Tetsugendo School Tsuba...

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Not working because of the government shutdown in the USA. Here is photos of a new tsuba that I was told was made by Eiju (榮壽) a member of the Tetsugendo school during the late Edo Period. Haynes has his working period in this index from 1775 -1800. Here is a link to the discussion of the mei in the translation section with better views of the mei: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16939. The signature done is sosho style as well as the hira-zogan kao in my view are works of art. I have never seen this type of copper inlay done at this small a scale. I also really like the texture pattern on this tsuba as well as the forge and patina of the iron. It measures of the tsuba is 7.2 cm wide by 7.5 cm high. The thickness at the rim 3.5 mm and thickens towards the seppa-dai which is 5.0 mm. The same design that is on the surface of the tsuba is also along the rim. Enjoy comments and questions are welcome.

[jjones]

Hi Dave,

 

I'm sure you've seen this already but near identical tsuba to this on ebay currently:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tsuba-Snow-flow ... 3a8599f5d4

 

Yours looks have either been better kept or better execution.

 

Jeff Jones

[Brian]

That pattern is classic Seiryuken Eiju..seen it on many tsuba. The other thing he/they did was carved dragons iirc.

I am leaning towards this mei being a group or factory..like some think later Nobuiye maybe was. Too much work signed by them with different kao, I don't think it was just one or 2 craftsmen. The work is nice though, if a bit formulaic. You are right, the mei is art itself.

 

Brian

[Soshin]

Hi Jeff J. and Brian R.,

 

Thanks for the replies and the information. The eBay tsuba looks almost like a copy of my tsuba. The detail isn't nearly as good looking closely at the pattern. The same thing can be said for the mei and chisel marks around the nakago-ana as well. I am not sure if this loss of detail on the eBay tsuba is because it is copy of some kind or had some serious rust damage that was later overly cleaned. Brian R., I think you are right there was likely more than one or two artist using this name. A workshop like the Akasaka school had during the same time period is a strong possibility. You can see a great deal of reparative originally Higo openwork designs in late Akasaka school (workshop) work. Regardless I traded/purchase it as I really like the workmanship and the artistic nature of the mei and kao.

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

In technical work the devil is in the details. The eBay example has what looks like a uniformed thickness of 5.0 mm compared to my tsuba that that starts out much thinner at the rim 3.5 mm and gradually increases in thickness to 5.2 mm at the point of nakago hitsu-ana. I just measured my tsuba with a pair of digital caliper. This is just something interesting I noticed. I am going to think on this a bit.

[raiden]

Seiryuken eiju usagi sukashi that I gave my daughter last year.

[Soshin]

Hi Mike Y.,

 

Thanks for providing photos of such a nice example. This adds evidence to the hypothesis that there was multiple artist using the "Seiryuken Eiju" mei in sosho style with very different inlaid kao.

[kaigunair]

Wow Mike! what a gift for your daughter! hope she treasures it (and is perhaps a chip off the old block?).

The usagi tsuba signature looks text book as does the seal. I'm guessing its papered (is it perhaps tokubetsu hozon or juyo?).

 

Compared to the usagi, the patterned example signature would seem more like a gimie than a different artist - it appears to be copying the signature of the same naofusa/seiryuken as seen in the usagi (and in wakayama), but is less smoothly rendered and off in a number of places; that kao/seal is way off. I also notice that the examples don't have the same nakago ana finishing punch marks as this one does; usually smooth with no marks like the usagi, or more utilitarian cut outs for fitting a particular blade. But if the quality of the tsuba itself is at tetsugendo school level, I guess there's a chance this is an uncatalogued signature variation. Is this one papered?

[Soshin]

Compared to the usagi, the patterned example signature would seem more like a gimie than a different artist - it appears to be copying the signature of the same naofusa/seiryuken as seen in the usagi (and in wakayama), but is less smoothly rendered and off in a number of places; that kao/seal is way off. I also notice that the examples don't have the same nakago ana finishing punch marks as this one does; usually smooth with no marks like the usagi, or more utilitarian cut outs for fitting a particular blade. But if the quality of the tsuba itself is at tetsugendo school level, I guess there's a chance this is an uncatalogued signature variation. Is this one papered?

 

Hi Junichi,

 

I suggest your reword you comments more like an opinion. :x Having one example provided by Mike Y. and a single reference book can't make you qualified to judge a work is gimei or shoshin. Why make a Kao so very different if you were trying to make a gimei to defraud people? Also keep in mind that I have been a member of the American Branch of the NBTHK longer then you have been in this hobby. I not saying I been a member very long but that you are still new to the hobby and you should pause before calling someone tsuba a gimei.

[kaigunair]

I suggest your reword you comments more like an opinion. :x Having one example provided by Mike Y. and a single reference book can't make you qualified to judge a work is gimei or shoshin. Why make a Kao so very different if you were trying to make a gimei to defraud people? Also keep in mind that I have been a member of the American Branch of the NBTHK longer then you have been in this hobby. I not saying I been a member very long but that you are still new to the hobby and you should pause before calling someone tsuba a gimei.

 

Trying to strong arm my comments in submission?

I can provide more reasons why, in my opinion, I think this is a gimie (but really, why bother since, in my opinion, I'll never have been collecting as long as you have been an NBTHK member )

I'd be interested to know what references or examples you are using which supports that this tsuba signature is shoshin. The only examples, in my opinion, that are on the 'net which have anything close to a seal like yours, are ones that have the exact pattern (In my opinion, I've already stated what's in the one book in my library ). I find that curious/suspicious, in my opinion. What I opine is that the signature on your example is too close and clumsy to what the documented examples are supposed to look like for Seiryuken, in my opinion.

 

Here's what I think a seiryuken signature should look like, in my opinion:

http://tsubaka.ru/14_en.htm

(last pic on the page, in my opinion)

 

and a papered f/k set, in my opinion:

http://www.edo8.jp/products/detail.php?product_id=96

 

What I am not sure of is whether this work is at the level of a tetsugendo school student, in my opinion. In my uninformed opinion, it doesn't seem very inspired, but perhaps it is for an iron tsuba, in my opinion.

 

David, in my opinion, I'd really like to be wrong about this gimie call. So I'm ready to be schooled and shown how to properly evaluate your tsuba and come up with a shoshin/genuine call, in my opinion. It'll help me learn a whole lot more, add to my body of knowledge, and make up for my lack of membership in the NBTHK, in my opinion .

 

BTW, I'm probably wrong anyway, since I was wondering why no one else called out gimie before my comment...or perhaps.... ...oh, in my opinion of course....

[Baka Gaijin]

Good morning everyone,

 

Is it possible that Seiryuken Eiju was an extended factory type production (or even a franchise type of business) and the various Kao related to whether they were first, second or other quality.

 

It is interesting to note the finish on the various examples of signature we have been shown in this thread and others on NMB, from smooth and finished to visible chisel marks.

 

A bit like Rolex and Tudor Rolex perhaps?

 

Cheers

[Guido]

The usagi tsuba signature looks text book as does the seal. I'm guessing its papered (is it perhaps tokubetsu hozon or juyo?).

It's a nice Tsuba, but if you really think it's Jûyô level, you might want to go back to the "text books".

[Guido]

P.S.: I'm an NBTHK member for almost 30 years, so my opinion is the Gospel.

[Brian]

http://www.zacke.at/en/catalogue/sword- ... er-pattern

 

This is not gimei...the pattern conforms to the style these artists worked in. The kao might represent one of many craftsmen who did production under this name, or an early/late change to the signature. But their work isn't that hightly rated that it would need a gimei. These are mid level tsuba and aren't classed as top class work.

 

The link above suggests this mei is linked to Naofusa H 06602 but I don't have my Haynes here.

 

Brian

[kaigunair]

hmmm, still the same design, and...

http://www.zacke.at/en/catalogue/sword- ... er-pattern

"A slightly ovoid Marugata with both Hitsu and an even rim. Both pieces, except the Seppadai section presenting the same pattern of four-lobed blooms in geometric order. Both Tsuba signed and with a yellow inlay Kao. Excellent signature Sosho Seiryuken Eiju. Haynes: recorded under Naofusa H 06602. The Kao is probably to be read "Gimei"."

 

 

I'm personally not sold on the idea this is related to a school or workshop. It seems, like many artists who have tons of gimie pieces made (yanagawa, omori, ishiguro), there are many imitators; however, that doesn't necessarily mean there was a workshop, right? I mean, if the standard is going to be this, then shouldn't "workshop" attributions be given to that large body of other pieces, that we normally designate as gimie because the same forgeries pop up?

 

Again, I could be totally wrong, but I am stating that I am basis this upon the fact that this signature doesn't look that tight compared to the knowns, and the work isn't sublime. Not even close compared to those "gimie" where even if the work is pretty good, but still considered gimie if the signature does not match.

 

So, other than multiple exact copies of this design using the same signature and kao popping up, what is there to show a workshop vs someone putting out a batch of like tsuba, labeling them with a known/semi-famous person, and selling them as such?

 

The big question is: Does this design, the work itself, even fit into the tetsugendo school style? My limited opinion is that it does not, so I would love to see tetsugendo work that looks like this one. Make me a believer!

 

 

PS: Guido, I would love a list of good tosogu books showing only juyo and above pieces...is there such a compiled publication? Please PM me any suggestions!

[kaigunair]

oh, and if gimei is this: 偽銘

 

then that first character, 偽 looks kinda looks like this kao.....

 

...in my opinion...

[Pete Klein]

From Wakayama Toso Kinko Meiji Taikei, vol II:

 

[Guido]

Kinkō Meikan:

[Soshin]

Trying to strong arm my comments in submission?

I can provide more reasons why, in my opinion, I think this is a gimie (but really, why bother since, in my opinion, I'll never have been collecting as long as you have been an NBTHK member )

I'd be interested to know what references or examples you are using which supports that this tsuba signature is shoshin. The only examples, in my opinion, that are on the 'net which have anything close to a seal like yours, are ones that have the exact pattern (In my opinion, I've already stated what's in the one book in my library ). I find that curious/suspicious, in my opinion. What I opine is that the signature on your example is too close and clumsy to what the documented examples are supposed to look like for Seiryuken, in my opinion.

 

Hi Junichi,

 

Well no I not trying to strong arm your comments. Thank you adding the word "opinion" which is important. I have no idea if it is shoshin or gimei nor do I really care. I like the workmanship and the design of this tsuba that is all. I love the mei and kao which has its own artistic merit in my eyes. In my opinion this tsuba is a classic example of a signed tsuba that isn't worth the time, money, or effort to paper to determine if the signature and kao are true. I will set with my books, ask around NMB, and look at examples to develop my own opinion but that is all.

 

P.S. The NBTHK publishes a book of tosogu and nihonto that receive Juyo level papers each year. Here is an example from Grey's website: http://www.japaneseswordbooksandtsuba.com/store/books/b419-juyo-token-nado-zufu-33-nbthk.

[Soshin]

Hi Guido and Pete K.,

 

Thanks for the examples of the mei of this artist.

[kaigunair]

I have no idea if it is shoshin or gimei nor do I really care. I like the workmanship and the design of this tsuba that is all. I love the mei and kao which has its own artistic merit in my eyes. In my opinion this tsuba is a classic example of a signed tsuba that isn't worth the time, money, or effort to paper to determine if the signature and kao are true.

 

After all this and still no idea? Not even alittle?

 

*edited out* As one collector to another, it's OK to want a piece to be genuine. Plus, being able to link to an NMB thread discussion that supports a genuine call helps when one tries to sell a piece later on, right?

 

Looks like this has become a great thread for anyone looking for info on seiryuken eiju, though could use some known tetsugendo pics. So we've all added to the knowledge base of the forum. Oh, and btw, YOUR WELCOME. Your thanks really isn't necessary though since I'm in this for all the glory, fame, and accolades that come from posting heated discussions on the NMB, not to mention the truck loads of cash the moderators pay me for each response I compose.

 

If I could add one last opinion, perhaps we may also deduce this particular example is from a workshop, one located in Yokohama. Having a kao that says "gi" could indicate this was not meant for domestic consumption. And I can imagine the dock side hacks having a good chuckle regarding their added "kao" at the expense of their unsuspecting western foreigner customers...all just in my opinion of course.

[Soshin]

After all this and still no idea? Not even alittle?

 

I recall another Tsuba whose design you raved about but when the papers came back pink/modern, it was returned even after years of loving adoration. As one collector to another, it's OK to want a piece to be genuine. Plus, being able to link to an NMB thread discussion that supports a genuine call helps when one tries to sell a piece later on, right?

 

Junichi,

 

You don't know that you are talking about. I kept that tsuba you are talking about because I like it regardless if it is modern or antique. Check out my website.

 

http://dastiles1.wix.com/reflections-#!modern-tsuba/c1jbk

 

If I could add one last opinion, perhaps we may also deduce this particular example is from a workshop, one located in Yokohama. Having a kao that says "gi" could indicate this was not meant for domestic consumption. And I can imagine the dock side hacks having a good chuckle regarding their added "kao" at their unsuspecting gaijin customers...all just in my opinion of course.

 

This comment I find more then a bit offensive and racist. End of discussion this topic is not worth my time.

[raiden]

more tsuba we have . 1 is naoshige, 2 are eiju.

[raiden]

all have the gold inlayed in han stamp.

[raiden]

IN trith, tetsugendo works that are signed are rare. For some reason Seiryuken Eiju seems to leave us quite a bit of examples of different quality. After much study and discussion in Japan, it is possible that Eiju had students, and had them make or finish tsuba, and having him signe dthem afterwards. The different Kakihans could belong to the various students. But the one on my usagi tsuba resembles the main tetsugendo style kakihan the closest. Also this is the only piece with this design, therefore enforcing the possibility that Eiju made this tsuba himself, not like the may dragons, stipled pattern type that are most commonly seen. Just my 2 ccents worth.

[kaigunair]

Ok, sorry David. That part I didn't realize could be taken personally, but i see it has. But know I consider myself a gaijin, as I am an ABJ and have always been seen as such by native borns. I am also a katonk.

 

I'll change it to "western foreigner" seeing as how the context of that term was misconstrued and has taken away from the more important points, which I was looking for real responses too...

 

Mike, those eiju pics are helpful. Would be nice to see similar works by other mainline tetsugendo smiths to see how he stacks up...

[John A Stuart]

Go easy guys, it's all opinion from the highest pinnacle to the lowliest student (Me). BTW, what is a katonk? Many schools were mills that had superior to poor tsuba and each should be judged on its' own merits. I'm sure some knowlege has come from this thread and that is good. John

[Stephen]

[Brian]

You guys are getting ridiculous now....calm down.

Btw..personally I have no doubt that this isn't gimei. I have seen too many of this particular pattern to think it is. And they aren't highly rated enough to warrant fakes. I agree with Mike, there were probably other students or studios using different kao. This kao is too different for it to be an attempt at anything.

These may be classed as Tetsugendo school, but shouldn't always be compared with the top works of that school. Still, it is a well done design and typical of others signed by that name with this pattern.

 

Edit to add: This is what Haynes says about him...which ties in with this theory:

NAOFUSA

H 06602.0 Tetsugendo Toryuken

W: Osaka, Kyoto, later Edo

D: 1775—1800

NTS: student of Okamoto Harukuni H 00810.

Adopted son of Okamoto Naoshige H 06772. He

did not marry and lived at his parents home.

There are many tsuba signed Seiryuken Eiju

which in the past were attributed to

a separate artist of the Umetada school. Though

this artist used both of those names it is not certain

he made the pieces thus signed. The style and

quality of the tsuba with the Eiju signature show

a very broad range, from very poor to high artistic

pieces. A thorough study of the work and signature

of this artist is needed. Church collection 0—1103.

SCE. W—287—U—13, W—II—102—104,

K.p.—272

[raiden]