Jump to content

Next best thing to having NBTHK papers?


kaigunair

Recommended Posts

Please see the following image I have already submitted to INTK forum (http://www.intk-token.it/forum/index.ph ... topic=8273):

post-3440-141969049848_thumb.jpg

Tsuba A is mine, previously in W.M. Hawley’s collection. Tsuba B belongs to a fellow Italian collector. Tsuba C (surprisingly described as "Jakushi style") is from http://www.silk-road.us/kinko1.html. Tsuba D is the same one posted here from http://tsuba.jyuluck-do.com/TU10481.html.

This kind of tsuba is obviously a shiiremono (仕入物), probably obtained from molded pieces and subsequently refined by handmade chiseling, since kebori carving is differently represented.

Bye, Mauro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:D shiiremono? Even though the NBTHK paper clearly states kyo kanagushi?

 

Multiple near identical copies alone would not mean low quality mass production item. And example A is in pretty poor condition. I can provide macro shots of any area of my example for side by side comparison shots to rule out kyo kanagushi and confirm shiiremono/hamamono as well as construction techniques.

 

My, what an interesting thread this just became...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Junichi,

well, shiiremono means mass production, and mass production usually imply lower quality in comparison to unique or small-series pieces. Anyway shiiremono do not means fake tsuba. After all Kyō-Kanagushi is not really a school (with a shodai, pupils, definite generations and so on) but rather a classification of a style, so ours tsuba may be legitimate pieces of Kyō-Kanagushi tradition and shiiremono as well (i.e. lower level Kyō-Kanagushi pieces). That's the way I see it.

Bye, Mauro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

I reminder back six months or a year ago that Pete K. did a ranking of different Kinko attribution based on a quaily scale and Kyō-Kanagushi was at the bottom. Generally speaking NBTHK does not paper shiiremono with that said the Kyō-Kanagushi attribution is a low one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so confident about the sex of the dragon (considering the moustaches he/she is wearing...) :dunno:

 

I don’t think it’s just a matter of very popular motif; the serialism of production was the rule for this kind of low level tōsōgu. See a couple of more examples here below:

post-3440-14196905055609_thumb.jpg

A from: http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/14043/lot/6092/

B from: http://www.aoijapan.com/tsuba-mumei-chrysanthemum

C from: http://www.silk-road.us/shakudo3.html

D from: http://www.ricecracker.com/inventory/94 ... agoda.html

Note the characteristic disposition of chisel marks around nakago-ana, which probably configure as a tagane-mei (鏨銘). The different pieces are variably refined and patinated (for instance I think my tsuba received a shakudō-like patination from its origin and never got golden gilding), but all share the same overall dimensions.

Bye, Mauro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rotfl: moustashes...or whiskers. With dragons, it's all in the tail.

 

I think it's more important to nail down the construction techniques in order to support or disprove the NBTHK certification. You had mentioned these were cast, which would be a good indicator of shiiremono vs kyo kanagushi. does the new dragon example, with a completely different background support this?

 

Would also be good to get close ups of your example; it is relatively unfinished compared to all the others, so we would want to rule out yours being a cast copy of one of the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More thoughts:

 

Thanks for the additional examples Mauro. From the additional pictures of the "flower" and the "building" theme, one might make an observation that A appears to be a possible copy (maybe cast + finishing) of B. Similarly, D is a cast copy of C. There is a funny outline on A, and the details don't seem a crisp.

 

Mauro: how well defined is the edge work on your example? It seems to lack any depth/definition of the punch marks compared to the others, but that might just be the photo.... :dunno:

 

I think I missed your earlier post where you posit it might that the tsubas are both kyo-kanagushi and shiiremono. It does make me wonder whether the NBTHK does or does not paper "shiiremono" since it is a term that can have different definitions. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to paper a cast copy type tsuba. If all these tsubas were made from casts that were later "refined", then I feel the NBTHK papering would have been done in error. If these were merely a style of tsuba and properly labeled kyo-kanagushi, then the NBTHK papers are ok. Now if some are cast and some are not, that too would be an interesting development.

 

I can see a production/workshop/"atelier" set up where a standard base plate was made and possibly the "nanako" (very loosely used) edge work was added. Then the plate was given to someone to carve out the background as well as the dragon. It might be that the dragons/flowers/pagoda are made separately and inlayed onto the base tsuba vs carved from the ground, before being sent to a person to do the ground work (but doesn't seem like it in my example). This would explain the consistency of the backgrounds, as well as the examples with a completely different background. For a higher quality example, it would also be similar to the use of subcontractors by the goto for the ground work (yoshioka, yasuda, nomura).

 

If the only thing "cast" in this example was the base tsuba shape, which for kinko is nothing significant, then the papers would be ok. But if the other elements like the edge work are part of the cast, or if the dragon/flower/pagoda are stamped/pressed/cast pieces and inlayed into the base tsuba, then I would feel the papers were given in error. We would also want to make sure we're not dealing with two different "workshops" here: one workshop that made low quality (but carved) kyo-kanagushi, and another that made even lower quality cast copies of these for export (i.e. the real shiiremono).

 

So while these are far from any goto works, it does seem like they might have some value to add about our understanding of late period tosogu production, as well as papering criteria. :bowdown:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Junichi-san,

 

Here is a Kyo-kanagushi (京金具師) NBTHK Hozon level papered menuki set: http://www.japaneseswordbooksandtsuba.com/store/tsuba-%26-kodogu/t162-papered-solid-gold-shishi-menuki. They are solid gold and while the workmanship isn't at the level of Goto or Waki Goto when they use solid gold they are still nice. Grey D. made some minor mistakes in his write up as the attribution on the NBTHK paper is Kyo-kanagushi (京金具師) and not Kyo-Kinko (京金工). Here is a good NBTHK Hozon papered example of Kyo-Kinko (京金工) menuki on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/141261394219?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649. (I have only been watching it because I don't have any money. :( ) Generally speaking "Kyo-Kinko" is a higher attribution then "Kyo-kanagushi" I was told. I hope you find the examples helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi David,

Thank you for the menuki examples. They seem to raise a different question regarding what constitutes kyo-kanagushi vs kyo-kinko, and whether one is really a higher designation than the other. The menuki comparison seems to indicate that in addition to any quality indicator, there may be some stylistic or construction kantei points to differentiate the two. Interesting indeed.

 

I'm thinking Mauro's examples might be evidence of two different schools that made these types of tsuba - one that is "paperable" and another that made cast copies of this school. Perhaps the original designs were, at some level, popular (even as a tourist item) and gave rise to knocks offs. Using a standardized base plate and rim design might have made them easy to copy. Perhaps similar to the "collectible" hula dancer dash board souvenirs vs the really cheap dime store copies. Both are/were mass produced, but one is collectible and the other, well, isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Junichi-san,

 

Another important point I remember was that at each point along the hierarchy starting with Goto and ending with kyo-kanagushi there was a spectrum of quality at each level. Sometimes high and low points in the quality spectrum of one group would overlap with other points along the hierarchy. I see this with my kyo-kanagushi menuki example. I hope I am making my points clear. :doubt:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Junichi,

I’m planning to take better pics of my tsuba, but I’m afraid it will take me some days. The nanako finishing on my tsuba is possibly worse than the other tsuba posted, but I think it’s just the wearing of usage. Telling the truth, the finishing of the borders in any of the tsuba posted here can hardly be defined nanako, since the round chisel marks fail to form the characteristic dome-shaped lumps.

Prove (or disprove) the construction technique could be very hard. Casting soft metal tsuba was a common practice since Muromachi period (e.g. Kagamishi tsuba), so why not using similar approach for mass production in late Edo? Moreover in none of such tsuba we can find true inlays, since the golden coloring was probably obtained by amalgam/mercury gilding (as in most of sanmai tsuba - 三枚鐔).

Bye, Mauro

 

PS - about "paperable" and “non-paperable" tsuba: I deserve high regards to shinsa origami, but after all it’s just a (very) educated opinion written in good Japanese…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS - about "paperable" and “non-paperable" tsuba: I deserve high regards to shinsa origami, but after all it’s just a (very) educated opinion written in good Japanese…

 

Hi Mauro P.,

 

Thanks for being part the discussion and offering your examples. Sorry but I don't understand the above sentence. Can you please clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Mauro is suggesting that while he has a high regard for shinsa papers they reflect the opinion of a well informed group but they are not neccessarily the right answer. We have had a discussion here recently about questionable observations by shinsa teams.

 

All the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to paper a cast copy type tsuba.

 

They do paper old soft metal tsuba which are obviously cast. Any bronze tsuba (and there are a few made of this alloy among irogane ko tsuba) is cast.

 

What is a copy? In the Japanese education culture copying is not only acceptable but encouraged (as a means of attaining a high level of workmanship). Obviously, these tsua here are not utsushi meant to develop the artisan's skills. They are mass produced tsuba. Tsubako shops would churn out countless guards based on one design.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It is the quality that matters and that defines a shiiremono (IMHO). The tsuba presented here are made in numbers, and they are of a very low quality. No NBTHK paper will change that. Mass produced in and around Kyoto, that is what the shinsa has meant.

 

Having said that - nothing wrong with owning such tsuba as long as one accepts what they are...

 

Oh, and please, don't get too preoccupied with NBTHK/NTHK/other attributions. Most of the time they really count in the case where a work has to be assigned to a certain master (based on workmanship and mei). In many cases (like in pre-Edo tsuba) they are meaningless, trying to put things in neat boxes. Problem is that these boxes do not reflect existing schools. Like "kagamishi", "tachi kanagushi", but also "tosho" or "katchushi". These are constructs, meant to assign tsuba with similar characteristics to groups.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want to paper a cast copy type tsuba.

 

They do paper old soft metal tsuba which are obviously cast. Any bronze tsuba (and there are a few made of this alloy among irogane ko tsuba) is cast.

 

The operative word in the original statement being "copy".

 

It surprises me that the difference in construction/quality of detail among the different examples Mauro has provided is being overlooked. Not that I am saying the nicer examples are any great works of art. But it is with a tinge of irony that the discussion then moves into a statement regarding the "boxes" or generalized categories that seem to gloss over important details of construction that the large papering organizations are guilty of. Rocks and glass houses?

 

“The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug ..." -Twain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if you do not like/taste(in meaning of déguster)/"stand behind" in attributions given by motherhouse(NBTHK)...

prefering the individual "sights" of knowledgeable collectors instead?....

why then?...simply speaking?-you do not simply cross road?

would ben much easier....Not?(esp.for the your´s starters)

:dunno:

Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mauro,

 

Thanks for the hi res pics. Still not sure about the rim and the weathering of the surface makes it really hard to tell if the details were cast or carved, at least to me.

 

Been a very busy weekend, but a nice one for tsuba studies as the club set up at a local sakura matsuri. Hence the delayed response. I'm not sure we'll get any additional forward momentum on this without the help of more experienced eyes. But thank you so much for adding a lot to the thread and lots of good questions to ponder about construction and papering.

 

Grazie mille!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

I thought that I would revive the discussion on shiirimono as I became interested in Mino Goto lookalike shiirimono tsuba recently after I purchased two in a job lot of tsuba at a local auction.  Not knowing about shiirimono knockoffs I thought that they were just poor quality Goto tsuba.  Having studied my examples and finding further info on the NMB etc., I now share my observations, thoughts and questions.  Probably a timely revival as several examples have come up for sale recently, one being described as ‘rare’, ‘Mino school’, ‘shakudo’ and sold for $360.

Searching the Internet, NMB, auction sites and dealers’ sites I have found at least duplicate examples of five different designs, all mokko shaped, namely;

  1. Treasure ship (see my first example) in which the kanji ‘hoo’ for treasure is displayed on the sail.
  2. Four chrysanthemums (see my second example, which looks like it has been painted black in imitation shakudo)
  3. Pagoda
  4. Lady calligraphy writer (described by one Japanese dealer as the 7thC poet Ono no Komachi.  See screen shots of two examples from on-line auctions last week)
  5. Dragon in waves

Anyone got other examples?

At first sight the duplicates of each design look identical, but on closer examination differences in the finish can be seen.  The gilding pattern and kanji on the sail of the treasure ship is different on my tsuba from another published example.  The pattern of nanako punch marks show differences in other duplicates, indicating that they were applied by hand.  Thus rough cast tsuba were subjected to finishing by individual craftsmen, who while not the best Goto craftsmen, nonetheless took some care when working (I’d hate to have made my living as the ‘nanako guy’).  This has been suggested before (Junichi) and the two pics of Ono no Komachi tsuba that have been on sale at recent on-line auctions shows the differences in quality of the finish.

The seppa dai on these tsuba is often a chocolate brown, indicating that the tsuba were cast in bronze, an ideal metal for casting, and not the shakudo of the Goto school (as sometimes stated on adverts for tsuba for sale).

Another observation that intrigues me is the seppa dai and nagako ana: they usually show no sign of being mounted on a sword, the seppa dai is unblemished and the nagako ana shows no sign of wear or filing (I did see one with sekigane).  However, most show a distinct pattern of punch marks, three at the bottom (mune), two either side at the bottom and three at the top.  As pointed out before (Mauro) these appear to be a signature (tagane mei) of the factory(?) rather than an indication that they were used to modify the nagako ana when fitting to a blade.  The ten punch marks show some variation in the exact placement and so were not stamped by a machine.

These observations prompt me to ask several questions, the obvious ones being who made them and when were they made.  Opinions have already been given on these.  The other question I have is ‘Who were they made for?  Poor samurai, Japanese tourists, Western tourists, export market?’

My initial thought as to the purchasers of these tsuba were poor samurai and others who could not afford quality Goto fittings.  However the majority of examples that I have seen do not appear to have been mounted on blades.

I don’t get the impression that middle class Japanese in the pre-Meiji period were collectors of souvenirs, or were great tourists, but my knowledge here is lacking.

There was no significant influx of Western tourists until the Meiji era and these were few and moneyed people.  After the haitorei I imagine that the price of sword fittings collapsed and those few western collectors buying tsuba were presented with a vast array of good quality items and would not have been interested in shiirimono.

Skilled kinko tsuba makers were turning out good quality bronze figures at this time and I doubt if they were making cheap tsuba as a sideline, e.g. Miyao Eisuke workshop in Yokohama.  However smaller workshops were probably churning them out and throwing them in with job lots of genuine and fake Japanese antiques being exported to the west at the end of the 19thC.  Japanese stuff was all the rage in Europe at this time.

Although I have no specific interest in collecting cast tsuba, that makes two ‘Mino’ tsuba and three cast iron sukashi tsuba that I have bought without realising what they were at the time.  But, from published examples of shiirimono in the collections of experienced collectors, I guess that I am not the only one who has acquired examples by accident.  Ah well, its all part of the learning process. 

post-941-0-31877500-1531833962_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-14880700-1531834033_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-78029000-1531834069_thumb.jpg

post-941-0-49023500-1531834136_thumb.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...