Omori Teruhide

[Martin]

Hi all,

 

I have a Fuchi-Kashira, that depicts the famous waves theme from the Omori school.

It is signed "Omori Teruhide" and has (old) Tokubetsu Kicho papers.

 

Unfortunately I do not have much material and books to compare the Mei and would therefore like to know your opinions on the signature. I´ve had no reason to doubt its validity so far (not just because the workmanship is extraordinary) but heard that there are some faked papers around and that sometimes the old papers do not reflect the current thinking/attribution of the NBTHK...

Here are some images of the Toku Kicho papers: http://www.toban-art.de/img/omori/omori.html

 

thanks & cheers,

[nagamaki - Franco]

Martin, there is an example in the Tokyo Museum book, if you can get a hold of one. Images of the workmanship, please?

 

Thank you.

 

added http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?coll_keywords=omori+teruhide

[Brian]

Martin,

 

These 2, which I am sure you have seen, aren't all that helpful since as far as I know the signatures aren't authenticated, but maybe they are of some assistance.

the first is from the Boston museum: http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_a ... e&id=12488 (The mei can be enlarged) and the other is here: http://www.arco-iris.com/George/omori_tsuka-a.htm

I'll try and hit the books tomorrow.

 

Regards,

Brian

[Guest reinhard]

Hi Martin,

 

Here's a mei for comparison. The F/K-set is papered Hozon Tosogu.

 

reinhard

[Martin]

Images of the workmanship, please?

 

Hi Franco and all,

 

here you are: http://www.toban-art.de/img/omori/omori2.html

 

Best,

[nagamaki - Franco]

Hi Martin, thanks for sharing these pics.

 

A pennies worth of thought here, where 'Omori Teruhide' is concerned there appears to be three levels of 'papered' workmanship that I have seen, with each level having it's own variation of mei. To what conclusions that might be drawn from this, I leave to the experts.

[Guest reinhard]

where 'Omori Teruhide' is concerned there appears to be three levels of 'papered' workmanship that I have seen, with each level having it's own variation of mei. To what conclusions that might be drawn from this, I leave to the experts.

 

??? any examples ?

 

Hi Martin,

Here's another example of TERUHIDE's mei. It is added to the Fuchi of a Fuchi/Kashira/Tsuba set. The whole set is papered Juyo Tosogu. The mei looks almost exactly the same like the one I posted before (Hozon Tosogu). The pics might give you an idea of his workmanship too.

 

reinhard

[nagamaki - Franco]

??? any examples ?

 

 

sorry, with the exception of the Tokyo Museum book the others have been in private collections.

This Juyo set you've posted is A plus all around,

 

(correction) see 1994 Sotheby's auction catalog, Caldwell collection.

[docliss]

There are three examples of Omori Teruhide's work illustrated, together with their mei, on PP.188-9, #239, 240 and 241, of the Haynes' auction catalogue #7.

 

John L.

[Mantis dude]

Was curious to get opinions on my Omori teruhide signature (I posted this on Rich t's board also). It nevers hurts to get as many opinions as possible. It is the fist f/K on this page http://www.freewebs.com/kamakiriken/fuc ... upload.htm

 

Here is the sig pic

 

All opinions are appreciated (good or bad). Thanks.

Ken

[docliss]

Dear Ken

 

I am reassured that, in responding to your request for an opinion on your kamakiri fuchi-gashira, I am merely confirming what you already suspect. In my opinion the quality of their workmanship is far removed from that seen on work by Omori Teruhide. Once seen, such work screams its high quality, and even the nanako on your pair, while quite good, falls short of the master’s.

 

Having decided that your fuchi-gashira are gimei, it is then not difficult to identify a significant number of differences between the mei and those illustrated on pp. 51a-d and 52a and b of KinkÅ Meikan. All of the kanji on your fuchi-gashira, and the kao, differ in some respects from those in the book.

 

Sorry, John L.

[Guest reinhard]

We're looking at four mei. Three of them have something in common. One looks odd and one is made to deceive. And things are not what they seem at first.

 

From left to right:

 

Martin's, Hozon Tosogu, Juyo Tosogu, Ken's

 

What do you think, and why?

 

reinhard

[Jean]

Hi Reinhard,

 

Three mei are on the same side of the fushi, Martin's one is looking odd, small stroke, big chiselled ,too cropped

 

Martin's : Too thick chisel strokes, lack of fluidity (and wrong side?)

 

Ken's one (the last one) is splendid : If it was done to deceive, it is averi good. In fact, Kanjis seems to be larger and going out of the red copper part, Seems that the forgerer had some diificulties too master space

[Brian]

What Jean said, plus Ken's is missing a stroke on the second kanji, and there is hesitation in some of the strokes.

The genuine mei is quite compacted and neat, whereas Martin's seems too bold and a bit over confident.

The hooks on Ken's are also too bold and prominent.

 

Brian

[Martin]

I think what Reinhard tries to point out is that the Mei on my piece is odd, and the one on Ken´s piece is made to deceive.

Even if my piece should turn out to be Gimei, the workmanship is what I actually would expect from this school. It´s gorgeous and I love it :D

I made some new high resolution pictures of the workmanship. So have a look if you like.

 

http://www.toban-art.de/img/omori/omori2.html

 

But they still can´t be compared with the visual impression when the piece is in hand.

Thanks for the educational discussion all.

 

best,

[docliss]

However hard one tries, it is difficult to come to Reinhard's question with an open mind; one instinctively anticipates the Juyo mei to be kosher and the Hozon one possibly to be so.

 

The bizarre substitution, on Ken's mei, of the first kao element in the mori kanji by that of to is unlikely to be present in a genuine mei, and rather gives the impression that the scribe left in the middle for his coffee break and forgot to complete in upon his return. That feature, together with the general quality of Ken's pair leads me to the conclusion that the mei was added to the fuchi later, with the deliberate intention to deceive.

 

With its use of a broad chisel and the absence of any return strokes on the three verticals of the mori kanji, that on Martin's tsuba is quite unlike the master's usual mei. But the quality of the work on this is very high, and I believe this may be the work of a skilled student.

 

As to the Hozon mei, I really do not feel able to comment since there is such a wide variation in the various Teruhide mei that one sees illustrated.

 

John L.

[Jean]

Martin,

 

Your mei is so distinct from the other ones that I was wondering if it has not been made by another artist who had a different mei. Even the last kanjis aer not at all the same, could the mei read in another way??

[Martin]

Hi Jean,

 

I really don´t know

Maybe it was the work of one of his students and therefore without a Kakihan/Kao and on the other side...

But that´s just me guessing...

I also really did not find a Mei of him without a Kao/Kakihan and therefore this at least does not seem to be a *typical* signature.

 

Best,

[Jean]

Martin,

 

One thing is sure, this mei was not at all made to deceive : opposite side, last kanjis very different from the other mei(s), ...???

[Mantis dude]

No no, mine is real - all of yours are fake- haha. Very interesting comparison and thank you for all the work in comparing the mei's. I never knew much about the teruhide and always had it on the to do list to look him up. So when I saw the post, I was quite interested. Since I don't know kanji very well, the comparison and evaluation are most informative. I also don't forget that the piece itself should dictate the maker and the mei is just added bonus to confirm. When I get the chance I will add this info to my site. I didn't buy it for the signature nor did I pay a price for a real teruhide, so it remains a decent mantis piece with a gimei sig. Thanks again for everyone's help and info.

 

Ken

[Guest reinhard]

I think what Reinhard tries to point out is that the Mei on my piece is odd, and the one on Ken´s piece is made to deceive.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to point out. Odd mei can be discussed further on the basis of the overall quality of the object. There are two options left: A naive gimei executed by someone, who never saw an original signature, or the work of a student or co-worker, who got permission to add the prestigious mei (without kao). The mei on Ken's Fuchi, on the other hand, seems to be a deliberate attempt of copying. I agree with John L. here.

 

reinhard

[SSt]

Here is a very nice example of the masters work.

 

I assume the image is copyright

 

Sukagawa Museum Aotsu Collection, No 354.

 

http://www.db.fks.ed.jp/txt/20011.002/html/00094.html

 

Click on the image to enlarge.

 

Yet another variation of his mei. The kao is obviously more flamboyant, he seems to have made full use of the space available.

[Brian]

I notice in the subject on Rich's forum, Paul Gill has posted a pic of his Omori Teruhide.

Now without papers, I can't definitively say the mei is shoshin, but for the benefit of those with examples, I would expect that this is the kind of workmanship we should be looking for in his work. Very nice work, and the mei looks good to me from what I can see.

 

So as not to steal from the good thread there, I will rather direct you to the post, and only link one pic here. The thread is here: http://www.nihontokanjipages.com/forum/ ... php?id=218 with 2 more pics.

 

 

Brian

[Rich T]

Hi Steve, that is one of the many pieces I have held from that collection. And it is one of the items I had difficulty believing in hand. It just didn't stack up for me quality wise. There is also a Kozuka signed Teruhide there that I doubted. This is just my own opinion of course and may not be worth much.....

 

The Kozuka

http://www.db.fks.ed.jp/txt/20011.002/i ... 114_07.jpg

 

Cheers

 

Richard