LOC vs Other Museums and sources

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Ukiyo-e Q & A ]

Posted by Hokusai's pupil ( on January 23, 2015 at 06:10:31:

Could the LOC ( Library of Congress ) be wrong when dating its original Hokusai Prints ?

As an eager collector's of Hokusai's original prints, I wonder why the Library of Congress stands alone in its battle to date some version of the prints ?

For example, I was looking at the print that you would find on the front page of www.ukiyo-e.org : Kirifuri Waterfall at Kurokami

One merchant has one version listed for sale on their website here : http://www.woodblockprintsworld.com/kirifuri-waterfall-at-kurokami-by-hokusai.html

The same distinctive blocks (With the river between the 2 persons standing looking at the waterfall going straight toward the lower margin, as opposed to many version where that same river is heading toward the right margin of the print) is listed by the MMA as original here :

Also, the Freer & Sackler Museum have the same one listed here :

& here :

All these websites are dating that particular version of the print Circa 1832 - 1833

Yet, the library of congress calls it a later edition early 20th century here:

Don't you think that the library of congress is wrong ?
That print looks old and dated for a print that would be early 20th century, and look indeed original circa 1832 - 1833.
Most of the fakes and reprints sold as original, whether from Takamizawa, or Sakai Kokodo Han have a much "fresher" look, and the blocks are not based with the river going straight down, but also toward the right margin.

I took this print as an example, but I was able to find nearly 20 prints that looks original to me, also from that same series and some other that are listed as later edition, and some prints that they attributed to Hokusai, while in fact, they are from a complete different artist.

For example, this print here :

It is referenced by the LOC as an Hokusai Print circa 1802, while in fact it is not at all from Hokusai, but from Hishikawa Sri. See reference here :

These are examples among many that affect people's perception. If I have an original, and I want to list it for sale anywhere, people are going to use the LOC as reference to tell me than I own a later edition, while in fact I DO own an original...

From what I understand, they had some student that build their website and that "specialized in Edo era prints" These persons are responsible for dating all the prints from the LOC website and classify them in different categories.
It seems to me that the mistakes they made are obvious but genuine. It is hard enough to build a website and references thousands of prints from many artist, you will make some mistake. But I wonder if the prints from the LOC that sustain obvious mistakes should be referenced on the Ukiyo-e website as such, or remove from the search feature for these particular and specific prints ?

I have attempted to contact the LOC to point at their potential mistake, but they either don't care or cannot find anyone that has the authority to respond to that concern.

Or could they be correct, and all other sources wrong ?

What are your take on this ?

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Subject: LOC vs Other Museums and sources


Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Ukiyo-e Q & A ]