Jake6500

Re-patination is possible but you can also just get black chemically treated tenjo-ita. The kao on your piece is less complicated, so based on that as well as Mauro's example I would assume the piece is a decent quality gimei piece from during or shortly after Eisen's time (maybe 1790-1800ish) with a false mei and kao to increase sale value. It could well have been made as mumei by a lesser known student of the Omori school or a similar adjacent machibori school from the same Yokoya school lineage then signed and re-patinated at a later date. At this point I would not suggest submission for shinsa. If you were to submit it, you'd likely need to have the mei professionally removed and apply for school attribution. If you did have the mei removed it likely would paper, however I personally don't like the practice of removing signatures even if they are false... Personally I'd just keep it in my collection as is for its artistic qualities. The cost would also outweigh the financial benefit.

Thanks for posting this example Mauro, Based on this example it seems that the mei and the kao in particular do not match. The signature is likely gimei, placed on a real late 18th century workshop piece.

Hi Thomas, The overall quality of the work certainly looks quite good... The early Omori masters often produced works of this kind with ground nanako-ji and high relief carving. Shishi lions were a known motif of theirs prior to the Omori-nami (wave) motif that eventually became the symbol of the schools peak works. If the piece is genuine it would be a signed work from a lesser-known second generation student of the founder of the Omori school, a contemporary of the infamous Teruhide. For comparison, the Yanagawa and Omori schools both branched off from the Yokoya school and the founders of both schools were students of Yokoya Somin. I happen to have a fuchigashira set from Yanagawa Naomitsu, the second generation head of the Yanagawa school with a similar motif and if you compare your own fuchigashira to it, you will see the structural similarities. Here's the thread I made at that time (feel free to post your own fuchigashira in this thread too!) What I'm getting at is that the design definitely fits the period of Eisen's activity. Naomitsu, who made my piece and became the head of the Yanagawa school, was active at the same time as Eisen and is part of the same generation of Machibori carvers... The quality, which I would call mid-level school workshop caliber also matches the artist who was skilled, but lacked the mastery of some of his contemporaries like Naomitsu or Teruhide. On the other end of the spectrum, because Eisen was a lesser known artist who did not take over the Omori school (you could say that he worked in Teruhide's shadow) it is hard to find any mei and kao examples or any comparison pieces. The NBTHK have reference examples if you choose to submit to shinsa but I could not find an example anywhere. Joly catalogued an "Eisen" and included an example of the kao in his names and kakihan, but it appears to be a different Eisen from the Bakumatsu Period. The signature on the piece is cut fairly fluidly. The first kanji seems great, the second features mild compression. This second character, as well as the overall simplicity of the kao (despite the fact that it seems well cut) is where my concern lies in submitting for shinsa. The other thing I'm not sure I can adequately judge from the pictures is if there is any divergence in colour where the signature is cut. Have a close look inside the crevices of the mei itself. Is the metal lighter in colour than the rest of the black fuchi base? If so, this is a sign that the signature may have been carved later (gimei). If not, this piece might warrant the shinsa submission to see what the NBTHK think. It is good enough in quality and aligns well enough with expectations that it COULD paper... Be advised that as Eisen is a minor student in the school, NBTHK authentication won't have a significant impact on the value of the piece. Further, you run the risk of the work being flagged as gimei and thereby losing financial value. My advice? If you submit it, do it purely out of curiosity or the desire to study the provenance of the piece, not for financial investment and be willing to lose the submission fee. If you're not willing to lose the financial investment, admire the piece as is.

Thanks Barry for rotating the image... Sorry to disappoint Danny but I think the mei does not stand up to minimal scrutiny... For comparison here is a verified example of Teruhide's mei and Kao: The angle of the strokes in your piece lack the sharpness you would expect in a confidently cut mei and in the latter half the forger seems to have given up altogether! The workmanship itself on the piece is a bit better (at least good enough to attempt to forge a mei on) but I couldn't confidently attribute it to the Omori school. Save your money on the shinsa fee, there is a 0% chance this would paper to Teruhide and probably not much greater chance of attributing Omori den either. It's a nice little piece provided you didn't pay too much for it.

I agree with Piers and Jean both, the style reminds me of Hikone Soten and the motif on the right could be Benkei and Yoshitsune which you might infer from the naginata held by the warrior on the fuchi (which Benkei is frequently depicted with). As for the motif of the piece on the left, I'm not sure, but maybe some sort of court scene is being depicted given the formal headwear and the seiza position on the fuchi? Alternatively, this could be a depiction of Noh theatre actors re-enacting a court scene as well?

As a general rule you don't usually want to risk cleaning or modifying anything in this hobby, however you could use hot water over a wooden (NOT METAL) toothpick to pick out dirt/grime or even better, a cotton Q-tip dipped in a hot water and dish soap solution (go light on the dish soap and let the water do most of the work). Make sure to dry thoroughly with a micro-fibre cloth afterward to avoid corrosion. Do NOT use any sort of abrasive or chemical polish or cleaning solution.

I think that either Brian is right and this tsuba has been modified for the war, OR the rectangular hole is a kozuka-ana. The tsuba itself seems legit to me. I'm not an expert in iron open works but maybe Owari?

These are all different "school" classifications managed by different families or lineages. Each "school" has certain stylistic differences, the nuances of which require considerable study in order to discern when you're starting out in this hobby. As Curran writes, the difference between Yanagawa and Kikuoka for example can be hard to discern even by the most expert professionals. In many cases, artists traditionally categorised into one type of school may actually have studied under several different schools at different times, making classifiction complicated. My recommendation is to come to this forum and participate in discussions frequently, it is a very efficient way to learn when you are starting out. Goto lions tend to have certain distinct design characteristics so I can help out a bit with that one. Here are some screenshots from a document I made for myself about this exact topic as part of my own little amateur investigation. It includes images of real pieces as well as screenshots from a Japanese reference book... When you click the images you may need to zoom in.

Makes sense, I can see that. My mind goes toward Bakumatsu because of the more realistic presentation of the Nioh on the kashira, which is something you start to see more of post-1800 with late Edo artistic developments by artists such as Iwama Masayoshi or Yukimitsu Isobe who was a student of the Hamano school. These later artists would emulate earlier masters such as Shozui frequently, adding their own hyper-realistic spin to traditional designs. They also began to experiment with different techniques to enhance the realism of pieces such as using polished stone or horn for the eye, etc. My tengu profile picture is an example of one such work - unfortunately gimei with a fake Shozui mei. I've done some research and I believe it might have been a sister piece from Yukimitsu Isobe's workshop or from within his circle, however I couldn't say for sure... As the carving seems reminiscent of these later pieces but the techniques used are more traditional here, perhaps circa 1800-1820, a generation or two earlier, is right?

Thank you Piers, that response helped me piece the story back together in my mind! If I remember correctly, there was also a punishment for opening the box right? I remember a temporal theme where time passes differently in the ocean v.s. on land and Taro ages dramatically as a consequence of disobeying the instruction. At least, this is the version I was taught in school about 20-25 years ago... Those netsuke examples are beautiful Piers! The small, painstaking wood carving in particular looks meticulous!

Urashima Taro came to mind but I wasn't actually sure... Doesn't he open a box in the story as opposed to a clam? I remember the story from primary school 20+ years ago now so it has been a while...

Hi NMB, I've been away from the board for a bit due to work but figured it was time to share my latest Hamano school acquisition. I picked this kozuka up direct from a Japanese dealer (shoutout Touken Matsumoto!) for what I think was a great price overall. This is a Tokubetsu Hozon papered kozuka by Hamano Noriyuki II, signed with his youthful gō prior to assuming his position as a master of the Hamano school (Norimasu). The piece features some beautiful takabori and the theme is Shinkiro (sea mirage) featuring shells which is a motif Noriyuki is famous for. The timing of this piece as it fits into Noriyuki's early career also makes for an interesting point of reference or study! I will keep looking to expand my collection of Hamano school fittings so that this piece has friends...

This strikes me as later work than that... I would have thought Bakumatsu Period (or in that ballpark, 1800-1850) Hamano work or possibly Iwama school... Agree with you that it is a nice piece and better mumei than gimei.

I have looked it up and I in fact am NOT crazy lol It's called Inoshishi-no-ke (boar-hair lines) because the pattern mimics the coarse fur of a wild boar... Stop gaslighting me thread!! I'm not crazy I swear

Isn't this surface sometimes referred to as "boar-hair" pattern?

Unless you plan to mount them again I don't really see why it would matter Piers... Just think of them as jewelled art meant to be looked at but not worn.

That Cloisonne tsuba is pretty high quality. You can find late Edo Nagasaki shippo pieces of lesser quality and they're nothing special, but the one you posted is perhaps one of the best I've seen!

Thanks guys, this explanation makes sense. I've seen a video about the use of this eye technique in larger statues. Setting the pupil from the back would certainly align with the practice as it exists today and make a lot more logistical sense. I am still chasing down a picture of that kashira in the description I posted above... As it turns out the digital copy i was using ended up being a blended mash of Naunton and Behrens. If anyone reading has a copy of the W. L. Behren's Collection (Part 3) and could take a picture or scan of plate LXXIII (73) where I believe the potential sister kashira can be found, it would be much appreciated.

Dreadful Nothing else needs to be said

Thank you for this additional information Colin. I would assume based on the options you've presented that the third makes the most sense in this case, however this leaves me to wonder why the small, barely visible hole at the top of the eye is present. If it was not to drop urushi powder into, why is it there? The eye lacks the iridescence of pearl so I think that material is unlikely on this particular kashira. I would really love to get an image of Naunton collection 2828 to compare to my own piece and see if there's any connection but unfortunately the description was all I could find. Short of paying a gazillion dollars for one of the original 300 1912 prints and viewing the addenda I'll probably have to give up on that.

This is exactly what Gemini thinks this is... The exact construction method is where it gets complex as there were a few ways this was done. Sometimes a metal "lip" was carved over the dome material to hold it in place (higher quality, more advanced construction), sometimes it was basically glued down with an adhesive (lower complexity construction). Having had a chance to look at the piece in hand with magnification, I am now leaning toward the former, more complex construction. Jean, I was curious about this as well, however there seem to be a couple of possibilities for this including the use of a small birds feather quill or utilising a very fine, hollow bamboo needle as delivery devices and letting gravity do most of the work. A plunger could also be used in tandem with the bamboo needle to "inject" urushi, usually made of tightly rolled washi paper... These were apparently called "Kuda-fude" and were used in Maki-e to drop powders and liquids into precise spots, so it does appear to be a technical possibility. Remember, we are talking about a very late piece toward the very end of the Edo Period, circa 1850-1860... Apparently Henri Joly's 'The Sword and the Tsuba' has some further information about jewelled eyes and organic inlays in late Edo Hamano and Iwama school work, so my next goal will be to get my hands on a copy of this text. EDIT: Here's an interesting and seemingly similar stylistic example I found in Joly's Catalogue of the Naunton collection... This seems to feature a similar, hyper-realistic eye in the same style as my Tengu! The brow and carving aroud the eye also seems very similar and was signed Jogetsusai Hiroyoshi (Uchikoshi school) Another fuchi kashira which sounds borderline identical to mine in design is described in Joly as follows:

I see, thanks for that information. Seems like my understanding of what I read was simply incomplete. The Jewellers loupe I bought just arrived in the post today so I've had a quick look at the eye through it again, though I'm still getting used to using it... There does appear to be an extremely small hole at the top of the eye which may have been used to inject black urushi to form the pupil at the back... The hole is so small that it is just barely noticeable with x30 magnification. Here's a repost of the closeup photo of the eye with the area of the hole identified... Based on the observation of a thin gap at the bottom of the eye between the sclera and the metal and the absence of such a gap at the top, Gemini is still pointing me toward the use of stag horn for the eye dome on the basis that it believes this slight gap is a result of shrinkage due to dehydration of the material... The lack of a similar gap at the top is likely because metal overlapping the top of the eye is holding the dome in place. This explanation makes sense to me but being skeptical of AI (which I'm using as an investigative tool rather than any sort of authority) I still don't feel confident one way or the other about whether the piece uses horn or glass... None the less I feel like this investigative experiment has helped to develop my understanding of the piece and its construction, albeit to an incomplete extent.

I did read that Edo Period glass often had a yellowish tint due to the manufacturing process at the time. Another thing I read is that Bakumatsu artists included a thin gold foil underneath to give the eye a more realistic look and this can degrade under the glass leading to a more cloudy appearance over time. This is what I was referring to when I mentioned the aging process. I definitely should have specified that and realise I was being a bit vague. The pupil of the eye may or may not use urushi (I think it probably is but it is hard to tell for sure as it is underneath the eye dome). > Glass in such small dimensions is not at all "pliable", so there will be no press-fit or similar. Good point I hadn't properly thought through fully. > KASHIRA and related shaped metal objects are mostly formed in a hollow/bowl-shaped steel mold, not on a "dome" shaped tool. Sorry Jean, but I'm not actually sure I understand what you're trying to say with this last bit... When I'm referring to a "dome" I'm not talking about the kashira itself but about the eye which I presume was constructed by inserting a hollow dome made of a see-through material (such as glass) into a pre-determined hollowed space (the eye socket). The pupil of the eye is quite clearly placed behind said dome, likely made of urushi as you suggested. I was not suggesting the kashira itself was made on a "dome shaped tool" so I think this is a simple misunderstanding.

Thanks for sharing this example Ray, it is the closest I have seen to my own, though I think the material is probably still different. The middle picture makes the pupil underneath more visible which suggests it could have been produced using a similar method. Dale, I don't think the eye on mine is made using a stone or enamel. The material is cloudy but see-through and the yellowish tint is likely the result of 150+ years of aging so I suspect it was originally even more more transparent. The metal appears to have been hammered over/around the dome to lock it into place which leads me to doubt the use of a stone as it would be hard to do this without breaking something. A thin organic material made more sense to me, mainly because the material would have more flex or yield. Glass seems plausible to me as it would be more pliable whilst in a heated state. Quartz or a similar natural crystal seems possible as well but I think a lot less likely... I've finally got round to ordering a Jewellers loupe to take a closer look at the eye and see if I can narrow down the material. Figured given how deep I've thrown myself into this hobby it'd be a worthwhile investment to assess the quality of pieces, investigate construction processes before submitting to shinsa, etc.

It can be very hard to pin a specific generation to Hirata given most of the works are unsigned. NBTHK are more than likely to err on the side of caution and certify as Hirata den... Regardless, it's a pretty nice addition to any collection. Hirata school is interesting for a lot of reasons!