docliss

Ex Holbrook and Grey Doffin I believe? http://www.japaneseswordbooksandtsuba.com/store/holbrook-tsuba/h167-higo-hirata-hikozo John L.

Ben I am sorry but, in spite of a fairly good mei and kao, I do not believe that the quality of the work is good enough to be that of I. Ikkan. This artist is not rated in Kinko Meikan, where he is listed as I. Kazuhiro and considered only as Ryoko, but his work is superior to that of your fuchi-gashira, which I personally believe to be gimei. John L.

Ben, thank you for that, but a misunderstanding. What I required were images of the entire fuchi and kashira - not of the mei. The latter looks OK, but I would prefer to base any judgement on the quality of the work rather than on the mei. With thanks, John L.

Really a fuchi-gashira by Iwamoto Ikkan? Please let us see some images of these. John L.

? image. John L.

Are we perhaps, as a group, rather too hasty to label a tsuba as ‘cast’ from a single, not very good photographic image? I, personally, would like to see some better images, together with a translation of the mei and the hakogaki before casting a stone. John L.

Thank you, Chris, for posting images of your Bushū tsuba by Masatomo. It might be interesting to compare this with a similar, though rather more sophisticated Bushū tsuba that is listed on the tsuba-no-bi website. http://tsuba-no-bi.com/tsuba/detail/T00081/52/ This tsuba, of a similar period, is inscribed Bushū (no)ju Masakata, and has a shakudō insert in one of its openwork eggplant images. John L.

Christian, I agree that there is some confusion over the dates of A. Yoshitsugu I. Robinson gives the date of his birth as being ‘about 1700’, while Haynes gives his dates as ‘ca. 1650-75’. To add to the confusion, Hara gives his date of birth as 'mitte des 18 jahrhunderts'! But surely A. Yoshitsugu I and A. Jinsuke are NOT the same artist; as I have already pointed out, Nihon Tō Kōza believes the latter to be the younger brother of the sandai. And Jinbei was, surely, the father of Yoshitsugu I? I regret that I do not have a copy of the Furakawa catalogue – sorry. John L.

Christian, Haynes lists Akao JINSUKE (H 02055.0) as working in the province of Echizen ca 1650, and notes: listed in Sōken Kisho, 1781, vol.4, p.34 Furukawa catalogue pl.20, #111 SCE. W-335-U-3, Kp.-163. He is also listed on p.114 of Markus Sesko’s Genealogies of Janese tsuba and tōsō-kinkō Artists. According to this author he was not a master of the school, but was descended from/a student of the first master, A. Yoshitsugu (H 12225.0). Nihon To Koza, p.150 calls him ZENSUKE, and the younger brother of the sandai. Does that help as a start? John L.

David, you are quite correct about my error in transcribing Haytnes' reference number - I have corrected this to H. 06602.0. I am sorry about that. Interestingly, most of the tsuba by this group of artists demonstrate decorative sekigane in the nakago-hitsu, a feature absent in your tsuba. I personally can see no possible reason to even consider a gimei attribution for this tsuba. John L.

Thank you Koichi for that – it explains my earlier confusion, which led to a mistaken concern that my attribution of David’s tsuba might have been wrong. John L.

I hate to disagree with Koichi san, but are not the appropriate kanji for this particular Eiju 栄寿 ? John L

This artist’s work has been dealt with on NMB on several previous threads and, at the risk of repetition, I shall post some comments. Hara lists seven artists using these kanji for EIJU, but the artist to which this mei refers is Okamoto Naofusa (H 06602.0). A student of O. Harukuni and an adopted son of O Naoshige, he was working in Osaka, Kyōto and Edo in the late nineteenth century. There are a large number of tsuba bearing the SEIRYUKEN EIJU mei in soshō with a gold, hira-zōgan seal, all of which reflect the Tetsugendō tradition. But there are variations both in the mei and seals, and a very wide variation in the quality of the work, suggesting a number of artists using these mei. A great deal more work needs to be done on this group of artists, of which David’s is clearly one. John L.

Ray Both Hamano Noriyuki I (H 07454.0) and II (H 07455.0) used the gō of Bōsōken. There is one illustration of a kao quite like that on your tsuba on p.90, N 311 of Joly’s Shōsankenshu that is attributed to Noriyuki II. But the middle kanji of this gō of both of those artists differs from that of your’s, and I fear that the quality of this work is not of the standard of these two, much copied Hamano masters. Your tsuba is, I think, a gimei copy of the work of H. Noriyuki II. John L.

Is not the 'dirt/wax' that you describe in fact remants of black lacquer? I should definitely refrain from any attempts at its removal. John L.

An additional reason for my doubts as to the origin of this pair lies in the base of the fuchi. In the work of the masters every aspect is one of perfection. In this fuchi the join between the tenjō-gane and the koshi is very irregular and of unacceptable quality. John L.

This is an interesting pair, and the work on an iron base is quite impressive: it is a pity that it is so badly rusted. Personally, I do not think that it measures up to the work of Hamano Naoyuki, who is rated as Joko (‘an excellent artist’). Neither am I convinced by the mei nor the kao. But at $900 somebody was obviously impressed. John L.,

Not of Uchikoshi Hirotoshi, surely? John L.

Reuben’s fuchi appears to be by Umetada Narikata (H 06926.0). The son of U. Naritsugu, he succeeded his father as the fourth hereditary master of the Edo-Umetada school. Kinkō Meikan does not include this artist, but his mei and kao are illustrated as #422 on p.434 of the Baur Catalogue. John L.

The mei read KUNIHARU, and Hara lists four artists using these kanji: H 03562.0 – H 03565.0. Sergei’s tsuba may be by the first of these artists, Fugiwara Kuniharu, working in Bushū ca 1700. John L.

Kitamura, with the alternative second kanji, is a family name. See Haynes' H 03218.0. John L.

Dear Grev In reply to your query re the Bushū (Itō) school, the two terms are interchangeable. This group is dealt with very comprehensively on pp.179-184 of Tsuba: an Aesthetic Study. But to summarise this, there were two Itō schools – the Edo Itō and the Odawara Itō, and there is some debate regarding the origin of these. Both schools were founded in the Genroku era, the former by Itō Masanaga (H 0427.0) and the latter by his brother, Itō Masatsugu (H 04687.0). We cannot say which of these was the first, but the Edo Itō school was by far the most prosperous and successful. It is probable that there was initially a single Itō group with a common style, and that later members changed their place of residence from Edo to Odawara and, with this, their work style. Robinson, however, proposes in The Arts of the Japanese Sword that Itō Masatsugu founded the school at Odawara but that, when his descendant I. Masatsune was appointed by the Shōgun, the family headquarters was removed to Edo. It is claimed that ‘the signature and style of these two groups … are entirely different’, but there is no clarification of these differences, and I personally find it difficult to reliably separate the two. Edo Itō work might be expected to reflect the prosperity and Shōgunal support that this group enjoyed, together with the sophistication of their Edo origin, influences that were not present in Odawara. But to separate Bushū (Itō) work into these two subdivisions can be very difficult. John L.

Yes, SHOHAKUDO SUNAGAWA MASAYOSHI with kao, and with the alternative kanji for 'sho' (H 04798.0). The third master of the Sunagawa family school, working in Bushu in the early C19. A nice tsuba indeed. John L.

As a starter, I can see YUGENSAI BUSHU (NO)JU YASUTSUGU with kao. This is Haynes' H 11322.0, working in Bushu ca 1750, with an unrecorded kao. I shall leave the remainder to our more expert translators. John L.

Are not the mei and kao on Malcolm’s tsuba those of Ichiryū Masayoshi (H 04897.0)? Kinkō Meikan, on p.462d, illustrates a very similar signature. John L.