New Oribe Chawan

[johnnyi]

Hello.  This chawan came in the mail today. I'm hoping to gain some insights from some of you regarding who might have made it and when was it made. It was presented as coming from a "storehouse which, during the 1990's Japanese Olympics, was  uncovered when constructing a highway" (and thus looks untouched.) It was also mentioned that these were accumulated by farmers at this time, many of them broken. This information was also added, "All four pieces I had TL-tested (Cost about $ 400 per piece) have confirmed an age about 400 yrs =/- 20%.".

 

I have not the knowledge to doubt this might all be true, however my not knowing the seller,  coupled with the bowl's  immaculate condition give room for doubt.   If it was new, who would be making these? (and so well?) I haven't seen another yet of this quality but I'm a novice, and have not seen enough. I'm hoping someone here can enlighten me on what I've got. (the Chawan is large, 147.3 mm and whatever age it might be I really like it). Thanks for your comments, Johnnyi

[johnnyi]

p.s. please don't worry about offending with negative comments if there is a reason for them. I am just trying to learn here. Thanks, J

[John A Stuart]

It looks more like Shino Oribe. Older, I don't think contemporary. John

[Guest]

Interesting Bowl.

 

Not new.

 

I had no idea what TL testing was, so I found out.

 

https://www.oxfordauthentication.com/about-us/thermoluminescence-tl-testing-process/

 

[Robin]

With my limited knowledge...all I can say is it looks genuinely old and I find it very beautiful.

I heard the same description before....Alton Takata got several from the same batch.

I don't know if it's true or a hoax. For you and for Alton I hope it's true.

 

On his facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=702970553432229&id=370989386630349&__xts__[0]=68.ARDz1o5cY5kXR0ooCni8yoxoxm5dZssnefYnmZkVWCk7ZicJrFV7cLizPJjizVjM8uA6kTugBh4VfgadBo1zm3RYIHjw3TPVfOjkRCuAYSElUqxCvoLHsLSIg8zpUd1b41vZ6g1d1QC0uajmbvqcFbhJSceJYi1LQ8r0Unzwr8LRA8aVcQgkQDcwNZH_eD0regRm4CLyoHB-FFtAbH5b-qnKkWoqt3F0znfuAwsFRQIJiyHtii6gThwe5RNTBvn56g2wdvPd3GnHMOSUazZF_s6s9MgUmlZ3TzvP0XOz63KG_3nxmgrPAXxPqzcZ2jqYUeRruxc68o2n0SkC8XAuAVI&__tn__=C-R

[ROKUJURO]

On older ceramic items, you will generally find traces of use which are visible under magnification. Especially the inner bottom and the footring can show these fine scratches and abrasion.

However, I own a small Chinese bowl from the SONG period that is like new. Together with hundreds of other ceramic items, it was found in a ship wreck and survived on the bottom of the Southern Chinese Sea for about 600 years. 

So, depending on the circumstances, some older ceramic pieces can be found in very good condition or even unused. In these cases, TL might be a way to verify the age. 

On the other hand, if you like the bowl, age is not that important.  

[johnnyi]

Thank you fellows for all your helpful comments, and thank you Robin for the link to the other "forum" (done in the spirit of Santa from "Miracle On 34th Street" who sent folks to Gimbals).  I found this other article last night. It might lend a little weight to the possibility of locals making a cottage industry of digging "new-old" artifacts from this area. I could also see why few people would gamble on authenticity of pieces like this when you've got to shell out $400 to prove or disprove.  Here's the link which alludes to what we're talking about.  https://jigsaw-Japan.com/2019/02/16/shakado-museum-of-jomon-culture-really-digging-back-in-time/?fbclid=IwAR1pIa-ljgR8Fr4az0ziccMclLObp0jZ7LdiSz-LtVnmwkT1h2p6-CtOFa8

 

 

johnnyi

[sabi]

Not an old bowl in the sense that the seller is claiming IMO. I know who you bought it from and in my opinion their descriptions are generally dubious. It may be a ca 1900 mingei revival piece but I don't suspect it's much older than that if at all. The throwing, glazing and execution of the motif are vastly different than period (Momoyama/early Edo) Mino chawan. The suspicions re the lack of apparent use/patina are valid as well, a 400 year old piece will almost always show clear signs of this, unless you win the lotto and find one that was put in a box and kept there for a few centuries.

 

Spend some time studying the real deal and you'll quickly see the difference.

[johnnyi]

Hi Evan, your knowledge is clearly  vastly superior to mine regarding Oribe bowls.  I have attempted to compare many pieces (through pictures, as I have no access and probably won't to genuine old ones). My results seem to have been futile which is why I posted. My novice observations are, a thin lip, a brownish gold glaze both of which I thought were curious.  Beyond that what else  stands out?  . Can you be more specific regarding "throwing and glazing and execution"? Anything would help in understanding, (help all of us maybe who thought there was a slim chance  it was  possibly older), i.e. brush stroke?, glaze composite?, type of clay?, foot?, that make it vastly different from early edo .  The bowl went very cheaply by the way, and I bought it to drink tea out of,  so whatever age it is not all that important to me except to learn. It is curious though why someone evidently versed in chawan, would sell this as a 400 year old piece and turn off many prospective buyers in the process, rather than just offer it as (imho) an undated  beautiful bowl and get some  solid bids.   Go figure.   Thanks again,   Regards,  John     

[sabi]

Hey John, apologies for the late reply, I was packing for a trip up north when I sent my last message and was out of the country for a few.

 

 

Unfortunately, access to pictures is all that most of us get with these types of things.  There aren't many period examples in the west and the ones held in muesums generally aren't on view.  Luckily, books on yakimono are far cheaper than swords or fittings and it's a perfectly acceptable way to study them.  Your initial observations are correct though, this type of glaze (to my knowledge) isn't seen amongst Momoyama/early Edo Oribe, and this applies to the brushwork as well.  The lip doesn't necessarily strike me as being too thin although you are correct that most older bowls have thicker lips.  There is another important consideration re the lip however - because period pieces were stacked during the firing, most of them will show some degree of missing glaze around it.

 

 

My opinion about the execution is subjective of course, but with a bit of study I think it gets fairly easy to pick out the ones that are masquerading as older works.  The first thing that I look at is the overall form.  Kutsugata can be tricky since there were so many varieties, but early bowls have a strength and exuberance that revival pieces fail to get right (much like early vs late iron tsuba) - I'll attach some images of what I'm getting at later today.  While your bowl does sport a roughly three-cornered shape it comes off as contrived, I believe someone did their best to make it look like an early 1600's piece but it simply falls short of that.  The brush work suffers from the same mentality, while the strokes have good weight to them the design of the pine motif is a bit rudimentary and obvious, not the free-spirited and abstract strokes of their ancestors.  The clay looks good and certainly appears to be Mino, but the foot is too neat and trim to my eye - old bowls have considerably rougher kodai and some are very much so.  The size is good and generally period pieces are larger than their later counterparts (not always), but we can't come to any conclusions based on measurements alone.  

 

 

And of course we have patina... like I said above, there may be some mint bowls in hiding that have been untouched for centuries, but being struck by lightning carries a higher probability IMO.  Four hundred years is a LONG time for a ceramic object to survive (especially when you consider what the island of Japan has endured throughout that period), which is part of why we have so few left for us today.  The body will pick up dents and dings, glaze chips and crazes, tea stains accumulate and speckle the interior, hairlines develop and are filled in, exposed clay around the foot darkens and smooths over after coming in contact with countless hands and tatami mats...  Yours looks like it could have been made yesterday - it wasn't, but I trust you understand where I'm coming from there.  

 

 

Also, while people do make miracle finds, you have to wonder why this would have sold for short money if it were the real deal.  Period ceramics are very expensive and teabowls tend to be at the high end of the spectrum due to their cutlural significance.  One of my favorite contemporary Oribe potters charges around $100 for a guinomi or yunomi, but a chawan by the same hand will set you back a thousand bucks or so.

 

 

Even though you might not have an heirloom, it's an honest bowl that will serve you well for years to come. Whoever threw it certainly had the golden years of Japanese ceramics in mind and it's a far better effort than many of the flat, weak and uninspired revival wares from late Edo through early Showa.  The dimensions are good and I'd bet it has a nice, weighty feel in the hands.  I'm happy to hear you'll be putting it to use and I'd love to see a shot with some tea in it!  

 

 

 

 

"When you hear the splash

Of the water drops that fall
Into the stone bowl
You will feel that all the dust
Of your mind is washed away."