Ko-Tosho Or Tenpo?

[svarsh]

Tsuba looks like ko-tosho to me, but the box says 'Tenpo'. 

98.4 mm x 98.8 mm x 2.3 mm; weight: 118 g.

Any thoughts?

Sergei

 

[Henry Wilson]

Definitely Tosho.  A text book example in fact.  I don't know about the Ko (古) attribution.  The photos make it hard to see any indication of what is taken as age.　　

[svarsh]

Thanks Henry. It's visible on photos that the surface is covered by hummer marks, it is not smooth. I compared the piece with a definite ko-tosho specimen (illustrated here), and remain in doubts. The age attribution is important. The seller said it's Momoyama, but it can be early Muromachi as well as mid-Edo. Any thoughts on this?

 

[rkg]

Looks like a tosho to me...

Swapped box?

Best,

rkg

(Richard George)

[Henry Wilson]

Ko Tosho tsuba that are ubu (unaltered) are usually quite expensive as they are rare.  It is quite thin which is a characteristic of older stuff.  However, the surface looks well hammered and seems carefully done in places.  The motif is also quite realistic (not as abstract as such older motifs can be).  It could be Momoyama, but I would think the care that it was made with seems more Edo to be honest.  By contrast, Momoyama stuff tends to be indulgent with inlay or elaborate motifs I think.  The Edo period saw a back-to-basic attitude amongst the warriors and revival in older styles of tosogu to consolidate this so by process of elimination would bring me to Edo... Or Muromachi if you are lucky...

 

I hope that makes sense. 

 

BTW the above is just my general observations and I am not at anyway saying that I am right.  More like me thinking out loud.

[Alex A]

Just noticed an interesting site with a tsuba with a very similar butterfly design, says 17th century

http://varshavskycollection.com/kamakura-bori-tsuba/

 

 

Edit to add, also just noticed another very similar design butterfly on page 21 of Sasanos Masterpieces

Described as ko-tosho, late 15th centry, he states the design was modified over the years.

 

I think if you sent it to shinsa, it would come back Tosho, not Ko-Tosho.

[ROKUJURO]

Sergei,

TENPÔ (JIDAI) may be a correct time of manufacture, but I think it is much later. I don't see hammer marks, instead the surface shows a very even ISHIME, probably from artificial corrosion/patination. The steel gives an impression of a modern sheet steel.    

Without holding the TSUBA in hand, it looks to me like a late revival piece, nicely copied from a real KO-TOSHO TSUBA and with the correct dimensions..  

[johnnyi]

At the top of picture #1 (1

o clock) is that thin line delamination?  (or a fold) Is it my eyes, or is there also faint evidence of shiguri yasuri which has worn away?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johni

[ROKUJURO]

Johni,

it is difficult to say with photos alone, but I don't see evidence of forging or fire-welding. Instead I think I see scale all over the surface, and remains of grinding a bevel on the rim (2nd photo, 5°°). 
But that may well look different with the TSUBA in hand. 

[Ford Hallam]

I would have to say I agree with Jean's assessment that this is a modern copy. Probably made from commercial mild steel plate.

[Alex A]

2.3mm thickness for an Edo Tosho revival piece did struck me as being unusual.

 

Most ive seen are over 3mm. Out of curiosity, anyone seen "authentic" Edo Tosho at this thickness before ?

 

I suppose sometimes you need to look that little bit harder, interesting.

[svarsh]

Just noticed an interesting site with a tsuba with a very similar butterfly design, says 17th century

http://varshavskycollection.com/kamakura-bori-tsuba/

 

 

Edit to add, also just noticed another very similar design butterfly on page 21 of Sasanos Masterpieces

Described as ko-tosho, late 15th centry, he states the design was modified over the years.

 

I think if you sent it to shinsa, it would come back Tosho, not Ko-Tosho.

Alex, the tsuba you attached is a Kamakura-bori, not Tosho or ko-tosho (and it's from my own post, actually). The reference tsuba of Sasano #21 is interesting. "My" butterfly cut EXACTLY the same, but Sasano's tsuba is smaller 85.0 x 84.5 x 2.3 rim, 3.0 center. His tsuba is thicker in the center and thinner at the edge. Mine is more or less flat.  It easily can be a replica.  Too bad!

[Henry Wilson]

In light of the discussion, I too would concur that it is indeed a replica of sorts and not a try antique.  I hope that this conclusion is not too disappointing.

[svarsh]

Sergei,

 

TENPÔ (JIDAI) may be a correct time of manufacture, but I think it is much later. I don't see hammer marks, instead the surface shows a very even ISHIME, probably from artificial corrosion/patination. The steel gives an impression of a modern sheet steel.    

 

Without holding the TSUBA in hand, it looks to me like a late revival piece, nicely copied from a real KO-TOSHO TSUBA and with the correct dimensions..  

The period spanned from December 1830 through December 1844. It is possible. Later? This is late enough to be considered a fake. My only excuse is that I paid a laughable amount of money. Still, the rule of only buying pieces with good provenance must be enforced on myself. 

[Alex A]

Alex, the tsuba you attached is a Kamakura-bori, not Tosho or ko-tosho (and it's from my own post, actually). The reference tsuba of Sasano #21 is interesting. "My" butterfly cut EXACTLY the same, but Sasano's tsuba is smaller 85.0 x 84.5 x 2.3 rim, 3.0 center. His tsuba is thicker in the center and thinner at the edge. Mine is more or less flat.  It easily can be a replica.  Too bad!

Hi Sergie, I know the tsuba I presented was not Tosho, I was referring to when the design was used. I hadn't seen this design on earlier tsuba before, but then found an example in Sasano,s.

[ROKUJURO]

.....This is late enough to be considered a fake........ 

Sergei,

 

I wouldn't have called it a fake but a recent copy, unless it was sold to you as authentic KO-TOSHO and with a price according to that. In this case you should return it, if possible. 

[svarsh]

Sergei,

 

I wouldn't have called it a fake but a recent copy, unless it was sold to you as authentic KO-TOSHO and with a price according to that. In this case you should return it, if possible. 

Jean, no, it was not sold to me as a ko-tosho and the price was not a ko-tosho. I agree with you.

[sabi]

Edited: apparently I can't read.

[Henry Wilson]

I agree with Henry on all points, except this one:

"The motif is also quite realistic (not as abstract as such older motifs can be)."

 

While it's true older motifs can be, and are generally more abstract, some old guards still render them in a relatively realistic form.

 

 

Thank you for the kind words.  Although, I feel you are basically restating my point that you say you disagree with.  I think most of us know the tsuba you have posted and that was an example that came to mind when I typed my (near perfect ) response. 

 

The question is who says the example you disclose is "a true period piece"?

[sabi]

Haha wow! It really has been a long day!

 

I misread that bit of your post, carry on...

[Henry Wilson]

Edited: apparently I can't read.

 

I am confused.  You seem to be upset.  I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

It was you that mentioned the tsuba you have since deleted is "a true period piece". I think this could have lead to an interesting discussion on attribution. 

 

I apologise once again.

[sabi]

^^^ I simply thought you were arguing for the OP's tsuba not being old tosho because of the style of the motif (not solely because of this, of course).

[Henry Wilson]

No, I wasn't.  It was just an observation.  Sort of like the working on rough paper one does when they do a maths problem.  Grist to the mill that leads to a conclusion of sorts.

 

Thank you for the comments though and hope I did not upset you.

[sabi]

No not at all! My fault, just pure misinterpretation.

 

I pride myself on being one of the few members of my generation who isn't easily offended, so absolutely no worries there!

[DirkO]

Here's a Tosho with very similar sukashi for comparison - http://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00263.html - look at the difference in quality and iron, and this is just a Tosho, not even Ko-Tosho.... 

[Alex A]

The remnant lacquer + oxidation = a bit of reassurance as to age.

 

Lets face it, Hozen helps too.

[svarsh]

So far so good: The Tenpo era Tosho wannaby tsuba was sent back. The originator issued apologies.  

Now, two more pieces, that seem to be a Tosho from Muromachi period. 

Rudder: 90.0 x 89.0 x 2.3 (s-d), 2.1 (rim)

Dragonfly: 95.0 x 93.6; thickness (careful): seppa-dai from 2.1 to 2.4, rim from 2.1 to 2.7 - a very uneven piece.

Would love to hear what you think.

Sergei

 

[Alex A]

Well Sergie, I don't mind making an idiot out of myself  (usually gets folk with more knowledge on board)

 

Heres my initial thoughts (just thoughts).

 

Both tsuba look genuine and quite old, like the tsuba that Dirk presented, they have remnant lacquer and show oxidation.

 

As for the rudder design. Not something I would expect to see on a "KO" Tosho tsuba and I would be wary of it being described as "KO", although maybe the tsuba is "KO", but the design added later  ? 

 

As for the dragonfly. You see dragonfly on Tosho tsuba like this, but do you ever see ones as elaborate on "KO" Tosho ?. Something you would need to research.

 

I prefer the dragonfly tsuba.

 

As said, just my initial thoughts. I think both are genuine tsuba, but will they paper to "KO" Tosho?. Its times like this I really become a fan of Hozen certificates.

 

Look forward to an education maybe.

 

Cheers, interesting thread.

[Henry Wilson]

Both designs are published as KO (古) designs somewhere, if my memory serves me well.  However,

• the positive / negative silhouette of the oar sukashi seems unusual and in my humble opinion not expected for the time period suggested by the KO prefix
• The cutting of the dragonfly seems far too crisp for a KO prefix.

 

As always just me thinking out loud. 

[Alex A]

A few things I find interesting about these tsuba.

 

Lack of Hitsu-ana............ suggests older pieces

 

Patina/remnant lacquer...............reminds me of older pieces.

 

Diameter.............again, reminds me of older pieces.

 

Thickness.............older pieces again. 

 

Sukashi, appear to be not of the time period = ?  (Ko-Tosho with sukashi added later?) or (simply later Tosho tsuba?).

 

leaves me wondering, interesting though.