How To Determine Era Of A Katchushi?

[lotus]

What characteristics of Katchushi's determine it's age? For example, what do you look for that would classify it as Ko-Katshushi vs an Edo period Katchushi.

Attached is a Tsuba to use as an example, would you say this is a Ko-Katchushi or a Katchushi? Or neither?

Dimensions : Length 7 cm / Width 6.7 cm / Center thickness : 2 mm

My initial thought was Ko-Katchushi but the flower shape is a bit different then what I found in Sasano examples, maybe pointing to something more modern?

Also, it is smaller than the Sasano examples...

[lotus]

Here is a similar one from Grey Doffin's site. He has it listed as Katchushi.

 

Dimensions : 7.2 x 7.5 cm.  5.5 mm at the rim, 3 mm on the plate

[seattle1]

Hello:

 It is said that earlier are smaller than later ones and the thinness at the seppa-dai is a plus, therefore assuming it isn't a 19th Cent. revival piece, I would guess Ko-katchushi.

 Arnold F.

[lotus]

Arnold,

 

Good tips. Though I am not sure how I would tell the difference between am authentic one versus a revival piece. Maybe the character of the metal plate??

[MauroP]

Just an example here below:

the upper one got a ko-katchūshi attribution, the other simply katchūshi. If submitted in the same shinsa would have they obtained the same Edo/pre-Edo attribution? Who can say... For sure the mere geometry of the piece isn't enough.

[seattle1]

Hello:

 Well when they are faked they make it really seem old in some blatant way, whereas your's "lotus" just has that natural look to me, like an honest piece. Revival pieces are usually more a homage to the older, but clearly made in the 19th Cent. It might be a bad analogy but it is sort of like a shinshinto sword following some koto tradition, or even a fine gendaito doing the same. They can just be utsushi, but some by the finest might carry an old koto name with a doctored nakago, and then at kantei time you really want a qualified opinion. Submit your tsuba to shinsa; I understand there might be one in Tampa next year. I would guess your tsuba is an honest one pre-1600. Let us know.

 Arnold F.

[lotus]

Mauro -

 

Interesting point indeed.

 

Arnold -

 

I had a similar feeling that this was an honest and old one. I have not aquired it yet, here is another angle and wondered if I should be concerned about the blacker spot to the north-east of the seppa-dai? 

 

What would you make of that?

[lotus]

This time with image attached!

[seattle1]

Hello:

 I saw that the first time around and it was part of the input into the guess that it is old. It could be anything from someone's finger print after having eaten Kentucky Fried Chicken, but if it is seemingly there for good it could be a bit of residual old lacquer,  a good thing.

 Arnold F.

[FlorianB]

Hi Patrick,

it’s sometimes very difficult indeed to differentiate between an old Katchushi and those made in Edo, especially late Edo times. Even the surface treatment of late specimen is often cunnigly made they could considered as old ones.
That’s why I have lost my interest in Ko-Katchushi-Tsuba a little bit.

By the way, the same problem occurs in Tosho-Tsuba, too.

Yours is smaller dimensioned while the Ko-Katchushi are larger (very early ones 9-10 cm or larger, afterwards 8 to 9 cm). The design is sophisticated.
However, judging by the pictures alone I would dare to put it into late Muromachi or Momoyama, i.e. a late Ko-Katchushi.

In comparing Your Tsuba to others don’t cling to the motif alone because the motif isn’t the decisive factor. Consider measure, surface, nakago-ana, rim and so on, too.

If You haven't the opportunity to study such Tsuba in hand, it helps to look for pictures of Ko-Katchushi-Tsuba (as much as you can get) to get a feeling for this style.

Yours,
Florian

[lotus]

Florian -

 

Good points indeed and I also noticed the size is a bit smaller than what you would typically see for Ko-Katchushi.

[rkg]

Patrick,

 

 In addition to the characteristics above you also have to look at the surface condition (you could probably write a book on that), "type" of iron, the edges of the sukashi (sharp edges tend to indicate later/fake/rework for example), how the sukashi are cut,  the amount/type of corrosion/"crud" built up in the sidewalls of sukashi, low spots and nakago adjustment divots, erosion in/around the seppa area (no seppa "wear" often indicates later/rework/modan), hitsu shape (While they can be added at any time, an early shaped kozuka/kogai hitsu often helps to show its old or a new er, utushi), the condition/type of sekigane, and probably a half dozen other things I can't remember this morning.

 

And of course, a lot of these age "clues" get washed away if somebody has repatinated the piece.  What do the inside walls of the sukashi look like on yours?  From these pics they are maybe close to the same as the surface of the piece? and your sekigane also have that repatinated look to me (at least this morning pre-caffeine) as well.  Not necessarily a bad thing (unless it reeks of that selenium patination agent IMHO), but it makes determining the age a LOT harder, if not impossible.

 

Best,

rkg

(RIchard George)