Kantei 2

[kissakai]

One more

It is the only papered tsuba I have that is mumei

 

This won't last long so I'll be looking at the clock to see who is fastest

Is the ana original or a later addition?

Some pointers to define this type of tsuba may help those that are just starting down this endless road 

Answer tomorrow

 

 

 

 

Grev

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

I'd think the design is original as ana is included in the design. I'd guess making major changes to design like that after the item is already made would be futile as you can always make a new tsuba with similar but slightly altered design.

 

The shape is kiku-gata/kikka-gata. I'm not too well versed on who made these but I believe they often get attributed to Saotome. So my guess is Saotome.

[ROKUJURO]

The iron reminds me of HIGO, the slightly irregular lines say JINGO to me. A nice and strong TSUBA, I like it a lot. The ANA is of course original.

[Iekatsu]

Ko-Kinko, late Muromachi, original ana.

[MauroP]

Difficult to judge the material from your pics, Grev. If made by yamagane, ko-kinkō should be the quite obvious answer. If made by iron, much harder to say...

[kissakai]

One last bit of info:

 

Material

Yamagane (old copper) with the original black lacquer (urushi)

[ROKUJURO]

Grev,

I thought it was iron! This was an important information, so I have to take my assumption back. My guess is now KO-KINKO. 

[kissakai]

Sorry Jean from my images I should have stated this important feature

[kyushukairu]

My guess would also be ko-kinko, with an approximate age of mid-muromachi, and yes, the kozuka ana is original to the tsuba though may have enlarged later

[Jussi Ekholm]

As it is not iron I'll jump into the kinkō-train as well. I can't comment on age though. As Saotome made often large iron tsuba of this design what is the size of this tsuba?

[kissakai]

Well here goes

 

 

Basics that a fellow NMB translated for me

 

 

鑑定書 - kanteisho

 

鍔   菊花透   無銘   山銅地 - tsuba   kikka-gata sukashi   mumei   yamagane-ji

 

極   太刀金具帥   時代   桃山 - kiwame   tachi-kanagushi   jidai Momoyama

 

 

平成二十七年六月二日 - Heisei 27-nen  6-gatsu 2-nichi (June 2nd, 2015)

 

 

I've been following Currans shinsa comments with interest so are there other papers that have surprised the owner?

 

 

Grev

 

 

 

[MauroP]

OK folks, is there any experienced member here that can explain me this attribution?
The tsuba has an ubu hitsu-ana (a fact that looks quite obvious, isn't it?), so how can we take together an hitsu-ana with a tachi mount? Or maybe tachi-kanagushi tsuba have little/nothing to do with tachi mounts?

[kissakai]

I refer to my previous comments on Currans observations but where do we go from here?

ko kinko every time

[Iekatsu]

Shinsa panels are only human and mistakes happen. 

 

There is no evidence that the above Tsuba was mounted on a Tachi, the fact that it has an original Ana contradicts the attribution. It was clearly made for mounting on an Uchigatana. None of this detracts from Tsuba itself which is a nice example of its type.

 

Both ko-Kinkō and Tachi Kanagu-shi are broad (modern) categories and encompass many styles and periods, this is why papering early soft metal Tosogu is problematic at best.

[Alex A]

I couldnt be sure what the metal was, but thought yamagane late Muromachi/Kokinko 

 

Spent 5 minutes wondering about the shinsa result, size?, nakago ana size?, mass produced, perhaps they feel there is no evidence to suggest it wasnt sat on a Tachi at some time 

[kissakai]

The post has about run its course but I still find it annoying that sticking their next out on some tsuba especially when there is a much easier call and other times it is papered with such a broad classification the papers have no real use

Image something like an Edo Shoami tsuba classification!

Hundreds of differing styles over a 268 year period

[Alex A]

These always seem get thrown into the Ko Kinko bracket, but they obviously found something special about this particular example, be good to know what?

 

Is there anything that stands out to you Grev?

 

Would they be wrong?, having seen so many....

[kissakai]

This tsuba (T193) is similar to a Sadatome tsuba I have and they are both of a similar age.

T193 is looks newer and the surface is quite plain and feature less! I'll add some images next just need to dig them out

[Alex A]

I was thinking maybe its just the quality, I don't know.

 

From Shibui "The later tachi-kanagushi show influence by the ko-kinko to such an extent that the two styles have completely merged in some cases."

 

http://www.shibuiswords.com/tachikanagushischool.html

 

Nothing ever seems straightforward in this hobby, im confused on a regular basis.

[MauroP]

... im confused on a regular basis.

Thanks Alex, I feel a little less frustrated when I'm in good company...

Anyway an useful and interesting topic, thanks Grev.

[kissakai]

Also cofused on a daily basis

 

 

This post got me thinking about other of my similar tsuba (all kinko) so I’ve created a PDF file which will hopefully show some bigger images.

I’ve shown one face and a side view and from these you can see the shape of the hitsuana, any coating and the surface texture.

Only two tsuba are papered and the dates are only approximate. Just noticed I misspelt some as kangushi

 

I can imagine the shinsa team going to the default ko kinko call but on the odd occasion it will get a different attribution that someone has seen a difference between kanaguchi and ko kinko. This may be a brave attribution or just an error – who knows!

 

My idea was to buy many tsuba so I could compare the different schools but apart from this exercise I’ve not really had time to do this but at the moment I’m comparing my Bushu tsuba to those from the book, Tosogu Classroom.

 

Any comments on these tsuba would help me and other collectors but it is a bit off post and I didn’t want to start a new one

 

These are all my tsuba and there is no copyright so can be used freely by any other member although a source attribution would be nice

 

 Styles.pdf

 

 

[kyushukairu]

I was hoping the 'brief comment' (寸評 ) on the kanteisho might provide some further insight, but it doesn't offer any rationale as to their decision.
It simply says something along the lines of 'Tachi kanagushi produced fittings for tachi from Heian to Momoyama' and then describes the tsuba as 'yamagane and kiku sukashi with 16 petals' 
(太刀金具の匠が作ったもので太刀が最も使用された平安期頃より桃山期までの永きに渡り製作されてきた.本作山銅地に十六花弁の菊花を透かした一鍔).

On the Shibui sword page it states 'In this broad meaning the shitogi, aoi, nerikawa and other early soft metal tsuba might be called tachi-kanagushi tsuba.'
So perhaps your tsuba was made by one of those schools, but there was no distinguishing feature to enable the kantei team to determine which of these it belongs to?
Still, that wouldn't explain the 'tachi' attribution when it was quite clearly mounted on an uchigatana, as Mr Sinclair pointed out ...



 

[Iekatsu]

You have a beautiful collection Grev, thanks for sharing. Of all the soft metal Tsuba T180 is the only one could be labeled as Tachi Kanagu-shi, there is no evidence of Hitsu-ana and the elongated Nakago-ana is another good sign.