What am I missing?

[zanilu]

Dear All

 

I have seen this tsuba for sale on Yahoo Japan. To me it looks clearly as a Kaga Yoshiro piece but it comes with an NBTHK paper to Heianjo Zogan!

 

 

What am I missing? 

Do you see any particular reason for the attribution? 

 

Regards

Luca

[Spartancrest]

There may be a little explanation here https://www.trocader...ae-Sukashi-Mon-Decor

http://www.trocadero.com/stores/spoilsoftime/blogpictures/1342321-catphoto.jpg

"This tusba is of the Yoshiro-zogan style. It issues from the Heianjo-zogan (inlaid tsuba of the so named city in Mino province -  not the jidai [period]) but demonstrates an evolution in design and execution. In both styles, work originating from the Muromachi period were brass inlaid iron. At the time, brass was more scarce than gold and was considered quite valuable - more so according to some literature. The Yoshiro style is named for an artist of Echizen (or Kaga) who worked in the 16th century. While Heianjo-zogan tsuba had inlay higher than the surface of the iron plate, Yoshiro-zogan inaly was comparatively flush with the iron surface of the plate accomplishing a relatively smooth feel. The designs also evolved from the Heianjo to the Yoshiro style. The algae and sukashi mon devices shown here are distinctively Yoshiro-zogan in manner. The sparse missing inlay is actually quite modest and some inlay loss is expected from brass inlaid tsuba from the Muromachi period (1392-1573)."

 

I guess what they are saying is Heianjo-zogan evolved into the Yoshiro style, so the paper might be going back to the roots of the tsuba? Odd though, it is like getting a reference for yourself by listing what your grandfather did - would it be relevant? [probably not!]

[zanilu]

That's exactly my point Dale. 

We have a lot of attribution from NBTHK of these kind of pieces, all mumei, to Yoshiro and then this one attributed to Heianjo!

Attached are the papers for a few of them from my database. 

The question is why this piece have a different attribution?

 

Regards

Luca

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Good point. It makes you wonder what they are thinking.

(To be fair your second set of papers does say Heianjo.) 

Also there is further variety on the paperwork such as:

Mumei, Yoshiro

Mumei, Yoshiro zōgan 

Mumei Koike Yoshiro

[zanilu]

Yes You are right Piers. The second one say Heianjo zogan my mistake! For that one my assumption is that this is due to the lack of the mon that have probalby fallen off.

But this only adds to my confusion! 

Comparing the first one with the others I see no particular differences that can justify the attribution!

I have added only a few of those I found! 

 

Regards

Luca

 

 

[Jake6500]

On 8/4/2024 at 9:29 AM, Spartancrest said:

There may be a little explanation here https://www.trocader...ae-Sukashi-Mon-Decor

http://www.trocadero...1342321-catphoto.jpg

"This tusba is of the Yoshiro-zogan style. It issues from the Heianjo-zogan (inlaid tsuba of the so named city in Mino province -  not the jidai [period]) but demonstrates an evolution in design and execution. In both styles, work originating from the Muromachi period were brass inlaid iron. At the time, brass was more scarce than gold and was considered quite valuable - more so according to some literature. The Yoshiro style is named for an artist of Echizen (or Kaga) who worked in the 16th century. While Heianjo-zogan tsuba had inlay higher than the surface of the iron plate, Yoshiro-zogan inaly was comparatively flush with the iron surface of the plate accomplishing a relatively smooth feel. The designs also evolved from the Heianjo to the Yoshiro style. The algae and sukashi mon devices shown here are distinctively Yoshiro-zogan in manner. The sparse missing inlay is actually quite modest and some inlay loss is expected from brass inlaid tsuba from the Muromachi period (1392-1573)."

 

I guess what they are saying is Heianjo-zogan evolved into the Yoshiro style, so the paper might be going back to the roots of the tsuba? Odd though, it is like getting a reference for yourself by listing what your grandfather did - would it be relevant? [probably not!]

 

So wait...

 

Going back to this as it might be hard to tell from the original photo Zanilu, is the brass inlay elevated above the surface of the base plate?

 

It doesn't appear to be from the photo but only the owner could tell for sure.

[zanilu]

Yes Jake. It is. The inlay is suemon zogan it brassi is not level with the iron surface but it is protruding from the surface.

 

Regards 

Luca

[Jake6500]

16 hours ago, zanilu said:

Yes Jake. It is. The inlay is suemon zogan it brassi is not level with the iron surface but it is protruding from the surface.

 

Regards 

Luca

 

Then if we go based on Dale's post, this might explain the Heianjo attribution. It seems like it comes down to quite the subtle difference.