punch mark

[Bungo]

http://cgi.ebay.com/A105-JP-SAMURAI-SWO ... 0070346333

 

I have seen similar punch mark.................anyone knows if any school used this ?

 

compare with this example...........

http://www.esnips.com/doc/6d026c73-a54d ... anto-mon-2

 

 

milt The ronin

[Pete Klein]

I've seen them on many different tsuba but they tend to be on mid to late Edo Kinko pieces more than iron. I tend to think of Hamano first but that may very well be just by happenstance. I think they were just a nicer way of crimping the ana closer to the nakago for fitting but I cannot say if they would be considered a true tagane-mei.

[John A Stuart]

Hi Milt, Pete, Here is something that could use some clarification for me and maybe others. These punch marks on early tsuba seem to be a convention used by certain schools that were carried on by the descendant tsubako so subsequently they could be a tagane-mei used to identify a particular school. Yes? However in most cases the punch marks do not alter the nakago-ana dimensions and are added as pure embellishment. They seem to add character to unmounted tsuba where the seppa-dai would normally be plain. This also brings to mind those tsuba that have metalwork right into the seppa-dai where the seppa actually sits upon this work. Those tsuba have wearing from the seppa that has damaged the metalwork. Were these made to not be mounted? John

[Bungo]

" This also brings to mind those tsuba that have metalwork right into the seppa-dai where the seppa actually sits upon this work. Those tsuba have wearing from the seppa that has damaged the metalwork. Were these made to not be mounted? John "

 

This particular issue was talked about a few years back............ I recall Jim G.'s opinion is that those are not " true " tsuba. I've seen most of that in late edo/Meiji pieces. However, Christie's, Sotheby's list them as tsuba.

I suppose they are not " functional " but more like presentation pieces.

Jim G. ( I recall ) thinks " decoration " onto seppa dai area is fine as long as they are " flat ".

 

:lol: at least that's what my memory tells me.........could be wrong and/or Jim G. never said that.

 

milt The ronin

[Pete Klein]

That's pretty much it to my understanding. If you decorate into the seppadai in any way which would interfere with the mounting you've breached the usefulness of the tsuba and rendered it an 'artwork', to be used as a presentation piece, gift or whatever. Late Edo saw declining utility for the tsuba but increasing artistry in metalwork therefore the tsuba as presentation piece. There's nothing wrong with this but those who are students of 'tsuba' orthodoxy would tend to not give much heed to these later pieces tending more to the early and pre-Edo examples which were purely for utilitarian purpose (and let's not get into the court-wear pieces arguement please)! LOL

Tagane mei were specific strike marks used to signify specific makers and or schools, the Tosa-Myochin and Higo Kamiyoshi being good examples.

[John A Stuart]

Yes, I've seen the presentation piece de4signation to tsuba. Still called tsuba, what else could they be called, I guess? Back to the tagane-mei thing. Besides being the convention of the school, later classified and I understand the way in which these punch and chisel marks are used to ID pieces, what was the original purpose? Before being used as identifiers. Indeed I have seen the punch marks reduce the ana size but lots of chisel work that removes metal whilst leaving ana dimensions the same. Was this originally to adjust the weight to a particular sword? or space for the kuchibeni to form into? John

[Bungo]

" tagane-mei "............... I think best examples can be found in the Higo tsuba. I have a small privately printed Higo tsuba book from one of the Japanese gallery that shows that.

 

Also check out this tsuba I have in my e-snips tsuba folder, the punch marks looks very similar to the ones illustrated in the afore mentioned book.

 

 

http://www.esnips.com/web/tsuba?docsPage=6#files

 

higo2.jpg

 

 

p.s. I believe Curran has a Higo example ( he may have sold that for big bucks in Tampa last year )

 

milt

[John A Stuart]

Here is a Kamakura tsuba that shows tagane work that shows little change in the nakago-ana, some Akasaka show even more metal removed with no change in dimension. John.

[Curran]

Milt, John, motley crew, and peanut gallery:

 

Yes, you are right that I sold it.

Most well known are the distinct punch marks of the Kamiyoshi (late edo Higo) school. I have also seen Higo tsuba with these distinct punch marks added to imply that they are Kamiyoshi (1st gen & 2nd Gen). Someone submitted one of them to NBTHK shinsa. I did not think it would pass, but it came back with papers that said "Higo". ie.... they didn't fall for the falsified punch marks. I was surprised they papered it at all....

Also the Nishigaki have some distinct punch mark habits, but nothing that I know of in my journeyman knowledge which points to specific guys or declares 'Nishigaki' with certainty. I have one of these that just came back from Japan with Nishigaki papers. It may go up for sale in Tampa, as I got a Hayashi tsuba I fancy more. It will probably go up, as I seem to be focusing mostly on ko-Akasaka now. We'll see.

Peter Klein can probably comment much better than me on Hayashi, Shimizu, etc. marks... I've only mostly bothered with Nishigaki/Kamiyoshi

 

I'd agree with John or whomever stated that those daisy cutter marks mostly seem to appear on late Edo Kinko pieces. I have now and have had a few with these marks. I am fairly certain it is not limited to Hamano- though some of the examples I have are Hamano school derivatives.

 

I'm waiting to hear back from Japan on a nice one I believe to be an authentic Hirotoshi (knock on wood!) - see attached photo. The two marks at the top of the nakago ana don't seem to affect the sekigane that much, if at all.

 

Curran

[Pete Klein]

Well, I guess that places me in the peanut gallery as I'm pretty much nuts to begin with. Top hat and cane please...

Be careful not to mix tagane with tagane 'mei', the latter being used very infrequently by only a handful of artists. What you see 99% of the time are fitting/crimping areas used to move metal inward to fine tune the fit or to re-fit at a later date. Also at the top and bottom of the ana you often see areas which denote prior placement of kuchibeni/sekigane which is sometimes lost. Actual tagane mei are very distinct strike marks around the nakagoana. A classic example is from Kamiyoshi, Fukanobu used two at the top and five at the bottom, Rakuju two and three respectably. I am not aware of Hayashi or Jingo using them although the work of Hirata Hikoza often has rather large indentations along either side of the ana, usually five to the side.

I'll post some pics tomorrow as it is late here and I will have to find/scan them but I think it will help elucidate the concept.

[Pete Klein]

Please take not of the small marks at the Ha and Mune ends of the nakago ana:

[Pete Klein]

Here you will see the two / three tagane mei of Rakuju:

[Pete Klein]

Hikoza worked primarily in copper but also did some examples in iron. The copper had this type of lateral tagane however I do not believe it is considered a true 'tagane mei' although it is a kantei point of sorts.

[Pete Klein]

Note the lateral sequential tagane of the TM tagane mei. Many of the works were signed but the tagane were a good way to differentiate them from later Akasaka and Higo pieces.

It is always good to remember that there are inconsistencies in all of these schools and also copies so these are only a part of the puzzle.

[Nobody]

Here you will see the two / three tagane mei of Rakuju:

Sorry, I know this post does not relate to the theme of this thread. But I realized a strange thing about the Tsuba.

The pattern on the tsuba seems to be symmetry both vertically and horizontally except nakago-ana. But only lower left part is different. When I flipped over and rotated the part, it fitted in the tsuba correctly. So, I suspect that the maker made a mistake to assemble parts when he made the tsuba.

[John A Stuart]

Hi Koichi-san, Yes, it is noticeable when you draw attention to it. The left half has the direction all one way and the right has the directions divided to two directions. It doesn't hurt the theme of the tsuba, but, yes I think when cutting out the design there was an error and the smith did not want to waste half of a weeks work. Pete, your examples really show how precise markings can identify a particular school, or at least be a part of the identification. While we are on the subject, I have a couple of Akasaka tsuba that have the same markings in the seppa-dai. I refer to the longitudinal punch marks. What is the purpose of these? John

[Bungo]

" only lower left part is different "

 

you ought to be known as Hawkeye Pierce !! :lol:

 

milt The ronin

[Bungo]

" I have a couple of Akasaka tsuba that have the same markings in the seppa-dai. "

 

are you sure they are Akasaka ? I have a few with almost identical markings..........

will get back to the bd when i locate the pics.

 

milt THE ronin

[Martin]

Hi all,

 

saw these tagane marks and was wondering if they are "Tagane Mei" too.

 

Happy New Year,

Martin

[John A Stuart]

Hi Milt, The papers say mumei shoami. I never translated the rest. I always thought of it as Akasaka. Not so? John

[Pete Klein]

99.9% of the time the tagane you see are for fitting the piece. It is a mistake to read into these too much. They are used as a form of signature by specific tsubako only, just as kuchi beni are used by specific makers/schools. In other words don't knock yourself out looking for these and attempting to figure out what every little mark might mean. It's important to remember that these were made for utilitarian purposes.

 

That was a very astute observation on the asymmetry of the design. It probably was a tracing mistake and as mentioned wasn't worth the time to discard the piece and start over. It could also be a subtle joke to see if anyone would catch it. Don't underestimate these boys -- they were crafty!

 

John -- Shoami it is. If you look at the edges of the sukashi you will see they are slightly rounded. Akasaka is known for a sharp edge. It's important to remember that the 'motif' does not necessarily point to the school as in mid to late Edo there was a coalescing of the schools, especially in Kyoto and Edo regions which resulted in a crossover of designs. You need to look to the finer details to discern the differences.

[Bungo]

http://www.esnips.com/doc/9007befc-379e ... eedle-rack

 

" vertical " punch marks......more likely to narrow the nakago-ana

 

http://www.esnips.com/doc/b8b0cd8b-3b1e ... 25f8/bug-2

 

Akasaka ?

 

milt THE ronin

[Bungo]

" It could also be a subtle joke to see if anyone would catch it. Don't underestimate these boys -- they were crafty! "

 

reminds me of the cotton roll left in the sulcus, patient called" doc, what do i do with that cotton ? "

" oh that, leave it in place for another hour then take it out "

 

 

milt The ronin

[Bungo]

more punch marks

[Pete Klein]

That cotton roll joke is the equivalent of asking if you turned the water off about a hundred miles from home.

Tsuba on top I think is Shoami from the ovoid shape of the seppadai and the niku and thinness of the mimi. Theme looks Akasaka.

Tsuba on bottom has a Hagi/Choshu or Bushu look to my eye.

Just my feelings -- very well could be mistaken. Not in the 'expert' department yet or for quite some time to come.

 

BTW -- The reason the metal is punched in wide to fit the tsuba is that you need to acces the metal at the base of the nakagoana. Just hitting the edge of the omote would leave the metal on the ura untouched. You basically start a channel hitting wide and then work down to the botton moving inward as you go (toward the nakago)so the metal crimps the most at the base, closest to the ura of the tsuba. We view the tsuba from the 'handle' side which is what the onlooker sees but the business end is toward the saya which is where the stability is needed.

[Curran]

Nobody,

 

That is an interesting observation. I did not notice. Perhaps he did make a mistake, but maybe the mistake is in the upper right quadrant.

 

If that is the mistake, then the "fernbracken" or sort of Karakusa style design would have continued around the tsuba in a continous design.

 

Good observation by you. Thank you for the illustration.

[Rich T]

Note note: I edit this

 

Note, sorry I am a bit slow as I am on holidays and on (aggghhhhhhhhhhhhh) dialup internet.

 

Here is a tsuba were the artist clearly copied the Higo style, but this is not Higo, or Akasaka

 

Anyone care to guess ????? :-) Kantei opportunity.........

 

These tagane were clearly used by several schools through out the Edo period. I would also note, I doubt many of these are a mei, as apposed to just a fanciful way to do punch marks, and you may find the one artist did several variations throughout his career.

 

Having written all that, I just read Pete Klein's thread and he basically said the same things.

 

Rich

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Richard,

 

I can't take the suspense any longer so I'm going to throw in a wild guess.

As you've eliminated the obvious and I assume this is not the work of deliberate copyist. I will tentatively suggest Bushu.?

 

do tell,

 

Ford

[Rich T]

Good try, as you were the only one that had a go, then ok. Sorry, not Bushu

 

Toshu ju Kuniyoshi. ( Tosa Myochin tsuba maker who dies in 1800 )

 

 

Cheers

 

Richard

[Brian]

Rich,

Very interesting...I would not have gotten that

Can you give us some indicators on what gives it away and what the kantei points were on this one so that we know what to look for?

Ie..if it wasn't signed, then what would eventually have led to the Tosa Myochin attribution?

 

Thanks,

Brian