docliss

Dear Milt I agree that your tsuba is of quite good workmanship; the karakus-moyÅ is skillfully carved and the nunome-zÅgan on the shishi is of good quality. As I suggested in my earlier message, one could make a reasonable case for calling your tsuba Namban. But I resolutely stick to my Hizen attribution, albeit demonstrating a strong Namban influence. The presence of what appear to be original hitsu-ana, together with measurements of 8.4 cm – 8.0 cm — which place it well outside the normal range of Namban tsuba — both reinforce my opinion. Regards, John L.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had assumed that Alwin's tsuba is of iron and Kagamishi tsuba are, of course, by definition of cast bronze. It would be nice to know if this tsuba is magnetic in order to resolve this question. Regards, John L.

Dear Aldwin My question regarding the presence of silver inlay on the face was based on the precept that its presence would make the copying process a great deal more complicated/expensive and therefore less likely. As a general aside, Yasuchika’s famous elephant tsuba could well have been copied from the animal, since the artist’s dates (1670-1744) coincide with the arrival of the first elephant into Japan. But on p.79 of the Catalogue of the Kokusai Tosogu Kai 2nd International Convention and Exhibition there is illustrated a tsuba, described questionably as being ‘a very abstract rendition of an elephant’ and dated ‘circa 17th century’. Since the elephant was unknown in Japan until the early 18th century, this is a very flawed description. Regards, John L.

Dear Aldwin I agree with previous replies that your tsuba is a late one, depicting an elephant with two Japanese figures wondering at its appearance. Haynes lists no fewer than eight artists who used these kanji, but none of these appears to refer to the artist of your tsuba. He was thus a relatively unknown artist and, while sharing the suspicion that your tsuba may be a late copy, I am rather puzzled as to why anybody would bother to reproduce the work of such an unimportant artist. One question – is the face of the lower figure inlaid in silver, or is this effect just a light reflection on a rubbed area? The elephant is not, of course, native to Japan, and most early depictions of this animal are based upon the famous Yasuchika tsuba commemorating the gift of a white elephant to Japan by the King of Siam in the Kioho period (1716 – 1735). In reply to your query ... no it is not a Baku. This is a mythical animal with a hairy head, a long proboscis like an elephant's trunk, two tusks, a spiny backbone, a spotted hide and an ox tail. It is supposed to have been inspired by the appearance of the tapir (Henri L. Joly Legend in Japanese Art). Regards, John L.

Dear Milt You ask ‘Namban or Hizen’ of your recently acquired tsuba, and it is not an easy question to answer. Certainly, with its karakusa type openwork and undercutting, it displays one of the defining characteristics of Namban work, but this is very simplistic in execution. Also, the presence of cartouches to enclose the shishi at the top and bottom, and the simple, rounded rim are not characteristic of Namban work. Neither have I before seen Shishi featuring on work by this group. In conclusion, I think that your tsuba demonstrates features of both groups, and which you favour must be a matter of opinion. I, however, would say 'Hizen' without very much hesitation. Regards, John L.

Dear Joe If you are interested in Tokei tsuba, you could do no better than to read Fred Geyer’s comprehensive article on pp. 84-91 of the Catalogue of the 2nd International Convention and Exhibition of the Kokusai Tosogu Kai. Regards, John L.

Dear Ford A total of 9 issues of Bushido were published, from July 1979 to July/August/September 1981. Like many collectors, I bemoaned its passing. It offered a unique combination of some degree of scholarship with a joyful enthusiasm for the subject. This, produced with superb photography on high quality art paper. I suspect that it was some years ahead of its time. Regards, John L.

I'm sorry, but Haynes gives no more information regarding this artist beyond what I have already quoted in my earlier posting. John L.

I’m sure we will all agree that John’s fuchi-gashira is inscribed Kaneyuki, since it is surely not gimei and the Hamano rendition of Kenzui is no longer applicable. The only other artist listed by Haynes who used these kanji (H 12617.0), with the gŠof Juryūken, is described as working in Edo ca 1800-25. I wonder if this is the artist of John’s pair? John L.

Dear John The mei of Hamano Kenzui, the second son of Hamano ShÅzui and the second master of the Hamano school, is illustrated on p.83a-d of KinkÅ Meikan. While the second kanji of your tsuba would pass, the first is quite unlike the much more formal and stylised kanji illustrated, which lacks the florid, ‘D’ shaped loop of your fuchi. Sorry, John L.

Dear Ford Thank you for your prompt and courteous reply to my query but, without wishing to appear ‘chicken’, I am rather hesitant to embark upon the rather involved, copper suphate/rokusho routine that you describe. Would you, I wonder, undertake such a renovation professionally and, if so, what sort of expense are we talking about? Regards, John L. E-mail: docliss@jerseymail.co.uk

Dear Ford You are always so generous in your readiness top provide answers to members’ ‘professional’ questions, that I feel encouraged to seek your advice regarding the repatination of sentoku. I have in my collection several sentoku tsuba which, as a result of previous abuse, have lost their patination and are now an unattractive, matt yellow colour. Several years ago I degreased them, using ordinary soap and water, and left them in the vain hope that they would acquire a patina naturally. This has failed completely, and I wonder if you can advise me of the options available to me to encourage their repatination. With grateful thanks, John L.

Dear Guido Regarding your query re shibuichi and rogin, Nihon To Koza states in the glossary: Rogin: Also called shibuichi, meaning one part silver to four parts copper. This percentage, however, is for an alloy of bad quality. Medium quality rogin contains 5 parts silver to 10 parts copper, and a high class one has 7 parts silver to 10 of copper. Shibuichi: Alloy of one part silver to four parts copper. Presumably the wide variation in colour that is seen amongst shibuichi kodogu is due in part to the proportion of silver therein, and it would seem reasonable to confine the term rogin to those pieces that acquire a silver colour on patination and, presumably, have the highest proportion of that metal in their alloy. Do other members agree with my take on this? Regards, John L.

However hard one tries, it is difficult to come to Reinhard's question with an open mind; one instinctively anticipates the Juyo mei to be kosher and the Hozon one possibly to be so. The bizarre substitution, on Ken's mei, of the first kao element in the mori kanji by that of to is unlikely to be present in a genuine mei, and rather gives the impression that the scribe left in the middle for his coffee break and forgot to complete in upon his return. That feature, together with the general quality of Ken's pair leads me to the conclusion that the mei was added to the fuchi later, with the deliberate intention to deceive. With its use of a broad chisel and the absence of any return strokes on the three verticals of the mori kanji, that on Martin's tsuba is quite unlike the master's usual mei. But the quality of the work on this is very high, and I believe this may be the work of a skilled student. As to the Hozon mei, I really do not feel able to comment since there is such a wide variation in the various Teruhide mei that one sees illustrated. John L.

Guido's tsuba is, indeed, very beautiful. I agree with Ford that the work is reminiscent of that of Ichijo Goto; the quality of the katakiri-bori is quite outstanding, and the balance of the design on the aoie-gata plate - rogin or shibuichi? - shows great skill. (Am I, perhaps, being a bit picky when I criticise the trailing stem on the bottom, left-hand segment of the ura surface?) To me it suggests Kano Natsuo work, presumably by one of his many students. But realising that most of their work was signed as by Natsuo, and not knowing who Noriaki was, I am afraid this posting is of very little help! Regards, John L.

Dear Ken I am reassured that, in responding to your request for an opinion on your kamakiri fuchi-gashira, I am merely confirming what you already suspect. In my opinion the quality of their workmanship is far removed from that seen on work by Omori Teruhide. Once seen, such work screams its high quality, and even the nanako on your pair, while quite good, falls short of the master’s. Having decided that your fuchi-gashira are gimei, it is then not difficult to identify a significant number of differences between the mei and those illustrated on pp. 51a-d and 52a and b of KinkŠMeikan. All of the kanji on your fuchi-gashira, and the kao, differ in some respects from those in the book. Sorry, John L.

There are three examples of Omori Teruhide's work illustrated, together with their mei, on PP.188-9, #239, 240 and 241, of the Haynes' auction catalogue #7. John L.

Dear Thomas I am afraid that, like you, I know of no link between the four objects depicted in negative silhouette on your tsuba. I am generally very sceptical about the tendency of many collectors to leap upon a Christian influence to justify any vaguely cruciform element in a tsuba’s design. But the presence of a fukurin on your tsuba does suggest that it might, at some stage, have been deliberately reduced from its original form to its present cruciform shape. Perhaps, on this occasion, my scepticism is unfounded. Regards, John L.

Great photographs of the tsuba, Danny, and exactly what we wanted. It looks to me as though Ford was correct about the fukurin, and Martin about the sanmai construction – sorry folks. But at least we three agree, I think, that Danny’s tsuba is work of a late period. John L.

Danny, what we would like, in order to resolve the question as to whether or not your tsuba is sanmai (constructed of several layers of metal, sandwiched together), is either a photograph — technically quite difficult to obtain — or your opinion as to whether there is any evidence of layering in the raw edges of the guard which are exposed in the nakago-hitsu (the triangular hole for the blade’s tang). It would, of course, also be interesting to see the remainder of the mounts. Very many thanks. John L.

Martin’s observation of the denting of some elements of the design on Danny’s tsuba is very astute. But is this really a sanmai tsuba? The edge seems to be a 'mimi' rather than a 'fukurin', and there are no indications of riveting on the seppa-dai. An inspection of the edges of the nakago-hitsu would surely answer this question, and I wonder if Danny can help us here? John L.

Dear Richard I am a little worried that, of late, Ford and I seem to be agreeing with one another. I, like him, can see no reason to label Danny’s tsuba as Kanagushi, although KÅ-KinkÅ might, perhaps, be considered as a possible attribution. But the poor colouration of the metal; the repetition of an identical design on both sides of the tsuba - even the distribution of the nanako granules is identical; the lack of wear in the nakago-hitsu; the poor quality of the nanako and of the yakitsuke gilding; and the strange rim around the hitsu-ana all indicate indifferent work of a late period — possibly cast, and intended for export. Regards, John L.

Dear Anne I agree that the tsuba you have posted is, indeed, very like your own. While it is difficult to be sure with the small image provided, this does seem to lack the YoshirŠfeature of incised lines around the brass inlay, which your tsuba demonstrates. Interestingly, though, its hitsu-ana is inlaid with a brass border — another feature of YoshirŠwork. I also agree with Ford about the dating of your tsuba, but personally feel that this discrepancy is due to the fact that the posted tsuba is more likely to be early Edo, rather than Momoyama period, as stated. Regards, John L.

Anne’s tsuba is, as I am sure we will all agree, an example of HeianjÅ ZÅgan work. The rather naive brass, hon-zÅgan, vegetation design; the maru-gata and maru mimi; and the rounded hitsu-ana all tend to support this attribution. But, sadly, some of the inlay has become detached, and in these areas can be seen shallow incisions around the missing inlay. Also, the pine-needle design is verging on one of a karakusa-moyÅ, and both of these are features that are more commonly associated with YoshirÅ work. Since YoshirÅ tsuba have their origins in the HeianjÅ ZÅgan school, is it acceptable to suggest that Anne’s tsuba represents an early transition between these two groups? The majority of both of these groups of tsuba are mumei, and it will be interesting to see if either more photographs of the seppa-dai from Anne, or an experienced Japanese eye, can help in identifying the inscription. John L.

Dear Bojan S I am afraid that I cannot agree with Mark’s statement that your tsuba ‘looks Namban’ — with the absence of any openwork and undercutting it lacks the main defining characteristic of that group. Admittedly, with its crysanthemoid mimi; its dragon-with-the-tama-jewel theme; and its decorative seppa-dai it does demonstrate definite namban influence, but is much more Hizen in its appearance. I do agree with him, however, that it is probably a late 1800s, cast tsuba. Regards, John L.