Research assistance request - TSUBA

[Michael 101]

I have read with interest the various requests and feedback and have finally got around to getting in on the action.

 

Sorry to make my first posting a request but this one's been troubling me for a while.

 

Pretty certain that I have the mei as Omi Ju Shigenori but havent managed to find any information on the maker. There is a Shigenori in Haynes but the date seems far to early for my tsuba.

 

I have attached a picture which shows what appears to be a blend of Soten (ref Omi Ju ?) and what even resembles Nara (inlaid figure).

 

Searched all my books / catelogues / Web etc but to no avail - is their a forum friend with the answer ?

 

Regards to all

[Ludolf Richter]

For me,this tsuba is either a modern piece or faked!Ludolf

[Michael 101]

I know its sometimes difficult to tell from photograghs but I assure you that its hand carved iron from the Edo period. The inlaid figure is in keeping with the background and to the subject matter so I do not think its a later addition.

Useful help sought please.

Regards

Michael

[Ford Hallam]

Sorry to be an awkward so and so but I have my reservations too. I find myself agreeing with Ludolf, To be fair, it is quite convincing on a number of points but fails when taken as a whole.

 

I'll wait to see what else is suggested before elaborating on my opinion. The mei looks pretty good though....clever!

 

and Michael, it may well be hand carved iron, but how do you "know" it is from the Edo period ?

[Bungo]

I am not sure of the kanji after Shige........may be it's not nori.

 

assuming it is " ten " ( kanji # 241 Robinson's appendix E ), then there's this tsuba maker on page 268 of Toku kinko zeidan by Wakayama ( I am probably butching the translation/reading of the book title ) that sort of " matches " the work style........but then the mei should be read the " chinese " way as Shigeten just doesn't sound right..........

 

whatever, can we " trust " the books ?

p.s. I also find the rendition of the horse sort of " different " from the norm

p.p.s. I just added the pic of the page, third mei from the right, roughly it mentioned Omi, the types of design etc.

 

milt

[Bugyotsuji]

Would it be possible to take another shot or two of that Mei from closer up and from different angles?

[Ford Hallam]

Personally, I think it would be a mistake to concentrate too closely on the mei. Of all the aspects that this piece presents, the signature would be the "easiest" to reproduce, especially if you know that is what people will be most concerned about. Art history is littered with this lesson.

 

Ultimately though, all fakes that are uncovered are revealed by their awkward synthesis of stylistic traits and the makers own cultural/historical background subconsciously being expressed.

 

The pose of the horse is one such "mistake" imo.

 

regards, Ford

[Brian]

I'd be pretty shocked (though not surprised) if this was an outright fake. A late or modern work I would have accepted but an outright fake may make me go back to blades in a hurry :D

I don't claim to know very much at all about tsuba, but this kind of work is scary to me. Maybe the "old iron" guys have something there.

I look forward to hearing more about this one. Would also like to see a pic of the other side.

 

Brian

[Thierry BERNARD]

The pose of the horse is one such "mistake" imo.

 

could you explain a little more please

[Michael 101]

I have added a picture of the reverse side and will add a further picture of the mei later. Unfortunately the pictures loaded do seem to have distorted the tsuba / horse by stretching it out more than it actually is. Its diamentions are 7.8cm x 7.2cm.

 

I have shown it "in the flesh" rather than pictures to a couple of experienced UK collector friends and would be very suprised if it were modern. Certainly the iron feel is 18th / 19th cent.

 

I would have thought an edo faker would have 1) added a famous name 2) not made such a blend of style (soten/nara) which would have certainly been better for the forgery business.

 

Thanks to all for your interesting and challanging comments - I am enjoying them all.

 

Regards

Michael

[Brian]

Just got off the phone with Ford, and had a looooong conversation about it. It's amazing what you can learn from an artist who can see things with totally different eyes, and I learned a lot from this impromptu lesson.

I can't really communicate as well as he does why this appears to be a modern piece made by student or amateur tsuba maker. Hopefully others who have a request for serious discussion can chime in and we can have a good educational thread about it. I know I am learning a lot.

However at least I now agree with Ford and Ludolf. Perhaps others would like to give their opinion and comments?

Do not worry about fakers "learning from our pointers" as this type of work is still labour intensive and I call it Milt's "modan" school rather than a fake (ie, it is likely made in Japan by someone learning to make tsuba etc) rather than a Chinese fake made cheaply to deceive. I guess strictly speaking with a gimei it is a fake, but there are more than one level of fake I guess.

 

So what do the tsuba guys say about it?

 

Brian

[nagamaki - Franco]

The Japanese have a saying, "looking at bad swords hurts your eyes." It is the responsibility of each collector to learn what this means.

[Michael 101]

Please find attached close up of the tsuba mei as requested and a couple of closer detail pictures to help members judge.

 

I strugled with the second kanji and settled on Nori as being the most likely - but open to oppinion.

 

Personally I really like the tsuba what ever its age - although if it is modern, I would love to know who made it so I could commision another for a diasho.

 

Kind regards to all

Michael

[Ford Hallam]

the mei appears to have been made in the same manner as those on sword tangs; ie; the metal is displaced, rather than cut away which would be usual for tsuba. This can be seen by the slightly raised edge to some of the strokes.

 

The workmanship is even more clear to me now and my initial suspicion is confirmed. I will post an image of a very interesting tsuba tomorrow, that shares many of this piece's traits.

 

Regards, Ford

[Guest reinhard]

The gold-applications look casual and beyond a comprehensive aesthetic concept and so does the rest of the Tsuba.

 

reinhard

[Curran]

I don't agree with Mr. Hallam and Mr. Reinhard. I've just seen too many of these late Edo (or meiji) ones floating around in old northeastern US private museum collections. All these little private collections were put together 1865 to 1930 and have a decent percentage of this less than meticulous work and signature with slightly better kinko on them. The pine tree sukashi seems to be rampant among them. Example of one from a mothball storage. Conspiracy theory is overwhelmed by the smell of mothballs, old boxes, and cobwebs.

 

If Ford means that they were all post Meiji product for tourists, that maybe I could believe. Early on in my collecting I had a pair of menuki that came off a kaga iyetsugu wakizashi. They were of 'drunken foreigners under the cherry blossoms and street lamps'. They were of crude quality, but real. I regret selling them. Very atypically of much Japanese design, but I myself took them off the decaying tsuka. I do not think this tsuba is any less fake than the menuki.

 

Please explain more when you have time.

[Bungo]

other than the horsie being " different " from the " norm ", everything looks fine to me, may be he's just a shitty artist that didn't make the horsie the usual way.

It's the posture and the mane that looks " different "...............

I don't know, may be something similar to that Getty Greek statue, something just doesn't look kosher.

Best to submit to NBTHK for a difinitive answer !! Otherwise we are all guessing..................

 

milt

[docliss]

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, and in spite of Ford’s exhortations not to concentrate on the mei too closely, I do have a problem with this. The kanji appear to be 近江ä½é‡ä½äººä½œ (Omi (no)ju Shigenori ? saku), but I am puzzled by the sixth kanji.

 

This is clearly not H 08429.0, whom Haynes dates as working in the C17, and I agree that it is an indifferent work by an unknown, late Edo worker. But why label it ‘gimei’; is it not a truism that the less recognised the artist the less likely is the work to be gimei? Why on earth would any artist sign his work thus?

 

Regards, John L.

[Ludolf Richter]

There is no Omi ju Shigetaka or Shigenori in the "Bible":Kinko Jiten.By the way,what a strange "Saku"-character!Ludolf

[Brian]

I know that Ford was going to write a fairly detailed analysis of this one, but is pressed for time with his forum. I am sure we will get some explanation soon going into a bit of detail about his reasonings, and hope I am not putting him on the spot

 

Brian