Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Tsuba Kantei

 

Fair warning - this tsuba may not be considered by some to be representative of its school as its quite an early example.

Tetsu ground, Tetsu Inlay with high relief carving. Fine shakudo inlay.

The lighter areas on the tree trunk are loss of patination (wear and tear from a hand gripping the tsuka in a formal pose?)

 

Katana Size

Length : 88 mm, Width : 80.2 mm, Thickness at seppadai : 4.4 mm

 

There is an 18 kanji mei ; artists name and honorifics, season and year, as well as geographical place.

Hozon papered, purchased from a well respected Japanese dealer.

 

The mei has been brushed out, all will be revealed in due course.

 

Any thoughts?

post-304-14196762446685_thumb.jpg

post-304-14196762612345_thumb.jpg

post-304-14196762617048_thumb.jpg

Posted

Dear Steve

 

The broad shape of the two suhama-gata ryō-hitsu suggests to me a Shōami attribution, and the style of the work as being either Akita or Shōnai. May I therefore hazard an attribution of C18 work by the Akita-Shōami-Denbei group?

 

John L.

Posted

Hi John

This tsuba is from earlier century, try the reign of;

 

Tokugawa Ietsuna (徳川 家綱, September 7, 1641-June 4, 1680) was the fourth shogun of the Tokugawa dynasty of Japan who was in office from 1651 to 1680.

 

At least one authority has commented on this school and its early period;

"... added a taste of Shoami to the XXXXX style."

"Hitsuana - Ordinary wide type of the Shoami style"

Posted

I have to suggest the Umetada group. This was my first, gut response....and judging from the feedback from Steve I'm a little more confident.

 

Second or third master, certainly not shodai.

 

just late night ponderings....

 

regards all,

 

Ford

Posted

I am going to have to do a bit of deeper digging, but I am tempted to offer up Chôshu. I have seen something similar to this recently and I am busting my brain trying to remember where.

 

Cheers

 

Rich

Posted

Hello everybody,

 

I have arrived at the same conclusion as Rich.

It could be an early Choshu tsuba.

It is said in the Baur book : "Early Choshu work was influenced by Umetada Myoju (mentioned by Ford) who spent some time at Yamaguchi and by Shoami (mentioned by some other members): thus examples by Nakai sometimes show incrustation of the softer metals on the iron ground (which is the case).

So my answer would be early Nakai Choshu, but the first Nakai, NOBUTSUNE, died in 1703 so it does not fit with the mentionned dates....

Other possibilities ?

Friendly,

Marc

Posted

I was thinking more of Umetada Shigenari. he did a bit in steel...and the Umetada of course are noted for their use of soft metal. The plum blossoms are particularly convincing to me.

 

To be honest though, I can see the other offerings validity too....hmm :dunno:

Posted

A few more gentle nudges and we may get there ;

 

Nihon To Koza, Part VI, Kodogu Part I, AFU

 

... added a taste of Shoami to the Umetada style. In the beginning it was a style which emerged from the Umetada style, during this period shakudo, yamagane and shibuichi were mainly used, and tetsu was rare.

Next they were tetsu ji with uncoloured nikubori sukashi, and nunome zogan with sukashi and a taste of shoami was added.

Generally speaking, the XXXXX seemed to have used tetsu, shakudo and shibuichi for the jigane ... seems that ... no tetsu ji in tsuba after moving to Edo, can be considered as due to the fact that it is, after all, rare.

I think that the pieces prized by tsuba enthusiasts which are works of the XXXXX are those made by various XXXXX artisans, in other words they seem to be those of the period before the Umetada style was lost.

 

Work Style

Older pieces in the Umetada style with zogan in various metals and sukashi.

Mid-period resembling Shoami, sukashi or suritsake (nunome) zogan in tetsu.

Later generations no tetsu, sukashi tsuba of shakudo or shibuichi.

Hitsuana - Ordinary wide type of the Shoami style.

Those having sukashi in the ita-tsuba (plate tsuba) are in the majority.

 

N.B. Most examples you will have seen will be from the later period, i.e the majority.

 

 

If the above is not sufficent, the next and final nudge will be from;

 

Tsuba Geijutsu Ko (Treatise on the art of tsuba)

Dr. Kazutaro Torigoye (published 1960)

 

Good Luck

Posted

I edited the images late yesterday and added a new post at the same time. The photo's took but the subsequent post did not? hmm.

No matter here we go.

 

I guess that the last nudge was a little too much!

 

Kudo's to John L & Ford for seeing the Shoami and Umetada influence.

 

As stated at the start of this thread it's not we we usually see in Akao work.

 

---

 

The NTBHK Hozn papers describe the piece thus ;

 

松梅図鐔 Matsu ni ume Tsuba Pine tree and Japanese plum Tsuba

 

銘 Mei

七郎左エ門吉房作 Shichiro Saemon Yoshifusa Saku

万治己亥春於島原 Manji tsuchinoto-i haru oite S(h)imabara - Spring 1659 at S(h)imadara

 

撫木瓜形 Nade Mokkô Gata Lobed shape on an oval base

鉄槌目地 Tetsu tsuchime-ji Iron hammered surface

鋤出高彫 Sukidashi takabori High Relief Carving

土手耳 Dote-mimi A rounded raised rim

耡下毛彫 Sukisage KeBori Line carving of consistent depth and width

両櫃孔 ryo-hitsuana double hitsuana

赤銅埋 Shakudô ume Shakudo Plugs

 

---

 

Haynes H11475.0

 

Yoshifusa, 吉房

F: Akao, 赤尾

W: Fukui in Echizen Province.

date ca. 1650-1700

NTS: Made Tsuba

SCE. W-97-L-3

 

Nihon To Koza, page 151

 

---

 

Rich you probably saw this tsuba in the September 2008, Ginza Choshuya magazine.

 

---

 

and for those that do not have a personal library;

 

Tsuba Geijutsu Ko (Treatise on the art of tsuba), Dr. Kazutaro Torigoye (published 1960)

 

.... The tsuba of this school for the most part, whether made in Echizen of iron plate, or in Edo of Kawarigane (literally different kind of metal, i.e. not iron) plate, are better than the late work of the Shoamis school and the kinko. The early work of this school shows the superior ability above that of the majority of the contemporary workers of the period.

The number of tsuba made by this school was few, for they were kakae-ko (抱工); artists who worked exclusively for a Diamyo family.

The general public very rarely had a chance to see the work of artists who were patronized by Diamyo families.

For this reason the style of the Akao school never had a chance to catch the fancy of the public.

It was not imitated in great quantities as were the popular styles.

 

Thanks All

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...