Kantei Help: Shakudo Nanako Fuchikashira signed "Eisen" (英宣) – Omori School Mei Verification

[FruitSamurai]

Hi everyone,

I recently acquired a set of shakudo nanako fuchikashira with a lion motif, signed Eisen (英宣)—a pupil of Omori Eisho (大森英昌弟子).

I noticed the last stroke of "Ei" (英) terminates as an inward dot rather than sweeping outward like most Omori school pieces I’ve seen online.

Could anyone share reference oshigata or images of Eisen’s work? Does this stroke variant suggest a gimei (false signature), and would you recommend submitting this set to NBTHK for shinsa? Photos of the piece and the mei are attached below. Thanks for your help!

[Jake6500]

Hi Thomas,

 

The overall quality of the work certainly looks quite good... The early Omori masters often produced works of this kind with ground nanako-ji and high relief carving. Shishi lions were a known motif of theirs prior to the Omori-nami (wave) motif that eventually became the symbol of the schools peak works.

 

If the piece is genuine it would be a signed work from a lesser-known second generation student of the founder of the Omori school, a contemporary of the infamous Teruhide. For comparison, the Yanagawa and Omori schools both branched off from the Yokoya school and the founders of both schools were students of Yokoya Somin. I happen to have a fuchigashira set from Yanagawa Naomitsu, the second generation head of the Yanagawa school with a similar motif and if you compare your own fuchigashira to it, you will see the structural similarities. 

 

Here's the thread I made at that time (feel free to post your own fuchigashira in this thread too!)

What I'm getting at is that the design definitely fits the period of Eisen's activity. Naomitsu, who made my piece and became the head of the Yanagawa school, was active at the same time as Eisen and is part of the same generation of Machibori carvers... The quality, which I would call mid-level school workshop caliber also matches the artist who was skilled, but lacked the mastery of some of his contemporaries like Naomitsu or Teruhide.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, because Eisen was a lesser known artist who did not take over the Omori school (you could say that he worked in Teruhide's shadow) it is hard to find any mei and kao examples or any comparison pieces. The NBTHK have reference examples if you choose to submit to shinsa but I could not find an example anywhere. Joly catalogued an "Eisen" and included an example of the kao in his names and kakihan, but it appears to be a different Eisen from the Bakumatsu Period.

 

The signature on the piece is cut fairly fluidly. The first kanji seems great, the second features mild compression. This second character, as well as the overall simplicity of the kao (despite the fact that it seems well cut) is where my concern lies in submitting for shinsa.

 

The other thing I'm not sure I can adequately judge from the pictures is if there is any divergence in colour where the signature is cut. Have a close look inside the crevices of the mei itself. Is the metal lighter in colour than the rest of the black fuchi base? If so, this is a sign that the signature may have been carved later (gimei). If not, this piece might warrant the shinsa submission to see what the NBTHK think. It is good enough in quality and aligns well enough with expectations that it COULD paper...

 

Be advised that as Eisen is a minor student in the school, NBTHK authentication won't have a significant impact on the value of the piece. Further, you run the risk of the work being flagged as gimei and thereby losing financial value. My advice? If you submit it, do it purely out of curiosity or the desire to study the provenance of the piece, not for financial investment and be willing to lose the submission fee. If you're not willing to lose the financial investment, admire the piece as is.

Edited July 25 by Jake6500

[MauroP]

[Jake6500]

34 minutes ago, MauroP said:

 

Thanks for posting this example Mauro,

 

Based on this example it seems that the mei and the kao in particular do not match. The signature is likely gimei, placed on a real late 18th century workshop piece.

[FruitSamurai]

3 hours ago, Jake6500 said:

Hi Thomas,

 

The overall quality of the work certainly looks quite good... The early Omori masters often produced works of this kind with ground nanako-ji and high relief carving. Shishi lions were a known motif of theirs prior to the Omori-nami (wave) motif that eventually became the symbol of the schools peak works.

 

If the piece is genuine it would be a signed work from a lesser-known second generation student of the founder of the Omori school, a contemporary of the infamous Teruhide. For comparison, the Yanagawa and Omori schools both branched off from the Yokoya school and the founders of both schools were students of Yokoya Somin. I happen to have a fuchigashira set from Yanagawa Naomitsu, the second generation head of the Yanagawa school with a similar motif and if you compare your own fuchigashira to it, you will see the structural similarities. 

 

Here's the thread I made at that time (feel free to post your own fuchigashira in this thread too!)

What I'm getting at is that the design definitely fits the period of Eisen's activity. Naomitsu, who made my piece and became the head of the Yanagawa school, was active at the same time as Eisen and is part of the same generation of Machibori carvers... The quality, which I would call mid-level school workshop caliber also matches the artist who was skilled, but lacked the mastery of some of his contemporaries like Naomitsu or Teruhide.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, because Eisen was a lesser known artist who did not take over the Omori school (you could say that he worked in Teruhide's shadow) it is hard to find any mei and kao examples or any comparison pieces. The NBTHK have reference examples if you choose to submit to shinsa but I could not find an example anywhere. Joly catalogued an "Eisen" and included an example of the kao in his names and kakihan, but it appears to be a different Eisen from the Bakumatsu Period.

 

The signature on the piece is cut fairly fluidly. The first kanji seems great, the second features mild compression. This second character, as well as the overall simplicity of the kao (despite the fact that it seems well cut) is where my concern lies in submitting for shinsa.

 

The other thing I'm not sure I can adequately judge from the pictures is if there is any divergence in colour where the signature is cut. Have a close look inside the crevices of the mei itself. Is the metal lighter in colour than the rest of the black fuchi base? If so, this is a sign that the signature may have been carved later (gimei). If not, this piece might warrant the shinsa submission to see what the NBTHK think. It is good enough in quality and aligns well enough with expectations that it COULD paper...

 

Be advised that as Eisen is a minor student in the school, NBTHK authentication won't have a significant impact on the value of the piece. Further, you run the risk of the work being flagged as gimei and thereby losing financial value. My advice? If you submit it, do it purely out of curiosity or the desire to study the provenance of the piece, not for financial investment and be willing to lose the submission fee. If you're not willing to lose the financial investment, admire the piece as is.

 

This photo is a close-up shot. It looks like the signature was carved before the patination process back when it was made, but based on the comparison image posted below, it could still be a gimei.

Also, the entire tenjo-ita of this fuchi is black. I’ve noticed that most fuchi have an orange/copper tenjo-ita, so is a fully black one common? Or is it possible that it was re-signed and re-patinated later on?

Edited July 25 by FruitSamurai

[Exclus1ve]

I like.

37 minutes ago, FruitSamurai said:

Also, the entire tenjo-ita of this fuchi is black. I’ve noticed that most fuchi have an orange/copper tenjo-ita, so is a fully black one common? Or is it possible that it was re-signed and re-patinated later on?

The plate is completely black because it is made of the same alloy as the rest. This is less common, but still a common occurrence (in the kinko meikan example as well). I would ask you to take such large photos of the work itself.

[Jake6500]

Re-patination is possible but you can also just get black chemically treated tenjo-ita. The kao on your piece is less complicated, so based on that as well as Mauro's example I would assume the piece is a decent quality gimei piece from during or shortly after Eisen's time (maybe 1790-1800ish) with a false mei and kao to increase sale value.  It could well have been made as mumei by a lesser known student of the Omori school or a similar adjacent machibori school from the same Yokoya school lineage then signed and re-patinated at a later date.

 

At this point I would not suggest submission for shinsa. If you were to submit it, you'd likely need to have the mei professionally removed and apply for school attribution. If you did have the mei removed it likely would paper, however I personally don't like the practice of removing signatures even if they are false... Personally I'd just keep it in my collection as is for its artistic qualities. The cost would also outweigh the financial benefit.

Edited July 26 by Jake6500

[Exclus1ve]

Hi, Jake! I just can't stop thinking about it)

Repatination is a complicated process and doesn't always end successfully. Also, the black color of the tenjo-ita matches the base material of the fuchi perfectly, and overall it looks like a single, seamless piece (it's been polished without any gaps), so it doesn't seem like a separate chemical treatment.

I can't really judge the authenticity of the mei, and I wouldn't rely on shinsa 100% either, since the craftsman wasn't famous enough for forging his signature to be as worthwhile as forging the signatures of the great founders. Variations in his signature over the course of his career are entirely possible, and this signature is executed quite well. Based on these photos, the quality is clearly above average. The carving and especially the nanako both look very good.

imho

Edited Tuesday at 04:29 PM by Exclus1ve

[SteveM]

Is the signature in the original piece 英宜 (Teruyoshi, of the Ōmori school?

Or is it 英宣 (Hidenobu aka Okamoto, unrelated to the Ōmori school - the one that Mauro posted)? The kanji looks deceptively similar to 宜. 

 

Or could it be 英宜 (Hideyoshi), a smith unrelated to the Ōmori school, but using the same characters as Teruyoshi, with different pronunciation of the first character)?

 

To me it looks like 英宜, but I don't know which one it is trying to be, the Ōmori school Teruyoshi, or the unrelated Hideyoshi. (I have no reference pictures of either Teruyoshi or Hideyoshi, so I can't make a comparison). 

[Exclus1ve]

I think we often focus too much on Mei instead of looking at the work itself) 

Thomas, is it possible to take large photos of the object itself?

[FruitSamurai]

On 7/29/2026 at 2:23 AM, SteveM said:

Is the signature in the original piece 英宜 (Teruyoshi, of the Ōmori school?

Or is it 英宣 (Hidenobu aka Okamoto, unrelated to the Ōmori school - the one that Mauro posted)? The kanji looks deceptively similar to 宜. 

 

Or could it be 英宜 (Hideyoshi), a smith unrelated to the Ōmori school, but using the same characters as Teruyoshi, with different pronunciation of the first character)?

 

To me it looks like 英宜, but I don't know which one it is trying to be, the Ōmori school Teruyoshi, or the unrelated Hideyoshi. (I have no reference pictures of either Teruyoshi or Hideyoshi, so I can't make a comparison). 

Hi Steve, thanks! Mauro’s screenshot lists the reading as Hidenobu, which corresponds to 英宣 ("nobu" is 宣, while "yoshi" is 宜). So the reference entry is definitely 英宣, and the resemblance to 宜 is likely just down to the craftsman's chisel style or a character variation back then.

[FruitSamurai]

On 7/29/2026 at 3:48 AM, Exclus1ve said:

I think we often focus too much on Mei instead of looking at the work itself) 

Thomas, is it possible to take large photos of the object itself?

Here are some additional close-up photos

[SteveM]

10 hours ago, FruitSamurai said:

Mauro’s screenshot lists the reading as Hidenobu, which corresponds to 英宣 ("nobu" is 宣, while "yoshi" is 宜). So the reference entry is definitely 英宣,

 

Hello Thomas, what I am saying is; I am not convinced the mei on yours is Hidenobu (英宣). Rather, I think yours could well be Hideyoshi, or Teruyoshi. OR, yours could be an attempt at trying to be one of those (in other words, an attempt at forging Hideyoshi or Teruyoshi). 

 

The 英 character in Mauro's post is quite different from the one engraved on your item, and the 宣/宜 one on yours is different also.  It's a bit hard to make a judgment, since the photo from Mauro's reference book is such a low resolution. Mind you, it could also be an attempt at Hidenobu (英宣) as well... there just is no great reference available to compare. Now the work itself looks like Gotō, or possibly a Gotō mannerist. So that is something that pushes it close to the Hidenobu camp (the differences in the mei notwithstanding). But shishi on a nanako background is generic enough to be Ōmori (or Ōmori mannerist/plagiarist) as well - so I can't say with confidence one way or the other. Just saying to leave the door open for other possibilities, as that page from Mauro's post doesn't feel like its enough to close the door on the Hideyoshi or Teruyoshi possibilities. 

[Exclus1ve]

According to the new photos, the quality seems to be more ordinary, which is typical of school work. The signature itself is well written, the first kanji is different in spelling, perhaps it makes sense to have another artist.…

[Jake6500]

On 7/29/2026 at 2:28 AM, Exclus1ve said:

Hi, Jake! I just can't stop thinking about it)

Repatination is a complicated process and doesn't always end successfully. Also, the black color of the tenjo-ita matches the base material of the fuchi perfectly, and overall it looks like a single, seamless piece (it's been polished without any gaps), so it doesn't seem like a separate chemical treatment.

I can't really judge the authenticity of the mei, and I wouldn't rely on shinsa 100% either, since the craftsman wasn't famous enough for forging his signature to be as worthwhile as forging the signatures of the great founders. Variations in his signature over the course of his career are entirely possible, and this signature is executed quite well. Based on these photos, the quality is clearly above average. The carving and especially the nanako both look very good.

imho

 

Agreed Victor, but the signature being gimei albeit original to the piece still seems like the most probable scenario to me... A legitimate workshop piece, perhaps even from the same inner circle but prepared and signed by another artisan within the school seems more realistic.

 

On 7/31/2026 at 5:00 AM, SteveM said:

 

Hello Thomas, what I am saying is; I am not convinced the mei on yours is Hidenobu (英宣). Rather, I think yours could well be Hideyoshi, or Teruyoshi. OR, yours could be an attempt at trying to be one of those (in other words, an attempt at forging Hideyoshi or Teruyoshi). 

 

The 英 character in Mauro's post is quite different from the one engraved on your item, and the 宣/宜 one on yours is different also.  It's a bit hard to make a judgment, since the photo from Mauro's reference book is such a low resolution. Mind you, it could also be an attempt at Hidenobu (英宣) as well... there just is no great reference available to compare. Now the work itself looks like Gotō, or possibly a Gotō mannerist. So that is something that pushes it close to the Hidenobu camp (the differences in the mei notwithstanding). But shishi on a nanako background is generic enough to be Ōmori (or Ōmori mannerist/plagiarist) as well - so I can't say with confidence one way or the other. Just saying to leave the door open for other possibilities, as that page from Mauro's post doesn't feel like its enough to close the door on the Hideyoshi or Teruyoshi possibilities. 

 

Respectfully Steve I will have to disagree about the attribution to the Goto school. The style of the work and the design of the lion in particular is distinct from what you'd generally expect of the Goto school which had uniquely distinct characteristics in their shishi lion motifs. The circular/spiral pattern of the lions fur is a distinctive trait of the Yokoya school lineage and its branches which I think would disqualify the possibility of this being a Goto school piece...

Edited 13 hours ago by Jake6500

[John C]

On 7/30/2026 at 1:29 AM, FruitSamurai said:

Here are some additional close-up photos

Thomas:

You mention the patina being original. Not sure if the patina on the fuchi is recent or original, however the shiny bits inside the mei remind me of some hardware I just made for a suzuribako.

I used Liver of Sulpher (aka sulpherated liver/potash) to put a black patina on the copper parts. Only took about 4 seconds in the solution to take affect. So it is possible to redo the patina very easily. But again, not saying that is the case here - just that it is easy to do (see example below).

 

John C.