docliss

Dear Michal I agree with Mikolaj that these three terms are completely interchangeable and refer, simply, to an elliptical shape. The Japanese literate members may well correct me, but Naga, I think, means ‘elongated’, and Tate means ‘axis’. Maru-gata is, of course ‘round form’. Life is not always difficult for us collectors! Regards, John L.

Dear Nick The striking, asymmetric, shinchÅ« suemon-zÅgan image of the tiger on your tsuba immediately suggests to me Jingo work, and this impression is supported by its mokkÅ form and by the presence of rough hammer work on the well tempered plate. This image is lacking the naive majesty and dignity that characterises the work of the early masters of this school, and is somewhat ‘contemporary’ in its appearance. Also, the irregularly shaped, square and rectangular hitsu-ana that characterise the early work of the school have been replaced by very conventionally shaped ones. One must comment, en passent, that the brass inlay appears, rather sadly, to have been over-cleaned. In conclusion, I think that your interesting tsuba is an example of late Edo period Shimizu work, and shall be interested to read further comments by those members more expert than I. Regards, John L.

Dear Brian I am sure that your mokkÅ-gata tsuba should be labelled as HeianjÅ-zÅgan work. This style, originating in the early 1500s, was revived in the late Edo period, with more naturalistic designs, and again in the Meiji era, predominantly for export to the West. It is difficult to judge the quality of the iron plate from your photographs, but the realistic depiction of the three-toed dragon and the presence of the gold incrustation on the flammiform appendages suggest that it dates from one of these revival periods. The well-worn nakago-hitsu, together with that of sekigane, favours the earlier of these. The suggestion of previous lacquer does not influence these conclusions, and I feel there is a Mito influence present. So I would conclude late Edo, HeianjÅ-zÅgan work. Regards, John L.

Martin’s assertions as to Ludolf’s intentions may well be correct, but I still disagree with them. Examples of Hikone-bori tsuba with two suhama-gata hitsu-ana can be found as follows: The Catalogue of the JC Hawkshaw Collection, Pl. XV, #758 Token Bijutsu (English Edition), Spring 1988, No 36, p. 27 I also have one in my own collection. Regards, John L.

Dear Michael I have to agree with Ludolf that your tsuba is one of the ubiquitous SÅten copies that are found, and is probably an example of the poor work produced by the Aizu-ShÅami school in the late Edo period. I cannot, however, agree with his comment regarding the similar shapes of the kÅgai and kodzuka-hitsu. It is not uncommon to find two hitsu, both of which are either hangetsu-gata or, as in this case, suhama-gata. The latter is, I believe, sometimes a feature of ShÅami work? Regards, John L.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, and in spite of Ford’s exhortations not to concentrate on the mei too closely, I do have a problem with this. The kanji appear to be 近江ä½é‡ä½äººä½œ (Omi (no)ju Shigenori ? saku), but I am puzzled by the sixth kanji. This is clearly not H 08429.0, whom Haynes dates as working in the C17, and I agree that it is an indifferent work by an unknown, late Edo worker. But why label it ‘gimei’; is it not a truism that the less recognised the artist the less likely is the work to be gimei? Why on earth would any artist sign his work thus? Regards, John L.

Dear Brian Thank you for the additional photographs – also for the private one of your impressive sword display. I am afraid that I have to agree with Richard and Ford regarding these kodÅgu. The poor quality of the nanako work; the crude rendering of the images; and the brownish colour of the shakudÅ all support a label of Yokoya-mono work, as he has suggested. The question of tsuka-hei on the base of the tsuka has been dealt with in an article posted by Robert Benson at: http://www.togishi.com/did_you_know.htm Regards, John.

Hello again, Brian Your tsuba certainly bears a resemblance to those illustrated in the Kinai transcription that has been posted on the Nihonto-no-Bi web site, both being similar depictions of a shitagi mushroom. But while a combination of ShÅami and ChÅshÅ« styles is seen in Kinai work, occasionally with some nunome-zÅgan decoration, the presence of the gold, hira-zÅgan pine needles is quite unlike anything seen on these tsuba. That feature, together with the wide ryÅ-hitsu, immediately says to me ‘ShÅami work’. Regards, John.

Dear Chris I agree, and would personally describe your tsuba as modified aoi-gata. It is typical ChÅshÅ« work although, with the wide ryÅ-hitsu and the gold nunome-zÅgan on the mimi, it characteristically demonstrates an obvious ShÅami influence. The colour of the iron might, perhaps, be rather darker than it appears in your photograph? And yes, the mei reads CHOSHU HAGI (NO)JU TOMOHISA SAKU. Haynes lists no fewer than 15 artists using these kanji and, of these, four might well be the artist in question, assuming a date ca 1800 for your tsuba. These are: H 09891.0 Inoue H 09892.0 Itoga H 09894.0 Kawaji H 09895.0 Kawaji It is not, sadly, by one of the renowned artists of that name, all of whom worked in the early 1700s, but is an attractive tsuba. Regards, John L.

May I please have some suggestions regarding a possible origin of this striking mumei tsuba? It is a heavy, darkly patinated iron plate measuring 8.0 cm - 7.9 cm, and its sukinokoshi mimi has no visible folding lines. Its rough, hammered surface bears a number of ‘tem’ kokuin. On both surfaces are inlaid gold ivy leaves (tsutu) and tendrils, six on the obverse and five on the reverse; one of these is missing from the obverse, and the engraved outlines of the missing image can be clearly seen. The nakago-hitsu is well worn, and contains copper sekigane, and there are two conventionally shaped ryÅ-hitsu. I would label this as Yoshiro-zÅgan if the inlay were of brass, but it is of gold. Supposedly it may be a TempÅ plate upon which later Edo-period kinkÅ work has been added. But I am always puzzled by the choice of a TempÅ plate for inlay – surely a smooth surface would be a much more practical base upon which to apply such decoration? With thanks for your help, John L.

Dear Peter As a post-script to my earlier comments on your Jakushi kodzuka, one noticeable feature is that the nunome-zÅgan highlighting on the trees is in the form of small and discrete, rectangular blocks. A fellow collector has in the past pointed out to me that this is a feature seen on some ShÅami copies of Jakushi work. But whether this feature is one that is shared between the two schools, or is an indication of a ShÅami provenance, I am afraid that I know not. Regards, John.

Nagashikomi is a new one on me. Does it, I wonder, mean 'cast' - the tsuba in question looks a bit suspicious to me! John L.

John Stuart’s theory explaining the incidence of mei on tsuba in association with the ‘wrong’ kao is an interesting one. I do question, however, whether a student would sign his work with his master’s gŠrather than with his master’s more usual name. An alternative explanation for such tsuba is, of course, that they are the work of presently unrecognised artists. John L.

Dear Mikolaj The artist of your tsuba is probably Hamano Yasuyuki (H 11367.0), who used Hiroyuki as one of his many gÅ. Born in 1763 and dying in 1836, he was a student of Hamano Naoyuki and of Hamano Noriyuki I. He studied and worked in Edo. This attribution is supported by the style of your tsuba but, unfortunately, none of the kao illustrated on p.2224 of Haynes’ Index; on p.17, no 180 of ShÅsankenshu; or on p. 386d of KinkÅ Meikan correspond to that on your tsuba. Isn’t life difficult .... Regards, John L.

Dear Milt I am convinced that if you submitted this tsuba for shinsa it would be labelled Hikone-bori. But perhaps you, like me, feel that this label is frequently a cop-out. After all, it merely describes work that TAS calls ‘a combination of low relief, line carving, some shishiai, detailed iroye inlay and elaborate openwork ... in reality but one type of ubu-sukashi.’ Some months ago I posted an iron tsuba of the ‘SÅten style’ in which many members identified a ChÅshÅ« influence , but agreed unanimously to label as Hikone-bori; I am re-posting it here. This bears some resemblance to your own tsuba, being mumei; in a black patinated iron; and demonstrating a formality and aloofness in the depiction of the figures that is completely absent both from SÅten work and its recognised copyists. This is thus set apart from many of the groups that ‘copied’ the SÅten style and will, I am sure, eventually be identified as emanating from a specific area or school. Regards, John L.

Dear Brian Thank you for posting the new images. Your fuchi-gashira is signed TSURAHIDE with kao. This is Kotani Tsurahide (H 10973.0), a pupil of Yanagawa Naotsura who worked in the province of Inaba circa 1825. There is a tsuba by him in the Bauer catalogue on p. 441 D1302, and # 664 in this catalogue shows his signature and kao. Robinson misreads him as Otani Tsurateru, but this would seem to be the same artist, and the kao are certainly very similar. It is a very attractive pair. Regards, John L.

Dear Brian The fuchi-gashira that you have posted look very nice, and are possibly Omori work. I do not know the Renyei signature that you suggest - could you post a picture of the tenjo of the fuchi, in order to show the signature, I wonder? With thanks, John L.

Dear Brian I believe that the topic you are referring to is that posted by Robert C. Walker on Mon Oct 08, 2007. John.

Dear Mark Your assumption that the presence of an insert inside a kashira is a sign of a better made one is quite correct. You should realise, however, that the term ‘better made’ is relative rather than absolute. This is to say that, when it was originally purchased, your kashira with an insert would have cost more than would an equivalent one without an insert. It does not say that your kashira is, by reason of its insert, a high quality work - sadly, it is not. Am I correct in thinking that the kashira that you posted is of iron, with assorted sea shells rendered in high relief copper? Neither the quality of the carved waves, nor the lack of detail on the sea shells are indicative of high quality work, and your kashira is typical of that being produced by the Aizu ShÅami school during the C19. This is, I suspect, its provenance. Regards, John L.

Thank you Stephen. I was not aware, from the illustration in Robinson's book, that the nanako was extended to cover the decoration. That was clearly done after the inlay, but my question was directed more to those 'conventional' works, with the nanako as a background on the undecorated areas. John.

It does indeed Ford, thank you very much for that. John.

This is a very basic question that one of your members (? Ford Hallam) may be able to answer for me. Is the nanako decoration on a soft-metal tsuba applied to a disc before its decoration, with blank spaces left for this, or applied after the decorative work has been completed? Thanking you in advance, John L.

Dear Rick On the right, reading from above down SEIRYUKEN On the left, reading from above down EIJU (or NAOFUSA) I'm afraid that I can't help you with a suggested text for reading 'grass' script. It occurs relatively rarely on tosogu, and the books that I have seen look very complicated. I know that several of the members could advise you on this, though. Happy hunting, John.

Dear Rick Your tsuba is signed SeiryÅ«ken Eiju and appears to be very typical of his work, apart from the fact that he commonly included a gold hira-zÅgan seal. Haynes lists this artist as Okamoto Naofusa (H 06606.0), a student of Okamoto Harukuni and the adopted son of Okamoto Naoshige. But the are numerous tsuba, of greatly varying quality, bearing this mei in sÅsho script and using the gÅ of SeiryÅ«ken. There are also several variations of the gold seal. It is now believed that there were several artists signing tsuba of the TetsugendÅ style thus. Umetada Eiju may have been one such artist or, more probably, was the same artist as H 06606.0, above. Your tsuba appears to be a reasonable example of such work. Regards, John L.

Dear Peter I have been hoping that another member would answer your query re the Jakushi kodzuka but, sadly, they have not, so here goes: The identification of supposed Jakushi work is extremely difficult. There were several generations of the school, working from the early C18 until the mid C19, together with numerous copyists, and almost all of these signed their work simply with the two-kanji Jakushi, as on your kodzuka. This difficulty is compounded, I am afraid, by the quality of your photograph. Most of their work was ita-tsuba. Your kodzuka does, however, resemble Jakushi work, appearing to be kusarakashi applied to an iron background; with nunome-zÅgan on the higher parts of the metal; and depicting a Chinese scene of mountains and trees. The inscription is OK, bearing a resemblance to that illustrated on p.162a of KinkÅ Meikan. And that’s as far as I can go, I am afraid. Is it by a member of the Jakushi school or by one of many copyists, I know not. As to identifying ‘which Jakushi’ ... sorry! You might get an answer to your query by submitting your kodzuka to shinsa, but my inclination would be to save my money and to enjoy the piece. Regards, John L.