Knowledge · Research standards
How we document a work
Every work is published with a four-part record. Our descriptions are research opinion as of the date written, and they change when the evidence changes.
I · Identification & maker
Title in English and Japanese, maker in romaji and kanji, date and period, and the collection or last public record.
II · Technique & record
Technique as described by a cited source; Imperial Household Artist (Teishitsu Gigeiin) status and exposition history where documented.
III · Iconography
Motifs, season and literary references. Interpretive text is labelled “interpretive”.
IV · Marks 落款 & box
Marks and seals transcribed as published; the storage box (tomobako) and its inscription recorded.
Attribution terms
We use exactly five terms, and we never upgrade an attribution:
- By
- Signed or documented, and consistent with the maker’s known work.
- Workshop of
- Made in the maker’s studio, not necessarily by the master’s hand.
- Attributed to
- Our opinion that the work is probably by the maker, with reasons given.
- Style of
- In the manner of the maker; no claim of authorship.
- Company
- Made by a named firm or company.
Examination
Each work is examined under 365nm UV light, with 10x and 30x loupes and, for closed forms, a borescope. Alloy analysis by XRF is arranged through a laboratory where relevant. Restorations we identify are recorded in a written condition report.
Sources
Every factual claim (date, provenance, designation, auction result) carries a linked source. Where something is unknown or unverified, we say so. We share our research view; we do not issue certificates or valuations.
How we score
Archive records carry an assessment out of 10. Each factor is scored only from what our cited sources document; anything undocumented scores zero for that factor. Dealer offerings without a sale result, “style of” or uncertain attributions, Taisho-period works and weakly sourced pieces are capped at 6.
| Factor | Max | How it is scored |
|---|---|---|
| Maker stature | 2.5 | Imperial Household Artist (Teishitsu Gigeiin) 2.5; leading studio masters lower; workshop or attributed pieces lower still |
| Recognition | 3 | Important Cultural Property or National Treasure context 3; major museum collection 2 to 2.5; auction at or above US$150k or a record for the maker 3, at or above US$100k 2.5, at or above US$50k 2, US$20k to 50k 1, below US$20k 0.3 |
| Exhibition | 1 | This very piece documented at a world exposition, a national exhibition, or a major museum exhibition or publication |
| Technique | 1.5 | Technical virtuosity described by a cited source (e.g. wire type, musen, relief, maki-e) |
| Provenance | 1 | Documented chain of ownership |
| Condition, scale & documentation | 1 | Scale, completeness and the quality of the published record |
How we use auction records
Public auction results are evidence of what one object made on one day. We cite them with the house, sale, date, lot number and the price basis, usually including buyer’s premium, and give a US dollar equivalent at the European Central Bank reference rate on the sale date. We never present them as a valuation of another work.
Lot essays are useful because specialists cite the literature and comparable museum pieces. When we use a fact from a lot essay we footnote the lot, and where it disagrees with another source we report both. An example is the date of Kinkōzan Sōbei VII’s death, 1927 or 1928.
Photographs of auction lots are © the auction houses. We show them with a credit and a link to the lot, and only for the object the lot describes.
