Purchased in 1961 Hong Kong. You appraised a similar print previously, but I have a concern with the very straight margins of paper, thinking this one may be a later copy. A framing place in 1973 noted the markings that had been made of measurements which likely wouldn’t have been made on an original. As I am uncertain I would appreciate your expert view.
15.5x10.25
Hello,
This item is a Japanese woodblock print depicting Mount Fuji in the background of a darkened homestead, likely a shin-hanga (new prints) style piece from the early-to-mid 20th century. The dimensions of the print are approximately 15.5 x 10.25 inches. It was acquired in 1961 in Hong Kong by the current owner’s family and has since been professionally framed.
⸻
Historical and Artistic Context
The print belongs stylistically to the shin-hanga movement, which flourished in Japan from the 1910s to the 1960s. This movement revived traditional ukiyo-e aesthetics with a focus on modern sensibilities, particularly in the portrayal of landscapes. Artists such as Kawase Hasui and Tsuchiya Koitsu were key figures of this style, often emphasizing atmospheric effects and a blend of Western and Japanese techniques.
The scene with Mount Fuji, shadowed village rooftops, and stark silhouettes of trees is characteristic of Hasui’s compositions—particularly in the use of twilight or moonlit ambiance and the serenity of rural Japan. However, without a visible signature or publishing seal in the provided images, definitive attribution is not possible. The clean margins and annotation markings noted by the client suggest it may be a later reproduction, possibly from the 1960s-1970s, a time when reproductions were widely distributed in souvenir shops across Asia.
⸻
Condition Notes & Authenticity
The concern about straight margins and measurement marks is valid. Original shin-hanga prints often bear irregularities in edge cutting, and the presence of annotations or numbering could point to later mechanical editions or restrikes. Additionally, framing documentation from 1973 mentioning measurements may further support the idea that this was treated as a decorative or non-original piece at the time.
However, the color depth and detail, from the photo, appear strong and in keeping with traditional printing techniques—not indicative of modern digital reproduction. If the paper bears visible woodgrain or embossing from hand printing (baren marks), that would suggest a higher-quality hand-pulled piece.