Hi John,

I wouldn’t worry about the spur marks, they look fine. All your lovely pieces look 19th century to me. Will leave it to the more knowledgable to narrow that down. I am not sure kintsugi can be used for dating, as its still employed to the present day, but I could be wrong. Congratulations! 

Todd

Hi Todd,

Thanks for your input! It's reassuring to hear that the spur marks look fine. It reminded me of the way people scratch out China mark, like they're trying to hide something. In this case, I thought maybe they were trying to hide poorly done spurs or something similar. Also, thanks for your insight on kintsugi! I think you're right, and that I placed too much weight on that repair to judge its age.

John

Also, I forgot to mention that I've never seen that mark before on the rice bowl and cover. They look like two scrolls. Has anyone else?

Hi John,

In my opinion the two plates are Japanese and from the Meiji period.

The two bowls with the unusual scroll like mark is a mystery to me. I have seen this before but I can't remember exactly what it was etc. I tried looking it up without success.

I will ask my friend what he thinks. He has a enormous database.

Regards,

Mark 

Hi Mark,

Thank you for your insight! I am glad there's a consensus with the two plates. Also, thank you for sending the bowl over to your friend. I look forward to hearing back!

John

John, you are building quite a collection. It is looking great! Are the 2 new bowls a chawan?

I will be interested to hear what Mark finds out. I wonder if the mark is related to the other gold marks one sometimes sees on the reverse. They are a similar style.  I tried to find one but only got this from worthpoint. Does one of yours have this mark? I am sure I have seen it recently.

https://images.app.goo.gl/FwF4Z9h5tMF71k8P8

Hi Julia,

Thank you for your kind words! On the two bowls, I really should have taken a photo of it closed. I think it's a rice bowl and lid. Here's a photo of it together:

You're right about the mark being closely related to the "kotobuki" mark you linked, too! The large Edo period bowl in the back right of the group photo has the "kotobuki" mark and it's it's the same gilt over iron red as the scroll mark. I believe that mark means "celebration" and was not used to signify a maker. Similarly, maybe the scrolls could be some other auspicious symbol rather than signifying a maker.

John

@bartholin Congratulations, you are cornering the market on black ships. I second Todd about not worrying about the spur mark, any former owner with their handy dremel could have smoothed it to keep from scratching or catching. Sharon

Hi Sharon,

Thank you for your input on spur marks and your kind words! I'm having a lot of fun hunting for this pattern. I am shooting for every reasonably priced piece I see, but I've also had to have more discipline in other areas of my collection now. 

John

@barholin 

Hi John -

Not really my area but three very nice pieces, my congratulations on acquiring ...

The ‘double scrolls with tied ribbons’ base mark originated in China, one of numerous ‘auspices emblems’ used in decoration and adopted by Japanese painters ...

Stuart 

Hi Stuart,

Thank you for providing that background on the double scrolls with the tied ribbons and your kind words! It's interesting that the mark is influenced by the Chinese. I wonder if that would make it an earlier dating rather than the more recent Meiji era. It doesn't seem to be nearly as prolific as the "Kotobuki" mark that can even be found on contemporary pieces. Very interesting! 

John

Hi John,

It did occur to me that your rice bowls could be older. Those intricate red symbols on the bases sometimes push a piece into the 18th century. I don’t have the expertise to say for sure though. 

Hi Todd,

Thanks for taking a second look at the rice bowl! I'm feeling pretty optimistic about it. I usually don't place much emphasis on the marks for dating, but it looks like this one could be something more. I wonder what Peter will think! 

John

Hello John,

Good to see you are still collecting and finding good examples. I think dating theses Black Ship Imari Items and placing their place of origin is very difficult.  As far as spur marks are concerned my reading on the subject leads me to believe that small neat spur marks which are low in number 3 or less, that look like little pimples date to after 1870. By 1870 the Meiji ethic of great Japan and export or die was gaining momentum very large sums of capital had to be raised to purchase not only the western chemicals and dye's, but also modern western type kilns and kiln furniture. Methods of production had to be changed the 100's of small village type kilns in the Hizen district, which includes Arita and Kutani started to amalgamate. Improvements to infrastructure roads, bridges etc made it easier for people to move about. Prior to the Meiji ordinary people had to gain permission from their local Daimyo to leave their village, these restrictions were gradually lifted during the Meiji.  This meant that skilled workers could move around and take their skills and what was previously a distinct style associated with one particular place to other areas. All of which makes it very difficult to actually pin point a place of production for our items. Dating can be a bit easier if we can identify if the glazes are pre or post the 1870's, what kiln furniture was used can help. But you have to bear in mind that not all the small Kilns managed to make all the changes immediately so it might be fair to say small neat spur marks indicate post 1870's you should not assume large ugly spur marks are pre 1870's. 

All of the items in your latest post look to my eye to be Kutani type production, thinness of the walls of the pots, color of the glazes and shape of the foot rim and all date after the 1870's but that is just a guess for the reasons stated above.

As you are aware Dasihoji is a problem that is unresolved with many experts having different opinions. The debate has been going on for a long time have included a link to Asian Art forum going back to 2004. Personally in my own collecting I have decided to forget about Dasihoji until a scholarly book gets written based on scientific analysis.

Have included a couple of links for items sold by major auction houses.  Suggest you read as much as possible on the Nanban trade as possible and look at the prints , paintings and screens and leather and laqure trunks and note how the figures are painted. The older the item the more exaggerated are the depictions of the westerners clothing extremely wide and bulbous breeches for example. Over time these features became less exaggerated.

Thanks for keeping us updated with your collection, in the group photo the one in the top row at the right hand side appeals to me. Look forward to hearing Peters opinion when you have it.

Michael.

                https://www.asianart.com/phpforum/index.php?method=detailAll&Id=81212&PHPSESSID=istneft14s3hsj10instusv7b6

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/24763/lot/39/?category=list

https://onlineonly.christies.com/s/japanese-art-its-influence-european-court/large-imari-nanban-ship-bowl-68/29432

@brettm

Thank you, Michael!

You've provided some interesting pieces of information that I thought were helpful. I hadn't come across that Asian Art forum thread before, so it was interesting to see the debate isn't new but has also picked up recently. I think I'll follow in your footsteps and move forward with a skeptical eye towards Daishoji Imari.

I'll also keep your handy spur marks insight in mind whenever I see them in the future! Also, if you remember which book, do you mind sharing where you've read about that? No worries if not, as I often forget where I read certain things. 

Also, thank you for providing the big auction houses links. The Bonhams one in particular looks interesting to me. Peter said in his last evaluation that the ships filling the center circle was one hint it could be Edo, if all other things look right with some exceptions. I would've thought that the Bonhams one would've been Edo based on that rule alone, but looking at the pieces as a whole makes me agree with their Meiji dating. The less exaggerated clothes, as you point out, but also the teal cloudy outlines within the "armorial" design on the border, as Sharon once put it, and the use of yellow enamels for the flowers rather than gilt. I'll be looking more into this comparative analysis, although my observations are always assuming the dating of the pieces I hold are correct. 

In addition, you have a good eye, Michael! The far back right bowl you pointed out is the bowl I posted previously that Peter ID'ed as Edo period 1800-1820. 

Separately, in this area, there seems to be two separately identifiable variations: (1) the group of dutchmen on a red ground opposite a black ship panel, and (2) the central black ship design with a flowered diaper motif on the cavetto. The former seems to have a wider color palette for the westerner's clothing with teals and aubergines, whereas the latter seems to stick to the red, black, and gilt palette. I wonder if these two separate variations originate from a certain kiln, if one kiln stuck to one variation, or whether all kilns that produced this pattern produced each variation. 

Kindly,

John