Steve Waszak

Hi Grev, Your question is a good one, and a bit more complicated than it might appear. The short answer to your question is yes, Yamakichibei tsuba with a Low-Crossbar mei have indeed passed shinsa; in fact, one of the 11 or 12 Juyo Yamakichibei guards features a Low-Crossbar mei. I know of several others with this mei that are papered as well. Here's the catch, though: tsuba with this mei that have passed shinsa are papered as though they are Shodai work. The truth, however, is that they are not, as close analytical comparison of Low-Crossbar-signed guards with actual (Meijin-) Shodai guards will clearly show, both in the workmanship of the tsuba themselves, and in the rendering of the respective signatures. The rationale for papering Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei works as (Meijin-) Shodai works is explained as follows: "Changes in the way that the Shodai inscribed his signatures are recognized and accepted." This is nonsense, I'm afraid. As I say, the actual workmanship of the tsuba made by the Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei differs significantly from that seen in the works produced by the Low-Crossbar smith. Beyond this, though, the Low-Crossbar signature is radically different from the Meijin-Shodai's. Every part of the signature, from the "Yama" ji to the "Kichi" ji to the "Bei" ji is not only dramatically different, but the differences are consistent in the works of the two. Moreover, there are no sword guards that I have seen (and I have been studying this subject for more than twenty years) that could remotely be identified or described as having a "hybrid mei" -- one that has elements in the mei drawn from a typical Meijin-Shodai tsuba and also elements drawn from a standard Low-Crossbar work. It is abundantly evident that the Shinsa teams are either genuinely erring in their papering of Low-Crossbar works as (Meijin-) Shodai works, or are motivated by some other factor. For a far more detailed analysis of this subject, see the article I did on the Yamakichibei group of tsubako, available in the Articles section here on NMB. Hope this helps, Grev.

Excellent tsuba. Even better price. If I collected Higo, this would be gone.

Great observation, Tim. I had seen the elements as chrysanthemums, too, but had not linked it to Kusunoki. Many thanks for that! I do wonder how these kiku are fitted into the larger sukashi element, though. What does the whole of this sukashi element -- kiku included -- mean? And since we see the same element in your tsuba here, what are the semantics in association with the respective sukashi elements opposite this kiku sukashi form? Good stuff, Tim. Thanks again. Piers, thanks for your thoughts, too! But IS that a broken water wheel? I have my doubts. The end elements of the "wheel" seem oddly truncated, if it's supposed to depict a broken wheen. I'm reminded more of something like a segmented arthropod.

Most curious, yes. I suppose the added hitsu must have been very slight, for the three elements that you refer to, Piers, are all pretty similar in size and shape, so it doesn't seem that adding the hitsu affected these much, if at all. Most likely, the added hitsu merely intruded on the seppa-dai slightly. Here is another piece I am puzzling over as regards the motif elements. The one on the left is similar to that in the tsuba above, but is missing the three extra elements. In this piece, I am reminded of a carpenter's planer, such as that seen here: https://www.jauce.com/auction/q1172873118

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. I don't know that this reading of the motif is correct (seems like quite a reach -- even the kuruma/wheel sukashi is dubious), but many thanks for the replies.

Appreciate help with translating the kanji used to describe/identify the motif element this tsuba features. The description appears at the top of the vertical column of writing, specifically, it's the first two characters I need assistance with. Many thanks.

Very interesting post, Bobby. Thanks. I'd be curious to know the rationale used to "liken" a particular smith to a specific painter. What does "liken" mean here? I'd also be interested to see how tsubako would fare in this experiment.

I would echo Ray's excellent words here. The pursuit of studying and collecting nihonto and tosogu essentially necessitates some degree of comfort with what I call "living with the question." There is relatively little certainty in our pursuit; even in many cases with signed works, we can not be sure of the genuineness of a mei, or perhaps the generation of the maker when several generations used the same name to sign with. As with many or most fields, too, seasoned, experienced scholars and other experts can look at the same object or mei and reach different conclusions, disagreeing with one another slightly, or even dramatically. It is inherent in this field that such will be the case oftentimes. If one is uncomfortable with the lack of certainty that is so prevalent, then another collecting focus becomes more inviting. However, I would encourage new enthusiasts to experiment with living with questions, setting aside the "need to know," and in the meantime, enjoying the journey of learning and of appreciating the incredible objects that come before us.

An early-Edo koshirae for a Wakasa no kami Ujifusa O-tanto, blade signed and dated to Genki 3 (1572). The koshirae is thought by some knowledgeable folks to be original to the blade, but I feel it is more likely to be early-Edo, latest-Momoyama at the earliest. There were various times during late-Momoyama and early-Edo that bolder saya were briefly fashionable, but the Tokugawa government handed down edicts restricting/forbidding the use of such flamboyant displays. The periods I'm most aware of here would be the last 10-12 years of Momoyama (1603-1615), the mid- to late-1620s, and then Genroku at the end of the 17th century. I feel that this koshirae is most likely one of the earlier periods, maybe the 1620s, but those more knowledgeable than I can probably provide a much more informed opinion. The saya is lacquered in black, brown, and red, with some fading to all of it over the centuries. The saya is also peppered with more than four hundred inlaid elements, made of iron, perhaps, or lead? Pewter? I'm really not sure. The koshirae is in aikuchi mounts, with shakudo log-eared rabbit menuki (probably Kyo-kinko). The habaki is silver (or silver-plated), I believe, in a kiku motif. The blade presents with a hitatsura hamon; perhaps the boldness of the saya was seen by the individual commissioning it to suit such a blade. Detailed sayagaki by Tanobe-sensei extolling the virtues of the blade.

Love that work of calligraphy, Stephen. Very powerful. And thank you for the history on Tetsugyu. As you note in your post here, I really think that the calligraphic connections, so to speak, that may be made between the signatures/inscriptions on tsuba and other features/aspects of the work is a significantly under-studied area. Moreover, the various and specific meanings of the kanji used for (different parts of) the names of the smiths (and/or their ateliers) merits much more attention than I have seen given to that, at least in Western literature (or even in translated Japanese literature). An example of what I mean here may be seen in the notion of "good luck" associations between the way one part of a name is written and alternative ways it may be (or may have been) written. I know that in the Azuchi-Momoyama years, for instance, a considerable amount of serious weight was given to things like omens, luck, premonitions, and so on. How, then, this may have been manifest in the determining of "art names" for smiths, and for the particular kanji used for those names, is worth looking into with some serious effort, I think. I will be pursuing this some going forward, but also think that the actual calligraphic expression in the way some tsuba are signed/inscribed is itself a worthy pursuit. By the way, the flamboyant mei you mention regarding Hoan tsuba is, in my opinion, really seen only in works by Hoan Kanenobu, whose mei is quite distinctive owing to his "exuberance" in the rendering of it. Other Hoan smiths are more sedate in their signing of their works.

Excellent post, Jean. Thank you.

Okan, These last two tsuba you have posted, and the second in particular, remind me of the "San Diego tsuba" that were recovered from the wreck of a Spanish ship on its way to the Philippines in the year 1600. If you search around the Internet, you'll find some interesting information on this. Jim Gilbert's blog post (Tsuba Kansho) on these tsuba is enlightening, especially since there is a reference to molds uncovered from an early-Edo Period site in Nara. These molds are thought to have been used to cast tsuba in soft metal, such as bronze and yamagane. Your tsuba above appears to be cast, based on certain details such as the mei and the kiku punch marks around the nakago-ana.

Here are a pair of sword guards made by (Shodai) Kawaguchi Hoan in kikugata: 1. 16-petals, matsukawabishi sukashi with sukidashibori featuring kiri-mon, finished in light yakite-kusarashi (signed "Hoan" on the ura). Momoyama Period. 2. 24 petals, two gourds inlaid, one in gold, one in silver. This tsuba is noteworthy for the large nakago-ana present in a relatively small guard. The other tsuba included here is larger than this one, but with a substantially smaller nakago-ana. Momoyama Period.

You're most welcome.

Hi Dee, You may need to look into the history of the Goto a little more. They were indeed made for warriors, not the rank and file ashigaru and low-ranking bushi, admittedly, but for Daimyo (and higher), absolutely. Did you know that early generations of the Goto were of the Buke, and that Goto Joshin (3rd generation Goto) -- one of the most respected of the entire line of the Goto group -- actually died in battle in 1562? Killed by an arrow at the age of 50 or 51, I believe.

Ah, okay. Well, these are really appealing. Congrats on acquiring them. Such an expressive design for the subject.

Very cool, Curran. Thanks for posting these. Is one of these from the Tsuba page Jim Gilbert had here a while ago?

Here's one more interesting piece, relevant to this discussion. It is a Meijin-Shodai work in the same sugata as that seen in the Meijin-Shodai tsuba I posted above, twelve lobes forming the shape. This form is indeed a departure from his usual sugata, but he clearly did occasionally make such departures. Unfortunately, the photo quality is very poor, but the shape is clear, which is the main information required here:

Hi Glen I think the poor quality of the photos I posted, especially of the first tsuba, kind of affect our reading of the mei. The left "post" of the "Yama" ji on this tsuba actually is vertical; it is not angled inwards as we would see on a Nidai guard. Below is another image of this tsuba (still awful photo quality, but I think you can see what I mean): As for the degree of extension of the mei along the seppa-dai, there is actually a bit of a range here. Some Meijin-Shodai mei are more compressed, while some Nidai mei can be more extended. A few examples follow. First, the Meijin-Shodai: And here is an early Nidai: Here, too, a different photo makes a difference, I think: The above pictured tsuba is a piece I used to own, so I am very familiar with the metal with this one. It differs greatly from anything Ohno and significantly even from Owari sukashi, and is in keeping with Nidai iron I have seen on more than a dozen others of his works. As for the possibility of this being a Kanayama guard with a later (convincingly-rendered mei), well, I suppose it's not impossible. However, as I say, the mei is correct in a multitude of idiosyncratic details for the Nidai. Additionally, I don't recall having seen a Kanayama tsuba in this shape (nor an Owari-sukashi, or, of course, an Ohno). I am quite confident that this is indeed a Nidai Yamakichibei work, as both the metal and the mei conform tightly to his typical work in these areas. Additionally, the sugata of this guard is actually something of an otafuku-gata form, one that not only did the Nidai employ famously, but also one that Kanayama, Ohno, and Owari-sukashi did not. I'm a little surprised by your skepticism here, too, given your arguments in this very thread pertaining to the idea that there are definite "schools" of tsubako whose work is rigidly unvarying and limited in style, form, and construction methods to those schools. If it is actually the case -- and I certainly have long subscribed to this understanding myself -- that a given tsubako could make tsuba in a variety of styles and forms, whether he did so as the whim struck him, or because he was commissioned/ordered to do so by a patron or member of the Buke clan he served, would it be so surprising that these two Yamakichibei works would depart from their usual aesthetic of ita plate forms combined with ko-sukashi? It certainly isn't to me. In particular, if the various tsuba whose images you posted earlier (all attributed to different schools despite their obvious similarities, which is your point in posting them) presented with forms that were popular in the later Momoyama years, is it a major stretch to imagine that a Yamakichibei smith could be commissioned to create one, too? No, it is not. And again, when both the metal and the mei align clearly with each other and with other works by the Nidai, well, Occam's Razor once again appears. Those hoofbeats we're hearing belong to a Clydesdale or an Appaloosa, not a Przewalski's.

Hello Phillip, An interesting (and appealing) tsuba. Would love to be able to see it in hand to get a better idea of the workmanship, but your photos are pretty good. As Mauro notes there is a Nidai Yamakichibei work with the same motif and treatment, except that this other one lacks the scrolling-vine element on the rim. I'm not so sure that I see it as "good news" in and of itself that this other tsuba has been judged authentic by the NBTHK (though in this case I am in perfect agreement that this other guard is indeed a genuine Nidai Yamakichibei work). My concern would be that your tsuba is a later (probably 19th-century) utsushi ("homage"), mostly faithfully modeled after this piece that Mauro presents. There are at least a few points to consider in weighing this question. One observation I would make is that your tsuba presents as relatively "fresh"/new looking. It doesn't come across as carrying four hundred years of time. It doesn't appear to have a deep patina, and there are few if any signs of rust. Another is that the rim is quite a departure from those usually seen on Nidai work. The classic Nidai rim presents with two prominent features: 1. profuse tekkotsu, presenting like small, black, shiny "blisters" on the surface (these tekkotsu are highly appreciated by connoisseurs); 2. the edging of the rim presents with an uneven, "raw" or "scalloping" effect, forming a highly pleasing organic liveliness to the interface between the plate and the edge of the rim. These are sort of like calling cards for the Nidai. Your tsuba, Phillip, not only lacks these classic features, but also adds one -- the scrolling vine pattern -- that I have never seen on any authentic Yamakichibei guards, Nidai or otherwise. Finally, the particular rendering and placement of the sukashi elements appears to me to be too "rigid" and perfectly vertical. Compare this to the rendering of the sukashi in the example that Mauro posted. Note the skewed posture, the sort of "lean" present in the piece he posted? This is a very Momoyama thing, reflecting a sensibility of Kabukimono that was ascendant in the first years of the 17th century, a time when the Nidai was certainly active. In your guard, this openwork, as I say, is sort of stiff, and lacks the same dynamism. Among the above concerns, I have my doubts about your tsuba being a genuine Nidai work. However, as to the second of them, it is not impossible that the Nidai could have been asked/told by an individual commissioning him to create a tsuba like the one Mauro posted, but with a different rim (no scalloping, no tekkotsu, but with the scrolling vine element). Is this highly plausible? It seems somewhat unlikely to me, but it is not out of the question, either. The fact that I have never seen another Yamakichibei guard with a rim design anything like yours immediately makes me skeptical. On the other hand, if another (19th-century) craftsman simply set out to do a straightforward utsushi (or copy), why would he depart so significantly with his rendering of the rim? In other words, perhaps the radically different rim design is a good sign: on an otherwise so faithfully-rendered utsushi, right down to a pretty convincing mei, is it likely/plausible that this craftsman would create such a dramatic departure with the rim? Well, perhaps: if he were commissioned by a patron to make a copy/utsushi of the original work (the one Mauro posted) but with the instructions to do the rim differently (according to the patron's specifications), he may indeed do so. On the more positive side, the Nidai Yamakichibei is justly famed for his amida-yasuri. Some hold that his amida-yasuri are the finest of all, including other Yamakichibei smiths, the Nobuiye smiths, Hoan Kanenobu, etc... His is a most peculiar (and brilliant) form of plate treatment, sort of a "double amida yasuri," one that has particular energy and vitality. I think if it were easy to reproduce, we'd seen more of it elsewhere, including among those earlier smiths. Your tsuba, Phillip, has pretty convincingly-rendered amida yasuri. It is far better than would be seen in standard expressions of the form of plate treatment. Usually, though, the Nidai would marry his yasuri with expressive tsuchime, yakite treatment, or both, something your example here appears to mostly lack. Hard to say, then, where this leaves us. The old "Den-Nidai Yamakichibei" comes to mind. Ultimately, if were forced to decide, based on only photos, I would conservatively say it was a very well done 19th-century utsushi, due to the reservations I note above. A more optimistic approach would judge it as an unusually well-preserved example of the Nidai's work, albeit with a rim that departs quite radically from the norm. I apologize if all of the above hasn't been helpful, Phillip. I do find your tsuba to be quite appealing, whatever it may be. Please see the link below for more images of the tsuba Mauro posted. Cheers. https://www.seiyudo....08082.htm#movepoint1

Strong piece, Sam. Congrats.

Great post, Glen. A few thoughts to share here... First, check out the two tsuba below. One is a Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei, the other (more oblong one) is a Nidai Yamakichibei. This would date these pieces to the first couple of decades or so of the 17th century, or perhaps slightly earlier, so, late-Momoyama to earliest-Edo. A question to be asked is whether these two smiths are trading off of an already-established popular form, or if they created the design themselves. Given that the Yamakichibei smiths more frequently work with ita-plate styles, I would lean toward the former. But if these weren't signed, would they be seen as Kyo-sukashi? Owari? Kanayama? Ko-Shoami? Are these gimei, with mei added later to a "Ko-Shoami" or "Kanayama" tsuba? I am quite confident that these are legit Yamakichibei works, based on metal work and on the peculiar idiosyncratic nuances in the rendering of the mei on the two guards, respectively. If they are forgeries, they are perfect forgeries. In any event, one cultural consideration that muddies the already muddy waters further is the post-Momoyama quickening of the cross-currents of influence that affected the various tsuba-making groups. To the degree that any of these groups ever was "pure," uniform, and consistent in its style, design, and construction methods, by the time we get into the 17th century, and especially once the peace was solidified throughout Japan after 1615, such purity and uniformity was rapidly "contaminated" by the streams of influence coming from various places. In particular, though, the exchanges of information and inspiration occurring between Kiyosu/Nagoya in Owari and Kyoto appear to have increased considerably in these years. I think this is a big reason that the five tsuba Glen presents above all are assigned to either the Owari groups or the Kyoto groups. And even the two Yamakichibei examples I include here are, of course, Kiyosu/Nagoya products (if the standard understanding is to be accepted ). So, even the idea that it would be possible to assign such pieces categorically to a "school" is fatally flawed out of the gate. Even it it were somehow possible to determine factually that all Kanayama tsuba had this feature or that one, and that all Ko-Shoami or Kyo-Sukashi had a certain feature or set of features originally (i.e. in early- to mid-Momoyama), by the time of the end of the Azuchi-Momoyama Period, and as the Edo Period gets underway, it is highly likely that all of these groups could and would have employed such features inspired by other groups as they wanted or needed, tsuba by tsuba. So how would it be possible any longer to meaningfully classify individual sword guards made in these years and later? Finally, a quick note on the whole concept of categories and classifying. Why do we need these? We know that these constructs were largely invented by Meiji-era merchants looking to increase the appeal and value of their wares by ascribing "identities" to them, which, as Glen observes, became fixed as factual histories to be recognized and acknowledged as such. But even this early activity to invent schools was based on an understanding, conscious or otherwise, that there is some deep need in us to be able to identify something, to be able to call it something, to label it. If we could exercise the discipline to move away from this compulsion, it could go a long way toward disrupting the status quo and the system that depends on it. Rather than focus so heavily on "identifying" and "classifying" a given piece, emphasizing our analysis and appreciation of its quality and aesthetic sensibilities may be a less treacherous path to take. This is more challenging that it might at first appear, for the entire enterprise of collecting -- anything, really -- is based heavily on categories and classifications, on taxonomies and genealogies, without which many collectors would fumble around looking for order in what they have acquired. So, much of what this thread pursues relies more than a little on psychological considerations.

I'm with you there, Glen. And I think your thoughts here identify an interesting idea, namely, that the aims of the scientific community (arriving at factual knowledge via disciplined, logical methodology) may differ somewhat from those of the humanities, whose ultimate aims pertain to knowledge that is perhaps more philosophically based/concerned, or even the "soft sciences," where identifying the most plausible theories is the quarry, since the answers to many of their inquiries can have no factual answer. As for Sasano's theories, oh yes, lots of contentiousness and rancor there! It's pretty well known in Japanese tsuba circles, I believe, how much division there was between those who subscribed to Sasano's timelines, and those who did not. Academic squabbling: who would sink to such lows???

I think what Glen has presented regarding the unreliability (as concerns factual information) of a good portion of the literature, as well as the imperfect results received at times through shinsa, pretty clearly establish that "the system is broken." But Florian's words are right on target, as I think, are Thomas's here. There is sufficient doubt about the veracity of significant parts of the information passed down to point to a fairly dramatic reform. But as Florian and Thomas are saying, is it realistic to expect that to happen? It seems hard enough to envision an "ideal" new system, never mind one based in reality and pragmatism. Are we stuck with what we have, then? If so, how best to combat or mitigate its worst effects? This may be a more productive approach than to look to tear down the foundations, again, just realistically speaking. I do wonder if establishing quasi-formal, well-organized Study Groups, in part based off of the arguments Glen is making in these threads, but also expanding into other areas, might be a useful approach. I hesitate even to bring up the idea, simply because of the logistical realities involved in bringing such groups together, especially with any frequency. *Note: I do not feel Study Groups that are conducted online would be sufficient; the material needs to be seen and handled in person. I'm really just sort of thinking out loud here, though. Another way to go, perhaps, would be for some of us to begin to produce formal writing (published articles rather than informal, hurried forum posts) that, rather than attacking the current system, simply employ a more reliable analytical method applied to a well-focused topic to arrive at "new" understandings about given tsuba, tsubako, "schools," and the like. In any event, the status quo seems unpalatable to some (many?) of us. To Florian's point, finding a way out of these catacombs is daunting, but to Glen's point, really seems necessary regardless.

And you, mi amigo, have clearly completely missed the point of the entire paragraph from which the quote you use was drawn. What is the subject of that paragraph? CONNOTATION IN PHRASING. As distinct from DENOTATION. It is abundantly clear what your statement DENOTES. And frankly, I'm surprised that you think I could "erroneously interpret" such obviously clear DENOTATION. Sheesh. Reread that paragraph. Carefully. The focus is on the connotative impact (the reception) of how something is PHRASED. This MATTERS, whether you INTEND such an effect or not. And the words you add at the end illustrate that you're just not seeing this. You say, "It needs some kind of validation before it can be accepted as a fact." Okay, and lacking such validation, which is exceptionally rarely occurring in tosogu studies, which I'm sure you know, what is the take away? That something "may or may not be true"? Such wishy-washy language is effectively meaningless. Empty. It goes nowhere. May + may not = ZERO. Total non-starter. And this is WHY the connotative impact of your phrasing plausibly can lead to the conclusion for many (not for ALL) that the claim in question is false, or at the very least, dubious, for no actual REASON.