Tsuba

[peterd]

Hi all,

 

I was just wondering whether anyone had any opinions on the school or period?

 

The dimensions are 86 x 79 mm. The rim is 4.5 mm and nakago ana 2.5-3 mm.

 

All opinions welcome!

 

Thanks,

Pete

[Marius]

From those pics: late Edo mix of styles and some rather poor workmanship (especially visible in the hammer work). An attribution to a particular school is nearly impossible.

 

Then again, I might be wrong :-)

[TosoguCz]

  mariuszk said:

From those pics: late Edo mix of styles and some rather poor workmanship (especially visible in the hammer work). An attribution to a particular school is nearly impossible.

 

Then again, I might be wrong :-)

 

Hello, what is wrong with the hammer work?

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Pete

 

Looks ok to me, I quite like the workmanship myself.

 

The dragon is nicely sinuous and well carved, have a close look at the engraved lines of the tufts of 'hair', the vigorously worked ground offers a good contrast to the elegance of the dragon also. and the The patina is pleasing and in decent condition too. Brings to mind aspects of Myochin and/or Umetada and Aizu Shoami work. Not necessarily late Edo in my opinion, perhaps mid Edo.

[Marius]

Well, Ford's opinion settles the case

 

I rest my case

[TosoguCz]

I am glad that some authority defended workmanship of this tsuba. Im my eyes everything look in accordance with artist's intention.

[seattle1]

Hello:

The question asked about school or period, and then the "conversation" quickly got into the elements of taste and workmanship, which of course are equally interesting. From the size, particularly the thickness of the seppa-dai, and the presence of two ryo-hitsu, it seems early Edo, perhaps late 17th Cent., and possibly Mito or some provincial Shoami. It could have been for a daisho set, they becoming a requirement for samurai by then, and clearly it is a Buddhist theme of a female smooth dragon chasing a tama.

The subject of workmanship has several dimensions, the depiction, skill with the chisel, and so forth. I would say that the chisel skill is rather poor. Sometimes such workmanship is an attempt to seem "artless" and spontaneous; here I think it is just ineptness. For many tsuba "workmanship" is not a major consideration, aside of course for the necessary functional qualities all true tsuba must have, and the theme shown and its aesthetic nature is the main issue. The theme here is highly conventionalized and rather unimaginative, so I would give it a low mark on that basis too. Of course in all these matters assessment is in the eye of the beholder, and no absolute judgements can be laid down. I don't believe the piece is "dock work"; it is a functional piece meeting the needs of the day and some journeyman samurai pocket book.

Arnold F.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Arnold

 

as you say judgements regarding aesthetic qualities are subjective so we'll have to agree to disagree on those.

 

On the school and period I offered the following; "Brings to mind aspects of Myochin and/or Umetada and Aizu Shoami work. Not necessarily late Edo in my opinion, perhaps mid Edo. "

 

In addition, it's possible/likely that the carved seal on the reverse is that of the maker.

 

However when discussing workmanship I think it important not to conflate that aspect with artistic, or expressive qualities, what I imagine you meant by 'depiction'. Workmanship is specifically the technical handling of the tools used and the degree of skill exhibited in the application of whatever techniques were needed. This wikipedia article presents a fairly good explanation but the subject.

 

As for the carving of the dragon being inept I can only imagine you and I are seeing two different carvings.

[yogoro]

This tsuba reminds me of the umetada works.

Very similar motif on this plate - mid Edo -