docliss

As an aside, are not these two gimei tsuba probably by the same artist? John L.

The first is surely not cherry, but plum, and is archetypal, nineteenth century Choshu work. The second, bamboo themed, is probably nineteenth century Shoami work. John L.

Both are poor copies of the work of highly rated artists. The first, Nagatsune (H 06539.0), is rated as Meiko by Kinkō Meikan on pp.319a-d to 322a-d, and the second, Okinari (H 07490.0), as Joko on pp.58a-d. Both of these artists are frequently forged. John L.

I should like to complement Mike Y’s beautiful shakudō, Choshū tsuba with an image of a sukashi tsuba in a rich, black shakudō, depicting a cricket among susuki grasses. It is mumei, but clearly demonstrates its Choshū origin. There is a guard similar to this in the collection of the Museum fur Kurst et Gewerbe in Hamburg, which was loaned to the 'L'Art Nouveau: La Maison Bing' exhibition, held at the Amsterdam Van Gough Museum in 2005. That guard also is mumei, but was attributed to Nakai Zensuke Tomotsune I, this despite the fact that there were three Nakai artists who used these names and who are very difficult to distinguish from one another. John L.

Please excuse me, Henk-Jan, if I appear to be picking on you, but there is no evidence that namban tetsu was utilised in the construction of Namban tsuba. Hancock may be partly responsible for this apocryphal belief. He selected four tsuba out of a collection of 43 Namban examples in the collection of the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery as being ‘made with southern barbarian iron of great hardness’. But there is no way of knowing the basis for this selection, and re-examination of those tsuba fails to reveal any reason for his choice of those particular four. It is true that there are a few tsuba inscribed as being made of namban tetsu, but these are all ita tsuba. None are known of the Namban group, although the uninscribed seppa-dai of most of these may be a partial explanation for this. I close this diatribe by quoting Joly: ‘Namban iron is a subject quite distinct from, and has nothing to do with, the Namban style’. John L.

Henk-Jan Since the majority of those tsuba properly labelled as Namban have their origin in China, either materially or inspirationally, I have great difficulty in understanding your position regarding this comment. Having its origin in China, and subsequently being adopted by the Japanese during the Heian period (794-1185 AD), Namban is a term that was applied indiscriminately to all foreigners, irrespective of their origin. The Chinese influence upon the Namban group of tsuba was of far more importance than the Western one. John L.

At the risk of boring NMB members with my compulsive stance …. I am sure that Peter’s iron menuki would be labelled as Namban by a shinsa, but I prefer to call them Hizen work, while acknowledging a strong namban influence. John L.

Query TSUNENORI, but I am unable to find any reference to such an artist. John L.

Personally I would prefer a nineteenth century Bushu attribution, but there will always be some measure of disagreement regarding the later work of these two groups. The sparse nunome-zogan is, of course, as intended. John L.

Some images of a pair of fuchi-gashira that I believe I have not posted before. John L

Sorry - a stupid error on my part; I have corrected this. John L.

While full of admiration for Bernard’s Omori-nami kozuka, with its sukisage-bori waves and the differing sizes of gold inlay droplets, I feel that it does not meet with the remarkable standards of Omori Teruhide’s work. In particular, I find the recurring, similarly sized ‘globules’ at the termination of the waves to be monotonous and unpleasing. Neither am I happy about the mei, which is too rigid and stylised in its execution. I will bow to the opinions of those more knowledgeable than I, but sadly believe this kozuka to be gimei. John L.

Thank you Bernard. This is a very interesting tsuba with many of the defining characteristics of the Namban group, being of iron, with a decorative, chrysanthemoid mimi and with openwork decoration and undercutting. It is unusual in that it features 10 Chinese characters rather than the ubiquitous affrontés dragons with the tama jewel, has no gold decoration, and has a traditional seppa-dai and a contemporaneous kozuka-hitsu. I have never before seen a tsuba of this group with these Chinese decorative features, but it should be classified as a Namban tsuba of the early nineteenth century. John L.

Bernard, a question before I comment on your unusual Namban tsuba. Is the tsuba openwork, since the shading on your photographs gives the appearance of a solid plate tsuba? John L.

Am I corrct in thinking that handachi koshirae do not properly include kozuka and kogai? John L.

Beautifil work. Haynes has this artist listed as Narukawa Yasuchika (H 11116.0), working in Mito ca 1825-50. Kinkō Meikan lists this artist under the alternative reading of Narikawa Norichika on p.356d, but this mei, without a kao, is quite unlike that on Bernard’s fuchi. John L.

Bernard, you are providing us with some very interesting tsuba; the latest is indeed Kaga Yoshirō Zōgan work. It demonstrates typical Yoshirō shinchū-zōgan, with karakusa and large, openwork, circular inlays of mon. There is an incised line bordering the brass inlay. The rectangular shape of the kozuka- and kōgai-hitsu, together with the gold, decoratively stamped insert in the former, suggest an early date – possibly the early eighteenth century. Lease let us see some more! John L.

I am inclined to agree with you Bernard, what a pity. John L.

Is it an orphaned fuchi, or do you have the paired kashira? John L.

Just to add to the confusion regarding two possible kao for Funada Ikkin I, I attach an image of a tsuba, which I am sure is by this artist, bearing the second, ‘n’-shaped kao. The reverse gives the date of 1838 – too early to be Ikkin II. John L.

Bernard, the mei on your tsuba reads CHIKAMOTO and kao, and is by an artist listed in Haynes’ Index as Inazu Chikamoto (H 00265.0). He is described as ‘often [doing] Chinese style, sansui, landscapes in very high relief with inlay’, and his kao is illustrated. Working in Edo ca 1800, he is not related to the Sōten group of artists. John L.

Dear Bernard Thank you for posting images of your kiku tsuba – I like it ….It is very difficult to attribute it to a particular school; Bushū, Chōshū and Shōami are all possibilities. Because of the excellent quality of the gold nunome-zōgan, I would personally favour an eighteenth century, Shōami attribution. There is no doubt that it demonstrates a strong namban influence, and the kōgai hitsu is clearly a later modification, as is the urushi. John L.

Thank you once again Morita san. The tsuba are in fact hi-iro-do. John L.

Thank you Morita san for that - who would have guessed it! But would you please tell me what is the last, multi-stroke and rather complicated kanji? With my thanks, John L.

I have a fine daisho pair of tsuba by Hamano Naotoshi in a very high quality Kiri box that bears an inscrption on one end. Two of these kanji are 'Naotoshi' but the others have me beaten. I am particuklarly interested in the left-hand kanji, partially obliterated, which bears a similarity to that used by Torigoye. With many thanks, John L.