docliss

I am afraid that I must agree with Milt - additionaly the fuchi has a clear nanako base, while the kashira is ishime. John L.

Finally, Jean, what about the Naval Officer's sword, with its o-seppa and gilt metal, tachi fittings on a black lacquered saya; or the Non-Commissioned Officer's sword, with its full tachi fittings integral to a metal saya - are these, then, full tachi? John L.

Jean, I agree, a beautiful sword; like you, I suspect, I would prefer it to have an aoie-gata tsuba. Bojan’s sword appears to have a katana saya that has been modified by the attachment of removable rings for wear as a military tachi. As a matter of rather esoteric interest, would you consider such a sword to be a true tachi, or to be a handachi modified for wear as a military tachi? Regards, John L.

Does not the presence of a fuchi, together with that form of kashira, constitute a handachi mounting of the blade, irrespective of whatever type of saya the sword may have acquired? John L.

I am surprised that nobody has stated, quite simply, that Bojan's sword is a katana in handachi mounts. John L.

I agree - C18 Heianjo-zogan work tending, I suggest, toward Yoshiro-zogan. The shakudo fukurin suggests that the tsuba has, at some time in its life, been resized and this supposition is supported by the uncomfortable proximity of the inlay to the mimi in some areas. John L.

Dear Tony The depiction on the fuchi is of an historical/legendary scene that is executed in a relatively high relief, using a rich selection of the coloured alloys. All of these factors suggest Hamano work of the early C19, an attribution that is supported by its apparent quality. Regards, John L.

Dear Tony I can make out KANENOBU SAKU, but am afraid that the first three kanji have me beaten. Presumably the artist is H 02511.0, of the Shōami family. Working in Aizu in the Iwashiro province ca 1775, he made tsuba in the Aizu Shōami style. Regards, John L.

Dear Piers While in principle eschewing any generalisations made about tsuba, I cannot personally recall seeing any verified Nobuiye tsuba with figure(s). Can any member correct this observation? John L.

A seasonal fuchi-gashira together with seasonal greetings to all Nihonto Message Board members. John L.

Does anybody know what are the images on the reverse of this tsuba? Dragon's tonsils perhaps .... John L.

I agree with Milt - it is an attractive tsuba. The nanako is good and, unusually, it extends onto the mimi. But I am a little concerned about the brown coloration of the seppa-dai and the round punch marks around the nakago-hitsu, since these usually signal Nagoya-mono to me. John L.

This ongoing correspondence has been interesting to read, but have not most of its contributors failed to acknowledge one indisputable fact? While ‘beauty’ must remain subjective and a matter of taste, ‘workmanship’ is quite separate from this, and it was a question of ‘workmanship’ that initiated this thread. The richness of shakudō; the quality of nanako and ishime; and the skill of katakiri-bori and taka-bori are not subjective judgments, and we should be quite capable of objectivity in judging the quality of such factors while assessing the quality of a work. John L.

Shan, as Brian intimates, you really should be attempting these mini-kantei yourself now. May we, perhaps, run through this together …? On looking at your fuchi-gashira we may notice a number of things: 1. The metal of which it is made does not have the rich, deep patination of good shakudō. It appears to have some brownish patches, and may even not be true shakudō, but rather a copper alloy with black pigment applied to it. 2. The quality of the nanako is poor. If you compare it with several of the good examples that have recently been posted you will see that the granules are irregularly spaced and mal-aligned, and that many of them are incomplete circles. 3. The figure and the tree are both very crudely depicted and are unpleasing to the eye. It also appears as though the gold decoration has been applied to the underlying metal, probably by a fire-gilding process using mercury. I can understand your Sōten pitch; the figure has the silver face with the high cheek bones that are frequently seen in such work. But I personally feel that the quality of the work is not good enough to justify a Hikone-bori label, and would label it as Nagoya-mono – a C19 shiiremono made for export. Regards, John L.

Dear Shan We seem to have rather lost the thread of your enquiry re the iron fushi-gashira. OK, so they are not special, but iron pairs are relatively uncommon, for obvious reasons, and yours also have an iron - rather than the more usual copper - tenjō. The brown, soft quality of the iron is reminiscent of Tetsugendō work, a school derived from the Chōshū artists, and this may even explain the presence of the nunome cherry blossom. They may, then, be late C18 Tetsugendō work, and I wouldn’t be too cast down by adverse comments about their quality - at $150 I reckon they were a fair purchase. Yours, John L.

Dear Milt I really must reply to your last post. ‘Workmanship’ and ‘taste’ are two quite distinct factors, and great art will always be great art, whatever one’s tastes. A preference for the katakiri-bori of Natsuo over that of Sōmin, or vice versa, in no way diminishes the workmanship of either. But to compare artistic preference with ‘big’ and ‘skinny’ merely trivializes the entire discussion. Regards, John L.

On p. XV of his descriptive catalogue of the GH Naunton collection Joly wrote: … to run after rough pieces of alleged Eleventh to Fifteenth Centuries because of their supposed age is not Fine Art collecting, it is Antiquarian collecting, and it is a strange kink to hypnotise oneself into seeing so much in alleged antiquity that age is sought for rather than beauty. In asking if Remzy’s tsuba really is a thing of beauty, rather an antiquated relic that has seen much better days, I await a barrage of irate responses with some nervousness! John L.

Oh dear .... Am I alone in fearing that members are looking at mei in preference to assessing the quality of the work presented? However close this mei may be, I find it difficult to accept that the work illustrated is by the master. Does any member 'out there' support me in this contention? John L.

Thank you, Ford, for that superb posting. It is only when we see such work that we realise how jaded our palates may become by their everyday exposure to dross. John.

Dear Milt On looking at your photographs of the fuchi again, it does appear is if the tenjo is unusually thick. Is it possible to see if this consists of two layers - in other words, has the tenjo with the mei been affixed over the original one or, as is technically more difficult, replaced it? John.

Milt, I agree that there is a similarity between your pair of f-g and the tsuba by Soyo I, illustrated on p. 109 of Lethal Elegance, but the quality of the latter is infinitely superior. Apart from its sharpness, and the amazing use of reflected light, a simple comparison may be made between the rendering of the 'swirls' on the two pieces. Those on the tsuba all arise from a central point as perfect spirals, while those on the f-g are much more random in their depiction. I rest my case, John.

Oh dear, Milt …. Correct me if I am wrong, but the pictures that you have posted of the fuchi appear to show the tenjō attached to the koshi at its lower edge instead being inset at its lower margin. This is completely alien to the normal method of manufacture, and suggests to me that the tenjō was added at a later date. Neither, in my opinion, is the standard of katakiri-bori up to that of the Yokoya master. Sadly, if I am correct in this observation, while the mei might possibly be that of Sōyo I, I fear that the fuchi-gashira are not. I think that I would like to hear your reaction to my thoughts - or perhaps I wouldn't! Yours, John L.

Dear Milt Could we please have an image of the base of the fuchi? Apart from the mei, it is my personal opinion that the skill with which the fuchi has been constructed is equally important in its assessment, especially the insertion of the tenjō into the koshi of the fuchi. With thanks, John.

Dear Mikolaj There have been several previous postings of Hikone-bori tsuba over the past year and, since some of these were fairly comprehensive threads and can easily be referred to, I am not going to repeat a lot of what was said. Suffice it to say that your tsuba, bearing on the omote the inscription SOHEISHI SOTEN SEI, is yet another example of the work produced for export by Aizu Shōami workers in the late Edo period. Your photograph does not show the mimi clearly but, if that is a decorative, gold nunome, diaper design that I glimpse there, this is a further confirmation of its Shōami source. It is inconceivable that a tsuba of such a period could acquire such extensive evidence of ageing, and I assume that the misplaced mei; the sekigane; and the missing, decorative copper plugs in the nakago-hitsu were all placed there at its time of manufacture in order to give a false impression of great age. As Brian so correctly points out, a complete mei would have left little room on the tsuba for its mounting. Regards, John L.

My understanding of the Saga Kaneiye school is very superficial, and I hope that more knowledgeable members will expand on it, and correct any misunderstandings. I believe the school to have had its origin in Tetsunin, a retainer of the Daimyō of Higo province, who worked in the style of Kaneiye II and may have been a student of the master. He moved from Higo to the city of Saga, in the province of Hizen, at the end of the C17. Here several generations worked, believing themselves to carry the mantle of Kaneiye, and signing their work Tetsunin. Two main types of tsuba were produced, the earlier mimicking the work of Kaneiye I and II and the later resembling that of the Shōami artists. Many artists, both in Hizen and elsewhere, reproduced such work. The majority of the work by this school is signed with a facsimile of the mei of Kaneiye II, occasionally accompanied by the name of the actual artist. Some of these latter are listed by Torigoye and Haynes, and include Kaneaki, Iyehiro, Iyetsugu, Kugimoto Yazaemon, Kōten and Dōsaku. The best of this Saga Kaneiye work is either unsigned, or bears the mei of one of these artists. Many of the unsigned pieces had later gimei of Kaneiye II added in the Meiji era – a practice which was extended onto some old Nara work. Work attributed to this group may thus be one of the following: 1. Saga Kaneiye work, either mumei, contemporaneously signed with a Kaneiye II facsimile mei or with the mei of one of the school’s artists. 2. Saga Kaneiye work, originally mumei, with a gimei Kaneiye mei added later. 3. Work by any other artist, either signed Kaneiye or mumei, and mimicking the work of the master. Presumably the first of these might be papered as Saga Kaneiye, while the second and third would clearly be labeled as gimei. John L.