Comments on this print - much appreciated.

[barnejp]

Hi All, Comments on this print is much appreciated.

Basically, I'm interested in this print but no back image (since the seller prefers not to take the frame apart).

I have these photos to go by.

 

Thank you,

Greg

[ChrisW]

I am no artist, nor have any level of expertise in prints... but the details seem a tad crude? Its a pretty scene, just lacks fine detail.

[PietroParis]

Here you find other examples of this Hiroshige print. Here and here some minimal info on the "Kyoka Tokaido" series.

 

Cheers, Pietro

[PietroParis]

Compared with the MET and MFA prints, it looks like the greens have faded a bit, no?

[barnejp]

Thank you for your comments.

Yes, it has faded but not that unusual since it has been under glass for many years (at least that's what I have been told).

[barnejp]

In fact, in the worst case, the green turns to blue

[Bugyotsuji]

If the seller prefers not to take the frame apart, it’s a straight gamble. Could even be a color copy.

 

I like the composition, and if it hangs decoratively on your wall for 20 years who on earth is going to check inside? Do you have friends who might ask, “Is it a genuine original, and if so, how do you know?” And how would you reply in such a situation?

[Guest]

Good morning all,

 

Check out the difference between the period prints shown in the link that Pietro included above.

 

There is no rectangular red cartouche (? San Ju Go - 35th stage) to the left of the red name cartouche (Tokaido Go Ju San Tsugi ) in the top right hand corner.

 

 

 

Suggests a later version or a re - strike print. 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Ah, fresh eyes caught what I was trying to puzzle out.

[Guest]

Mornin' Ken, 

 

The small cartouche is detailing that the scene is the 35th stage of the Tokaido, but when this was added to the block is a mystery to me.

[PietroParis]

Hiding in plain sight! How did I miss that?

[Guest]

Thank you Pietro,

 

Here we are with another example:

 

https://ukiyo-e.org/image/bm/AN00523680_001_l

 

Here is what it was intended to look like:

 

https://ukiyo-e.org/image/mfa/sc156414

 

This sheds some light on the situation:

 

https://www.viewingjapaneseprints.net/texts/topics_faq/faq_original.html

[PietroParis]

Thanks Malcom! 

 

Good find for the print with the added cartouche. If it is in the British Museum it should not be too fake...

 

The link on "original" prints is also interesting. I notice however that it does not mention the wood grain: I believed that, when visible, it was considered a kind of "signature" that helps determining whether a print is from the original blocks. Is that criterion overrated or prone to falsification?

 

 

[PietroParis]

Some context to the question above, and apologies to Greg for hijacking the thread! Last year I bought a "Kichizo Tokaido" print for 50 EUR (all included) at an online auction:

 

 

It is in a pretty sad state, with folds and stains, and it is even backed (which I only realized when I picked it up from the auction house). However, I assumed that at least it is original, because the woodgrain visible in the blue sky above the right mast matches the one in similar prints at BM and MFA. Was I too gullible?

[barnejp]

Thank you All,

Very informative discussion.

So, generally speaking, would this print be considered an original, reprint or reproduction?

Best guess

 

Thanks,

Greg

[Guest]

Good morning Pietro, 

 

How dense is the actual paper of the print?

 

If it wasn't backed it would be possible to hold it up to an even light source, where you should expect to see the lines in the paper structure from the grid that was used when the paper was made (like a water mark).

 

This does not mean that it is period, just that it was made by traditional means (which in a recent print would be more expensive).

 

Grid marks may show up if you shine an LED torch across the surface of the sheet.

 

On the left, you have two circular stamps, these are the Aratame censor's seals.

 

From them you can date the print, or at least the date that the original was made.

 

They were used mainly between 1790 and 1876.

 

They were added by the censors after the block printing.

 

See below and have fun dating!!

 

http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/prints/sealdate.html

 

 

Spoiler: http://mercury.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/prints/jpg/seals/dnanushiL.jpg

 

             https://research.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=776900&partId=1

 

             https://ukiyo-e.org/image/mfa/sc233213

[SteveM]

Going back to Greg's original print, from what Pietro posted, the original block would have been cut and the first prints would have been made around 1840. Since this one has an added element on the print, I agree with Malcom that it would have been a block that was cut later. But I don't know if it was later, as in 1845, or later as in 1910 or 1960. If its just meant to be a decorative thing, and its a good price (sub $100), then don't worry too much about how original it is.

[Guest]

Here's an insight into an early 20th century scandal involving the fraudulent reprinting over original faded, yet important woodblock prints, which were sold  to Frank Lloyd Wright.

 

Makes fascinating reading:

 

https://www.viewingjapaneseprints.net/texts/topics_faq/takamizawa.html

 

[PietroParis]

Thanks a lot Malcom, this is very informative and a lot of fun!

 

According to the classification in this page, the seals in my print are G/N, which would correspond to the period 1847-1850. This is consistent with the dating 1850-1851 given here for the Kichizo Tokaido series. The seals are the same as in the BM and MFA examples linked in both your post and mine above. Of course I understand that this alone does not imply that my print is really from that period... Concerning the paper, it's hard to judge since it is backed, but from the edge that is not fully glued to the backing it looks relatively thin. Under magnification, the paper also shows a structure of vertical filaments, but I could not make out anything resembling "grid marks".

 

Concerning Greg's print, in all but one of the examples shown here the seals are on the lower-left margin, hence not much can be learned from this source without taking the print out of the frame.

 

Cheers, Pietro

[Guest]

Regarding Greg's print, I agree Pietro.

 

Spot on with your deciphering of the aratame.

 

Well done.  

 

This should explain what the "grid" pattern looks like in paper (6.22 onwards):

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2WXBZQ3S18

[PietroParis]

Concerning Greg's print, in all but one of the examples shown here the seals are on the lower-left margin, hence not much can be learned from this source without taking the print out of the frame.

 

 

Maybe this could be used as an argument with the seller?

[barnejp]

Thank you All for your input and information.

Here is an interesting link sent to me for you All.

http://blog.mobiidesu.com/2013/09/Japanese-woodblock-print-markings.html?m=1&fbclid=IwAR1OCNxDVSwtRAH0fArWMRrgVA-TOugih7FCiuZ9Yt4Z7ZazQO1BC1UabG8

[barnejp]

Hi All,

Is this a print from The Fifty-Three Stations of the Tokaido?

Thank you, Greg

[barnejp]

Hi All,

If so, I can't seem to find the print.

Any help is appreciated.

Thank you, Greg

[Bugyotsuji]

Greg, if you are referring to the top print, yes it is one of the series. At 'Yoshida' it says top right, which may be stop no.35, (not very clear) as Malcolm said above.

 

Pietro's is no.42.

[Guest]

Hi Piers,

 

"Pietro's is no.42." 

 

Pietro's is actually 43, however, not from the same series.

 

Hiroshige, like most of the Woodblock artists of the Edo era made various levels of a living from their output, and the public, as ever, were fickle and easily bored.

 

Tokaido series were very popular and Hiroshige returned to it many times.

 

Greg's is from the blocks originally cut between 1840/42 known as the Kyoka Tokaido. 

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Tokaido_Kyoka.htm

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kyoka_35_Yoshida.jpg

 

Pietro's (As he said in his link) is from the series originally cut later between 1850/51 and known as the Kichizo Tokaido.

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Tokaido_Kichizo.htm

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kichizo_43_Kuwana.jpg

 

This means innumerable possibilities for re-strikes and down right forgery of the most popular series.

 

Here's a link to the series:

 

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Tokaido_Series.htm

 

As we are mostly in lock-down mode, and without hijacking Greg's thread, I will start a topic on the stations of the Tokaido by various artists.

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Oh....... OK, Malcolm.

It does say Kuwana #42 on Pietro's, 桑名 but maybe you mean it would be #43 in a different series. I have a stash of prints here, mostly in terrible condition, and could you be my mentor in a future life, please, if God/Allah gives me a better brain next time?

 

https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/桑名宿

[Guest]

You are correct Piers,

 

Mea Maxima Culpa.

 

It looks like a jump in the series, with a missing print, as it states 24 & 25 as Shimada and Kanaya but only shows print numbered 24 on the sheet: 

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kichizo_24_Shimada_25_Kanaya.jpg

 

Stated as 26, Nissaka is actually numbered 25 on the print:

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kichizo_26_Nissaka.jpg

 

Interesting!!!

 

[PietroParis]

It looks like a jump in the series, with a missing print, as it states 24 & 25 as Shimada and Kanaya but only shows print numbered 24 on the sheet: 

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kichizo_24_Shimada_25_Kanaya.jpg

 

Stated as 26, Nissaka is actually numbered 25 on the print:

https://www.hiroshige.org.uk/Tokaido_Series/Images/Kichizo_26_Nissaka.jpg

 

As explained here, in the Kichizo Tokaido series the stations 24 and 25 were combined in one print (the one numbered 24), thus the print numbered 25 corresponds indeed to the station 26 (and so on).