KOFU JU TOMOYASU (H 10165.0). Edo, ca 1800. Round, iron flat plate tsuba with large, central diamond shape within the rim, signed: Kofū jū Tomoyasu.
SCE. R.E.Haynes' collection, 1984.
John L.
I can make no firm attribution for Ron's tsuba, but the kao bears a marked resemblance to those illustrated on pp.Y7 and Y10 of Joly's Shosankenshu. While I am not suggesting Yasuchika 1 as the maker of this tsuba, the combination here of late Mito and Edo kinkō styles is suggestive of later Tsuchiya work.
John L.
Dear Michael, it would be more courteous to fellow members of the NMB if you were to make some attempt at personally examining your fuchi-gashira before posting fresh and acceptable photographs.
With kind regards, John L.
Oops - apparently Chinese sword guards do have seppa-dai! That on the attached image is narrower and more rectangular than those commonly found on Japanese tsuba. Interestingly - or perhaps coincidentally - it is similar to that on Chris' tsuba.
John L.
Peter, much as I greatly respect your contributions to the study of the Namban group of tsuba, your recent posting has me puzzled. By describing his first, very interesting tsuba as 'Namban or maybe Hizen' Chris is correctly reflecting the confusion regarding the nomenclature of such tsuba. Most collectors would confidently label this as Hizen while, if submitted to a shinsa it would almost certainly be labelled as Namban.
But what features prompt you to raise the question of a Chinese provenance - surely not Chris' description? Personally, I fail to recognise any such pointers in this tsuba.
John L.
Ford, a very simple question ... Sentoku can patinate to a wide variety of colours, from a very pale to an olive brown. Does this coloration depend upon the constituents of the alloy, or upon your method of patination? In other words, do you personally select the coloration that will result from your repatination and, if so, how do you decide?
With kind regards, John L.
Thank you both for your replies.
Ludolph's posting rather adds to my confusion since one of his four illustrated Hōgen mei includes a third variation of the Ichijo kao. But at least we have so far seen that none of his Hōgen mei include what Joly, on p.21, iII of his Shosankenshu, describes as a 'Hokkyo' kao. This appears to confirm Joly's contention.
So now we have three distinct kao for this artist; where do I go from here?
John L.