Tamonten Tsuba?

[CurtisR]

Greetings all,

 

I'm seeking confirmation (or to get shot down in a hail of gunfire :D ) that the Tenbu depicted on this Tsuba is Tamonten (Bishamonten)? I haven't yet deciphered the mei but Mr. Stiles kindly ID'd a very similar Tenbu on another Tsuba, & I'm thinking this is different way of depicting him. I'm posting both sides of the Tsuba just for thoroughness...also, from the color of the metal I'm guessing shakudo?

 

Many thanks, and although I'm slow with Kanji, I'll post the mei translation as well ~~

 

Cheers,

Curtis R.

[Stephen]

maybe?

http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/2 ... nnon.shtml

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C5%ABjin

[Mark]

mei might be Naomasa

[CurtisR]

Stephen, I think you nailed it..Raijin! Wind/Thunder god...holding the exact object as on the tsuba - thank you!

And thanks Mark - working on it a bit at a time...I think it's possibly the Kinai school? Mei are so stylized sometimes that it's difficult for me to nail it down .

[Ford Hallam]

Here you go ; " Niō (仁王) are two wrath-filled and muscular guardians of the Buddha, standing today at the entrance of many Buddhist temples all across Asia including China, Japan and Korea in the form of frightening wrestler-like statues. They are manifestations of the Bodhisattva Vajrapāṇi protector deity and the oldest and most powerful of the Mahayana pantheon."

 

A google image search of the word 'Nio' will deliver loads of examples.

 

The tsuba itself is a Meiji period piece made for tourists or export. One of the most obvious clues it the fact that the 'shakudo' colour has chipped off in places, most visibly on the back, to reveal a brass coloured metal underneath. The production value is higher then most such pieces but all the different colours, which in traditional work would be different inlays, are in this case merely different metal platings.

 

The mei appears to read 'Yanagawa Naomasa' and following from the above is unfortunately not genuine.

[CurtisR]

Thank you Mr. Hallam! You know, (as I said, haven't held them in-hand yet) I was looking at the hairline scratches and wear pattern near the mimi and was wondering why it was golden underneath...plating makes perfect sense. And thanks for the info. on nio --- I suspect I'll see more in my life and will be able to ID in the future. I do like the work (have NOT purchased it, BTW) but will pass on this one. He has a couple of iron Tsuba as well that I'll look at tomorrow - I'm taking the advice of the pro's here and saving the money for 1 good one vs. 10 mediocre.....

 

I also noted that there were no sekigane or Ato on this piece...made me suspicious, and very glad I asked - I guess though that having suspicions now is a good thing, and am learning a thing or two.

:D

 

Curtis R.

[Thierry BERNARD]

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15436&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nio_g ... n_Nara.jpg

[kaigunair]

not to hijack the thread, but does plating vs inlay indicate something significant? Did plating only occur later on (late edo/meiji). I seem to recall something about electroplating (new) vs and older form of lead or mercury, but not sure how old the later form was being used.

 

Very curious as the yanagawa naomasa kozuka I recently picked up appears to be plated...

[Ford Hallam]

Electroplating was something that was introduced in the Meiji period and was used to create the illusion of multi-metal inlaid pieces.

 

Junichi, your kozuka is a perfectly traditionally made piece. I won't comment on the mei. Yanagawa Naomasa was the top student of Yokoya Somin.

[kaigunair]

Thanks Ford! I do enjoy studying the workmanship of the piece itself, so not horribly disappointed if it turns out to be gimie.

 

As with another piece I have, mei kantei has gotten me confused. Having both the wakayama 3 and 8, there are a good body of mei examples for naomasa to see, but even between the pictured ones they look very different. On top of that, the baur has one which seems to be specifically mentioned in wakayama as a variant. And another from a UK newsletter which is papered and has similar characteristics. Hence my questions here and about nanako, to try to judge the piece iteself. But for a different thread I guess.....

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi,the Yanagawa Naomasa Mei is clearly Gimei,besides it's not his kind of workmanship.Look at the Mei pics from my database (all with Kao!):besides other differences,the Nao-Character of the founder of the Yanagawa School shows 2 horizontal and one vertical stoke inside the box.Ludolf

[kaigunair]

...besides other differences,the Nao-Character of the founder of the Yanagawa School shows 2 horizontal and one vertical stoke inside the box.Ludolf

 

Update: Sorry, looks like ludolf was talking about the original tsuba! I'd appreciate any comments on the kozuka as this mei kantei is much harder than I thought.

 

So does the ume & broom kozuka's "nao" character. The top "t" of the nao character also correctly slants to the left side.

Hi Ludolf, in your examples, there are several significant different variations of the kao. The b&w example on the lower left seems to be a very close match to the kozuka's, yes My focus was more on the "gawa" character as well as the two little strokes on top of the kao (they form the Japanese い as stated in wakayama). Upon magnification, the kao in the kozuka does have the upstroke curve of the い in it - it is very light. The stroke patterns are a very very good match to one of the types of kaos listed in wakayama as well as your example.

 

In the "gawa" character, the kozuka does follow the long-short-long. It very much matches your upper right sample. I was concerned about the height and curvature of the first (left most character). However, in the wakayama samples it shows both lower and upper placement, as well as curvature of the left most stroke. Now unless wakayama likes to place many gimie signatures in both his volumes, I am learning that signatures are not as "set in stone" throughout a smith's career as I once thought, even the kaos.

 

I am trying to analysize the workmanship of the piece itself, and not just the signature. I do appreciate the many pics, but I don't quite see how they conclusively show this is gimie. Now if the workmanship was of low quality and the signature was as off as in the tsuba example, I would definitely agree with you!

[CurtisR]

Ludolf, Thanks very much for posting the examples - I can clearly see the mei differences now. and will save them to my database. I held the tsuba in-hand today and it is pretty work - though maybe a little gaudy which would explain it being made for export. AND to confirm Mr. Hallam's point, the bronze clearly shows through the patina/plating under a loupe, even where it is not scratched. Great to learn the subtle clues (probably not so subtle to others, but to my "eye in-training" they were).

 

Also looked at 4 other iron tsuba (1 signed sukashi that I'm going to try to research further showing a Mon that is not matching up to my Mon database...hmmm - suspicious). Many thanks again for your opinions & expertise...saved me some $ . And of course the knowledge is priceless.

 

Curtis R.

[CurtisR]

And to Bernard-san, Thank you for the great links...and very pretty tsuba find, IMHO!

 

Curtis R.

[Soshin]

I am trying to analysize the workmanship of the piece itself, and not just the signature.

 

Hi Junichi-san and Curtis R.,

 

This is the most important point. Easier said then done but try to do more study... I recommend stopping by Mike Y. (i.e. Tetsugendo) table at the San Francisco show if you can make it. :D

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Ford Hallam]

I have to interject here to say that using the examples Ludolf has provided as exemplars of 'correct' mei is possibly a little bit hazardous.

 

By our usual criteria of comparing similarities and differences not one of the examples is in the least bit similar to any of the others. Are they all wrong? or was his mei just quite varied....in which case how can we be certain we have a complete selection of all his variations? and are these variations all guaranteed as being genuine?

 

As it happens I doubt the piece on the basis of the actual workmanship and not the mei. And this is exactly why I said I could not comment on the mei.