docliss

Please correct me if I am wrong, but does not the decorative mimi make it much more likely to be of Aizu Shoami provenance rather than Mito? John L.

Ludolf, from Kinko Meikan, p.146d, I think. John L.

Dear Curtis Shōami Shigeyuki (H 08607.0) was a member of the Akita Shōami group and worked in Akita 1650-1700. His signature is reproduced on p.146d of Kinkō Meikan, and appears a good match to that on your tsuba. John L.

The tsuba is, to me, very suggestive of the Owari Norisuke school. John L.

Dear Joe The fuchi is definitely SASHU (NO)JU TOSHISADA, and this is probably by one of the two Nakahara artists of this name, (H 10549.0 or H 10550.0), both working in Aikawa on the island of Sado circa 1700 and 1750 respectively. The tsuba is BUSHU (NO)JU and TOSHI, but I am unsure of the final kanji on this. Sorry …. Perhaps another member can help? John L.

I cannot agree with Stephen’s suggestion that Martin’s tsuba is a Chinese repro. Apart from its possible three-plate construction, it is identical to the numerous Namban tsuba that were made in Japan in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Cast it may be – many of these tsuba were – and of rather poor quality, but I see no reason to doubt its authenticity. John L.

????? C19 Namban work, surely. The decorative surface appears to be undercut, and the backing plate may be intended to highlight this decorative work. Both gold and siver surfaces were used thus in some later Namban work. There appear to be karakusa-like imprssions on the solid surface, and this may be an indication that there was once a second openwork plate which is now missing? John L.

Mike’s recent posting of a beautiful pair of fuchi-gashira, probably by Hirata Narikazu, has prompted me to post images of a pair by a later Hirata artist. It is an interesting exercise to compare these two works, the latter possibly by Hirata Harunari (H 00844.0), the eighth master of the school and working in Edo in the first half of the C19. Upon a fine shakudō, pearskin ishime are depicted the seven takaramono in translucent enamels within gold cloisons; some of these are duplicated. Both the fuchi and the kashira have fine rims. The fuchi is unsigned, and the kashira has copper-gilt shitodome. Interestingly, on the ura surface of the fuchi has been added, in gold and red lacquer, an additional image of a jingasa. Is it fanciful to wonder if this modification was for a left-handed wearer, or was simply a mon, intended to personalise the fitting? This pair was a part of lot no 230 in the Gardiner sale of 24 February, 1948. John L.

Is this tsuba by RAIYOKEN YOSHIMASA (H 11822.0), working in the mid-1850s? Haynes describes a tsuba by this artist as 'iron tsuba, thickened border, with dragon and waves in relief.' John L.

I am a little unhappy at the recent tendency to label hamamono simply as being ‘trash’, and at the apparent distinction being made between these and shiiremono. One has only to study the late masterworks collected by Bigelow, Weld and Spaulding, and presented to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, to appreciate the exceptional quality of these works. Some of these were commissioned directly from the artists and some were purchased from recognised dealers; all were for export. What do we call these, if not 'hamamono'? I feel that the whole subject requires clarification. Can any member please help? John L.

While I agree with George that Grev’s tsuba 4/5 is inscribed ISSHIKEN OKINARI with kao, I cannot agree with his high opinion of its quality. Horie Okinari (H 07470.0), a student of Hamano Shōzui and of Omori Teruhide, and a retainer of the Hachisuke Daimyō of Awa, is rated as a Joko artist in Kinkō Meikan, where his mei is illustrated on p.58a-d. The illustrated kao are quite unlike that of Grev’s tsuba. Grev’s illustration is of a tsuba of very poor quality – quite unlike the work produced by this outstanding artist, working in the mid-Edo period – and is clearly gimei, as is the majority of work bearing this artist's mei. John L.

Dear Gilles An interesting tsuba by an artist (H 10811.0) who specialised in usuniku- and katakiri-bori. May we please have a better photograph of the mei; it is very blurred, but the kao looks promising. With kind regards, John L.

No - he of the Ichijo school, Hashimoto Isshi (H 01937.0), used a different second kanji (至) from your artist. Only the three Isshi that I have previously detailed used this pair of kanji (一志). John L.

I agree with George’s translation of the mei, and suggest that Takahatake Isshi (H 01939.0) is the most likely artist of Barry’s tsuba, signing as he did in soshō. And is that last kanji (or what remains of it) 'saku'? Haynes lists a third artist using these kanji in his Corrigenda and Addenda to his Index, Seisai Isshi (H 01939.A), dated ca. 1850, but I know nothing of this artist. John L.

Of his beautiful Namban tsuba, David writes: Is he sure of this? John L.

I am surprised that no member has taken up Pepe's suggestion of WD40. This will completely remove any existing patination from a tsuba, and is a definite NO NO! John L.

Barrie, I have come rather late to your thread since I have very little to add. Haynes suggests that artist H 04379.0 ‘signed in sōsho kanji’, so your kozuka is unlikely to be by him. This leaves the alternative readings of Seijō (H 08063.0) and Shōjō (H 08733.0-H 08735.0). The former is listed as a Bushū worker whose mei is illustrated as 407c and d in Kinkō Meikan, and your kozuka is clearly not by this artist. Three Shōjō artists using these kanji are listed by Haynes. Unfortunately, none of these artists are included in Kinkō Meikan, but the first and second are a possibility; the third is too early. Thus, either Gotō Shōjō (who 'did not work in the classic Goto tradition'), Nara Shōjō, or an unlisted artist of one of these three names is the maker of your kozuka. Kind regards, John L.

Jean, I am very sorry but your link to http://www.johnstuart.biz does not work for me. John L.

There appears to be a general consensus that Uwe’s tsuba is not Mino Goto. I know of no example of this group that possesses a heavy, gilt-nanako decoration of the mimi and/or the ryō-hitsu, and there is no such tsuba illustrated in the Gifu Museum of History catalogue, Kinko Mino Chō (1993). This is a flashy, late Edo innovation, appealing to Western tastes. John L.

I too am surprised that Thierry’s Mino Goto attribution has not been questioned. In my opinion, the lack of delicacy; the absence of a nanako-ji;and the lack of depth of the decoration all preclude such an attribution. These observations, together with the crude, gilded mimi and ryō-hitsu surrounds, are indicative of Nagoya-mono rather than Mino Goto work. I am sure that, if we could see the seppa-dai, this tsuba would be seen to not be of shakudō. John L.

Keith, while not doubting that the ability to cast tsuba has existed for aeons, was it really a financial proposition in the 1950s, when tsuba were so very readily and cheaply available? John L.

Cast prior to 1950 - is that really a likely scenario? John L.

Patrick’s tsuba does indeed bear a remarkable resemblance to my own, posted on an earlier thread. The only obvious difference is that the wear on Patrick’s tsuba is much less and the kebori detail much more obvious than is that on mine. Keith has raised the perennial question of ‘casting’, and I am only able to comment on my own, in-hand example regarding this. I am convinced that my own tsuba is not cast for a number of reasons: • The sekigane are definitely of a dark copper. • The detail of the mimi would be extremely difficult to obtain by casting • Provenance; this tsuba has been continously in the WAY collection since it was purchased by him from a dealer in Felixtowe in 1950. Over to members for further comments …. John L.

Once again, thank you very much Morita. John L.

May I beg one more translation, please? It is the left-hand one on the (?) Ikkin tsuba, and I thought might be HOKKYO, but am not sure. Thank you, John L.