Real or fake? (found on Reddit) signature Unno Motomasa

[Jesta]

Training my eye, and I found this on Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Katanas/comments/1oor0gw/signed_unno_motomasa/

 

My initial reaction was one of caution. The flags raised are:
1. The depictions are too colourful. I have not see too many Edo period tsuba with so many colours (outside of the cloisonné designs), so this seemed a little off.
2. The design seems to be back to front. If the kosuka-ana is real, then the simpler design would be on the front, while the complex carving would be on the back. 
3. The wear looks odd. At first glance this looks like it should be iron, but the wear reveals a sort of yellowish underlay or white, neither of which look like worn iron patina.  
4. The sekigane look like they are decorative rather than functional. 

5. I may be biased, but the demon design looks like the sort of thing you see a lot on new tsuba… 

 

What are your thoughts on this? Is it legit?

[Rivkin]

A lower grade hamamono with exaggerated expressions and very simplistic execution in most places, except essentially for one figure. I don't think its modern (not being tsuba specialist) because such uneven execution is very typical for lesser hamamono.

[Spartancrest]

Odd spots of depatination, looks like an alloy. Never mounted. Probably made as something for export. As Rivkin says there are areas where the carving is poor, the outline of the seppa-dai on the top right ura  and the scratch marks around the top bird - why so much time spent on the rest but no clean up?

Probably like these much more common examples: Colourful does not seem to be a problem - being mass produced is!

  

[Jesta]

1 hour ago, Spartancrest said:

Probably made as something for export. 

Probably like these much more common examples: Colourful does not seem to be a problem - being mass produced is!

 

Are the two you posted old, but mass-produced for export? 

[Spartancrest]

54 minutes ago, Jesta said:

re the two you posted old, but mass-produced for export? 

That depends on if you believe the sellers information, I think personally they are meiji period but I think some of these have been produced for an extended period, so age would be a guess. Not helped by Chinese copies of Japanese copies!

The first https://www.bonhams.com/auction/20190/lot/7/a-bakumatsu-shakudo-tsuba-by-seishu-meiji-period/ is described as Bakumatsu [turn of the 20th century]

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/21008/lot/3459/a-shakudo-tsuba-with-mixed-metal-accents-meiji-period/  Meiji [I think it is more modern, junk!]

 

https://www.catawiki.com/en/c/1261-Japanese-art?epik=dj0yJnU9aFpPRXptbnNkUmtSYmlLTUU4ZWxzYkRZV2tSczhfc2gmcD0wJm49MVV5VXYySHJUa18zRU5sdFdKTUt0ZyZ0PUFBQUFBR2tLOVpB  

 

The Hamano signed one can be seen: https://www.bonhams.com/auction/18980/lot/15/a-bakumatsu-shakudo-tsuba-late-19thearly-20th-century/   Described as Bakumatsu [turn of the 20th century]

However a papered piece which is less convincing and still a copy in my opinion can be found here: https://world-seiyudo.com/product/tu-050320/   described as Edo period

[Jesta]

Thanks… I have seen so many of these that I thought that they were all modern rubbish… 

[ROKUJURO]

When did these kind of TSUBA appear first? I don't remember seeing them 20 years ago, so I personally think that they are all recent copies, made with modern tools and techniques. 

From a craft point of view, they may appear well made as silicon molds and new casting technology yield good results. But there is no artistry behind it, in my view.

They are way different from the opuilent TSUBA I used to see in the black COMPTON catalogue.

[Matsunoki]

Some of these fakes are so good you need to handle them to determine if there is genuine mixed metal inlay or if they are very cleverly coloured and gilded. Some are very convincing including mei. 

[Spartancrest]

https://blog.goo.ne.jp/tsuba_001/e/539b5021857b21549e591e169f6e6d57

 

I will have a look in some museum collections and see when they were donated to the museum - it won't tell me when they were made but give me a starting point to work back from.

[Matsunoki]

When you look closely at the “gold” on two of the above  examples it becomes clear that the quality of workmanship is appalling. To me it looks like modern gold plating fluid has been used with no attention to detail…..much overflow from the intended areas. 
The “red” areas can easily be achieved by masking and then copper plating with subsequent patination and silver can be achieved by first copper plating and then silver plating onto that. Not difficult once you know how.

So, either outright clever fakes or older but terribly “reconditioned”. Either way, not “right” imo. 

[Robert S]

Wow!  I suppose at some level they are real (possibly in the form of real modern fakes), but on my personal aesthetic scale they all rank between hideous and scary bad 

[Jesta]

11 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

https://blog.goo.ne.jp/tsuba_001/e/539b5021857b21549e591e169f6e6d57

 

I will have a look in some museum collections and see when they were donated to the museum - it won't tell me when they were made but give me a starting point to work back from.

The one shown here seems to be of higher quality than the two other versions. I wonder if it was the original that got copied…