MauroP

Pretty sure that most sanmai tsuba were not produced with repoussé technique. Here below an example of an unusual large tsuba whose shakudō plates show lack of decoration pattern near the border. That's a proof that the plates were produced in standard dimension and then adapted to the "core" plate. Nontheless that kind of tsuba should be old enough to deserve a ko-kinkō attribution.

About No. 217: the tsuba below is described as shi-hō warabide sukashi (四方蕨手透 - openwork of fern sprouts in four directions)

Ben fatto Luca! I just had a look and found it a very promising paper; surely I'm going to read it thoroughly.

The kin'in (the golden seal is not exactly a kaō) is consistent with Seiryuken Eiju.

In my records I count 6 mumei tsuba with Hikone attribution and just one reported as Sōten (and 7 more signed Sōten). So, if unsigned, the tsuba usually takes a paper with Hikone written in it.

I think unlikely the occurrence of iron casted tsuba in Edo times, but their production should be as early as the early Meiji period. Here below a surely casted tsuba from the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney, collected by the Reverend Julian Tenison-Woods in 1886 (unless a faulty record from the museum).

Maybe a theme related to Satō Tadanobu?

In my opinion it looks a perfectly legit tsuba, possibly Aizu-Shõami, maybe with a partially worn out gilding of the inlays.

Hi Glen, completely agree. So why not to find a way to express in a kanteisho the unavoidable degree of uncertainty in attribution?

Hi Grev, you have submitted two nice tsuba, but their attribution to Shōami school can't be surely granted (of couse nobody of us wants to challenge a NBTHK paper). Here below a tsuba papered as Kyō-sukashi with a design pattern similar to your no. 1. Simply the Shōami school is hard to delimit... Here my Shōami tsuba (at least occording to a NBTHK kanteisho) which I like the best. Bye

No. 181 could be a nue (鵺退).

Hi, I'm afraid the tsuba above is a modern one. But etching on iron was a well known technique in Edo period. Search for kusarakashi (腐らかし).

Just found this on https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/T-940.html The highlighted part of the NBTHK kanteisho reads: 十字架銀据付(後補) - jūjika gin-suetsuke (goho) and should mean something like: Christian cross piece in silver (later addition). If my understanding is correct, some interesting inferences could be drawn. 1 - the theme of dragons chasing the sacred pearl had some special meaning for early Japanese Christianity; 2 - NBTHK shinsa panel sometimes certify as authentic a modified (forged?) tsuba. I'm quite perplexed about both conclusions (but I know nothing). Bye, Mauro

The kind of tsuba like the second one has already been discussed previously in this forum. Please see: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/14025-next-best-thing-to-having-nbthk-papers/#comment-147138

Hi, I think the technique of decoration in the first tsuba is better described as sukidashibori kin-nunome-zōgan (鋤出彫金布目象嵌). Here below an example of katakiribori (片切彫).

@Glen Here a Nobuie tsuba with hineri-kaeshi-mimi (but as far as I can see Bob's tsuba is signed Kaneie)

Maybe Echizen?

Hi Bob, here a tsuba from my collection resembling yours No. 88 T103.pdf

Hi Peter, I'd suggest Aizu-Shōami, mid to late Edo period.

Item No. 85: the subject is possibly 近江八景 - Ōmi hakkei, i.e. Eight Views of Ōmi. According to tradition, Regent Konoe Masaie and his son Hisamichi, while visiting Ōmi province near Kyōto, wrote eight waka poems describing famous scenes around the western shore of Lake Biwa. BTW, item No. 84 was assigned as ko-Shōami by a kanteisho? I'd rather say Heianjō-zōgan...

Hi Grev, I suppose you already know the two review papers here below. Anyway it could be useful remind them for other interested people. Bye, Mauro https://www.dropbox.com/s/8bps54bs4whi60t/The Techniques of the Japanese Tsuba-Maker.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/bilgfen2qcatn1i/Tecniche di decorazione di tsuba giapponesi e loro terminologia - M. Dziewulski.pdf?dl=0

Item No. 82: here below two tsuba with the same pattern papered as Akao and Akita-Shōami (just two more opinions on attributing a non-typical tsuba).

What about Akao? (Pardon for reopening a long time closed topic)

Hi Colin, features of Ōnin, Heianjō-zōgan and Yoshirō tsuba overlap to a certain extent. Heianjō is usually a more conservative call. Using a broad rule the shinchū-zōgan is protruding in Ōnin tstuba, is flush in Yoshirō tsuba and is whatever it could be in Heianjō. Of course if ranma-sukashi are present a Yoshirō call should be granted. But... I can show you counterexamples in NBTHK papers for all of the statements I made above. Here below 2 examples which, I'm afraid, won't help you very much...

Hi Bob, regarding tsuba no.72, after "photoshopping" a little bit, I think the signature is a plain 山城住長吉作 - Yamashiro jū Nagayoshi saku. So the maker should be Momoyama to early Edo – Kyōto – Heianjō-zōgan school, according to Markus Sesko's "Signatures of Japanese Sword Fittings Artists".