A New Year kantei ...

[docliss]

Following the Christmas holidays there has been rather a dearth of correspondence on the Message Board and, in an attempt to correct this, I am posting a kantei for members’ amusement.

 

The tsuba is nade-kaku-gata, measures 8.3 cm – 7.7 cm, and has a raised mimi. It is made of iron with a polished, chocolate-brown surface and depicts, in a low relief engraving that extends onto the seppa-dai, an image of Kinkō riding upon his taō. Only the eye of the fish and the top-knot on the sage’s head are decorated with gold. The almost empty space on the reverse depicts tiny golden droplets over waves rendered in kebori and low-relief engraving. There are no hitsu-ana, and the nakago-hitsu shows no signs of the guard ever having been mounted. The inscriptions on both sides of the guard, together with the gold hon-zōgan seal on the omote, have been deleted from these images.

 

I shall post my response to any replies in two weeks' time.

 

Regards, John L.

[Stephen]

cant tell you much as I have only what i read here on the board as far as training in kodosu, i do remember reading somewhere, think it was something buy John Yumoto, if the seppa-dai has work on it its just a art item only and not used for the sword. Is that correct?

[docliss]

Stephen’s question demonstrates the problem of making ‘rules’ regarding kodōgu. Where the decorative work on a tsuba extends onto the seppa-dai in relatively high relief, this clearly precludes the use of seppa and renders it unmountable on a sword. But kebori and katakiri-bori present no such problems. Neither would the extension of shishiai-bori onto the seppa-dai preclude the use of seppa, and work attributed to Jōi frequently demonstrates such a feature.

 

A further unresolved question remains — whether or not to call such Meiji works of art, never intended for use as sword fittings, ‘tsuba’. I personally do, just as I call a modern conical, ceramic object a ‘vase’ even if it cannot contain water.

 

Regards, John L.

[Brian]

Doc,

Stunning tsuba. I was surprised to see it is iron. I was fully expecting it to be kinko work.

I'm going to have to do some research. Clearly late work, end of Edo or Meiji? One of the mainline schools, but we often seem to be researching either early iron, or late kinko. Late iron...hmmm

An interesting exercise, I look forward to reading some answers and reasonings. I'm tempted to look at Yasuchika/late Nara school, but that is with minimal knowledge.

 

Brian

[Henry Wilson]

Was it made by Ford?

[John A Stuart]

This work is reminiscent of ..., so I will bid;

 

Kano Natsuo

 

[reinhard]

Despite of its qualities, this is a typical example of a Hama-mono, made for export during later 19th century.

 

reinhard

[Marc BROQUIN]

Hello, :D

This tsuba is interesting by its size. It seems it was not made to be mounted on a katana but to be offered as a precious gift. The method of carving looks like carving of a MITO SCHOOL. There is no kata kiribori which is found frequently on JOI's tsuba. It is not also the Carving of GOTO ICHIJO even if the waves from the reverse could fit with this attribution. I think naturally towards SEKIJOKEN MOTOZANE but I am perturbated by the gold honzogan seal. I do not remember any tsuba of this artist bearing such a seal. Perhaps RAKUSEI TOSHIHARU pupil of TANAKA KIYOTOSHI with minute gold iclusion and golden seal (see TOSOGU TREASURE OF THE SAMURAI, SARZI AMADE Ltd) or more likely later on OKAWA TEIKAN (or SHIHO) famous for its big size tsuba and even living in Edo, following the MITO traditions.

Best regards

Marc

[Brian]

Doc,

Is that carving around the seppa dai flush with the surface or raised?

If raised, I can see the Hamamono call, but it doesn't look as overdone as I would expect from these.

http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/hamamono.html

Willing to hear more about these theories though.

I find these late tsuba very difficult to kantei without a lot of defining characteristics. I assume the kantei points here would be the subdued use of inlay, raised seppa dai and overall shape, as well as that distinct colouring?

For some reason, Tetsugendo comes to mind, but can't back that up much yet.

 

Brian

[docliss]

Dear Brian

 

The design on the seppa-dai can best be described as a comination of shishiai-bori and usuniki-bori; in other words, the design is slightly raised above the level of the seppa-dai and would probably obtrude, to a limited extent, upon an unmodified seppa. Without wishing to 'give the game away', the iron texture and coloration are, indeed, crucial to the kantei.

 

John L.

[Brian]

Waxy smooth brown patina to iron. I am still seeing Tetsugendo in my mind, but have a lot of research to do before I can come to a smith. Perhaps I am way off....

 

Brian

[docliss]

A single glance at this tsuba identifies it as being Meiji work by an outstanding artist, and this should be a good starting point for making an attribution. Among such artists one thinks of Kanō Natsuō — together with his students, Unno Shōmin and Shōami Katsuyoshi — and Okawa Teikan, all of whom are graded as Jokō or above in Kinkō Meikan. Shōmin demonstrated wide-ranging skills, but favoured taka-bori and katakiri-bori, understandably on the softer alloys. Katsuyoshi exhibited zōgan on a nikubori sukashi background, favouring grasses and flowers, birds and insects as his chosen themes. Some members may feel that the legendary subject and the ‘brightness’ of the work may, together, suggest a possible Mito origin.

 

The tsuba is, indeed, Mito Sekijōken work by Okawa Teikan (H 09521.0), an artist whose ability in many styles makes it difficult to immediately identify his work but whose iron, with its rich colouring and its silken texture, is immediately recognisable. The Mito Sekijōken school was founded by Taizan Motonori, a student of Yokoya Sōchi; the founder’s son, Taizan Motozane I, became the second master of the school. Okawa Gantei, or Motosada, was a pupil of this artist and was the father of Okawa Teikan, the maker of this tsuba. Teikan (1828 – 1898) worked in Edo and was a retainer of the Mito Tokugawa Daimyō, and of the Bakufu in Edo. His name may also be read as Sadamoto and as Sadamasa — he is listed as the former both by Robinson in The Baur Collection and by Joly in Shōsankenshu, and as the latter by Hara in Die Meister …. Torigoye, on p. 230 of Tsuba: an Aesthetic Study, describes Teikan as ‘a very great artist [who] could work in any metal or style. He also made many copies of famous pieces, and his best work can pass for that of any of the great masters’.

[docliss]

Among the submissions received, John suggested Natsō as an attribution and, interestingly, this tsuba does incorporate that artist’s concept of ‘open space’ into the design, together with his preference of the lower, right-hand section of a tsuba for the placement of the principal motif. But Natsuō’s iron was much better forged, with a granular surface and a much darker patination.

Brian recognised the Nara/Jōi resonances that are present in much Mito work, and dated it correctly. But his suggestion of a Tetsugendō attribution was wider of the mark. While acknowledging that such work frequently bears the gold seal of its makers, it recognises its Chōshū origins in its use of darkly patinated iron, and is generally of high-relief engraving with soft metal decoration.

Reinhard was technically correct in his rather dismissive, generic, Hama-mono label.

Henry’s suggestion of Ford Hallam as the artist was a very interesting — and complimentary — one. Sadly, I am not sufficiently familiar with Ford’s work to comment upon this, beyond suggesting that he generally observes the functionality of the tsuba, and does not allow its decorative work to obtrude upon the seppa-dai. Ford may wish to make some observations himself upon Henry’s posting.

But it is Marc, with his beautifully presented and reasoned argument, who is graded as ‘atari’.

 

This tsuba is inscribed on the obverse Shihō Teikan Usō with a gold hon-zōgan seal for Shinsui. On the reverse is written ‘made in Tōkyō in Koishikawa, in respectful acceptance of an order, by Shihō Teikan, small retainer of Mito Yashiki’. It is ex the Naunton collection, being no. 2221 (unillustrated) in the Naunton catalogue. It has never been submitted to shinsa, but comparison of the mei with those illustrated on pp.135c-d of Kinkō Meikan, together with the high quality of the work, leaves little doubt as to its provenance.

 

John L.

[Brian]

John,

Thank you so much for that excellent exercise and explanation.

Although I wish there were more attempts, once people realise that there is no shame in getting it wrong, I am sure participation will increase.

As always, very educational and entertaining. I now have some references to go and look up and learn more about.

Well done to Marc, who also gave excellent reasons for his answers. I value these exercised highly and enjoy them. Perhaps I will find a few small prizes to offer new time, not just for correct answers but for reasoning and attempts

Lovely tsuba. I understand why some don't get into them due to the fact that they were made after the sword era, but the study of Japanese swords and fittings incorporates metalwork and decoration, and these are certainly a great example of what was being done and what they were capable of, as well as demonstrating the lineage of the schools.

 

Thanks again

Brian