Leaderboard

I started off writing about the "schools issue" but then it was really hard to separate it from the "NBTHK papers" issue since they are the major perpetuators of these school constructs... So here's a little starter to think about: The MAJORITY of the supposed "schools" of sukashi tsuba makers have NO period documentation to prove their exact timing or duration of production, nor their area of production. Kanayama, Owari, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, and especially the "ko-shoami" (one of the most laughable attempts to "create a school" I have seen yet). These were all 20th century CONSTRUCTS that were created on suppositions and inferences starting with Akiyama, and were perpetuated and "refined" by many of the tsuba collectors and authors he influenced, like one of his later students Torigoye. Sasano also adhered to these categorizations and published his works in English, which then set the “doctrine” in stone for most of the English speaking collectors around the world. Most people would assume that Japan’s NBTHK is the foremost authority on the identification and classification of tsuba, and often defer to their perceived authority as though they have access to secret tomes and manuscripts that they must be referring to in order to make their judgements. Unfortunately this is not the case and they clearly don’t even take the time to look into their own past attributions because they frequently contradict themselves or offer up different assessments for the same tsuba that has been submitted on more than one occasion. They probably take more time to write the paper itself than they do to assess the tsuba in front of them. It’s just a “cash cow” for them… easy money. Unfortunately the NBTHK is predominantly (maybe even exclusively?) populated by people who have adopted these Akiyama-type school names and labels. Keep in mind they are a private organization, who get paid to "certify" that a sword or sword fitting was genuinely produced by a specific maker, or by one of the "schools". So, it is safe to assume that they will inherently act in their own self interest to perpetuate the system they have created. As a result, they have either knowingly or unknowingly magnified the problem of attributions for unsigned tsuba, because there are a limited number of groups to choose from in the Akiyama framework, so they have frequently “expanded” the original grouping to include a variety of “outlier tsuba” with significantly different characteristics, but somehow similar enough that they thought they could all be "acceptably" grouped together under the same banner. Somewhere along the way, people within this organization decided that was the right way to go… which makes sense, because I could see that if they didn’t do that, people would stop paying money to an organization that frequently gave back papers saying “unknown maker or school of production, but here’s a pretty paper that says so…” Unfortunately, there is no visible attempt by this group to do any further study based on detailed comparison. And thanks to the internet, the accumulation of contradictory examples of their attributions is continually building and revealing the serious flaws and contradictions within this paid, for-profit system. Under a better system, these groupings should be split up into separate groups of makers (based on the shared common characteristics in the manner of the tsuba’s production), and each group given its own name or title rather than being lumped together under the same artificial banner for the sake of simplicity and maintaining the established system. Something like Haynes’ systematic numbering of known tsuba smiths who signed their work. For example, I bet we could start parsing out all the examples of “Kanayama” and “den Kanayama” by looking at details such as the tegane (punch marks) around the nakago-ana, the seppa-dai dimensions and proportions, the manner in which the corners and edges of the sukashi are done, the position of “iron bones” along the face of the mimi (rim of the- tsuba) etc… I'm certain we could even start grouping them by individual smiths within the larger group. Ideally, a non-invasive technique should be used to identify the percentage composition of the elements found in the steel, so we can more easily group tsuba together by location of their source of sand iron that was used to make the steel (even if we probably couldn’t know where that specific sand iron came from within Japan…).

The original contains the kaō of the second Ashikaga shogun, Yoshiakira, and the image was supposed to have been that of the first Ashikaga shogun, Takauji, but lately there is a line of inquiry that says the image is that of Kō no Moronao or his son. In any case, mid 1300s. source https://emuseum.nich...&content_pict_id=002

Glen, First of all, a great idea for a series of threads, perhaps long overdue. I agree with your summary and conclusions, there are way too many variables at play to use the condition of Sukashi walls as any indicator of age. This practice is totally subjective and lacks any credible scientific methodology. It is important to study the walls of Sukashi, Hitsu-ana and Nakago-ana as there may be indications of the construction method and how the object was used, but the amount of rust/grime is for the most part irrelevant.

Can I first say I like this open discussion idea of yours? You're trying to create a new division of tsuba based on current knowledge. Which is exactly what the people in the past did as well. But obviously they had far less material to go on and were bound by tradition. Regarding your fixation on Akiyama, I suggest you read Sasano's Japanese Swordguard Masterpieces. He actually goes into the current nomenclature of schools and where they originated from. eg Kyo-sukashi were first mentioned in "Honpo Token Koh" (1795) which references an even older publication "Muromachi-Kaki" - a publication that Sasano doubt ever existed. So he was very diligent and critical about how the naming of schools came to be. This is just one example, the other schools are handled in an equal way. In the Toso Tosogu Shogaku Kyoshitsu (NBTHK published - translated by Markus Sesko), Fukushi Shigeo goes even further in dept on the origin of the naming of each school in his typical Q&A fashion. He usually describes what was believed in the past, what's the current view and how they arrived at that and even the uncertainties that still exist and need to be researched further. So does the NBTHK scrutinize old view points and challenge them when they find new info -> yes. However their attributions will always be on the safe side, they will never go on a limb and are very conservative. Which frustrates a lot of collectors, yours truly included. Were the school names decided by Akiyama? -> no, not even close I'm afraid. Maybe a few were, but the majority weren't Is there room for improvement? -> certainly, but what you're proposing is exactly the same what they did - trying to catagorize tsuba based on common traits, which I think is the only way this can be done. Does the NBTHK get it wrong at times? -> yes, they're human. You can easily find examples where they got it wrong. This is also one of the reasons there's now a quotum on the number of pieces put in a shinsa, so they can provide better quality. Is this working? I'll leave that one open as bait "Apparently" isn't the way to go here - you will need to come up with the name of that publication before it can be considered. Shigeo (again NBTHK main office) says in his writings about Owari sukashi tsuba "Let's start with Akiyama and Ogura. We know that some of their theories have been disproven but that does not lessen their contributions" I think we can also include Haynes in that list. Although his theories don't always hold up any more, his contribution was great and shouldn't be overlooked. He was a student of Torigoye, who had a repution of being strong on iron tsuba (not so much on kinko tsuba) Regarding YKB - I suggest you read the "Owari to Mikawa no Tanko" - published 1982 so well after Akiyama and currently considered the most in depth work on the subject. Again, they go deep into the history of why YKB is indeed Owari based. Are there points of discussion in this book as well? Yes, any good thought provoking book will leave some open endings.

Dear all, In the wanted section I had listed that I'm looking for 'Akita Shoami tsuba' and received a message from a 'member' with 0 posts. The message was quite generic, reading 'are you still looking for this' and 'contact Garnie he has a Akita Shoami tsuba for sale'. There was also an email address to contact 'Garnie', which was probably newly created too. If anyone else has received/ receives such an email, I advise you to ignore it. Stay vigilant, there are lots of scammers around this time of year Yours authentically, Kyle

I would argue that the only thing that matters here is the method of construction... like chisel angle and finishing method. The type of rust doesn't tell you much other than old rust/new rust and maybe that the tsuba were subjected to similar poor storage conditions at some point, or that maybe there's some similarity in the metal composition such that it rusts in a similar way to another tsuba. Otherwise, I would say it's wishful thinking that you could date a tsuba by the type of rust in the the sukashi. And even if you could, you should still get that rust off the tsuba otherwise it'll just keep eating away at the iron... you're just destined to have no evidence of construction method at all if you let the rust continue. As Luca asked above @zanilu, I have yet to see any published work showing how this could be done with any degree of certainty... I have only ever heard it stated in tsuba lore of old... wave the magic wand and all shall be revealed when you look deep into the eye of the sukashi I bet if we did a controlled study showing only images of the insides of sukashi, without showing the rest of the tsuba, we'd get purely random results on attributions for dates.

@Dan tsuba Unfortunately, people in the West often romanticize the samurai. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, they didn't care much about their sword fittings—or even their swords themselves. Low-ranking samurai were struggling just to feed their families, let alone worry about the fittings. If they owned more than one pair of tsuba, they would sell them at second-hand markets to make ends meet. In Tokyo, markets in areas like Kanda and Honjo were especially popular for this. It was very easy to find a set of tsuka, tsuba etc… In the 18th and 19th centuries, samurai made up about 5-6% of Japan's total population, but a quarter of them were jobless. There are records of samurai buying swords from second-hand markets in Kanda, finding proper fittings, and reselling them for profit—just like Japanese dealers do today. High-ranking samurai usually owned more than one daishō. Instead of changing out their tsuba, they would often have more than one set, allowing them to wear something fancier, or maybe a tachi, when appearing at court. Some of them also collected swords and I’m sure they had some daisho tsuba sets as well. Also, gift-giving was common among high-ranking samurai, and they often received gifts from their lords. Head of the house and their sons typically received “very good" swords and most of the time in a very good koshirae. That being said, these type of questions won’t help you move "onward" in your tsuba studies. Instead, focus on the tsuba itself—time is precious. Okan

I should start by being more specific about which "sukashi" I am referring to. I am talking about iron, ji-sukashi tsuba (majority of the plate cut out), like an Owari or Kanayama, or the more elaborate Katchushi and Tosho, or even Yamakichibei which tread a fine line between ji- and ko-sukashi. There is absolutely no evidence of their existence before the Azuchi-Momoyama period. There are varying dates for the Azuchi-Momoyama period depending on the source: 1573-1603 1568-1600 1573-1615 The major work of reference written by Sasano in Japanese and English theorized that there must have been elaborate sukashi tsuba during the "golden age" high art period of the Muromachi period (1336-1573), under the Ashikaga shogunate in the Kyoto (Heian) area. He asserted that the themes and aesthetics of sukashi tsuba showed some similarity with some of the imagery and styling in the paintings from that period. I would argue that these were perfectly reasonable theories, but they simply aren't backed up by any hard evidence. So without any corroboration, we simply cannot continue to rely on this theory as fact. Given that there were no period documents to confirm or deny the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba before the Azuchi-Momoyama period, I had the idea to go looking for legitimate, dated paintings from the Muromachi period. In all the examples, what was depicted was the following: 1- samurai posing for a portrait all had the fancy narrow tachi tsuba 2- samurai in battle on horseback had large solid round tsuba on their long swords 3- samurai on foot using shorter uchigatana typically had no tsuba at all, and if they did, they were solid and round. There were absolutely no sukashi tsuba of any kind in any of the period paintings that I could find. If anyone can find another example of a period painting with legit dating, that does show even a single sukashi tsuba, then we could potentially start pushing the date back to that time period. So what did exist during most of the Muromachi period? There were sophisticated tachi mounts with elaborate filigree work. There were also some soft metal aoi/mokko shaped guards with "four corners inome" ko-sukashi (boar's eye small cutouts), but that's about it for sukashi. There may have even been some solid leather guards that may have used a thin metal plate as a core. Now there was an excavation of a destroyed Ashikaga castle, where they found some simple brass "kiku" sukashi tsuba (chrysanthemum pattern openwork). But, it's important to remember that the Ashikaga were overthrown by Oda Nobunaga, who took control of Heiankyo (Kyoto) in 1568 and expelled the Ashikaga in 1573 (hence the two start dates for the Azuchi-Momoyama period mentioned above). Retrieval of these artifacts was then used (wrongly) to justify the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba throughout the entire reign of the Ashikaga during the Muromachi period. So when did the production of ji-sukashi really begin? There is a growing number of collectors who realize that the most likely time period of their first production was during the Azuchi-Momoyama period of the mid to late 1500s So what was the driving force of this significant shift? The arrival of the first European (Portuguese) ship in 1543... when foreigners landed wearing their rapiers with elaborately sculpted arabesque hilts. If you can find a high res image of this, there are samurai in the far right of the painting, some of their tsuba just aren't visible, but none of the visible ones are sukashi tsuba. Why is this an important event? The arrival and influence of the Europeans, along with pirate raiding along the mainland coast of of the Asian continent, both together are referred to as a period of "Nanbanism", and whose influences fed into this period of change where the samurai had risen to prominence and overthrown the shogunate government of the past. The Azuchi-Momoyama period was a time of accelerated change and personal expression. Paintings of samurai during this period show a tremendous diversity in the way samurai were wearing their swords, including the first foray of samurai wearing a daisho pair (katana and wakizashi). It's precisely this period of time when tachi were mostly swapped out for katana that were worn through the obi, which positioned the tsuba at the front and center of the samurai's body rather than slung low and at the side of the body (in tachi style). The now prominent positioning of the tsuba plus the general zeit-geist of change and personal expression is when ji-sukashi were most likely produced... and inspired by the elaborate hilts of the Europeans who had arrived in 1543 and were trading regularly with the Japanese through the port of Nagasaki from 1571-1639, until the country was put in near total lock-down and isolationism during the Edo period. So back to Ashikaga find... The Ashikaga had from 1543 till 1568... some 25 years of interaction and influence from the Europeans, that they likely began producing those simple geometric ji-sukashi tsuba like the kiku (chrysanthemum) forms, and mayyyybe some simple geometric kyo-sukashi type tsuba at most (but none were found in that dig). It probably wasn't unitl Nobunaga and Hideyoshi were in control that the classic ji-sukashi tsuba like Owari, Kanayama, Yamakichibei, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi were born and explored... otherwise we should have expected to see some more elaborate sukashi tsuba in the Ashikaga ruins, which we did not. So at best there were simple ji-sukashi forms like the kiku sukashi in the last 25 years of the Muromachi period, but not earlier. I'd love to see any evidence that can push the date further back. Conjecture and doctrine simply won't due at this point.

Along these lines, it's important that we take an inductive approach by looking at the evidence. All art scholarship starts with the description of the objects at hand along with the socio-politico-cultural milieu. The problem is that at too early a stage, conclusions are made that impose deductive dogma. When such dogma is widely embraced, falsehood may follow upon falsehood with no efforts to reassess new evidence in light of current understanding. When a dermatologist looks at a rash, he methodically runs through the features of size, shape, color, borders, numbers, etc. Only then can he categorize the rash and make a likely diagnosis. The newbie medical resident will say "it looks like..." and often misdiagnosis and mistreat. I am training myself to look at tsuba without dogmatic biases (I disregard supposed schools, styles, categories, or certificates) and by focusing strictly on features (size, shape, thickness, surface treatment, execution of rim and hitsu-ana, composition, overall sense of power and appeal, etc). More and more I am seeing that strict attribution isn't possible for mumei tsuba produced after Early Edo because there is just such a mixing of styles and techniques. The provincial styles are no longer clearly evident. I recently posted a Kanayama tsuba from the Momoyama period that has a massive seppa-dai more characteristic of Ko-Shoami. Works for me...

This is extremely good idea to open up these topics. Unfortunately koshirae is not my field so I cannot add much insight to the discussions. I tried to find specific koshirae examples that can be traced to specific individuals but there are actually only very few of the really old ones pre-1600, and the remaining ones are often to some very famous people. I personally love shrines and temples in Japan and romanticize their items. Often swords donated to them have remained unchanged for long time periods. Also the battlefield ōdachi and naginata/nagamaki were pretty much useless after wars in Japan ended, so many of them have remained in shrines in their koshirae. Now I have been fortunate to see many ōdachi at various shrines in Japan, and also many ōdachi koshirae. I would agree that the ōdachi tsuba in general are really plain. Mostly just metal or leather plates, there are few that have the boar's eye cut outs in corners as you mentioned in the opening post. Unfortunately I don't have photographic memory but I don't think any of the ōdachi koshirae from Nanbokuchō or Muromachi period I have seen in person had large sukashi cutouts. Also one thing to note that artists in the period might not know the actual swords 100% correctly. Atsuta Jingū owns the two famous massive ōdachi Tarōtachi and Jirō Tachi, and were wielded by Magara brothers/or father&son (if I understood the legend correctly) The smaller one Jirō Tachi 166,6 cm blade was I believe by legend wielded by Magara Jūrōzaemon (真柄十郎左衛門), and there is a famous painting in which he wields the ōdachi on horseback at battle of Anegawa 1570, where he died. I think Jirō Tachi was dedicated to the shrine shortly after battle by the victorius side and Tarōtachi bit later in 1576. Here is the painting and it has similar open wheel tsuba as in the painting discussed earlier. https://en.wikipedia...i_sword_on_horse.jpg Someone has taken pictures of Tarōtachi. Here is the current koshirae. Now in one book there is a text passage about these koshirae but I cannot yet read it correctly. https://static.wikia...00?cb=20150919175256 Atsuta Jingū also has 3rd ōdachi with similar koshirae that was made in 1620, it has 144,5 cm blade and it has 17,5x17,0 cm tsuba that is dated to 1620. So obviously this was later than the 2 famous swords but as it features the same koshirae style it could have been made to honor the famous swords. Unfortunately photography is always forbidden at the shrines so I do not have any pictures. Sorry for going bit off topic with this as it was not exactly on topic but illustrating how difficult it is to prove something with certainity. I agree the tsuba I posted a picture of might not be Nanbokuchō period, just that Japanese experts have possibly agreed on that as it was featured in publication. I do think shrines and temples are the best places to discover original and unaltered items, of course they might often not be that desirable by high end collectors.

Hi, nice of you for asking so politely. This organisation came about many years ago as a consequence of the Victorian Government introducing legislation that would make swords prohibited weapons and problematic for bona fide collectors. A considerable amount of work went into a submission to the government covering Japanese Art Swords and why they are important culturally and as Art. As a result our Society was formed and written into legislation as an exempt body. That's it in a nutshell. Mark

@sabi commented on the flawed reliance on the apparent "age of the sukashi walls" in the selected passage. Using this flawed logic, the appraiser switched their initial appraisal time from early Edo period (sometime in the 1600s because the Edo period was from 1603-1868) to the middle Muromachi period (sometime in the 1400s because the Muromachi period was from 1336-1573). So the appearance of the sukashi walls (INCORRECT METHOD!) overrode the appraiser's initial judgement of an early Edo period production date, based on the the aesthetics and characteristics of the tsuba itself (CORRECT METHOD!). In doing so, the appraiser backed up the date of production by some 200+ years, and presumed that the tsuba he was appraising must have been an early forerunner of the typical tsuba of this type. as @sabi pointed out, a tsuba can easily be rusted (through any number of means... feel free to search for methods online... so the degree of rusting of the sukashi walls cannot be reliably used to date a specific tsuba. An additional inherent flaw in this approach is that it must assume that all tsuba have been held under similar storage conditions for their entire existence, and that they their surfaces have never been altered or resurfaced (which we all know is not the case as we have all seen many examples of resurfacing and repatinating). This is an amazing assumption, especially given that the appraiser also identifies that he thinks the hitsu-ana may have been altered at some point. So why assume the surface treatment would be untouched while other features of the tsuba could be altered? It just doesn't make sense. The other problem with the selected appraisal passage is the very idea that such a sukashi tsuba could have been produced as early as the middle of the Muromachi period (a topic that will be tackled separately...). There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that a sukashi tsuba like this was produced at such an early date.

So, does anybody know how much an average hand forged tsuba (no super great work of art and no mei) cost in the Edo period (let’s say about from 1750 to 1800 – to keep things simpler!). Not all samurai made the same amount of money. I could talk about being paid in units of koku (rice) or currency or scrip money of the period (but I won’t!). The links to koku and scrip money can be found below- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koku https://en.wikipedia..._of_Edo_period_Japan The samurai class varied from the very wealthy samurai to the much less wealthy (poor) samurai. I found that Markus Sesko wrote a brilliant article (I think in 2021) on the cost of a sword in Edo period Japan. His article can be found at the below link- https://nihonto.com/samurai-income/ But I wonder (and I can’t figure out how to convert all the different units to the dollar bill!) how much an average type of tsuba would have cost the Edo period samurai in today’s currency? Has that ever been discussed before (if so I could not find it in the archives of this forum). I think this is an interesting question to consider. Onward!

When there are multiple Mei for an artist that is not particularly well documented, they are generally grouped into different "generations", Shodai, Nidai etc. Generally this is done on the basis of perceived quality or mastery. I believe that this is an erroneous assumption that has more to do with Japanese hierarchical social conventions than logic, and that generally there is no evidence to determine which artist was the founder or primary artist and what order they worked in.

DTI is over, U.S. Holiday week over........ So now is a good time to think about the 2025 show season. If anyone has questions about the show contact me privately or post them here. I can add tables as the sword section can be expanded as needed. The tables ate 8' (not 6' as at most sword shows). If someone wants 1/2 a table let me know I am looking forward to seeing a lot of friends at the show. It is a great place to hunt swords, there are 1500 tables in the whole show (sword area is just a section) so there are usually a number or swords on tables other than the sword section. https://www.vegasswordshow.com/ thanks for looking Mark

Brilliantly stated, Steve. Spot on. One quick note: Nobunaga dies in 1582, so, Furuta Oribe wouldn't have been his Tea Master during his lifetime. Oribe only assumes that "title" in 1591 with Sen no Rikyu's death. But this doesn't affect everything you say here, as the impact of Tea Culture was indisputably huge during Nobunaga's lifetime, due in no small part to his own efforts to do so.

Personally I could care less what schools exist, but I’ve wondered for quite a while why the tools of basic biological taxonomy aren’t used. If you want to key out (identify) a plant or animal out there is a way of answering consecutive questions beginning with basic questions and after each question is answered, another choice comes up, one after another until you get the answer. AI should make this very easy or tell you that it can only go so far or not at all.

If Tsukahara Bokuden died in 1571, just at the start of the Azuchi-Momoyama period, it seems likely that his commentary was just at the cusp of the introduction of ji-sukashi tsuba according to Glen's highly plausible theory. This commentary is interesting because it's not clear to me exactly which styles of tsuba he is referring to as thin/old and new/thick. The Ko-Tosho and Ko-Katchushi tsuba are in fact thin/old, but don't have cut-outs. Ji-sukashi tsuba are actually new(er)/thick(er). So, I'm not really sure at all what to make of this commentary in terms of providing supporting evidence for when ji-sukashi tsuba first appeared. If there is no mention of sukashi tsuba prior to this, then there is really no evidence for the existence of ji-sukashi tsuba (as we know them) prior to the Azuchi-Momoyama period, certainly not prior to very late Muromachi. I would also point out that while Sasano sensei's life's work has provided one of the very important starting points for modern tsuba scholarship, and that while he himself is clear about his respectful disagreements with the dating theories of Akiyama (and even acknowledges his own short-comings in the introduction to his silver book), there are two major pitfalls to his approach to dating that I can clearly see. To highlight these, let's consider the dating of Kanayama sukashi tsuba, one of my favorite categories. Sasano's tendency to date tsuba based on the appearance of the iron supposes that the only major variables that determine the patina are the passage of time and the composition of the iron itself (independent of time). What he doesn't take into account is the emergence of the Kanayama style as an expression of Wabi Tea Culture beginning under the helm of Oda Nobunaga and flourishing under his tea master Furuta Oribe during a 25 year period (1591-1615) (Steve Waszak and Tim Evans will have more accurate dating of this period). This is the Azuchi-Momoyama period. The same can be said of the splendid creations of the other great Owari masters Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, Hoan, and Sadahiro. Drenched in wabi, sabi, mono no aware, yugen, and other qualities of the tea and Zen aesthetics of that time, these tsuba were crafted just like tea bowels to reflect the beauty to be found in imperfection, the passage of time, and the impermanence of human existence. The coarse and "rustic" appearance of these tsuba is expressed through iron treatment and surface features such as tekkotsu, tsuchimie-ji, and yakite-shitate. The master smiths could produce tsuba during the same month that "appear" to be of different ages or have features of many different "schools" for that matter. Why would they define themselves so narrowly when commission pieces might dictate a broader variety of style and appearance? Attributing age (the passage of time) to the appearance of iron is therefore a pitfall. The composition of the iron can affect the appearance such as the case of the Yagyu tsuba described as "sandy," but again, this is independent of the passage of time. The very narrow period of time of production and in relatively small numbers reflects the natural history of all arts and crafts that express a highly refined and not widely appreciated taste as in the case of tsuba among the buke--it is fleeting, just a blink of the eye. Thus, Sasano appears to have completely missed the cultural co-development of Tea Ceremony and Owari Province early sukashi tsuba. There is no evidence that Kanayama sukashi tsuba were produced during the Muromachi period. They appear to be cruder and older because that was likely the intention of the smith. We should be cautious of blindly accepting "received wisdom" from any experts including the results of shinsa. That would be like proposing that there is an "end to science" because everything that can be known is already known.

I knew this was going to be fun... I am thrilled that we're engaging in a proper exploration and discussion of this topic though!

Same here!!! It's been sort of an obsession for me for the last two years or so. That's why I started going down the rabbit hole of checking all the existing sources of statements, and trying to discern which ones are valid and which ones are still just theories or hypotheses that have somehow accidentally turned into facts over time through repetition.

I believe Steve has correct info on the painting as it is owned by Kyōto National Museum and I would take their description over others as they have the item in their collection. Here are few quite old sukashi tsuba for you. As I specialize my research on ōdachi and old naginata I think I should have perhaps info on few others in my books. Very large Kamakura period naginata (Katayama Ichimonji) in nagamaki mounts that has a sukashi tsuba, Jūyō Bunkazai item owned by Uesugi-jinja. From the same Uesugi Book a possible ōdachi tsuba 10,2 x 9,9 cm from Nanbokuchō period that resides in private collection.

Yes, that would be nice. I do have some pics. Waking up too early on a cold day, I thought on it in the morning silence of 4:30am. Conclusion: It would be like engaging in one of the political discussions in the Izakaya section. I don't have Darcy's love for Roman Rhetoric forums poking holes in logic constructs. Those days, and Darcy, are past. I simply disagree with Glen and voiced it. I'll leave it at that. Constructing a Darcy'esque rebuttal would take far more time than I currently have, and I probably couldn't do it at Darcy's level. Looking at sukashi openings, especially under magnification, is useful for a lot of reasons- including age dating. No, I don't think it should be a lead indicator. It just should be part of the process. Do it on several hundred thousand tsuba, like Bob Haynes, and you might respect his opinion or that of Torigoye-san. Bye.

There is an article by the Comte de Tressan, in French, dated March 1910 (L'Évolution de la garde de sabre japonaise [1] des origines au XVe siècle). He discusses the exact issue of dating iron tsuba. He cites the Hompou Tokenkou by Sakakibara Kouzan that states "pierced iron tsuba did not appear before the time of Shogun Yoshinori (1402-1441)". In the MET book "Art of the samurai, Japanese arms and armor, 1156-1868", on page 120, there is a mounted warrior carrying an odachi on his shoulder with a wheel sukashi pattern. The painting is said to be from Nanbokucho. On the other hand, several Edo period paintings with samurai do not show the ryohitsu. I think picturial evidence is a good start, but there are also biases, limitations, and conventions in paintings.

You know, this is one of the areas where AI could be useful. I know a company that has a learning AI that can now identify the types of fracture when fed microscope photos of failed metal pieces. It's also in the vein of big data: scan as much as possible and use scanning models to see trends appear: what texture is preferred, are there specific designs that appear, size, etc. An issue in this is the dating. I did not know about the school names being set later than the production era for sukashi in general, but for tosho and kachushi, Mr. Ogasawara and Mr. Katsuya did write that while attractive, the names meant nothing and there was not one shred of evidence that the tsuba were made indeed by swordsmiths or armourers (although Prof. Michel-Tanaka did tell me that his swordsmith acquaintance was making tsuba essentially in the tosho style; but I have no idea if this is a transmitted thing or if he made it to fit the category).

How long is a piece of string? How much is a car today? How much is a house today? How much is an education today? They are what you can afford, and there should be something for (almost) everyone. One counter for “a suit” of armor is “Ichi Ryō” 一領 It is said that “ryō” means residence or domain, according to one explanation, i.e. it could cost the price of a plot of land and a house.

Humans like to put things in neat little boxes, collectors like to know what they have and covet things that are rare, important and/or have artistic merit. The NBTHK provide a service to help categorise and sort objects, there is a general consensus that they are in the best position to provide this service, there are clear rules and most collectors accept the categories and rankings. It is a game that most people accept and play, many collectors have a vested interest in the system and maintaining favourable attributions and I do not think there will be any significant shifts in the near future. That said there is vast gulf of information about Tosogu that is just not known and may never be known without new research and evidence surfacing, particularly for items pre-dating the Edo period. I agree that the categories used are often quite lose, sometimes totally illogical and are not adequately supported by sufficient evidence. I think the primary issue is that most people take the attributions at face value, without much thought, not realising that many of the categories are nothing more than groupings and educated estimates.

Bob, try 廣正

That sounds wrong, unless it was a treasure sword with a long and exceptional provenance. One way to think about this is, for the sword itself, what the average annual gross earning of a sword smith was, before their costs for charcoal, tamahagane, etc. and how many swords a year they could make. Then add the cost for polishing, koshirae, etc. - maybe doubling the final price. If the swords were really in that range I think there would have been some stupendously wealthy swordsmiths who were also serving as bankers to the daimyos... and I don't think that happened, so something is being lost in translation.

Hi Florian. Please note, I am most certainly NOT mocking the person. I have the utmost respect for what Haynes has contributed to this field. We all stand atop some of the foundations he has laid. However, I will unhesitatingly point out flawed theories that don't hold up to scrutiny or that are unsupported by evidence. So on a general note, a person's overall contributions to a field of research should not prevent others from pointing out any ideas that are incorrect. The whole notion of reliance on and preservation of rusted sukashi walls needs to be undone. This idea will lead to false judgements of age and worst of all, lead to the eventual destruction of the very art objects we all seem to appreciate. So from my perspective, i see this particular idea as "dangerously flawed". Now let's move this train of thought to a new thread, as was suggested by Steve, so we don't continue to hijack Deanna's thread Starting one now...

For the story of super high-end tsuba and fittings look here; https://nihonto.com/nakai-koshirae/

Conversely - Japanese Armor-makers for the Samurai says; 家則 Hitachi 1532-1554 A skilled maker The genealogy of the Saotome lists Ienori as the brother of the founder Nobuyasu. Since the existence of Nobuyasu cannot be confirmed, this relationship is questionable but Ienori would appear to be one of the first members of the Saotome group. 家則 Hitachi 1789-1800 A skilled maker There were probably two Saotome working during the late Edo period using the name Ienori. Surviving examples of the workmanship of this Ienori reveal two distinct styles of workmanship.

The Shin-Katchushi Meikan lists two Ienori; 家則 and 家儀 家則 Ienori - late Edo Hitachi The Kokon Kajimei Hayamidashi lists Ienori as the son of Ieyoshi and lists him as the 14th generation. Helmets are done in the Saotome style with a gentle taste. He also made tsuba signing "Joshu Ju Saotome Ienori" and these are Late-Edo works around Kansei. An old book lists "Ienori Joshu Saotome Katchushi Tenbun Goro" Howeverthis is a different person from the man who signed "Joshu Ju Saotome Ienori" and Sasama Sensei says we don't have any evidence of an Ienori in the Momoyama or early Edo period.

Here the second sword I wanted to share with the same lighting, that was a cloudy day but rays of sunlight sometimes enlighted the steel. This is a Koto - Tokebutsu Hozon - Sekishu Sadatsuna, pupil of oif Naotsuna witch could have been one of the ten brilliant disciples of Masamune (but there is a debate on his name). Not to confound with the other Sadatsuna from the Ko-Hoki school (Heian era). Here is a Nanbokusho swordsmith with a strong Soshu influence. By the way Sekishu was not far from Bizen and had very qualitative black sand to make steel. here the link to the commercial site https://eirakudo.shop/607544 for professional pictures and diverse information. This sword appealed me by this all along sunagashi that run like a waterfall from the top to the bottom of the sword : I call this whirl the "eye of Fudo Miio" : And this Kaen Boshi complete the flame theme of Fudo Miio And the tsuba is depicting a Fudo Miio under a waterfall, mirroring the sword.

Awesome examples and quotes everyone!!!! I would suggest that this clearly points to the idea that thin, large ko-katchushi, ko-tosho and what would would call the "Saotome kiku style" (chrysanthemum pattern) already had some sukashi elements at this point and were the already established norm ie. the "old style", while smaller thicker sukashi tsuba like Owari and Kanayama would likely be the "new type" at this point in time. This passage from a text from that time period is a massively significant find actually These are both significant pieces of evidence that support the idea of the emergence of simple ji-sukashi tsuba in the late Muromachi, and the emergence of the smaller thicker type of more expressive ji-sukashi during the Azuchi-Momoyama period. All of which fits very nicely with the socio-political events of the time.... Nanban influence from Europeans (seeing openwork guards for the first tuime), switching to wearing katana rather than tachi (making the tsuba more prominently displayed), all under a broader umbrella of a period of exploration and expression of individuality among the samurai class who were rising to prominence, as well as the samurai class immersing themselves in tea culture and all its associated philosophical concepts (which can often be seen in the themes and aesthetics of early small, thick ji-sukashi tsuba). ... It looks to me like we're quickly building a pretty decent convergence of actual evidence and theorizing on this particular time period beginning around the mid-1500s (late Muromachi). Again though, I'd happily move the date back to the 1400s... so long as some concrete evidence shows up Although, moving it back would then require finding some justifiable socio-political reasons for this significant shift in the style of tsuba production. So far the only one I have read (from Sasano), is that "a variety of arts (primarily painting and calligraphy) were highly prized during the Muromachi period"... although it's important to point out that this was primarily among the elite upper class and highest ranking among the warrior class, but not so much among the general warrior class under their employ.

Thanks heaps for the compliment. We are very conscious that most of people viewing have zero knowledge so we try to choose pieces that anyone can look at and admire. The masataka koshirae is one of those pieces everyone can enjoy and that hamon can be seen from 2 metres away. Colin put that in at my special request....again. In 3 or 4 months it will make way for something else. 🤔

That nagamaki tsuba in your post is for another Jūyō Bunkazai naginata of Uesugi-jinja, this one is attributed as Ichimonji Norikane. The shrine has 3 very large naginata with very similar mounts, I agree that Muromachi period would sound quite plausible for these koshirae. I believe the saya for these have been lost.

Another hawk on a kashira from Sonobe Yoshihide

How many tsuba did the average (not high status or wealthy) samurai own? I have read it somewhere (of course again I can’t remember where I read it – age bites!) that some (wealthier) samurai had 3 or more tsuba for each blade of their daisho. They had a tsuba to place on their blade to wear in royal court appearances (or when appearing in front of a noble or nobles). They had a tsuba to place on their blade for daily wear. And they had another tsuba to place on their blade for battle or duels. So, to assist in explaining the above thoughts, I will need to refer to some parts of my daisho. I am not going to discuss the blades here. This is not the proper area of the forum to do that, and they have already been brought up in the Nihonto section and the Translation section probably a couple of years ago (but once again, I can’t remember those threads-darn it!). Now, I am fortunate in owning a daisho set (a low-quality set, but I am glad I got it - and hey that was all I could afford-ha, ha, ha, ha, etc!). I believe that my daisho is at least 300 years old and was owned by a poor samurai (the dealer in Japan that sold it stated it was from the very late Muromachi period making this daisho at least 430 years old now-but hey they could have been wrong and probably were incorrect-but whatever!). Anyway, I make that estimate of at least 300 years old based on the blade of the katana (since I believe the wakizashi blade is a newer replacement-as explained below) and tsuba (and what is of interest is that even though both tsuba are of the same style, the inlay on the katana tsuba is not as close together as the inlay on the wakizashi tsuba – several of the pictures below show what I have described-although you may need to zoom in on that first picture!), the ito wrapping on the tsuka (the ito on the katana has small wood chips placed in places on the frayed and separating ito – again refer to the picture below- I think the samurai who owned it perhaps couldn’t afford to have the tsuka re-wrapped?), and the fact that both saya are not exactly made the same (but are of the same color-I figure the wakizashi blade had been broken at one time and replaced with another more current blade and saya). Actually, this daisho (seems to me) to be a hodgepodge of different things. Same style of tsuba (probably made by two different craftsmen), different style of blades (also probably made by two different craftsmen), and slightly different saya (again also probably made by two different craftsmen). But the (probably) poor samurai that owned this daisho kept it all together and looking good (the tsuba match up well, the furnishings and ito on both daisho tsuka are the same and appear to show the same age, and the saya are both the same color). I have included picture a of the daisho, pictures of the tsuba and how they are very similar (but not exactly the same), and a picture of the wood chips in the katana tsuka. What I find of interest is that I think the poor samurai that owned this daisho may have had only one tsuba (since he probably couldn’t afford more tsuba?) for his daisho blades and could have used the same tsuba for all 3 functions mentioned above (court, daily wear, and battle or duels). The tsuba on the daisho (if they still had all the inlay in them!) would have looked good enough (in my opinion) for court. It would also be fine to wear for daily wear. And it is not a fine artistically carved tsuba (it is only inlaid) so it could also be used for battles or duels (without the samurai being concerned about possibly ruining a tsuba that was overly artistic, and probably would be very expensive!). So, perhaps, maybe some samurai only owned one tsuba for each of their daisho blades? Anyway, just some interesting stuff. And who knows, maybe the owner of my daisho had more than one tsuba to place on his blades? And of course, it is just my opinion on the age of my daisho. Still, I find this an interesting subject and just wanted to share my thoughts (at least it makes my day go by faster, and gives this old retired person something to do!). Onward!

Omi (no) kami ___ (suriage) I believe the next kanji after Kami is Fuji: https://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=All&mei_op=contains&mei=近江守藤

Yes, same deal - report and ignore.

This is one of the very best english language sword books available in terms of photography, information, and presentation. Hopefully the first in a long series.

Although it looks like a match at first glance, Bruno, I don’t think so… 夹 is a rather unusual kanji especially for names! There was a certain Mitsunaga around 1850-1923, who used this kind of writing for 光 in his signature. So I suspect they might had some relationships?!

Hi Simon, Not sure I get the sense of the message to Jaques D Japan Sword Company is Inami San in Toranomon. Aoi Art is Tsuruta San in Shibuya.

Thank you all. Some nice looking tsuba… thank you for sharing. There was another one I was eyeing…

Latest addition to my Higo build sets, a wave fuchi kashira set with extras. I think I was lucky for once in auction. Best Björn

Anyone noticed this stunning katakiri work :)? https://www.zacke.at...&sd=0&pp=48&pn=1&g=1

Hi. We have installed a display of wood blocks, netsuke, okimono and inro at the Japanese Consulate, Melbourne. It will be in place until mid January. Public are welcome to view.

News Flash. A shrot term display, 4 days only. Thursday the 3rd through to Sunday (inclusive). A selection of quality sword fittings, lacquer and kabuto. At the following location :- ARTVISORY GALLERY 31O Toorak Road, South Yarra. Melbourne. If you are in Melbourne it's worth the effort. Here is the online catalogue. Samurai items start at number 72. https://issuu.com/ar..._and_creation_online Mark

Hi. Well we have installed another display here in Melbourne. It is a small display but nice swords and fittings are there for the publics enjoyement. I will attached more detailed photos and descriptions of what’s on display later. Again Colin has done a great job. Interestingly the display is at the Box Hill Returned Servicemas League or RSL. They are a progressive club and are interested in Swords As Art theme. Melbourne collectors go and check it out. As with all such clubs you need to sign in. It has a nice restaurant attached too, so maybe you can include lunch. Colin or I would be happy to meet any members of the message board at the RSL to discuss the display. Cheers https://g.co/kgs/gxgK75

Tanto by Naohide, grandson of Taikei Naotane. Higo style mounts.