre of the flower is not iroe, and the effect in my photograph is simply the effect of light reflection. Am I wrong in seeking gold decoration, albeit minimal, as a constant feature in Gotō work? And is not the depth of the carving on my kozoka too deep for it to be considered as Kō-Kinko work? Regards, John L.