Steve Waszak

Hi David, While this may be the best Yamakichibei to come out of Skip's collection (so far), and while it does appear to be a fine guard and a period piece (Momoyama to early-Edo), it is not a shodai work, in my opinion. I can see at least three things about it immediately which allow for this conclusion, but hand-held inspection would likely yield more. Again, I'm not disparaging the tsuba: I think it's a good piece (again, just going by the photos), but a workshop piece created in the early 17th-century Yamakichibei atelier. It's also possible that it is a much later work (i.e. 19th-century revival), but my initial thoughts are as I describe them here. Cheers, Steve

Umimatsu = "sea pine" = fossilized coral. Cheers, Steve

Right. Thanks, Grey. Fair enough. Cheers, Steve

Maybe if we all make enough of a racket, we can push Grey into some Black Friday deals... Cheers, Steve

I would agree with what Mark says here... And I agree, too, that this second bowl is not a modern work. A nice piece for sure. Cheers, Steve

PM sent.

Yes, many thanks to Markus and Pete... Much appreciated.

Example of kusarashi yakite here on this tsuba: the perimeter of the sukashi element to the right of the nakago-ana gives evidence of such a treatment, I believe. Cheers, Steve

Thanks, Uwe. Much appreciated. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the tsuba to try to post a better photo of the mei. Hopefully, your efforts here will help a lot. Thanks again. Cheers, Steve

Greetings gentlemen, I would very much appreciate assistance in reading the mei on this tsuba. The second ji may read "Nobu"(?), but I cannot make it out for sure. The first ji I cannot manage to read clearly at all. Thanks for any help... Cheers, Steve

Some really fine posts in this thread. Thanks especially to Kunitaro, Pete, and Chris... Pete, any further info on that kozuka? Enjoying this thread. Thanks, Veli, for raising the question(s). Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Isn't it the case that much, if not all of the history of Nobuiye and his name and progeny that you reference in your latest post is connected with the assumption that the great tsubako is the same man as the armorer Myochin Nobuiye? It seems to me that it has been fairly well established that the armorer and the tsubako were two different men, with the armorer working a generation or two earlier than the tsubako. I am with you, Ford, in remaining skeptical about the association between Takeda Harunobu and the tsubako Nobuiye, and about the notion that the latter received the Nobu ji in his name from Harunobu. If it is the case that Nobuiye was an Owari man, or even if he moved from Kyoto or Mino to Owari, his contact with Shingen/Harunobu would have to have been limited, no? I am not aware of the Takeda leader spending a lot of time in these areas. So how would Nobuiye have even been in contact with Harunobu? As for all the other names he is supposed to have signed with, has any of us ever seen a single tsuba anywhere with any of these mei (I mean a piece which stylistically and otherwise could be recognized as Nobuiye-esque work)? I don't believe I ever have. One interesting implication, too, about all this historical data is that if your idea, Ford, that Nobuiye guards were initially made and regarded as humble artefacts is correct, it would seem unlikely that such data/records about this tsubako would have been kept. Of course, for the armorer Nobuiye we might expect so (whether the data/records are invented or not), but for a "humble tsubako," not so much. Naturally, to invent such a history much later (Soken Kisho) would not have been a problem, but doing so 200 years after Nobuiye's time would seem to, um, make such a history suspect. Your thinking on Sasano mirrors mine, Ford. While I appreciate his passion and enthusiasm, his advice for identifying the genuine article is not exactly helpful in any concrete way. The quote you chose at the end of your post is a perfect illustration, and represents a frustration I have long had with his writing: an abundance of entirely subjective, unquantifiable, effusive adjectives, with little in the way of objective criteria to balance the subjective. It's too bad, because I sense a deeper, more accessible (via objective criteria) knowledge is there, but he was unable, or unwilling, to express it. Do you ever get the impression that the gods have simply ordained that Nobuiye shall remain a perpetual mystery? Cheers, Steve

Gentlemen, A few things to say in response... First, thanks, Henry, for supplying such a discussion-worthy tsuba. From such inspiration can come thought-provoking and intriguing dialogue... I also want to recognize with proper stress your point that it is the shinsa team that has seen the tsuba in hand; none of us has. So we have not been able properly to examine and assess the metal, the execution, the color, the patina, and so on... I realize this point has been made; I just wanted to (re-)emphasize it. Next, I think Chris is quite right in his observations on shinsa teams. They are experienced, passionate (I would imagine), and dedicated, but they are also human, and can make errors. I have been critical of some of the more hair-raising of these errors in past posts, but really, I have far less problem with shinsa teams and the occasional mistake they may make than I do (as I've also stressed) with those who unquestioningly accept a shinsa result as undeniable fact. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I see shinsa results as a very good place to start to research further into the work in question, rather than an end-point in studying or learning about that piece. Further, I think what Chris says about seeking out an authority/scholar who may not be part of a formal shinsa team is a great piece of advice (this echos what Pete had said in his initial post earlier on). Of course, knowing who such an authority/scholar is may take a little asking around, but it really would be worth it. I wanted to highlight this advice as insightful and valuable. Finally, yes, I agree, Ford, it's great to be able to generate an in-depth discussion of Nobuiye, who can be so frustratingly slippery to attempt to learn about. I understand better now what you mean about "refinement," or the "lack" thereof. Thanks for clarifying. And I understand exactly what you mean about Kizaemon, peasant potters, and the results of their unconscious and repetitive work. That such efforts sometimes bore fruit in the form of a celebrated masterpiece (or "masterpiece") is, I think, hard to argue with... But what I do wonder---and this, I think, would apply to Nobuiye ("shodai" and "nidai" work)---is how unconscious Nobuiye was in the creating of his great works. Much may depend here on exactly which works we're speaking of, and/or on exactly what part of his working life we're looking at. What I'm getting at is that, at a certain point in the Momoyama Period, at least in some circles, there was a conscious appreciation and seeking out of works (ceramics and other genres) that exhibited, expressed, or evoked feelings connected to shibusa, wabi and sabi, yugen, mono-no-aware, and others. We may at first imagine that it would be the patrons of artists who would bring such aesthetic consciousness to their appreciation of the works. But was this consciousness limited to patrons? I really think it's possible (just conjecturing here, of course) that artists of a certain elevated sensibility (a judgment inferred from a certain accomplished level in the work, not just execution, but conception, design, and choices in the finer points of rendering the finished product) would have been aware of the specific aesthetic principles and sensibilities valued in the higher culture of the day, and would have consciously sought to create works speaking to these sensibilities. I believe this to be the case not only with Nobuiye tsuba, but also those made by the Yamakichibei artists, and those made by the first Hoan (all three of these artists/groups were associated with Owari/Kiyosu, intriguingly...). When you say that "n fact the very attempt to consciously produce this sort of [unrefined, simple] aesthetic is regarded as false," I think you're right. In general. But again, I wonder if the finest artists didn't "break this rule" and consciously and convincingly create pieces which captured and expressed in magnificent form the aesthetic substance bowls like Kizaemon exhibited (or were seen to have). Perhaps tsubako as accomplished as Nobuiye (not that there were very many) could get away with creating contrived-but-convincingly-"uncontrived" works, due to their extraordinary sensibilities and skills. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Who knows? In thinking about this conundrum, though, I am more inclined to believe that there was conscious effort on the part of these artists, and that the work they produced was not simply the product of repetition and unconsciousness, only to be appreciated for its aesthetic particulars after the fact. As for the lesser example of tsuba with (genuine?) Nobuiye mei, I think your point, Ford, that the effort consciously to create works emulating the qualities of art/craft works like Kizaemon resulted in unconvincing tsuba is well-considered. It may be that, in part, those tsubako recognized by many as "the two big Nobuiye" are as well-regarded as they are because they were better than any of the others at the art of the contrived-uncontrived... Thanks to all for contributing so much good food for thought in this discussion... Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, I see what you're saying about that last bit concerning too much focus on details of mei; I guess I just zeroed in on the term you used in your original statement ("aesthetic value"), rather than other sorts of value... This is an interesting way of looking at things, but I don't quite agree with what you're saying here, only because the conscious intention on the part of an artist to sign his name in a specific way is not a prerequisite for later scholars to make valid observations about consistencies in the way that artist signed his work. We do many things in our lives unconsciously, including, I would say, the rendering of details in our signatures. This does not preclude, however, the analysis of others arriving at stable conclusions concerning tendencies (strong or otherwise) in the way we do things. What you say here is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of our discussion. I suppose a definition of "refined" as you mean it would help a little, but considering the immense amount of fastidious examination of Nobuiye works, it does seem unlikely to me that (the finest of the) Nobuiye guards would have been churned out with the efficient dispatch you describe. What you say about the variation in quality I fully agree with, the reasons for which we can conjecture about all day long. What I will say is that the best Nobuiye tsuba are, in my opinion, the best (or as good as the best) tsuba ever made by anyone. Those I posted photos of above are exemplary of such works, I think. But I wanted to get to what you say in the last sentence of the quote above. I find it difficult to imagine that the glowing magnificence of the best Nobuiye work could have resulted from such unassuming and unconscious origins. In fact, my current thinking is just about the opposite of what you suggest here: Nobuiye (I and/or II) was recognized by at least one great lord/daimyo as a metalsmith of extraordinary ability, and this lord/daimyo moved to retain Nobuiye as a "house artist." What you say about the meaning of the "iye" ji is correct, of course. What I am about to suggest can be shredded as hopelessly apocryphal and romantic, an accusation I would freely admit to understanding. Shrug. That's okay: At this time, Nobuiye (the first, original great smith, if you can entertain the possibility that there was such a first man) seems to be understood as having been an Owari smith. More specifically, he would have lived and worked in Kiyosu, which was the dominant "urban" center of warrior culture in that province during the Momoyama Period. Oda Nobunaga was also an Owari man. His time was late Muromachi and early Momoyama. He is known to have been a passionate man of the arts, which included Tea Culture. He is also known to have expanded, if not initiated, the practice of rewarding retainers, vassals, and the like with objects, rather than weapons, land, horses, or gold (for much more on Oda Nobunaga, I would strongly recommend Jeroen Lamers' book, Japonius Tyrannus: The Japanese Warlord Oda Nobunaga Reconsidered). Nobunaga was also a famous innovator in a number of areas. As you point out, Ford, Nobuiye works are "the first tsuba to bear any maker's mark," so when we consider the confluence of these facts, an intriguing possibility arises: Oda Nobunaga, recognizing the brilliance of the work of this particular tsubako, and being the innovator he is, confers upon the smith a ji from his own name, Nobu. Nobuiye is retained by Nobunaga as a tsubako working for the "house of Nobu(naga)." His tsuba are made either for the Oda family or as gifts to be given by Nobunaga as rewards for services rendered to those worthy of such a fine object. It costs Nobunaga no horses, no land, no gold, no weapons to reward his vassals in this way, it reinforces both his power and his taste, and being that the object in question is a sword guard, with all of its semiotic possibilities (including Tea associations), the bond between Oda and his vassals in the eyes of the public is tightened even more. Apocryphal? Maybe. Romantic? Oh, absolutely. Therefore false? Not necessarily. In any event, I just can't concur that the top-shelf Nobuiye tsuba were either made or received, in their day, as "humble artefacts." Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Have to rush off to work here, but I will post more on this a little later. For now, though, it seems logically inconsistent for you to claim, on the one hand, that the representative mei as seen in the photo indicate at least seven different "shodai" and three different "nidai" Nobuiye, and then later, to claim that the likely illiteracy of these craftsmen would mean that it's unreasonable to expect consistency in inscribing a mei. I don't see how both statements can coexist. Beyond this, I have no difficulty in seeing consistency in some of the sample mei here. This doesn't mean I see every would-be shodai mei to be exactly the same as the others (ditto as regards the nidai), but to say that these examples point to a different individual in each case is, I think, really stretching things. Especially when we consider that these tsubako may have been working across decades of time (is your signature, Ford, precisely the same every time? Is it the same now as it was when you were in your twenties? Mine isn't.), to expect utter uniformity from mei to mei to mei is questionable at best. Having said this, there are, I think, tendencies that will appear across a wide sample set of a given mei. These are present in the examples here (mostly), and are those that Pete and I have been discussing. Further, it is a non-sequitur to reify the existence of two "rough groupings of mei style" if one is also positing at least ten different men (living in different provinces!) creating and signing these tsuba: why would the mei of such a large number of individual workers, living many miles apart, sift into two recognizable groups this way. It makes no sense to me. On your doubting of the assigning of "shodai" and "nidai" status to these artists, I would agree with you there. I have long wondered how it was "determined" which of the two (if you'll indulge my reference to only two tsubako here) was Nobuiye I and which was Nobuiye II. I have yet to see a convincing reason/explanation offered up in response to this question. Gotta run. I will want to respond, though, too, to your thoughts on a Nobuiye brand, as this is something that I have been discussing with others for some years now, not just in regard to Nobuiye, but even more so with Yamakichibei work. Final comment: Your statement that "If these tsuba have any significant aesthetic value then it lies in the workmanship and not in the minutia of mei construction" seems so obvious to me that I'm a little surprised you felt you needed to make it. I mean, what form of art or craft would this not apply to? It's a given, isn't it? The whole reason the discussion of the mei is even occurring is that the work(manship) itself is implicitly worthy enough to accept (at least for the moment) as authentic or deserving of appraisal (the inadequacy of electronic photos as the medium by which we're all accessing these pieces notwithstanding). Anyway, more later... Cheers, Steve

Hi Henry, Just too little information in the oshigata image for me to be able to say what I think about it. I will say this about your tsuba's mei: to me, it seems to be closer to a hanare-mei than a futoji-mei, having more features of the former than of the latter. Here are images of hanare-mei Nobuiye work, just for more visual reference... Cheers, Steve

David, Your example is of a hanare-mei Nobuiye; Henry's is ostensibly a futoji-mei piece. Steve

Hi Henry, Well, just to respond to a couple of the strands of thought here... First, I would certainly agree that attempting to arrive at any definitive assessment (if there can be such a thing) would have to be done via in-hand examination. This is, I think, especially the case when the question concerns the workmanship, as you're asking about, Henry (and Brian). The finer points concerning the metal finish, forging, hammering, patina, texture, and so on are almost useless to conjecture about too much from photos alone. We can get initial ideas, perhaps, but again, to arrive at any sort of confident conclusion requires hand-held inspection. The mei, though, is a slightly different story. While similar caveats must apply in the assessment of the mei, a signature is less stubborn about revealing certain key traits than is the surface texture, patina, metal grain, etc... of the plate. If a stroke is rendered in a questionable way, or if there are missing strokes, or extra strokes, it is a bit harder to discredit such observations based on having only photos to go by. Again, Henry, I would love to be wrong about this. I sincerely hope I am. But I have never seen another futoji-mei which presents with such a pronounced overlap of that "sideways 'V'" as this one does. This feature is one of the dominant kantei points, in fact, for distinguishing between futoji-mei and hanare-mei signature, as well as for determining authentic hanare-mei works versus those which would pretend to be. You'll note, too, that the usual rendering of the "sideways 'V'" is more sedate and linear in authentic hanare mei; on your tsuba, this "V" is incised with a flamboyance, for lack of a better word, that I wouldn't expect to see. Finally, this structure is frequently cut using two separated strokes (see example images). On your tsuba, it is rendered in a way whereby it appears to be all connected and done with a certain panache. Equally disconcerting would be the "missing strokes" at the far left of the "iye" ji. These strokes usually appear as three quasi-horizontal lines/strokes one on top of the other (see example images). Of course I am speaking of hanare-mei works in this case, but I am doing so because of that pronounced overlapping of the "sideways 'V'" onto the long downward stroke of the "iye" ji. Another point to note in the mei here is exactly where the "T" of the "nobu" ji is met by the top horizontal stroke (the fourth stroke, I believe) of this ji. In the hanare-mei, this top horizontal stroke (on the right side of the ji) meets at the junction of the first and second strokes (the vertical and the diagonal "swoop" of the "T" on the left side of the "nobu" ji). In the futoji-mei, this is not the case: here, the top horizontal stroke of the right side of the "nobu" ji abuts the upper right edge of the quasi-diagonal "swoop" stroke of the "T." (Man, I hope I'm making sense...). As Pete observed (rightly, I believe), the mei on your tsuba seems to be an amalgam of the two different kinds of mei. Again, photos are no substitute for in-hand inspection in judging tsuba overall; but the relative two-dimensionality of the mei can yield more positive and definitive evidence than the tsuba as a whole can from photos alone. So, back to the workmanship question. In truth, the workmanship of this guard is not up to the standards of the high-level Nobuiye guards I've seen. However, it does seem to be (judging from photos) on a par with some of the smaller, judged-to-be-authentic pieces I've seen in the past. I would certainly love a chance to examine this one in hand in order to have a better sense of things... A final thought on papers: the mistakes I have seen the various organizations make in the attributions of tosogu have, on occasion, been harrowing. I'm talking about severe, indefensible errors. Errors that are demonstrable as errors. There is far too much of a tendency for Western collectors to kowtow to these organizations as the ultimate, unquestionable, final word on the authenticity of a given work. I do not fault the organizations themselves. They are comprised of humans, and therefore, are prone to error. The fault lies in those who unreservedly trust in the judgment of these organizations as infallible. Better to take what these organizations say as a starting point, and study as much as one can to confirm (or reject) what the papers say... Cheers, Steve P.S. in the first image here, of the mei examples, images 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are of the hanare mei; the others are of the futoji mei. The bottom two photos are of futoji-mei Nobuiye.

I'm afraid I must concur with Pete. This mei combines elements of the hanare- and futoji-mei, as Pete indicates. In a futoji-mei, the last strokes of the "iye" ji (i.e. the ones that look like the letter "V" turned 90 degrees to the right) should not cross over the long, downward stroke of the ji; if there is any cross-over, it is slight. Further, the manner in which these last strokes (the "turned 'V'") is rendered is done with too much of a flourish, I think. As Pete observes, there are (at least two) missing horizontal strokes which should be present in the left-hand area of the "iye" ji. Their absence cannot be attributed to wear or yakite or such, since the mei is so crisp). I would also say that the size of the mei is too large (especially that of the "iye" ji), and the first two strokes of the "nobu" ji are suspect as well (as Pete states). On the box form of the "nobu" ji, I have seen some variation on this structure in several legit Nobuiye works, so I am less confident in saying it is problematic, but it very well may be... I hate to have to agree with Pete here; I'd much rather share in the confidence of the NTHK in their attribution. However, I cannot. Really sorry, Henry. And I really hope I'm wrong, too. I would join Pete, too, in suggesting a submission to the NBTHK. Anyone who knows me knows that I have little faith in papers for tosogu in the first place, given the number of egregious errors I've seen made, but if the NBTHK agrees that the piece is authentic, I'll re-examine what (I think) I know... Even better would be Pete's suggestion regarding Ito-san or Hagihara-san. It's worth pursuing, I think... Don't shoot the messenger(s)... Steve

Curran, I find this statement curious. Are you meaning to say one level above Nobuiye? In my book, this isn't possible, as Nobuiye is as good as it gets in tsuba. And very, very few match him/them (the two early masters). But perhaps this isn't what you meant? Cheers, Steve

I think we need to keep in mind a couple of things when considering variations in mei as regards a particular artist. First, of course, is to examine the work itself. Do all of the workmanship markers which combine to identify a particular tsubako come together convincingly in a given piece? If the mei on that piece exhibits some slight variation in stroke placement, depth, angle, etc..., do we then discount that piece as genuine? If those workmanship markers are present, and they are distinctive to that artist, then I do not discount the work as authentic. Next, if we grant that a particular artist may be working and signing his tsuba over a period of 30, 40, or even 50 years, it is not too much of a stretch to imagine that there will be variations in his mei. There are pronounced and "officially recognized" variations in the mei of the shodai Hoan and of the "nidai" Yamakichibei. In the end, then, relatively minor shifts in details of a mei are not enough to say a piece is gimei, not when keeping the above in mind. All IMHO, of course... Cheers, Steve

Hi Henry, Your readings are correct: 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 are the hanare-mei; 2, 4, 9, and 10 are the futoji-mei. Cheers, Steve

Hi George, Aw, well, you've sort of misquoted me... You forgot to add the "As I have stressed in previous posts" part. In other words, way back in the early days of this thread, I (and not only I) rather strongly asserted that there would have been no formally recognized association between tsuba and official rank. So I was just saying in the the post you've quoted me from that it was a bit exasperating to see the thread continue merrily along as though nothing had been asserted about this formal relationship (this would include the "system" supporting a would-be association of tsuba and rank). Cheers, Steve

Thanks for the excellent link, Henk-Jan... Much appreciated. Cheers, Steve

Keith, I think what you really mean is that we cannot know whether we can accurately apply our values and perceptions to ancient cultures and have our conclusions be valid. I mean, in the same way we can’t know for sure if applying our values and perceptions would yield accurate, valid conclusion, we also can’t know for sure that doing so wouldn’t yield those conclusions. I would add that, according to what seems to be your premise here, there would be little point even to attempt to understand the beliefs, values, assumptions, biases, perceptions, judgments, and so on of any ancient culture based on the distance, culturally and temporally, between them and us. But I don’t really agree that this is the case. In the first place, we do have some writings contemporary to the periods we’re discussing which provide insight into the values and perceptions of the people of that time and place. We also have the objects themselves to consider. Even if the writings or objects in question do not immediately pertain to the specific topic we are interested in (in this case, tsuba), via extrapolation, careful inference, and “educated conjecture,” we might advance hypotheses concerning other aspects (i.e. tsuba) of that culture, attempting to employ, as best we can, our understanding of their values and perceptions, not only those of our own. Secondly, if it is true that access to the “psychologies” of ancient cultures is impossible for us due to those culture and time gaps, then what does that say about the work of historians, archeologists, and anthropologists? Is there little point to those fields, then? Won’t their conclusions or even hypothesis automatically be faulty, since one cannot completely erase the cultural biases informing how one sees the world? Thirdly, certain theoretical principles may be understood by some/many to have fairly universal applications (that is, the principles may or may not apply to cultures that are exceedingly alien to the more modern cultures out of which the theories sprang and to which the theories were initially applied, such as those so primitive that they are essentially stone-age. But these principles would be seen to be applicable to a culture as relatively modern and recent as that of Edo Period Japan). So for instance, the principles informing the theory of sign exchange value would still find useful application to the Japan even of Heian times, never mind Edo. Wherever you find a culture that produces and embraces as much nuanced meaning as that which you find in Japan, in all kinds of media, the likelihood of there being no presence of sign exchange value dynamics in that culture is virtually nil. Cheers, Steve