docliss

You are probably correct in that, John, but I am a bit intrigued by the container (? 'teapot') by his side, which may suggest some specific reference, perhaps? John.

Dear Curran I agree that Joly is of little help on the sage/waterfall front. Edmunds, in his Pointers and Clues …, lists eight such references on p. 79 but only one of these appears to be appropriate. It might be worth looking up Li Peh on pp. 148-9 of his book, or Rihaku – the Japanese name - on pp. 281-2 of Joly’s tome. I hope that these may be of some help, John.

I am sorry Shan, but I failed completely to link this thread with the one that you had previously posted in the Translation section. While in a far from ideal condition, this is a rather nice tsuba. The mei, as stated, is HIROTOSHI with kao, and this is not the mei of the Uchikoshi master although, like his, it is in a ‘running script’. There has been no attempt to mimic the latter’s mei, and the kao is quite distinct from his. Your tsuba may well be Uchikoshi work, but I suggest that this is not a gimei signature, and is either by yet another Uchikoshi artist of that name, or by a student of the master. Since you ask, the circular form at the bottom left of the ‘toshi’ kanji suggests to me that this is a sosho form of the 14-stroke kanji. John L.

Shan may not be aware that there were two Uchikoshi artists who signed their work with the name of Hirotoshi. The first of these, and by far the most important (H 01415.0), was a student of Tamagawa Yoshinaga II and the founder of the Uchikoshi school. Curran has posted a beautiful, papered example of his work and his mei is illustrated on pp.383 and 384, a-d of Kinkō Meikan, where he is listed as Hidenaga. Haynes states that this artist used a seven-stroke variant of the ‘toshi’ kanji, but his mei is too stylized for me to be able to confirm this. The second of these artists (H 01416.0) is also given the family name of Uchikoshi by Haynes, who states that ‘this artist does not seem to be, or even related to (sic)’ the above master. His mei is quite unlike the sōsho form of that on Curran’s tsuba, and uses the full, 14-stroke kanji for ‘toshi’. There is a third artist, not listed by Haynes, who also used this name, but his work is quite unlike that of the Uchikoshi workers and is quite rustic in style. He uses the same kanji as the second artist, but the two mei are quite easily distinguished. There may well be further such unlisted artists. There are photographs of the work of these latter two artists, together with their mei, on my previously referred-to posting. John L.

Dear Shan The Uchikoshi Horotoshi 'thing' has been previously done on the n.b. See Sun. Sept. 23, 2007. John L.

Andrey’s tsuba does indeed bear the inscription OTSUKI MITSUHIRO with kao. This is the name of an artist (H 05188.0) who became the fifth master of the Otsuki school. Born in 1795 and dying, at the age of 47, in 1841, he was the first son of O. Mitsutoki. However … I very much doubt if this is a genuine work by the master, rated as Jōkō, whose work, mainly consisting of katakiri-bori but also comprising incrustation and inlay, was of an extremely high standard. His mei is illustrated on p. 405a-d of Kinkō Meikan, and there are several differences between these and that on Andrey’s tsuba, both in the ‘tsuki’ and ‘hiro’ kanji and especially in the kao. Do the other board members agree with me that this is gimei work? Incidentally, is there some inlay missing at 12 o’clock on the ura surface of Andrey’s tsuba - it has certainly had a hard life? Regards, John L.

Dear Brian In my humble opinion, your tsuba is indeed typical of Chōshū work of the C19, with its black patination, obvious Bushū influence and lack of any ornamentation. It is rather better than many of the rather similar works that we see, with its very forceful -almost marubori - carving; the variation between the two surfaces; and with parts of the carving appearing to be proud of the surface. I personally find the characteristics of the Chōshū schools so alike that it is virtually impossible to distinguish between them, especially in such later work. Kawaji perhaps, but it could equally be by any one of the other schools. Regards, John L.

Thank you Pete for those - I must confess to a tiny reduction in my previously confident stance! John L.

I am still hoping for a response to my earlier request for a kind member to post the images from Wakayama, vol. 1, pp. 34 and 35. In the meantime, I am attaching an image of a mei illustrated in Robert E. Haynes, Ltd Catalog #7, lot no 241, p. 189. This illustrates a ‘left-sided’ mei that is very similar to this one and comes from a tsuba that Haynes confidently lists as being the work of Omori Teruhide ‘in his very old age’. In spite of the many opinions to the contrary, I still think that this tsuba has a very good chance of being papered to this artist. John L.

We do not know the answer to the question that both Pete and Martin have raised, and I certainly do not personally believe that a mei on the left-hand side of the tenjo of a fuchi, or the seppa-dai of a tsuba, precludes them from being a genuine work by Omori Teruhide. In fact, one fuchi of the five artefacts illustrated on pp. 51-52 of Kinko Meikan has the mei on the left. John L.

Oh ye of little faith .... Could any kind member please scan in the photographs from Wakayama, Vol. 1? I should particularly like to compare this mei with those of the bottom right fuchi on pp. 34 and 35. With thanks, John L.

Dear Brian This is a very impressive tsuba, in a very dark grey shibuichi that is almost shakudō-like in its appearance. The waves are very fluid, and many of them are undercut; the dots of gold spray are variable in their size. The mei demonstrates the angular form of the last two strokes of the ‘hide’ kanji, and corresponds with the kao, which was the last he used, ca 1796. I hesitate to say a definite ‘yes’, but it looks pretty good to me. John L.

I agree that this is typical of the work of Hosono Masamori (H 04224.0), but of a better standard than is normally seen. Most of his work is in this kebori-zōgan technique, and normally depicts minute landscapes with tiny figures engaged in various occupations; Henry’s is far more virtuotic. There is a very large body of this artist’s work, and he had many assistants and students working with him, all of whom signed his mei. Their work is of variable quality, and Henry’s may, perhaps, be by the master himself? John L.

Henry, I stupidly thought that the kojiri that you posted was a pair to the signed fuchi; hence my mistaken assumption that it was, also, possible Shōzui work. This does appear to bear a gold lacquer shumei, and the closest match to it that I can find is illustrated as a kao of Yasuchika IV on Y10 of Joly’s Shōsankenshu. Not, you understand, that I am offering this as an attribution! Regards, John L.

Henry, I am afraid that my attempts to scan the relevant pages in Kinko Meikan have produced very poor images. Perhaps another member can provide you with more acceptable ones? John L.

Ford, please correct me if I am wrong, but I had always thought that the main problem with the use of shakudo was the technical difficulty in making a copper/gold alloy. Where did I get that idea from I wonder. John L.

Dear Henry A comparison of your mei with those on pp. 439a-d to 441a-d of Kinko Meikan looks quite encouraging but, without a detailed examination of the pieces, I would hate to commit myself on a judgement. The character on the kashira looks very much like a kao, but I have been unable to find one used by this artist. Does any member have access to such a kao? Regards, John L.

Dear Piers You have hit upon a pet subject here and, at the risk of boring some members with repetition, I shall attempt to answer your question. The Dutch began to import iron into Japan, probably with its origins in China, Korea and India, around 1600 and during the C17 it was a consistent import into Japan both by Dutch and English traders. In spite of the abundance of local iron deposits, Japan produced only 5,000 tons of iron in 1882 and imported an average of 11,000 tons per annum over the preceding ten years. Unadulterated local iron was probably only used for sword blades (even this was not invariable), and pure Namban iron was probably only obtainable from the smelting of railway lines from Manchuria. Thus from the beginning of the C17, because of the constant reusability of iron, that obtained by the smelting of local iron-bearing sand must have become progressively and irretrievably admixed with this foreign iron The answer to your question depends upon what you mean by ‘Namban iron’. If you mean any iron containing a variable amount of this imported variety, I suggest that most tsuba can be considered as being made of Namban iron. Although this imported iron varied considerably from the locally produced iron, both in its chemical make up — a high phosphorus content of 4-10 times that of the local iron is common — and in its physical properties, I know of no way of detecting its presence apart from by chemical analysis; certainly not by its appearance. Regards, John L.

...or Ko-Nara work? John L.

Dear Mikolaj I agree entirely with Peter’s attribution of the tsuba as being the work of Hirado Kunishige. The random use of Western characters, without any apparent meaning or significance, is typical of his work. Haynes lists him as H 03650.0, and suggests that there were two or three generations, working ca 1725. Unsurprisingly, the tokubetsu hozon kanteisho describes this as ‘Namban’ work but, in my opinion, this is a completely incorrect attribution. It is an ita tsuba, demonstrating very few of the defining characteristics of the Namban group, and would better be described as ‘Kunishige Ha’. Regards, John L.

Dear Aldwin Like other members, I am sure, I look forward to seeing some more photographs of your new acquisition - hopefully with better lighting of the iron plate. Regards, John L.

Dear Chris You have requested comments upon your recently acquired tantÅ tsuba and, in the absence of any other replies — possibly because of a wish not to cause you any offence — here goes. Your tsuba is an example of poor quality work called Nagoya-Mono, which was manufactured in large quantities in Owari during the C19. The image of figures with a bell, water and a bridge may represent the story of Hidesato, who was presented with a number of gifts, including a bell, by the Dragon King after slaying the giant centipede. The features which point me toward a Nagoya-Mono attribution are as follows: • the pigmentation of the metal, which lacks the black colour of shakudÅ and which many believe not to be shakudÅ, but to be treated with a black pigment which wears off over the seppa-dai; • the irregular shape of the kozuka-hitsu; • the indifferent quality of the nanako, most clearly seen in the lower part of the tsuba on your first image; • the presence of the circular punch marks around the nakago-hitsu, which are a common feature on this group of tsuba; • and the rather crude depiction of the figures. I hope, however, that you continue to get pleasure from your purchase, and that this note will help you to recognise tsuba of this group in the future. Regards, John L.

Thanks Ludolf. Do you agree that the mei on my tsuba is very like those on your illustrations, but that the kao on mine is a lot less florid? I remain suspicious that mine is gimei - what do you think? Interestingly, Koichi thinks that the final character on my tsuba is not a kao, but rather the kanji for 'tsukuru'. I suspect that it could equally easily be either. Regards, John L.

Dear Shan The books to which I refer are, I consider, the bible of sword fittings collectors. Compiled by Robert E. Haynes, and published by Nihon Art Publishers in 2001, The Index of Japanese Sword Fittings and Associated Artists is available in three paper backed volumes. Unfortunately they are quite expensive to buy and, being heavy, are also quite expensive to post. But they will cost you no more that a 'middle of the range' tsuba, and will give you a lot more use and pleasure. I recommended their purchase to you. Regards, John L.

Dear Koichi Thank you so much for your help with the translation - what should we all do without your help? John L.