our boy masayuki

[Bungo]

http://tinyurl.com/2p2927

 

finally ole po figured out our boy " Masayuki ", right , Kapitan ?

 

milt

[sencho]

It`s very nice too.... shoshin??? I dunno... I would expect ole Po to get something papered if there was a chance of being gen`....

 

I love this Hamano style though.... it really floats my boat!!!

 

Saved all of the pics for reference for my Hamano website.... when I finally get around to building it one day!!

 

Cheers!

[sencho]

Hey Milt,

 

This Kogai also with Po...

 

What is Somin school that he refers to..... the "masa" kanji reminds me so much of shozui....

 

Po says it is....

 

The Suaka Kogai is decorated with

 

Suemon,Ke-bori , Katakiri-bori carving,

 

Shakudo inlay on Migaki-ji,

 

design of Dragon with Dragon Ball on waves,

 

signed Naomasa Kao.

 

 

 

Yanagawa Naomasa is one of the greatest

 

craftman of Somin school,

 

lived in Edo Kanda.

[Bungo]

yes, the kogai with the big " glued on " dragon menuki.......I like the menuki

it happens I have a koz for sale, also signed Naomasa with kao but the kao looks different.

http://tinyurl.com/2b57yl

p.s. without shinsa paper, it's hard to sink over 1k , you think ? ( if you have lots of $, disregard what I said )

milt

[Curran]

It looks gimei to my eyes. $1000 seems a bit much, but then a papered f/k by Shozui is on Choshuya for 400,000 yen. Was worth a gamble for somebody.

 

I'm surprised one without papers went for so much. I have a Shozui f/k in a fitted custom box with NBTHK Hozon papers that I was thinking of consigning with a dealer or selling to a Japanese dealer, but if if a gimei one can bring so much- maybe I should give eBay a whirl at it first.

[Bungo]

http://www.esnips.com/web/menuki?docsPage=3#files

 

shozui ( aka Masayuki ) iron menuki...........

 

 

milt

[Pete Klein]

I always find it interesting that people will not invest $150 for a book like the Kinko Meikan where they would find twelve variations of the Shozui mei none of which look like the one on the kozuka (gimei) but will invest over a thousand dollars in a fake. They will not pay $400 for the Haynes Index to help them do research but will believe what a salesman tells them.

Art Linkletter was right; People Are Funny.

[Brian]

Pete,

 

You are 100% correct. The old excuse used to be that the books were in Japanese and people who didn't read any Japanese at all couldn't even look up the smith....but with there being a full English translation of many of these nowdays (including the Kinko Meikan) these reasons have fallen away.

 

Brian

[sencho]

Pete, Curran,

 

Thanks for your imput... apart from Haynes and kinko meikan... is there any books that concentrate more squarely on Hamano, or at least Nara and it's derivative schools...?

 

In addition, mei aside, what is your take and appraisal on the workmanship itself?

 

Cheers

Nigel

[Pete Klein]

Nigel -- the only books I can think of off hand are the 'Nara San Saku' by K. Yoneno 1986 and TOSOGU MACHIBORI MEIHIN SHUSEI by: Fukushi Shigeo (2005 I believe). The first is on Joi, Toshinaga and Yasuchika primarily but there are some examples of other makers (not a lot though). The second book is of course the big Machibori text with great pictures of masterworks. I'm attaching a picture of a genuine Shozui work so you can come to your own conclusion on the level of workmanship of the Ebay piece.

[sencho]

Thanks Pete,

 

I am going to look into those. I find Shozui's workmanship quite difficult to judge. I personally, with my novice eye, think that the workmanship of the kozuka in question is quite good. I looked at this tsuba too, from the Boston MFA. Some of his work I find depicts nature, some is a little abstract and some downright cartoonish...

 

but anyway I see some pieces that seem to be extremely clever, skillful and intricate, but are shot down as obvious fakes and some more simplistic and almost awkward, mishapen designs that are hailed as his genius..... and vice versa!! :?

 

....still give me hope for my own 99.99% gimei Shozui kozuka... :lol:

[Bungo]

Kapitan,

while those longivity themes are not among my favorites, I think the workmanship od ole po's koz is not bad.

Without shinsa paper, I would call it " school works " ( that's how the old timers put it ).

By the way, I thought the samurai are not too concerned about long life.........

 

milt

[sencho]

So people do not have to keep clicking the link for Po`s kozuka.... here is some of the pics....

[Curran]

One of the list members corrected me:

The fuchi / kashira at Choshuya was on the website at 450,000 yen but seems to have been drawn off the website. It was in the January issue of the catalog at 400,000 yen. They'd somehow 3-D functioned its view.

 

Shozui work often seems to be noted by at least a few elements of recess into the object and the rest built up to give it a 3-D effect. On my fuchi / kashira, the 4th leg of the deer is recessed into the kashira. The 1st leg is built up slightly as if standing out a bit more.

 

it was explained to me that a kantei point is also the gauge (correct use of the term ?) of his materials tends to be very thick. Ie. The walls of his fuchi/kashira and the central copper plate are very thick compared to the fuchi of other makers. That would stand with the kozuka Peter listed, as the material looks 'plush'.

 

For whatever reason, there are an awful lot of gimei of his work out there. But he also lived a long life and produced a good bit. It is within my ability to believe that some of his students signed works with his name. As the '4th member' of the Nara San-Saku... he was popular. Perhaps it was superstition against saying the Nara Yon-Saku? Pops up alot. Iesuke derves the #3 slot among Oei Bizen swordsmiths, but it is more fun to say Oei no San Mitsu (3 Mitsu of Oei: Yasumitsu, Morimitsu, and Moromitsu) than place Iesuke at #3. Random thought of the day. Shozui got shafted.

 

I really like some of the Shozui menuki, but am mostly an iron collector. I haven't picked up the Nara-San Saku book. Peter, is this the one in which the writer expoused his own views and much of the Japanese authorities disagree with him... or am I confusing it with another text? There is one in which the photography is all black and white, which is a shame for the colorful kinko work photographed.

[Pete Klein]

Curran -- I really don't know if there was any controversy about the book but I would bet there was as there always seems to be with whatever is written by anyone over there. Too many cliques and factions from what I hear out of Japan. Just the way it is. Anyway, the text is in Japanese with English titles and brief explanations so the whole point is to look at the examples. Neither books or internet replaces hands on inspection, period.

 

As for student work or signitures I pretty much feel it's either live or memorex. If it's not shoshin then it's gimei and will be worth less than the equivalent mumei piece. It's the big difference between swords and kodogu; you can't remove the mei from kodogu due to the patina, with rare exception. In the case of this kozuka it can always be sent to shinsa and then the owner will know for certain. I do not write Japanese and am not an authority. I can only go by my limited experience.

[John A Stuart]

Hi, This really brings up a question. We know that swords were made by students whether sons, adopted sons or some other 'within the circle' person and signed with the masters mei, particularly when the master was getting older and less competent. One aspect of training would be to learn how to chisel a mei. Who would know better how to create the masters signature than the close student? Also true for the work itself, although we read some students never lived up to their masters abilities and of course others surpassed them. It must be the same in tousogu. Some artists signed with their masters mei for awhile before changing or being given the permission to change their name. For example; one student of Masatsune was Masamori but Masatsune occasionally signed Masamori the name adopted by his student. Of course most times the work itself is self evident, like a sword should be judged by its' merits first and then appraise the mei. However when both the master and the students work are equally competent and the mei is done in the masters fashion we could never tell the difference. As if it wasn't difficult enough. It all gets down to who says this is shoshin and what are their credentials? Then you have who is more credible?, when there are conflicting data. This leaves out the undocumented artist. This is why I believe work should be shinsa'd with allowance of suspect mei and that fact noted on the work sheets and origami. What passes now might not pass later or visa versa. The process should be more fluid and less dogmatic. Wriggle room? John

[Bungo]

" This is why I believe work should be shinsa'd with allowance of suspect mei and that fact noted on the work sheets and origami. What passes now might not pass later or visa versa. The process should be more fluid and less dogmatic. Wriggle room? John "

 

ummmmmm, you think I will submit my iron menuki by Shozui again just because those dark green NBTHK origami is " old " ? probably not...........

 

esp. not to NTHK oversea as the shinsa-in is extremely " conservative ".

 

milt

[Curran]

Apologizing for bordering on cliche, yet here goes:

They stress it is opinion. It changes. Sometimes for the better. Sometimes not.

 

I've see green papers where the item gets resubmitted and I think the green papers are more correct than the new ones. Especially recently with the NBTHK supposedly having a huge backlog. Very sloppy at the Hozon level. On the flipside I get impressed by some NBTHK calls as I slowly learn more and some of their calls unravel to me.

 

I also respect and yet am sometimes bothered by how strict the Yoshikawa NTHK seems to be on papering items. But then the other NTHK seems a bit too carefree and papers many fittings that I don't think should get papers.... but hey....that is just my opinion. It could change. Milt, ~my opinion~ is they (Yoshikawa) should have papered that kozuka of yours- but maybe I need to study more.

______________________________________________________________________________

 

Regarding John's question...

I don't know with swords. The answer seems to be 'it depends'. It is understood in some schools (like Hizen) and even occassionally noted or implied on sword papers. As for fittings, Peter is right in that gimei is gimei most of the time. I've attached an image of a tsuba I own and enjoy. I believe it to be signed by Norisuke I on the front and Norisuke II (early signature was Norishige) on the back. The Norisuke were known as master forgery artists, often commissioned to make copies of famous pieces. They also made their own designs. This design (photos) is one of the last designs ever done by Norisuke I slightly before his death, but I think the overall working is by the hand of Norisuke II.

 

Norisuke II is considered to be slightly more talented than Norisuke I. Despite both Norisuke I & II being very prolific, no one in Japan or elsewhere seems to have ever seen a joint signed work- so I was very happy to come by this tsuba!

 

Now the interesting part: There are one or two things about the signature by Norisuke I on the front that I was unsure about, but then the two major Norisuke books seem to disagree amongst themsleves. I sent all this to the NBTHK and have not heard back. Okay, so I track down an individual in Japan that is widely respected for his knowledge and has a strong interest in Norisuke... His opinion is that the tsuba was done by Norisuke II and that Norisuke II forged his teachers signature on the front!

 

If that is true.... how would you classify this tsuba?

Does a forgery of a famous forgery master by his adopted son and student master forgery artist = gimei ?

 

It is easiest for me to hold the idea that this was a tsuba completed by student for his teacher when his teacher could no longer complete a commission....

... but how does the current papering paradigm of 'shoshin' treat such a thing?

 

Short version: I haven't got an answer for you John. I think the Yoshikawa NTHK does much more than the NBTHK to educate, but I'm not sure they can go to that level of detail at shinsa and give a 'conditional qualifier' papers... but I certainly understand. If the gentleman in Japan is correct and were to bounce the Norisuke tsuba because of the signature on the front, I am not going to think anything less of this tsuba.

 

Curran

[John A Stuart]

I am fretting right now about a tanto that went through shinsa this March in Japan, NBTHK and now must wait 2 months for the result. It was the one I bought as maybe being Kanemoto but because the mei was worn might be O-Sada. That's why it is on my mind so poignantly, this question of papers. I am sure all the best attempts will be made to make an attribution, even if gimei. John

[Bungo]

" I am sure all the best attempts will be made to make an attribution, even if gimei. "

 

gang,

correct me if I am mistaken.

I think only NTHK will give you " attribution " even when they pinkie you with a grin, while NBTHK will just fail it without saying anything much.

 

milt

[John A Stuart]

Your right Milt. I just meant they will do their best, the gimei (pinkie) being sort of an attribution in reverse. I just did not want anyone to think I denigrate the process, no matter how frustrating. John

[Pete Klein]

John -- the NBTHK offers 'Horyu' if they are not certain. It is not a paper but recorded on the submission card which should be kept. The Horyu is actually not at all a bad response as it says we are not certain but know enough not to dismiss the piece out right. Please come back in five or ten years when we will know more. Alas, I have a lot of experience with Horyu. LOL

 

Just my personal observations and thinking: I feel too many look upon the shinsa process as some form of pure scientific system where absolute verification is given. The reality is that it is a system in evolution, growing as a data base, which is constantly under revision as more data is collected. Therefore, as time proceeds thinking (hopefully) changes. This is why it is important to use the latest versions of meikan. As fittings are my field of study I use the Kinko Meikan released in the late 1990's and not the one from the seventies. There have been revisions and deletions due to new data. Old papers reflect the data of their time. This is why new papers sometimes challenge the old ones. It's simply a matter of new evidence coming to light. (I will not get into the NBTHK problems of the late seventies with their regional branches sometimes issuing papers for profit or under duress as that problem was solved). These papers are saying 'we can say that we believe this item is this', or 'this mei is correct based on our research'. The NTHK with their Shoshin standard is more conservative as they are saying 'this is genuine', therefore their paper will list the most conservative/provable attribution. In addition they have worksheets which provide some information as to the why/what. Just two different methods. What I can say from having had the privilege of being a participant in the 2007 NTHK shinsa in Chicago is that they really take their time with each piece and even when it kept them well past their designated hours they kept at it. They are a most serious lot and having had the great pleasure of meeting Hagihara san of the NBTHK I have little doubt they are the same.