Interesting Tosogu Set After Yokoya School

[Krystian]

Hello, 

 

I have just bought this tosogu set and I can't figure it out. So I hope that you might help me to clear some of my doubts. 

 

Whole set is made in Yokoya style but at first glance looks modern made. However base of front of the kozuka is different color that rest of the set (back is the same color). But I am nor sure if it is made of different alloy or color is a result of mistake made during patination process. Kozuka front has a nanako that is not present on any other part. Based on that I thought that front of the kozuka is antique item and all other parts (including) back of the kozuka are modern. But if It is so than I don't understand red/brown color on kouzka front. It is Yokoya style so it should be black. 

 

There are a lot of interesting details on this set and one of them is tsuba. It is sanmai with two shakudo plates on copper base. There was no shakudo cover on the rim so we can see two shakudo plates, red copper and gold iroe. And when you look at the mimi from some distance the color looks almost the same as kozuka front. This is such an amazing effect that I simply doubt that it is just coincidance. 

 

As always thank you for all comments. 

 

Krystian 

[Tanto54]

Dear Krystian, I hope that the following observations will help you in your thinking about this set.  While the fuchigahira and tsuba clearly go together, I don't believe that your kozuka was originally intended to be part of the set (probably combined at a later stage).  I think this because of the different ground treatment and the fact that the shishi on the fuchi matches the one on the tsuba, but they do not match the shishi on the kozuka (significant differences - e.g., eyes are not inlayed, eyebrows are different).  That might also be why you are seeing differences in the color between the kozuka and the other parts.   As for the tsuba mimi, while the edge treatment is interesting, I believe that it was originally intended to be covered by a furukin (edge cover) because of the "unfinished" look of the mimi where you can see the side edge of the inlay (see photo below).  No good craftsman would have left that exposed, so it was probably intended to be covered by a furukin which has been lost (I imagine that the furukin was probably thin gold instead of shakudo).  That might also be why the edge's patina is different (are you sure that the tsuba is sanmai? it doesn't look sanmai to me, just the mimi edge does not have the same patina).

 

[Ford Hallam]

If I may, I have a few observations to offer on the tsuba.

 

The texture on the plate is called 'chiri-men' or crepe silk texture. It's very much associated with the work of Murakami Jochiku. However the generic look of the shishi and peony is not Jochiku's style at all.

 

The mimi isn't really all that unusual, it's a fairly typical filed 'rope' pattern. It was, when new, gilded and would have presented a very tidy edge. I don't believe a fukurin was used or needed.

 

The plate may well be san-mai, with a copper core, or that brown patina may simply be worn shakudo that hasn't recoloured properly. It's hard to be certain based on the image provided but the fact that the kozuka ana is gilded (to hide layers perhaps?) and the nakago ana looks like it may also be lined, in this case with shakudo, could all point to a sandwich construction, to save on material costs. The gilding on the shishi is also thin and a little worn, further evidence of cost cutting.

[Krystian]

Thank you for the comments. 

 

I also think that kozuka was not part of this set. However I sitll can't understand why front of the kozuka looks to be made of copper and back is from shakudo. This kozuka was made after Yokoya Somin work you can see here:

 

https://yuhindo.com/yokoya-soju/

 

 

Here are pictures of signatures. I think that signatures where made by the same person.

 

 

After Ford comment I no longer think that this is a modern work. There would be no reason to do so much additional work to save on material costs. So possibly late 19th century? 

 

I will make additional pictures of tsuba and post them here later. 

[Ford Hallam]

Krystian

 

I have to say that there are quite a few things about this work that bother me. Almost everything has something about it that feels not quite 'right'.

 

The tsuba's texture is not very professional, as though it was done by someone for the first time. It's uneven in the way the marks are lined and there is a clear difference in depth of marks too, as well as areas where the texture is less concentrated. These all issues beginners struggle with.

 

The nakago ana on the tsuba is very 'stiff', marked out and shaped almost like a machine job. This is not usual in Edo work but is a feature of modern Japanese work where it feels to me that the makers are not confidant in their design sense.

 

The peony flowers are shaped in a way not typically seen on classical work. By this I mean the ripples on the petals. In traditional work these are properly carved in the silver but here the petals were made very simply as one scooped shape and then the edges punched with a rounded punch to push the ripples in to create the wrinkled effect. You can see the individual indents. This isn't the classical approach at all, it feels like a sort of cheat and hurried way of doing things.

 

The leaves of the peony flowers are also odd, they're very elongated to the stage where they no longer look like peony leaves. This sort of 'mistake' is suspicious because traditional craftsmen copied designs very expertly. It's just the way they were trained. This feels like the sort of freestyle work we'd expect from someone who's working it all out from scratch. 

 

The shishi on all the fittings are reasonably carefully done but yet again they don't feel natural, and there are some very obvious oddities about details and actual shapes. Some of the faces are really 'curious'. Someone tried really hard to emulate the style but didn't quite hit the mark.

 

I'll be honest, for me there are simply too many awkward issues to allow me to consider this work as legitimate Edo work.  As more modern amateur work we must judge it by very different criteria. 

 

I would agree that the mei all seem to be by the same hand. And I wouldn't call this work fake.

 

I've attached a couple of images of genuine Yokoya (Soyo II) work for you to study what the target was and to see for yourself how the copies don't quite 'get it'.

 

[Ford Hallam]

Some further excellent study samples, these by Yanagawa Naomasa, a senior Yokoya student and master in his own right. A thoughtful Christmas present....if you anyone was wondering what I'd like to see under my tree. 

 

On Darcy Brockbank's site, with superb images in HD.

 

And as an example of a classically carved and formed botan flower this on by Naomasa (borrowed from Darcy's site, hope that's ok) would be hard to beat. You can just discern, perhaps in only one spot, that he also used a rounded punch to create some wrinkles in the petal edges but it's by no means all that obvious and there is so much other modelling and subtle shaping that the overall effect of 'floweriness' is superb. It's also worth remembering that this type of flower carving is very stylised. There's a good amount of abstraction in the actual flower shape, it's not meant to be a super realistic flower, more of a idealised version design motif. This is because at this tiny size a perfectly realistic flower would loose it's impact and be too fussy. So instead this style provides a simplified version that captures the overall impression of the peony/botan flower.

 

Towards the end of the Edo period we then see artists like Kano Natsuo doing peony in a bigger scale so that then they can in fact start to create more naturalistic versions of the flower. This artistic evolution is worth exploring because the issue of image scale is often a very good indicator of period. 

[Ken-Hawaii]

This is university-level response!

[Ford Hallam]

Thanks Ken, I hope it provides something to chew over and offers some further insights beyond the surface, so to speak.

[Krystian]

Dear Ford, 

 

Thank you for spending so much time writing about this piece. I think that I am able to understand almost all of your comments apart from one. Could you share a bit more about oddities in shishi faces? I understand that they are not as good as genuine Yokoya. But Yokoya also made a lot of different expressions on shishi faces so I can't pin point and consciously see those oddities. 

 

 

Please also clarify one more thing if possible. You wrote that this set was made by an amateur. You also wrote that nakago-ana shape looks like one made by contemporary Japanese craftsman. So do you think that this set was made by a contemporary Japanese craftsman or amateur? And by amateur I mean professional jeweler who does not specialize in making tosogu. 

 

Krystian 

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Krystian

 

It may take me a couple of days to get a chance but I'll try and detail the various 'oddities' that make the faces appear 'wrong'. I need to figure out how to draw on images 

[Krystian]

Thank you Ford. I am going to Japan tomorrow so I won't have much time for long studies this week. But If you need something please let me know and I will be happy to get it for you as a thank you:) Well something other than Yanagawa Naomasa daisho set:) 

 

I can send you high resolution pictures If it helps.