Japanese black oribe chawan

Japanese black oribe chawan. Any idea who the potter is? Thanks!

Often the signature of this type of Japanese ware is a squiggle like this and it is very difficult, if not virtually impossible, to identify unless you come across a very similar piece of work with the signature and known provenance.

Ah I figured, but took a shot in the dark. Thanks!

Not knowing who made it probably isn't going to alter its value.

Totally agreed. I really love this piece regardless of its official "value" on the market.

It's very nice.
Kuro-raku?
It might be worth searching around Japanese pottery maybe from the 50's.
You may identify it eventually, through stumbling across a similar piece, hopefully with accompanying squiggle.

I am new to these forums so don't want to be too intrusive, but I'd like to understand the meaning of:

studio-pots wrote:Not knowing who made it probably isn't going to alter its value.

Doesn't that go without saying?
Or do you mean for example, if it was from the edu period the value would be roughly the same regardless of maker?
or that it is of little value?

Thanks,

Hi Studio-pots btw,

Bernado Duckworthy wrote: I am new to these forums so don't want to be too intrusive, ,

Please be as intrusive as you want - that's what the Forum is all about.

My point, which is true of many pieces put on the Forum for identification, is that it is what it is. Because of the way it is mark, it will be difficult to be certain that it is by the same person, even if you came across a similar pot with a similar squiggle. Also it doesn't have a box, which adds to the value of any Japanese pot by a given potter.

It doesn't appear from the image to have a significant age and isn't likely to be made by a significant potter or, if it was, there wouldn't be sufficient provenance to say it was definitely made by him.

I know that it is always nice to say, who made a pot, if someone asks but the reply should perhaps be that it is by Yanagi's "Unknown Craftsman" and that's what makes it beautiful.

Hope that makes a little sense?

studio-pots wrote:

Bernado Duckworthy wrote: I am new to these forums so don't want to be too intrusive, ,

Please be as intrusive as you want - that's what the Forum is all about.

My point, which is true of many pieces put on the Forum for identification, is that it is what it is. Because of the way it is mark, it will be difficult to be certain that it is by the same person, even if you came across a similar pot with a similar squiggle. Also it doesn't have a box, which adds to the value of any Japanese pot by a given potter.

It doesn't appear from the image to have a significant age and isn't likely to be made by a significant potter or, if it was, there wouldn't be sufficient provenance to say it was definitely made by him.

I know that it is always nice to say, who made a pot, if someone asks but the reply should perhaps be that it is by Yanagi's "Unknown Craftsman" and that's what makes it beautiful.

Hope that makes a little sense?

I understand, perfectly put, thank you.

I must say, to my untrained eye, the very old Japanese pottery, especially the black glazed, still looks very recent.