| Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Visitors' Forum

Asian Art  Forums - Detail List
Asian Art Forums

Message Listing by Date:
Message Index | Back | Post a New Message | Search | Private Mail | FAQ
Subject:Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Sun, Dec 20, 2020 IP:

There are no backside stamps on these pieces. Does somebody know the origin and the age? Thank you

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Martin Michels Wed, Dec 23, 2020

I my opinion: Japanese Kutani ware from around the 1930's.

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Thu, Dec 24, 2020

Thank you

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Thu, Dec 24, 2020

I have two questions: 1) it looks like good workmanship, but it has no marks. Is it possible that this is from an earlier period when Kutani was not marked yet? 2) What is the difference between Kutani and Satsuma - why it is Kutani, and not Satsuma? Thank you

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Wed, Dec 23, 2020

More pictures

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Wed, Dec 23, 2020

More pictures
Tray Length: 24 cm
Tray Width: 14 cm
Cup Height: 4.2 cm
Cup Diameter: 6.4 cm
Saucer Diameter: 11.2 cm

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Thu, Dec 24, 2020

I was searching the NET and found a piece of information on

Number 578. Tea or coffee set. According to family history this should be before 1914 and possibly as early as 1890s.

It looks like some elements are similar. Is it possible that my set is coming from the same manufacturer? I am posting the picture I am referring to.

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Martin Michels Sat, Dec 26, 2020

Dear Elena.
The photo's of The Gotheborg pieces are cataloged by him under "Sundry", although it's clearly marked "Shimamura" 島村, which is a mark of the Shingo Shimamura studio and shop, established in 1888 in Kyoto and lasted till the early 1900's. There were many of these shops around Kyoto, that produced every conceivable type of Japanese ceramic decoration, from Kutani to Imari to Satsuma style decorated porcelain to moriage encrusted Nippon ware. All those products were made for export.

Like yours, the Gotheborg cups and saucers are more Kutani ware than Satsuma ware, because real Satsuma is earthenware and not porcelain. And Satsuma has a soft ivory colored crackled glaze, which is missing on your items and the Gotheborg items.

Anyway, on all items showed here, I'm missing the real decoration quality, as on most of the export ware from 1890-1940.

So might your items older than the 1930's? Perhaps. Are they from the same manufacturer as the Gotheborg's? I don't think so, there are a lot of items around with the Shimamura signature.
And there were hundreds of small studio's making this kind of porcelain in the early 1900's. Some marked their ware, some not.

I include a photo of a Satsuma earthenware saucer, made by Hattori Kyoho, marked Hattori Zo (Made by Hattori), date around 1880. Just for comparison. On the piece with the mark on the right you see the ivory colored crackled glaze.


Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Sat, Dec 26, 2020

Thank you for your attention and explanations. I do not know Japanese porcelain and ceramics. When I look at my pieces I only can see that in the design there are some common Satsuma elements, but pieces look like porcelain, no ceramics, so it is to some extend Satsuma design looking porcelain. Right? However, the colors are not as bright and abundant as Satsuma.
The appearance does not show wear and tear. May be it is modern porcelain using some Satsuma design elements? On other hand why there is no marks? I suppose the modern manufacturer would put some marks on its pieces. Don't you think that there is the possibility that they are modern pieces? Thank you

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Eizaemon Sun, Dec 27, 2020

Greetings Elena (and all),

This post is more than you asked for, would really need, or ever likely want to know - but nonetheless I separated it into two parts.

The first gives you an answer via my personal (speculative) opinion at the start of it; and a little more context.

The second gives (anybody who wants a lengthy read) more context (which I cannot fault you for skipping, yet still wanted to provide in case of possible use) as to why I find it so difficult to define things even if prevalent and more on the common side like these questioned pieces of Japanese ceramics..

I was actually emailing a friend last week a long chain of statements on discussing why it's hard to define some things with art; and especially, our mutual interest of Japanese ceramic art - so "sunk cost fallacy" & felt others should suffer too.

-Part 1: The Answer-

So, let's begin:
In my opinion your pieces are certainly pre-war (first half 20th), and I'll try to offer some insight without confusing everybody (and myself), as Japanese ceramics can be difficult to characterize even for experts often.

I believe Martin is referring to his answering you via satsuma as definition of over-enameled earthenware (so interpretation of commonly seen style & ceramic material).
Therefore, yours would not be satsuma of any kind in this capacity; and I agree to most extents.

(It definitely has a bit of an overlap in both Kutani, and its collection discussions seen as well - also due to both ceramic material and origin, but this will be rambled about after).

I personally feel these are equally (maybe a touch more) "Satsuma-style" in influence more than "Kutani-style" (just by a tiny amount, if at all..[sorry Martin, you're probably right honestly; you can shame me later without any blame]).

Yet, this still means very little in all actuality.
As Martin said, these are technically not "satsuma" itself - at least, what we would regard as such usually I think; and possibly not really “Kutani” much more either..

So, why am I being difficult - and more importantly: then what are they?

It's because these belong to a tricky confusing-causing loose "classification" type of export ceramics made of porcelaneous stoneware; and were usually produced/finished & exported from a place like Kobe or Yokohama (possibly even Tokyo).

A good example of these types would be many pieces produced by Imura - or the Hyochien Decorating Workshop in Tokyo; even simply the "Yokohama-yaki" export subgrouping.
(This is also I think equally difficult to define, but that's enough of that for now; I have an unsolicited soapbox lecture to provide).

Not all pieces were marked/stamped for export; and this is a commonly touted fallacy now essentially accepted as fact - or at best - a misunderstanding.

In many cases the laws and codes were misinterpreted or interpreted on an individual basis by exporters, producers, and merchants.
Also pair this along with the fact that many came over to export-heavy destinations like San Francisco in crates or large storage boxes; and these instead were or could equally be marked (to/for some) quite abidingly) instead.

-Part 2: The Never Ending Question-

More context for this period of production/development:

Your pieces do have some overlapping elements of many export satsuma-type pieces produced in the first few decades of the 20th century: like heavy reliance on moriage, gilt, and over-enameled cutaway depictions within cartouches.

Ironically, we can say this about Kutani pieces made during the same time period too, or classic Nippon/Noritake pieces, and others too.

Many of these pieces cycled through similar production factories for the blanks, decorating shoppes, or merchants using a rotating basis of such as their firms expanded/relocated.
This is along with (generally) sharing the aspect of pieces like this being made quickly for mass-production and mass-export.

Not to say they didn't have visible differences, too; but mass-export and cheaply/quickly made to keep up with the demand (especially as trends rapidly changed in western tastes post-1900, or to compensate for export slumps occurred in many areas during the later 19th century) would be a good general summary.

There's a lot of overlap; just as (like Martin said) there were too many firms/shoppes/factories to keep up with (and even more lost to history due to the lack of records keeping often had in this time period).

So what's the deal with the mixed signals?

Simply put: we often tied the geographic area to equate the sole definition of ware classifications, while also misunderstanding the nuances of styles themselves and their histories - often from the beginning.

Besides, what makes something a definitive grouping, or a non-example of one?

I feel there's varying (yet still passable) validity as to many sides of the argument - but we also should remember how loosely classified many of these groupings currently remain (or how debated they still are).

For instance, there were many merchants for Kutani in Meiji-early Shōwa that are classified as such - yet they had a heavy amount of firms/shoppes in places like Yokohama or Kobe compared to classic Kaga Domain/Daishoji (in today currently Ishikawa Prefecture).
Makers like Wantano or Oda, are often referred to having made "Yokohama-type Kutani" or such by many.

Likewise we also had many greats like Taizan Yohei and Kinkozan in the Kyoto area who would, undoubtedly, be considered major producers/exporters/artists of Satsuma.

Yet, some of the more striking pieces by Kinkozan I've seen have also been porcelain instead of earthenware - but still made at his Satsuma production workshoppe.
(They both also produced abundant amounts of Awata-yaki, which "technically" is not exactly even Kyoto Satsuma - and used to be sold as "old" old Satsuma to those bent on obtaining such).

Many of the pieces we call "Satsuma" today, ironically were made in Kyoto facilities due to the desire of "old Satsuma" by the ever-changing nitpicking of westerners.

Later on this was often by adding heavier amounts of gosu enamels in the last decades of the 19th century (think of what used to be called "Imperial Satsuma"), as many westerners had already started to reject the emerging forms of gild laden export satsuma items using polychrome to depict villages and geishas, samurai, or "traditional Japan" that many foreigners (again, ironically) demanded when export first started ramping up production in the Meiji Era.

Does this mean export Satsuma (or the Kyo-ware variants then [and even now] sold as Satsuma) produced in Kyoto isn't "Satsuma" at all because it wasn't produced in the Satsuma province in Kagoshima?

If that's the case: much of it produced and perfected by those who we would now call some of the largest innovators and influencers of it, wouldn't be representative of it at all.

Well, that's an opinion for a jury here, a jury there... and juries everywhere.

From my knowledge, the very old Satsuma predating the gilt laden & polychrome ribboned examples we've grown to understandably call "Satsuma" (export pre-fix, or not) was nearly devoid over these aspects even as the pale Shiro-Satsuma (white satsuma) which would later evolve to the style of "old Satsuma" that became increasingly demanded for.
It also was quite different in appearance and accessibility than its Kuro-Satsuma counterpart; which often found in daily everyday citizens' residences during the Edo period instead of exclusively in the Daimyo's usage like the prior.

(Very late) Edo satsuma hailing from its namesake in Kagoshima during the Shogunate's last years in power during the 19th century was (to many) arguably fathered by Chin Jukan XII; and this style quickly became the representative form for the ware to many then, and many "diehards" do now.

To me, it's true it does not always reflect export tastes seen much more uniformly represented only a handful of years later.
Honestly though, I still see a closer resemblance to it than the earlier examples of either original grouping.

Strangely regarding "Ko-Satsuma"..
It actually was produced during a somewhat overlapping timeline as Ko-Kutani; which also enjoyed a later resurgence in the 19th century, followed by reinvention or developing of new forms, and inevitably - demand for "the original."

It was indeed only in relatively recent times we began to understand our original assumptions about "Ko-Kutani" (or Ko-Kutani types) were open to somewhat of a more open debate - with scholars and collectors alike disagreeing passionately; and some feeling the distant Arita area now had reason to be lumped into a continuous discussion.

The parallels for both Kutani and Satsuma are somewhat interesting if you consider the scope of such; especially when viewed through the lens of 19th century late Edo/Meiji Japan.

(Even more so when considering Japan's entrance and evolution on the world-stage as a ceramic exporter - along with the later target audience who largely misunderstood it initially, and overlooked it when greeted with what they asked for yet again).

So, did we misunderstand the original grouping or classification of pieces?
Did they not fully reach a point to later look back on at and say what was objectively part of a certain ware category, or what wasn't?

Perhaps we were right somewhat, and forced ourselves (and others) into a situation which grew too hard to properly define - or maybe we ran along with the new norm without finding time or reason to readdress.
Maybe it's a bit of both, and also our own (understandable) desire to classify/categorize things, including those that are complex in themselves - often not given an opportunity to grow into a self-defined definition due to history.

Maybe that's what makes these things so magical, though?
Decades (or centuries) later... here we all are; still discussing, theorizing, attempting to define, and (importantly)... collecting and appreciating them & making sure they aren't forgotten.

How can you not love art and all of its history?

Happy holidays, and wishing all a wonderful New Year with 2021 - both in Asian art interests, and ourselves.

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Mon, Dec 28, 2020

Thank you, Robert. I read your response over and over again. The more I read the more questions I have.

1) What style is it? As I understand from your reasoning, there were some typical styles evidences (by Western classification: (Satsuma, Kutani, Imari): material used, colors, forms, technics, marks, signatures. Because the manufacturers of Satsuma, Kutani, Imari were big and manufactured big quantities of similar products they left their trace in the history, as these pieces are still widely available and because of that are easy to study, and because there are some documents or information available to learn from about these manufacturers.

However, any of these manufacturers was able to experiment with styles, forms, colors, and technics, and these experiments cannot be identified as they do not fit in the mainstream. Or there were smaller manufacturers, who were producing some pieces, borrowing some elements of decorations for their products. Since there is no written or other information identifying such smaller manufacturers they are left out as unidentifiable. The volume of production of small manufacturers was insignificant, and/or not distinguished from the bigger companies they were learning from, so we cannot say that they created their own stream of art, as we can say about Satsuma, Kutani…
2) What is the date of manufacturing? For me this is difficult, as I did not study information before and after. I think that there are some decorations elements, technics and forms that were not used before or after. In absence of any marks we can judge about the manufacturing period based on our knowledge when the specific color, technic, abundance of decoration or other decorative elements were first seen on identifiable pieces (Satsuma, Imari, Kutani..), and have not seen after specific dates. However, there also might be that some of big manufacturer could borrow some elements from small producers.
Martin explained why he judges that my pieces cannot be modern (thank you). I understand that both of you know internally that the pieces are not earlier then 1920s), because you have seen, learned and analyzed lots of stuff, you “See”, the reply (when an expert is asked: “Why”, he just can reply: “I see”).
3) Mass production. I am not an expert; I do not see what it is in terms of classification. I do not see why it is “mass production”, rather than exquisite production, especially, if it was not manufactured by “Big Three”.
Is the “manufactured for export” porcelain generally more valued or of a higher quality than “manufactured” for inner market or it is reverse or there is no correlation?
If you can explain how the mass production is different from individual production, and how do you know that it is not the end of XIX century, but 1920s-1930s, it would be very interesting.
Thank you for interesting discussion and teaching.
I also wish all participants of this Forum Happy, prosperous and interesting coming New Year!

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Mon, Dec 28, 2020

Additional picture

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Martin Michels Sun, Dec 27, 2020

Porcelain Satsuma-like items for export became common from the 1920's. I don't think your items are modern. The bottom of the tray is unglazed and modern pieces have usually glazed bottom's. And are usually marked at the bottom.

Subject:Re: Tea cup, saucer and plate
Posted By: Elena Mon, Dec 28, 2020

Thank you, Martin. Interesting information. | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |