docliss

That appears to have answered my question very satisfactorily - I am most grateful to all the contributers for their input. John L.

I am happy with the SHI HOGEN translation, as referring to the tsubako, but am puzzled by the terminal (NO)DZU, which I understand to be translated as 'from the design by'. Is that not more likely to refer to an original artist who inspired the tsubako, rather than to the tsubako himself? John L.

My grateful thanks to both of you for your help with this query. John L.

Would one of the members be so kind as to translate for me the name of the acknowledged artist on this tsuba by Mori Toshitaka I (H 10578.0)? It is inscribed: ?Shi ? ?Ben (NO)DZU HAKURYUSHI TOSHITAKA with kao. With grateful thanks, John L.

Dear Bob, thank you for your reply, and I can certainly see where you are coming from. The first character is identical - but the second differs appreciably - from that of Joi as illustrated on p. 189d of Kinko Meikan - and the work is certainly not that of Joi. I have a feeling that we are not there yet! Regards, John L.

Can any kind member please identify the gold hon-zogan seal on the attached tsuba? It is, I suspect, Tetsugendo work, but .... With thanks, John L.

Ian C’s nice iron tsuba of Fuji San and pine trees has me a bit puzzled. To start with, I cannot make out the first kanji, and nanjimei are normally gō, which this one does not appear to be. Most of the many artists using these kanji for Tomonobu, which John suggests as a probable translation, are Chōshū artists. This is a possible attribution for this tsuba, but the wide ryō-hitsu, the style of working and the quality of the iron all suggest to me Aizu Shōmi work – possibly of the C18 period. This is an attribution that is further supported by the gold decoration (? a hon-zōgan, diaper design) on the mimi. Perhaps some kind person can translate the first kanji, and help to put this one to rest? John L.

Help Brian! Something appears to have gone wrong with Ian's link, and I am unable to download it. Very many thanks, John L.

For what it's (not) worth, my opinion of Eric's four posted, Baur tsuba would be: no (maybe), no, no, no! John L.

The mei is not very clear in your photograph and, just as a thought, could it possibly be MASAYOSHI (see H 04909.0)? Yours, John L.

Dear Brian On p. 383 of Nihon Tō Kōza, Vol. VI, it states, in relation to ‘kogai and other items’, that ‘ …katakiri bori … is a method which was completed around the time of Yokoya Somin … ’ Many other works credit this artist with the introduction of the katakiri style of carving – a style that was followed by many of the members and students of the Yokoya family. His dates of 1670-1733 would seem to support your Middle Edo suggestion. John L.

Dear Brian Reading of your ‘huge love of kinko katakiri-bori’, I thought that you might quite like the attached kozuka. Inscribed on the reverse GIONEN ROKUSU ROKUSAI (Aged 66 years old) SOMIN with kao, it is ex the Gardiner and Peak collections. There are, needless to say, some doubts as to its attribution! John L.

I agree with you, Brian, that the two sides appear to have been carved by different artists. To my eye, the work on the rogin side - that of the father - appears to be the superior. John.

Curran’s recent posting of a tsuba with two mei has prompted me to post another for consideration. Made in two sections, it comprises a circular iron disc onto which has been affixed a rōgin shell. The obverse (rōgin) surface bears a delicate image of katakiri-bori grasses and chrysanthemum flowers, while the reverse (iron) surface depicts a shishiai-bori tiger, with a golden eye and fang, seated beneath katakiri bamboo. It is inscribed on the obverse SHIGEMASA with kao, and on the reverse JURYUSAI with kao. It would appear that the artist of the iron plate was Ishikawa Shigesada (H 08441.0). A student of Kōno Haruaki, this artist is variably described as working in Shōnai, Edo and Akita – all in the province of Dewa – in the 1800s; he died in 1875. On p. 90, # 149, of Joly’ Shōsankenshu are listed the gō of Jūryusai, and an identical kao, under the heading of Shigesada, and on p. 147d of Kinkō Meikan is illustrated the identical kao of Ishikawa Shigesada. But are we able, with any confidence, to identify the artist who, signing himself Shigemasa, created the rōgin plate? Shōsankenshu illustrates the mei and kao on p. 89, #125, but Haynes lists no fewer than 12 artists using these kanji. Of these, one artist – Ishikawa Shigemasa (H 08323.0) – was also working in Akita in the 1800s. The father of the first artist, and the son of Ishikawa Masateru, he died in 1850. It may thus be a reasonable supposition that this tsuba was the joint work of these father-and-son, Ishikawa artists. John L.,

To add to the provenance of Steve’s tsuba, it is listed in the Glendining catalogue of the Joly sale, held on Wednesday, June 8th, 1921, and is illustrated on Pl. V: 552 Shakudo, three faggots in a circle, covered with snow, inlaid silver, the faggots tied with gold string, signed Hokensai Kuroha [sic] (Ill. J.A. and H.) (1195) (Plate V) It was sold for 300 shillings to a ‘Foreigner’. John L.

Thank you Steve for the images. Such a truly beautifull tsuba, and of such obvious quality, that one can have no doubt as to its provenance. Presumably the kao is yet another variation of this artist's signature. John L.

Dear Steve For what it’s worth, the Bauer Catalogue has a kozuka on p. 96, D 1063, by this artist and inscribed Kajusai Katsutoshi. The mei is illustrated on p. 379, # 173, but is quite unlike that on your tsuba and does not include a kao. I am sorry not to be of more help. It would be nice to see a photograph of the entire tsuba – or are you just teasing us? Regards, John L.

Among the submissions received, John suggested Natsō as an attribution and, interestingly, this tsuba does incorporate that artist’s concept of ‘open space’ into the design, together with his preference of the lower, right-hand section of a tsuba for the placement of the principal motif. But Natsuō’s iron was much better forged, with a granular surface and a much darker patination. Brian recognised the Nara/Jōi resonances that are present in much Mito work, and dated it correctly. But his suggestion of a Tetsugendō attribution was wider of the mark. While acknowledging that such work frequently bears the gold seal of its makers, it recognises its Chōshū origins in its use of darkly patinated iron, and is generally of high-relief engraving with soft metal decoration. Reinhard was technically correct in his rather dismissive, generic, Hama-mono label. Henry’s suggestion of Ford Hallam as the artist was a very interesting — and complimentary — one. Sadly, I am not sufficiently familiar with Ford’s work to comment upon this, beyond suggesting that he generally observes the functionality of the tsuba, and does not allow its decorative work to obtrude upon the seppa-dai. Ford may wish to make some observations himself upon Henry’s posting. But it is Marc, with his beautifully presented and reasoned argument, who is graded as ‘atari’. This tsuba is inscribed on the obverse Shihō Teikan Usō with a gold hon-zōgan seal for Shinsui. On the reverse is written ‘made in Tōkyō in Koishikawa, in respectful acceptance of an order, by Shihō Teikan, small retainer of Mito Yashiki’. It is ex the Naunton collection, being no. 2221 (unillustrated) in the Naunton catalogue. It has never been submitted to shinsa, but comparison of the mei with those illustrated on pp.135c-d of Kinkō Meikan, together with the high quality of the work, leaves little doubt as to its provenance. John L.

A single glance at this tsuba identifies it as being Meiji work by an outstanding artist, and this should be a good starting point for making an attribution. Among such artists one thinks of Kanō Natsuō — together with his students, Unno Shōmin and Shōami Katsuyoshi — and Okawa Teikan, all of whom are graded as Jokō or above in Kinkō Meikan. Shōmin demonstrated wide-ranging skills, but favoured taka-bori and katakiri-bori, understandably on the softer alloys. Katsuyoshi exhibited zōgan on a nikubori sukashi background, favouring grasses and flowers, birds and insects as his chosen themes. Some members may feel that the legendary subject and the ‘brightness’ of the work may, together, suggest a possible Mito origin. The tsuba is, indeed, Mito Sekijōken work by Okawa Teikan (H 09521.0), an artist whose ability in many styles makes it difficult to immediately identify his work but whose iron, with its rich colouring and its silken texture, is immediately recognisable. The Mito Sekijōken school was founded by Taizan Motonori, a student of Yokoya Sōchi; the founder’s son, Taizan Motozane I, became the second master of the school. Okawa Gantei, or Motosada, was a pupil of this artist and was the father of Okawa Teikan, the maker of this tsuba. Teikan (1828 – 1898) worked in Edo and was a retainer of the Mito Tokugawa Daimyō, and of the Bakufu in Edo. His name may also be read as Sadamoto and as Sadamasa — he is listed as the former both by Robinson in The Baur Collection and by Joly in Shōsankenshu, and as the latter by Hara in Die Meister …. Torigoye, on p. 230 of Tsuba: an Aesthetic Study, describes Teikan as ‘a very great artist [who] could work in any metal or style. He also made many copies of famous pieces, and his best work can pass for that of any of the great masters’.

I agree. It rather looks as if it has been made with a pastry cutter! John L.

It is very difficult to distinguish between Bushū and Chōshū work. The middle of the Edo period saw a large Bushū influence on the Chōshū style and, by the end of the Edo period the former had completely dominated the latter. The black coloration of Chōshū iron is probably the most obvious defining characteristic of the school’s work at this stage but, unfortunately, the color of Marc’s (upside-down) photographs does not make this distinction easy. Like Brian, I agree that they are probably fairly ordinary, C18 Chōshū work. But are they a true daishō pair, I wonder …. John L.

Dear Brian The design on the seppa-dai can best be described as a comination of shishiai-bori and usuniki-bori; in other words, the design is slightly raised above the level of the seppa-dai and would probably obtrude, to a limited extent, upon an unmodified seppa. Without wishing to 'give the game away', the iron texture and coloration are, indeed, crucial to the kantei. John L.

Stephen’s question demonstrates the problem of making ‘rules’ regarding kodōgu. Where the decorative work on a tsuba extends onto the seppa-dai in relatively high relief, this clearly precludes the use of seppa and renders it unmountable on a sword. But kebori and katakiri-bori present no such problems. Neither would the extension of shishiai-bori onto the seppa-dai preclude the use of seppa, and work attributed to Jōi frequently demonstrates such a feature. A further unresolved question remains — whether or not to call such Meiji works of art, never intended for use as sword fittings, ‘tsuba’. I personally do, just as I call a modern conical, ceramic object a ‘vase’ even if it cannot contain water. Regards, John L.

Following the Christmas holidays there has been rather a dearth of correspondence on the Message Board and, in an attempt to correct this, I am posting a kantei for members’ amusement. The tsuba is nade-kaku-gata, measures 8.3 cm – 7.7 cm, and has a raised mimi. It is made of iron with a polished, chocolate-brown surface and depicts, in a low relief engraving that extends onto the seppa-dai, an image of Kinkō riding upon his taō. Only the eye of the fish and the top-knot on the sage’s head are decorated with gold. The almost empty space on the reverse depicts tiny golden droplets over waves rendered in kebori and low-relief engraving. There are no hitsu-ana, and the nakago-hitsu shows no signs of the guard ever having been mounted. The inscriptions on both sides of the guard, together with the gold hon-zōgan seal on the omote, have been deleted from these images. I shall post my response to any replies in two weeks' time. Regards, John L.

Dear David I apologise for the delay in my reply, but I have only just returned from a visit to one of my daughters in the UK. In my humble opinion, the tsuba that you have posted is not the work either of Kaneie II or of the Saga Kaneie school. While noting your reservations about the colour of your image, the quality of the iron is not that of either of these groups, and the plate appears to be of factory origin. The silver inlaid pine needles (that is silver, rather than iron that has lost its patination through wear, is it not) are quite unlike Kaneie work, and none of these artists produced tsuba of an oval shape. The mei is not that of either of these groups and, speaking personally, I do not find the undulating outline inside the mimi at all pleasing. Both the style of work and the broad ryō-hitsu are suggestive to me of Shōami work. In summary, I suggest that your tsuba is probably C19 Shōami work, with a gimei Kaneie II signature. Regards, John L.