Jump to content

JPGH

Members
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JPGH

  1. @Jean Collin & Piers D, I think you both are correct. Appears to be some form of antique weight, possibly Chinese or Tibetan? The base reminds me of an antique Chinese coin with the top part of the weight near the handle having what appears to be an engraved moon(?) and stars(?)... After MANY hours of searching, I'm afraid I still have not been able to locate a comp
  2. Jean Collin, Thank you so much for your reply and thoughts. I'll look into your suggestion of possibly an object for a staff and see what I can find. I thought possibly Japanese as my object's "handle" shape reminds me of the ends (my apologies for not knowing exactly what they're called) on Daikoku's Mallet as seen in the image below...
  3. Hi all, Not sure if I'm posting this on the correct board, but was hoping for a little help in ID'ing this tiny Japanese(?) bronze-lead(?)-filled object. It appears to be a Fundo (weight) for a Kusarigama, but I'm probably wrong? The piece appears too "decorative" for such an object. Any thoughts on what this piece may be and/or what it was used for/as? Size approx: 2 x 1-3/4 inches and very HEAVY (12 oz) for its size. Can you all please help? Thank you and kind regards, JoJo
  4. Awesome! Thank you ALL so much for your time and help, most appreciated! Jo
  5. Hello everyone, Can someone please help me identify the age and possible maker of this, Tsuba? If it's junk, no big deal........I purchased it from a seller who thought it was "antique door fixture parts" so I don't have much into it. Thank you all in advance for your time and thoughts. Regards, Jo
  6. You ALL are awesome, thank you so much! Regards, Jo
  7. Thank you so much for your help, most appreciated! Below are the other inscriptions found......maker(?) Regards, Jo
  8. Hello everyone, This piece was basically pulled from a pile off trash and is in pretty rough shape. Can some please help identify age and inscriptions? Length approx: 26 inches. Thank you all in advance for your time and help. Kind regards, Jo
  9. I just wanted to add a couple of close-up images for you alls viewing I thought to be interesting. The texture/stippling on each side of the barrel as well as the "maker's mark" is all hand-applied/punched.
  10. Thank you all some much for your help, I really appreciate it. BaZZa, infrared photography is probably going to be the way to go on my box lid. I'll look into this process and see what I can find. Thanks again everyone for your help.
  11. Thanks everyone for your time, thoughts and replies, most appreciated! @Jan who said: "So my humble conclusion is that this can’t be a weapon and I doubt very much that it’s a Japanese powder tester." I agree...I don't believe this piece to be a Japanese powder tester, but humbly disagree it can't be a weapon, when it so obviously is. As to the who, when and where,.....is yet to be determined. @Piers who said: "The patina on yours suggests younger rather than older, so I would stick by my sense of Meiji at the earliest, although the one you own seems to differ in several respects from the one in the catalog, so it could in fact be even later." I disagree a bit. My thoughts is this little guy is at least 19th C., if not older. Although my piece might differ just slightly from the catalog's version, I believe they're one-and-the-same. What you have to remember is the catalog's version is only the artist's rendering (drawing/etching/woodblock print) of the item and will differ a bit when comparing the actual weapon.................................just as all the weapons on that catalog's page differ a bit when comparing. @Malcolm who said: "Can you please show a close up down the bore, I am curious as to the mottled effect shown in the wider shots. As to the mark behind the touch hole that Piers mentions, it does not look like a normal Kamon, perhaps an interpretation of Maru Ni Yotsume?" I will get that image for you as soon as day brakes here and there's better lighting. The mark behind the touch hole appears to be a Solar Cross/Sun Cross/Wheel Cross ??? very similar to this image here: @Ian, quite interesting your theory of this piece might of once had a wooden stock. The barrel is only textured/stippled on the sides where the floral decoration has been carved, not on the entire top half of the barrel. Hopefully, more answers will soon come. To be continued.................
  12. Thanks so much for trying to help, Steve, most appreciated! I know the inscription is very hard to decipher due to the lid's darken tone, but could it be possible the name 'Shuzan' is there? Or something possibly matching whatever is written on these two box lids below?
  13. Piers, Jan, Ian, Ron, etc. Your thoughts on the above?
  14. After some consideration, I decided to post images. As you can see, the piece is quite different in refinement compared to the 20th C. brass reproduction that as been selling on the market for years as the original. The touch-hole is very small compared to Piers & Jan's powder testers, but mirrors this "stippling" effect at sides that's found on Piers's 'miniature cannon' with wooden base seen in my last post above. It's 3-1/2 inches in size, weighs nearly 1/2 lbs. and is marked near the base ring with an unidentified hand-incised maker's(?) mark. Your thoughts, if any?
  15. Thank you both and I appreciate your replies. I tried my best below to get better images, I hope you all can help?
  16. Piers, I found this image: These are your items, correct? If so, why does the piece at left look more refined than the other two pieces? What period is the one at left from? Is that 'decorative stippling effect' on the side common? Also, why is the touch-hole smaller than the other two? My apologies for all the questions, just striving to understand the differences.
  17. "If you can wait a couple of weeks I will be reunited with the book" Yes, I can wait and I appreciate so much your help and thoughts on all my posts within this category.
  18. "Looking again at the catalog gun again it is quite different from the photograph Chinese 'repro' you posted." Without question they are and this is what I know (or have learned about the items over these past few weeks) for a fact that's different: The one in the catalog is made of thick heavy hand-forged bronze ~vs~ the repro being of thin light cast brass. The one in the catalog's decoration is hand-chiseled ~vs~ the repro's decoration being embossed due to casting. The one in the catalog has a maker's mark, proof mark and/or mon hand-incised near the base ring (please see image below) ~vs~ the repro having nothing/neither. The one in the catalog can fire a projectile ~vs~ the repro cannot and will most likely below-up in your hand if one tried to fire a projectile. The one in the catalog appears to be the only know example of its kind ~vs~ the repro being of many. How do I know about these facts regarding the catalog version? Because I own the one in the catalog. And before you or any others might ask......why not post images? The reason why....................because I don't want to burn it! I don't want some folks out there to copy it. To have some folks make reproductions of what the actual original piece looks like before I get the chance to decide on what I actually want to do (keep or resell) with my piece first. Does this make sense to you all? Yes, they (copyist) have some idea of what the original looks like via the woodblock image within the 1907 catalog, but nobody from my understanding knows what the actual original looks likes. This is why so many (in my opinion) 20th century reproduction of this piece are being misidentified and sold by internet auctions and auction houses as originals. How did I obtain the original? It was once housed in the collection of a well respected NYC antiques collector/dealer who himself misidentified the piece as being something it wasn't. He's since passed away and family members (wife & son) sold-off a number of items from his collection via auction. Hopefully, with you all help and continued research, more can be learned and gathered about this item.
  19. Ian, If you’re referring to the swapping of parts and stamping CS (Confederate States) on some of those parts, yes, I’ve read this in my research. It appears this was done due to the changing market and favorable lean towards CS weapons. But still, the weapons being offered for sale by Bannerman’s were authentic ‘of the period’ (19th C. ) weapons and not something for decorative use or a toy.
  20. "Let’s call this a decorative artifact within the field of antique firearms" My apologizes, but I don't believe this is something a can accept at the moment without evidence. I mean..... I respect your opinion and appreciate your replies and thoughts, but I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet and toss this item up as a mere decorative tourist item/toy. If the item is just that (decorative tourist item/toy) where are they? If this item was made for the tourist market, why can't any be found for sale or have sold anywhere? Was there only one made and then sold to Bannerman's group in search of rare weapons in that era? Highly unlikely. Where are these other decorative tourist items/toys?
  21. Hi Piers, I don't have the book and cannot post a better photo. While researching the hand-cannon found within that 1907 catalog, I came across this internet image/page from Sawada Taira book and realized I had the same weapon displayed, but missing its firing lever.
  22. I forgot to add... From research, it appears most, if not all(?) of the weapons illustrated within the catalog's page posted above were pieces purchased by Bannerman and a number of experts who went with him on a weapons collecting trip to the Orient circa, 1904-05.
  23. I thank both of you for your replies and thoughts. Please excuse me for being a bit shocked and for my ignorance. But you both think that the item in question is some sort of souvenir and/or toy? That one of, if not the most renowned arms and military goods supplier of its day (Francis Bannerman & Sons, Inc.) would offer a souvenir and/or toy for sale in its catalogs? That every other weapon offered for sale on this page..... .... in their catalog is a real and/or authentic weapon except for one? The one in which I'm researching/inquiring about? I just find this a bit hard to believe. What makes you think this? Because of its size and having sights? If I'm not mistaken, researching gunpowder testers here on this site posted by members show a number of these testers being small and having sights. Is this not correct? Has anyone here actually seen an example of this bronze hand-cannon outside of the catalog in which it was/is illustrated in? Kind regards
×
×
  • Create New...