docliss

Oh dear, it looks as though a brief intro. to tsuba is required here! To quote Robinson: ‘A pictorial design [on a guard] is set so as to be properly viewed when the narrow end of the tang-hole is uppermost, that being its natural position when the sword is thrust through the girdle. If the design on both faces of the guard is not identical, the more important part of it will be on the side next to the hilt and on the right rather than on the left of this, in logical furtherance of the same idea. ‘If present, the signature is almost always placed on the seppa-dai, on the side next to the hilt (omote), overflowing if necessary on to the other side (ura).’ It is true that signatures sometimes occur solely on the ura side of the guard. This may simply be a personal preference on the part of the artist, or may sometimes be an indication that the work was specially commissioned. It has been suggested that it may also be an indication of humility on the part of the artist. Regards, John L.

Like all of you, I am desperate to see Ford’s photographs of the tsuba itself. My only observations regarding the mei is that in all of them, with the exception of Ford’s and possibly of one other, the upwards stroke of the final loop in the kao appears to end at, or very near to, the angle formed between the longitudinal and vertical strokes. In Ford’s it fails to do so, and this makes me suspicious of his mei. Regards, John L.

Thank you, Koichi, for that. Both Gotō Kōjō (H 03445.0) and Katsuchika Mitsunori (H 05362.0) used the two kanji that you have proposed. The former was a student of Gotō Ichijō and the latter is described as ‘working in his style’, and both are dated in the mid to late 1800s. Presumably it is Gotō Kōjō who is the artist of this tsuba. John L.

Dear Ian and Rich, thank you both for your replies. The only Gotō Mitsukiyo that I can find (H 08133.0) is Senjō. But his dates of 1623-1692 are clearly not those of the artist of this tsuba. Gotō Kenjō (H 03102.0) used the gō of Kōrai, as Richard suggests, and both his Gotō Ichijō lineage and his dates of 1828-1904 seem more appropriate to this tsuba. But I would love to know if the kao matches that of the latter artist. Does anybody have an example of this? And are those his tagane-mei at the lower end of the nakago-hitsu? Thank you again, John L.

Once again I am seeking assistance with a translation, and should be grateful for help with this tsuba. Rendered in a beautiful, dark nigurome, it depicts a mass of high relief peony blossoms, set against an ishime surface and with some gold ten-zōgan decoration. The whole is surrounded by a gold nanako fukurin, and there is a gold overlay on the nanako surrounding the seppa-dai and both ryō-histu. My efforts at translation so far are: GOTO MITSU ? with kao. With many thanks, John L.

I will be interested to see what members make of Micolaj’s rather fine tsuba. The inscription OTSURYUKEN MIBOKU would seem to indicate the work of Hamano Nobuyuki (H 07307.0), and KOSAN may be the artist to whom Koichi refers, or may refer to the two artists listed by Haynes as Kōsan (H 03499.0 and 03500.0). In my opinion the presence of his kao tends to favour the latter, and their dates, ca 1850 and 1900-1920 respectively, would support this. This is not the work of H. Nobuyuki, and the kao is quite unlike that of this artist. Additionally, the intrusion onto the seppa-dai of medium relief carving does suggest Meiji work. Is this, then, by one of the Kōsan artists, with an acknowledgement to the Hamano master? John L.

Yet again Koichi, my grateful thanks to you for your help. John L.

I should be grateful for some assistance in translating the kanji on the attached tsuba. A beautiful mikagi-ji, mokume guard by Myōchin Munesake (H 06238.0), my attempts at translation are as follows: SHINMICHI ? ? ? MYOCHIN OSUMI-NO-KAMI Any help will be most gratefully received. Regards, John L.

Dear Richard With regard to marubori, some writers define it as carving ‘in the round’, but that should not be interpreted as ‘rounded’, but rather as being three dimensional. Regards, John L.

Colin’s tsuba is vaguely reminiscent of an ikenie tsuba but, with what appear to be stems crossing at the bottom and — as he suggests — kebori veining, it is probably a leaf of some sort. I am confident that one of our knowledgeable members will identify its source. The rounded appearance of the motif, with a lack of crisp carving; and the featureless appearance of the seppa-dai, where even the chisel marks are smooth, all lead me to agree with Colin that it has probably been cast. John L.

OK Ford, So I am now converted regarding the rejection of the mantra about the pre-casting of the inlay on Onin tsuba. But, since the method of production of both Onin and Heiajo-zogan tsuba is now accepted as being similar, where does that leave your proposed explanation for the difference in colouration between the inlay on the two groups? John L.

Thank you, Ford, for your as always very knowledgeable and interesting contribution. Your suggestion, that the effect upon the colour of the inlaid alloy of re-melting it is a possible explanation for the differing colours of the inlay in Onin and Heiajō-zōgan work, I find convincing. But your questioning of the mantra, that ‘the brass pieces used as the decoration on Onin tsuba are pre-cast in the design and shape needed’, needs more time for me to assimilate! Regards, John L.

Dear John I think that we are both talking about a vague distinction between late Onin and early Heinjō-zōgan tsuba — all rather esoteric. I mentioned the possibly original hitsu-ana since on Onin tsuba these are generally a later modification; the few original ones are found only on smaller tsuba. With regard to the use of imported brass, TAS states, on p.41, that ‘the colour of the brass of the Onin tsuba is most important. It is rich and deep in colour, not the shallow colour of the native metal used mostly in the Edo age. … It is logical to suppose that these tsuba were first made in Kyōto because the imported brass is thought to have been brought to the port of Sakai … and then carried to the capital, Kyōto.’ I agree that leaves several questions unanswered. But my main reason for edging to the right of this ‘vague distinction’ is that the brass inlay on this tsuba is certainly not pre-cast, a feature that indicates to me a clear distinction between Onin and Heianjō-zogan work. Regards, John L.

May I take issue with John’s Onin label to this tsuba? This I do for a number of reasons: • The colour of the brass inlay is the pale yellow of the locally produced metal rather than the ‘rich deep’ colour of that imported from China from the C15. • The inlay, surely, has not been pre-cast as is that on Onin tsuba, but has been cut from a sheet of brass prior to its insertion into the prepared cavities on the tsuba. • There is no inlay surrounding the seppa-dai, the kozuka-hitsu or the edge, as one would normally see on Onin work. • And am I correct in thinking that the kozuka-hitsu is probably original? I agree that there is a katchūshi-like quality to the plate, but that could apply equally to early Heianjō zōgan work – a label that I personally prefer. John L.

I, too, agree that Colin’s (upside down) tsuba is a typical example of Chōshū work. The openwork design, in positive silhouette and enclosed within a solid mimi; the kebori detail on the leaves; the black colouration and granular texture of the iron; the vegetation subject; and the gold nunome decoration, all support this attribution. I confess to finding the design a little disappointing. This is an impression caused, I suspect, by the fact that all of the interesting detail of the leaves has been concentrated onto the omote surface, with the ura having only bland images of their reverse sides. A more balanced design would have shared these images, 2:1, between the two surfaces. Early C19 Chōshū work, probably. Regards, John L.

Thank you, Jean, for posting the images that I requested of the tsuba. I do now remember it and the correspondence regarding it. At the time, I 'passed' on it, fearing that it needed as additional £100 for repatination - a decision (one of many) that I now rather regret! John L.

Could we please see a more detailed/larger image of the copper tsuba with the horse theme? With many thanks, John L.

Ken, I doubt if we will ever 'get to the bottom' of this one. My only observations about colour, simply put, are firstly that, when it comes to the consideration of plate colour, photographs are useless. And secondly that if it is black it is probably Choshu, and if it is brown it may be either Choshu or Bushu. Not a lot of help I am afraid. Regards, John L.

Andrey, your later photographs appear to confirm a Bushu rather than a Choshu provenance for your tsuba The black patination of the latter group really is black black and, once seen, can never be mistaken. John L.

Like most of you, I find great difficulty in confidently distinguishing between the work of the Bushū and Chōshū schools. Together with the Shōami, these schools were the largest and most influential throughout the Edo period. John has pointed out the close proximity of Edo – the place of origin of the Edo Itō group – and the city of Hagi in the province of Chōshū, and both are surrounded by mountain ranges that isolate this area from the remainder of the main island. Further to the South, the Odawara Itō group were, of course, much removed from these two. This proximity, and the marked influence of the Bushū school over the Chōshū after the middle of the Edo period, combine to create this difficulty. Both schools favoured openwork designs with relief carving, and used gold inlay and overlay to highlight their products. And both favoured plants, flowers, trees and insects as their subjects. On p. 187 of Tsuba: An Aesthetic Study it is stated, of the two styles of Chōshū tsuba, that ‘one is openwork tsuba with the designs being the same, or virtually the same, on either side’. This may be the origin of Ken’s observation but, like him, I have never been impressed by this supposed difference: indeed, both schools demonstrate this feature. Solid plate tsuba with relief carving of landscapes are generally of the Nakai Chōshū group, and this fact helps to sort out a small minority. The presence of ito-sukashi tends to favour a Bushū provenance, and the black patination that is characteristic of Chōshū work is also a valuable aide in distinguishing between the two schools. This latter is very difficult to identify from photographs, however, as its presence depends much upon the lighting. André’s tsuba demonstrates this difficulty – it is difficult to be certain if it is black or not. With this uncertainty, I personally tend to favour a C19 Bushū provenance for this tsuba, but don’t ask me why …. John L.

Welcome back Richard, you have been sadly missed. John L.

My thanks to you all -your combined expertise never ceases to amaze me. I think that I shall take Koichi's translation of YUCHUKEN as being my preferred one, although I have failed to find any reference to this as a known go. John L.

Thank you Marcus, that is a great start to my enquiry. John.

This unconventional, iron guard depicting a scroll is inscribed on the obverse HAN ? KEN TORI and, on an inlaid silver plaque on the reverse, are three further, unidentified kanji which are, I suspect, the title of the scroll which the design depicts. But I am not even sure that these are correctly orientated in my image! The Han ? Ken is presumably the gō of the artist, who may be H 10261.0. With thanks in anticipation, John L.

I am afraid that I must agree with Jacques D. regarding his suspicions that this tsuba has been cast. The webbing between the leaves; the rounded shape of the apertures between the leaves and the mimi at 10-11 o’clock; the appearance of the seppa-dai; and the lack of sharpness in the mei, which should persist in spite of the apparent wear, all support me in this contention. Sorry …. Regards, John L.