Attribution For This Hozon Papered Tsuba?

[lotus]

As subject states, what school do you think this papered to? (reason I ask is that I was surprised)

 

Length : 8.75cm x 8.64 cm (3.44 inches x 3.40　inches)

Thickness of rim :0.41 cm ( 0.16　inches)

[FlorianB]

I’ve seen this, too, and was also astonished at first, but I can’t single out another school.

Taking into consideration that it is a later one which is more sophisticated, the attribution seems to be the best guess and I have no doubts concerning the reliability.

Florian

[lotus]

Florian -

 

Did you mean to say "some" doubts rather than "no" doubts? Because I struggle to see how they could have come up with that call.

 

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

[rkg]

I saw where it came from, and yeah, that attribution seems er, funky - as to how they got it, perhaps it was this:

 

 

 

(I don't own the above image, it is being presented for the h*ll of it)

 

Best,

rkg

(Richard George)

(losing his mind trying to deal with family issues)

 

  On 10/4/2018 at 5:59 PM, lotus said:

Florian -

 

Did you mean to say "some" doubts rather than "no" doubts? Because I struggle to see how they could have come up with that call.

 

Anyone want to take a stab at it?

 

[Pete Klein]

Please don't tell me it said Akasaka...  I could see Owari.

[lotus]

It said, of course, Katchushi. Can’t you tell from the raised rim? Oh, wait a second!

[Pete Klein]

I'd love to see that paper... 

[lotus]

Here ya go...

[TETSUGENDO]

"Curiouser and curiouser!"

 

                   -S-

[FlorianB]

If I remember correctly, Katchushi Tsuba haven’t  always a raised rim.

Those karigane arranged in a circle are often to be seen in different schools. But where to put the broad rim into?
I haven’t seen this in Owari or Akasaka as supposed.

The archaic look, large size, surface obviously without niku and a rather thin thickness (of course thicker than in pre-Edo) - I can live with this attribution.

If there woud be inlays or something else I would have other ideas...

Florian

[FlorianB]

In addition here are two examples of Ko-Katchushi-Tsuba without raised rim and it’s easy to find more of them.

 

 

If a Tsuba in "Tosho"-style shows large areas of sukashi it is claimed as Katchushi.

Probably this is the reason for the attribution of the Tsuba in question.

 

Florian

[lotus]

Yeah, there certainly are some. Couldn't you just as easily argue for a Shoami attribution, though?

[JohnTo]

I bought a tsuba with a similar broad rim and flat profile that came with an ‘origami’ (not shown in auction), that turned out to be a NTKK kanteisho.  The origami did not arrive until about a week later, during which time I could not assign a school or maker to it.  In my limited experience the unusually wide rim made it difficult to assign.  NTKK says it is Unshu Tani Toyochika.  My inventory notes are below and pics for comparison are attached.  Anyone got a better translation for the description of the design, Tan-satu-to, a half/short (tan) counter of books (satsu) that is open/transparent (to)?

 

This large tsuba is of round flat sukashi form with what appears to be three carpenter’s squares cut out of a flat iron plate.  The kanteisho describes them as tan-satsu-to (literally. Short-counters for books-transparent)  The width of the rim is unusually wide, indicating that this is not the work of most of the sukashi schools such as the Kyo, Akasaka, or Owari.  The tsuba is unsigned, but came with a box containing a label, in Japanese, attributing the tsuba to ‘Unshu Tani Toyochika’, i.e. Toyachika of the Tani school in the province of Unshu.  The lot was also accompanied by a NTKK (Nihon Tosogu Kenkyu Kai) origami that arrived a week later confirming this attribution (see below).  The Tani school was established in the Izumo no Kuni by Jirosuke Toyochika (working in the Meiwa period; 1764-72) and his son Toyoshige (working in the Kansei era; 1789-1801).  There is also some gold nunome which is mostly worn away.

The translation of part of the NTKK kanteisho, reading columns from right to left, is as follows:

kantei-sho (鑑定書) - Appraisal No.

tsuba (鐔) Tan-satsu-to (open half counter for books?), mumei (無銘), tetsu-ji (鉄地) – unsigned, iron  XXXX

XXXXXXXX ?Unshu Tani Toyochika

Jidai (時代) Edo-chūkji (江戸中期) – time of production, mid-Edo period
厚mi - Dimentions

Seppa Dai 4 mm, Mimi 3.5 mm

Height: 82 mm Width: 82 mm

 

Sunpyō (寸評) – Brief Review

XXXX Shodai Unshu Tani Toyochika. Showa yori roku dai Toyotaka  First generation Unshu Tani Toyochika until the Showa era sixth generation Toyotaka.

Genji (1864) made daidai zokuki tomo ni sakaeru – Until Genji (1864) generations prospered together.

Unshu o daihyo suru tsuba ko/ku-hon/moto saku- Representations of Unshu styles were made.

Uki no tōri kantei-suru (右記の通り鑑定する) – The above is the summary of our appraisal.
Heisei 21 year sixth month 13^th day (June 13, 2009)

Nihon Tōsōgu Kenkyū Kai (日本刀装具研究会)

 

 

 

Best regards, John

[lotus]

John -

 

Interesting, I had not heard of this Tani school up until now. Have you done any research into this school? And know of any characteristics that might suggest such an attribution? I have a tsuba en route to me with a similarly wide rim though it has a rounded "square" edge where yours and the one I originally posted are squared off edges. 

 

I am having a hard time placing mine and hope when I have it in hand, I might find additional clues...

 

Pat

[FlorianB]

John,
this is an interesting Tsuba and I haven’t heard of this school yet but IMHO it can’t be compared properly with the above one because of the nunome, the sharply angled edges and the different surface.

 

Pat,

if the paper would put the Tsuba down to Shoami I persume this topic wouldn't have been started.

I don’t want to harp on the reliability of papers again because we have had discussions about doubtful attributions frequently and not long ago even one of my own Tsuba was mooted here thus.

But on the other hand the first thing is to assume that an attribution is correct.
Only if after proper research another option seems more probable a paper could be certainly questioned.

 

Florian