Steve Waszak

Hi Keith, Mokume has almost a default association with Myochin tsubako of the mid-to-late-Edo period. However, in the several pieces I've seen, the mokume treatment has not been so pronounced as this. The "ringed" perimeter of the hitsuana also are suggestive, I think, of later-Edo period work, as is the continuation of the mokume pattern fully onto the seppa-dai. My guess is 19th-century Myochin work. Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Many thanks for your excellent insights here. Very clearly explained. Much appreciated. Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, Sorry. I was just trying to say that however challenging it might be to locate and identify specifically an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility, I do think that such a thing may be said to exist (there is a there, there; there indeed exists such a thing)... Apologies for my clumsiness... Cheers, Steve

Hi guys, I have been following this excellent topic for some days now. I have rather a lot of thoughts on the subject here, so I may wander a bit as I delve into things. Please forgive me if I stray too far onto a particular tangent... The question of whether there is and then pinpointing an essential Japanese aesthetic is a tricky one, I think, because (among other things) it seems to remove the individuality of artists, at least to a certain extent. That is, would the aesthetic sensibility expressed in the works of Shimizu Jimbei (Jingo I) be any "more" or "less Japanese" than that expressed in the works of Hirata Hikozo? The tsuba of these two artists could hardly be more dissimilar, and yet, not only are both Japanese artists of the very early Edo period, but Hirata was Shimizu's teacher(!). One might expect a fairly strong influence of the former's sensibilities on the latter, but there isn't a lot of evidence for this, not in materials used, in style, or in subject matter. Is one of these artists more "essentially Japanese" in his aesthetic sensibility? Is either more or less Japanese in this way than Umetada Myoju? Switching gears here for a moment, I think the list of aesthetic terms Ford provided earlier in this thread is a fascinating one, not only for the respective meaning of each of these terms, but also in considering whether there is or ever was any sort of "ranking system" or hierarchy describing the relative status of the qualities described by the terms. For example, do/did the Japanese (if I can group them so generally) see shibui as an elevated aesthetic quality when contrasted with iki, or with karei? Does/did yugen ascend above miyabi, or vice-versa? Was it simply a matter of individual artists to decide such questions, or are these sorts of concerns alien to the Japanese? I wonder if we could say that, among these terms/concepts, some are "more (quint)essentially Japanese than others. It would seem not. After all, if the terms exist in Japanese, one would suppose they would all be "essentially Japanese." And yet, I think we tend to associate certain of these terms/concepts with a Japanese aesthetic sensibility more readily than we do others. For me, such concepts as wabi, sabi, yugen, mujo, shibui, and kanso resonate as more distinctly Japanese than do, for instance, iki, karei, and miyabi. I'm sure this says more about me than it does about the Japanese, but nevertheless, this is the view I hold (if largely unconsciously). As has already been noted in this thread, one aesthetic sensibility that I would agree stands out as distinctly Japanese is that of subtle suggestion in the depiction of or reference to a subject. The power of the unfinished statement is a notion that seems to be vibrant in Japanese aesthetics. Whether this idea exists in other cultures or not, it is the Japanese who have elevated it to its most exquisite manifestation, I would argue. This isn't to say that this is the only---or the most distinctive or most important---Japanese aesthetic value, however. Indeed, what I would say captures something of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility is the frequent combining of several of the concepts described in that list of terms Ford provided. The adroitness with which great Japanese tsubako (including those who never signed their work) fused many of these concepts into the physical object that is the tsuba is, also, in itself, a characteristic of an essential Japanese aesthetic. That is, the very degree of accomplishment in realizing their ideas and values in the guard itself is distinctively Japanese. And when we then focus on the joining these two---the combining of aesthetic concepts on the one hand, and the technical brilliance in the execution of the designs on the other---we have then an art tradition that is distinct and recognizable. The matter of Western (or other foreign) influence on Japanese artists remains, of course. The real question here, I would say, is whether there is truly any form or example of purely Japanese art, totally free from foreign influence. It's an interesting question, but perhaps not as important to pursue as it at first seems, for it would appear to presuppose that any such form of art would perforce be "more" Japanese (more purely Japanese) than those which "suffered" from foreign impact. Two things occur to me in response to this concern: first, going back to my initial point regarding the individual Japanese artist, even if we could identify any such would-be pure Japanese art, we would be likely to see considerable diversity in sensibility and expression of that art form (thus diluting the notion of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility); and second, if it is the Japanese propensity to take foreign elements and absorb, modify, tweak, and meld them with both other foreign elements and "native Japanese" elements, wouldn't such a propensity itself be part and parcel of the Japanese process of art creation? One could argue that it is the unique blending of disparate elements into a fresh and vibrant new whole that is itself a distinct hallmark of Japanese art. I would be curious how many of us would be able to locate such concepts as shibui, yugen, wabi, kanso, and mujo in any art other than Japanese, especially in combination. Even if one were to argue that it is the "art critic" who determines these concepts/values to be present in a given work, not the artist who creates that work, it would nevertheless be the Japanese critic who would describe the aesthetic characteristics and qualities expressed by that work; in other words, it would still be a cultural valuation, whether through the eyes of the artist, the critic, or both. Finally, the sheer quality of the work produced is, to me, a distinct feature of Japanese art. Of course, not everything produced by the Japanese is of superb quality, but the marriage of aesthetic sensibility (as described above), concept, design, material, and execution achieved by so many Japanese artists, across so many genres of art, across so many centuries is, I believe, unique among the world's cultures. It may be frustratingly difficult to pinpoint what it is that makes Japanese art Japanese, but that difficulty doesn't mean that there aren't characteristics adhering to their art that won't be found (especially in combination) anywhere else. There is a there, there, I think, despite its elusiveness... Sorry to have rambled... There's just so much to this topic! Cheers, Steve

Good eye, there, Ford... Just for clarification, what you're referring to here with this tsuba of Colin's are the very tiny "grains" of metal around the mei area, right? I'd just like to be able to recognize a clear demarcation between the "bubble evidence" on the one hand, and the various other surface features on the plate of a forged tsuba. At times, especially with some of the more "worked over" pieces, the variety of gouges, hammer marks, sundry bori, divots, dents, and digs can be a bit perplexing when it comes to grasping how a particular piece was made or finished. Your views on yakite shitate are quite intriguing. I must admit, I've always wondered about this process and the effects it was supposedly achieving. Your speculation that it is actually a descriptive term, rather than one accurately referencing a process, certainly is plausible. I am inclined to agree with you here, though I remain very curious as to how, exactly, the makers of Yamakichibei and Kanayama tsuba realized those melted surface effects in their works. I've attached photos here of a Yamakichibei tsuba. Apologies for the mediocre photos, but I'm wondering what you think of the surface treatment of this guard. In particular, the area just below and to the right of the katakana "e" character (the rough, bumpy area). I find it interesting that this part of the tsuba's surface contrasts with the relative smoothness of the rest of the surface area. What process do you suppose was employed to realize this effect? Also, as is rather well knows as concerns Yamakichibei tsuba, the mei is often faintly present as opposed to the signatures of most other makers. Some explain these "faded mei" as a by-product of the yakite-shitate process... Anyway, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the working of the surface of this tsuba... Cheers, Steve

Ford, Keith, George... I will be engaging in this thread shortly; circumstances have made it difficult just now to participate, but as the number of hits on this thread suggest, there are many who are interested. The topic is exceedingly worthwhile, as it speaks to the reasons (nearly) all of us are even here in this nihonto world. I suspect that many feel they are not sufficiently knowledgeable to contribute meaningfully to this discussion, but I would only say, as Ford has, that it is through actual, active discussion that new insights and understandings may come to light. So I will toss in my two cents, for whatever it's worth...lol. I look forward to "joining the fray" a bit later on today and/or tomorrow... Cheers, Steve

Hi Colin, An interesting and appealing guard here... To my eye, the tsuba does appear to be a 19th-century "homage to Nobuiye," but with a curious nod to Yamakichibei work, too: the sukashi turtle is reminiscent in style and placement of the sukashi designs of a late-Momoyama/early-Edo Yamakichibei tsubako. Not the peculiar "surround" in the area around the sukashi, but the sukashi work itself. It also seems as though the tsuba has been treated using yakite-shitate, which the Yamakichibei were well known for employing. Of course, the treatment of the rest of the tsuba recalls a famous Nobuiye design (the tortoise-shell bori), including its being interrupted and then continued elsewhere on the guard, including up onto the mimi. The metal doesn't look to be of the quality that would be associated with either Nobuiye or Yamakichibei, and the mei doesn't appear to me to fit into the ga-mei or futoji-mei groupings of Nobuiye mei as recognized by various scholars, but I could easily be wrong about these doubts... ;o) especially since I don't have the guard in hand. Anyway, it's an appealing tsuba, Colin, as I said. Thanks for posting it for us to see. ) Cheers, Steve

Greetings Ford, Keith, George, at al... ) Terrific thread. Many thanks for kicking this one off, Ford. Things for me are in a bit of flux just now (I've just relocated across country, for the second time in eight months...), so I don't have time at the moment to join you all in this very intriguing line of inquiry. Your list of aesthetic terms is a really good one, Ford. I might add the Japanese concept of mono no aware, which I have heard translated as "the pathos of things." How about we try to "find" one or more of the aesthetic concepts you list here, Ford, in and among the various pieces featured in the reference photos you kindly provide? I think it would be interesting and educational for us all to look for these concepts as manifest in this tsuba or that one among the group presented in your reference photos. The tsuba George mentions here---where yugen and mujo may be said to be exemplified---is a great start, but we can't actually see this guard. I look forward to seeing how we all do in trying to locate these various concepts in the tsuba illustrated in this thread. Also, Ford, your point regarding attempting to see these aesthetic qualities not only in the subject/motif, but also in the material, treatment, design, etc... is a REALLY good one. A crucially important one, actually. For we often will see a subject depicted in many various tsuba, but the WAY it is depicted is where aesthetic sensibilities become truly manifest, no? And this is, after all, what I think got this thread started. :D While we're at it, we might try, too, to distinguish, if we can, between, for instance, shibui and kanso, or between koko and sabi, and so on. I think that, for many of us, attempting to discern whether a certain tsuba presents koko or sabi (but not both), presents something of a challenge... Cheers, Steve

Hi Mariusz, I think your call (gimei revival piece) is probably a good one. I agree, too, that the amida-yasuri look to be quite well done, though more reminiscent, to my eye, of fine Owari Norisuke work than early Yamakichibei, whose amida-yasuri often appears "rougher"... (I do know, however, that Sakura Yamakichi employed such finely-rendered amida-yasuri... ;o). Cheers, Steve

Hi Mariusz, The mei on this tsuba does indeed read Yama Kichi, though I am reasonably certain that it was added later (or that the tsuba itself is relatively late). As Henry notes, the early Yamakichibei tsubako would finish their tsuba in most cases by treating them with additional heat after the mei was inscribed (yakite shitate), such that the mei become much fainter and are often difficult to discern. The mei on this guard gives no evidence of this process. Further, certain details of the "Yama" and Kichi" kanji, respectively, appear not to conform to the particulars of the Yamakichibei mei accepted by many knowledgeable tsuba scholars. Additionally, Yamakichibei steel seems to possess the peculiar quality of being relatively rust-resistant; while these tsuba may lose their luster with lack of proper care and storage, they apparently resist corrosion much better than most tsuba. Yours appears to have several areas of red rust, which would thus further lead me to doubt this tsuba coming from the Yamakichibei workshop in Momoyama Owari. I also don't see the clear signs of high-quality forging that authentic early Yamakichibei tsuba boast. Yamakichibei tsubako were famous for the exceedingly high quality of their iron/steel; genuine pieces practically jump out at you in this regard. There are other characteristics in your tsuba here which don't align with what I see in early Yamakichibei guards. In particular, the specific mokko shape of this tsuba differs from the mokko-gata favored by the Momoyama Yamakichibei. Of course, it's not impossible that they did use this shape, but I'm not aware of having seen it before... The amida-yasuri is an intriguing component of this tsuba, however. The fact that fine amida-yasuri was famously used in Yamakichibei workshops, and that Yamakichibei tsubako are considered by many to be supreme in this type of work, raises interesting questions about exactly what your tsuba is. Perhaps it is a later "homage" to Yamakichibei. As to the curious "plugs" you observe around the hitsu-ana, yes, this is interesting. I've included a photo of a small (early-Edo, I believe) Yamakichibei tsuba which presents hitsu-ana reminiscent of those on your guard. Note the rather clumsily-done inserts (silver, I think) in the hitsu-ana... Thanks for posting this guard, Mariusz... Cheers, Steve

Hi Mark, Good conjecture on this being a student piece (and this being why it's not signed...). Maybe you're right, but I've seen a lot less accomplished pieces that this featuring a mei... Then, too, I've seen tsuba either ostensibly made by a shodai or nidai of some school/workshop, or even attributed to the shodai/nidai (in other words, accomplished enough to be thought to have been made by a real master), which nevertheless lack mei. One of the reasons I've heard most often for this occurrence is that, if the tsuba in question were commissioned by a high-ranking person, it would be presumptuous for the tsubako to sign the work. This makes some sense to me, though I'm not fully convinced that this is the reason for the lack of a mei in these cases. An intriguing sub-topic here, though... Thanks for responding, Mark... ) Cheers, Steve Waszak

I would agree with Rich here: Saga Kaneiye or maybe later. There are a number of design elements that speak to this (sorry, I'm not seeing Saotome here), not the least of which is the Kaneiye-esque tsuchime in the plate. The shape of the tsuba, too, is suggestive of the Kaneiye aesthetic, I think. I'm always curious about tsuba which seem to be fairly clear "references" to a specific past (or even contemporary) master, but then which don't carry a mei, too. To "speak the aesthetic language" of a particular artist and then not "finish" the reference by including a mei is intriguing. I've heard various reasons offered for why this might be, but somehow, they don't quite satisfy my curiosity on this matter... Cheers, Steve Waszak

Hi John, Thanks for the photos. Well, I certainly can see Saotome, as many here are saying. Of course, it would be nice to be able to see it in-hand to get a better sense of the metal (forging, color, etc...). The tsubako who came to mind when I saw this first was Owari Sadahiro. Granted, I've not seen a mumei Sadahiro (that I know of), but the motif/subject and its treatment/placement on the plate do recall Sadahiro for me. This artist was known, I believe, occasionally to use irregular shapes; this one does recall Kaneie a bit, but I have seen the odd Sadahiro tsuba or two present such irregularities. The metal looks right for a Momoyama/early-Edo dating, and while some have Sadahiro as a mid-Edo artist, the pieces I've seen have the sensibility of an artist working at an earlier time, perhaps as early as Momoyama. Of course, one would have to wonder why, if this were a Sadahiro guard, it wasn't signed. Of course, by the early-Edo and certainly beyond that time, there was such a rapidly increasing cross-fertilization among the various schools and artists that it's not inconceivable to see this tsuba as one exhibiting traits of two or more schools/artists (i.e. Kaneie shape, Saotome metal/hammering, Sadahiro motif). Whatever it is, it's a nice piece... ) Cheers, Steve

Hi John, Looks like a nice tsuba. Would it be possible to post images of the other side of the guard, as well as a 3/4 shot so that the mimi is more visible? I see aspects of different schools/tsubako in this piece, but I'd like to see more of the guard in order to try to whittle down the possibilities. Cheers, Steve

lol... You're going to go THERE again? Cheers, Steve

Exquisite work, Ford. I particularly like the first one. Very Shoin Tea in feeling... ;o) Thanks for posting these... Cheers, Steve

I'm afraid I have to agree with John. It seems to me to be a copy of Echizen Nobuie's work, but I don't think it is by that artist himself, for the reasons John gives. Echizen Nobuie's work, while not approaching that of THE Nobuie (I and II) of the Momoyama period, is still quite skilled and relatively well finished. I am not aware of Echizen Nobuie using any inlay, and as per Pete's example, this artist's iron is superior to the piece in question, at least it appears this way from the photo. Cheers, Steve

Interesting topic, Ford. Thanks for bringing it up. I think it's run its course for me, though. Adios, Steve

You are calling for objectivity that cannot exist according to your previous posts. Theoretically non-Japanese persons can adapt to Japanese criteria of quality, but they have a long way to go. Almost all of them trying never reach true mastery. Their Western point of view is obsolete anyway. Crying for democracy is premature and ignorant in front of an old and most sophisticated culture. reinhard Reinhard, No, if you read my posts, including the segment you quote here, you'll see that I speak of "strength of reasoning and clarity of articulation in one's opinion," which is not a "call for objectivity." As to your other comment, surely you realize that the majority of Japanese themselves know nothing of "Japanese criteria of quality" when it comes to the "classic" arts. Everyone, Japanese or otherwise, has "a long way to go" in learning aesthetic concepts in the Japanese sensibility as manifest in the sword arts. "True mastery," when we are speaking specifically of aesthetic assessment capability, is an exceedingly elusive thing, and it remains unclear who decides when someone has attained "true mastery" in this skill. I have no idea what you mean by "[t]heir Western point of view is obsolete anyway." Who is "their"? Are you speaking of ALL non-Japanese? And Western point of view? That is rather broad phrasing. Can you clarify? Obsolete? In what specific context? According to what criteria? Your last statement is so bizarre and 18th-century in its sentiments that it's hard to take seriously. It sounds exactly like something a foppish English Lord would have said about that colonial rabble in America right around 1776. And yes, Japan's is an old and sophisticated culture. I suppose that's one of the reasons I've enjoyed my lifelong study of it, and my years living in it. Steve

I will e-mail Franco directly on this, so as not enter his sandbox publicly... Steve

Bravo, Ford. I'm with ya! Cheers, Steve

Okay, let's see... First, Ian, nicely stated... :D Next, Ford, you say: "I would argue that the symbolic role of the Japanese sword has always been it's most powerful presence, whether on the field of battle, on a katana-kake in a tokanoma in a private residence or on display in an International museum. The complexity of what it represents depends, as Steve rightly points out, to a great extent, on context. This context has always been in flux. To survive, all traditions must remain in flux and evolve to provide meaningful expression... one that is expressive of the times. I believe that is still happening as in the work of the finest swordsmiths at work today...and if I may be so bold as to count myself in their company, I like to believe my own work also speaks to a beauty that is much loved still and provides a vehicle to further develop new beauty within the context of this tradition. This is the crux of what I was getting at in terms of 'legitimacy'." Well now if you had just said this... :D In all seriousness, we may wrestle (rather fruitlessly, I would imagine, since we have no ultimate judge to say who's right) about whether "the symbolic role of the Japanese sword has always been it's most powerful presence (italics added)," including on the "field of battle," but I certainly do agree that its symbolic value, its semiotic function :D has always been of great weight. The rest of what you say here, for me, anyway, more clearly expresses your true aims in starting this thread, I think, and I can be quite open to and appreciative of the pursuits you describe in your last few sentences here. I find it interesting that you boldtype the phrases you do; that's what I'd have done, too... It's interesting to me that you find the term homage dismissive. I certainly don't see the term this way at all. For me, it's simply a recognition of what Ian gets at in his post... Perhaps the word has different connotations in South Africa than it does in the U.S? You also say, Ford: I think there is a whole new topic to wrangle over in relation to our evaluation of the qualities that these artefacts exhibit and the need for some sort of objectivity in assessing these aesthetics. I fully appreciate Steve's points regarding the ultimate impossibility of true objectivity but I would maintain that this is precisely where the study of aesthetics, [as a tool, not a dogma as some seem to fear, with which we can begin to more effectively analyse and study this art form], provides a framework for a more mature and balanced appreciation." Hey, if you can find the objectivity you speak of here, I think that would be wonderful. I am not being sarcastic at all. I remember, as a graduate student some years ago, being knocked off balance by the arguments made for the illusion of objectivity. It's very uncomfortable for many to accept. Quite frankly, if somehow we could arrive at "some sort of objectivity in assessing these aesthetics," as you say, that would be terrific. I just don't see how this can be done... Now, Franco, when you say, "Steve, don't expect answers if you're going to rant and take an argumentative tone, simply go find you're own answers," in the first place, I am most certainly NOT ranting (you'll know it when I'm really ranting), and secondly, "an argumentative tone"? LOL...we're debating here, are we not? Sheesh... You say: "Kantei is how experts are determined. People like Mr. Hagihara with tosogu (please correct and excuse if misspelled) and Mr. Tanobe with nihonto are able to demonstrate repeatedly their expertise in kantei, plus their immense knowledge of nihonto history, that's what makes them experts." You need to dig deeper, Franco. Kantei are focused strongly on identification of pieces and determination of authenticity. We are not discussing this aspect of "expertise." We are discussing (or arguing about) "expertise" in the realm of aesthetic quality, excellence, and validity (and how one becomes "expert" in this area). These are very, very different things. I for one would find kantei (and the whole shinsa process) much more intriguing and enlightening if it did focus (more) on the latter, rather than simply the former. Finally, you say: "We are talking about Japan and nihon-to here aren't we? Truthfully, I wouldn't expect to find any non Japanese on the shinsa teams, you see its their party, their culture, their history, they set the rules and standards and have every right to do so! Just like you wouldn't go to Venice and expect to find non Italian Gondoliers." A perfect example here, Franco, of projected ethnocentrism. Your sentiments here seem to say that because someone is Japanese they are therefore automatically more qualified to assess aesthetic quality in nihonto/tosogu than a non-Japanese would. Your words almost say that cultural knowledge is passed down genetically. I know you're not really saying this, but can't you see that you are building (or reinforcing) a wall of privileged exclusivity that would create or buttress an automatic deference to Japanese opinion simply because it is Japanese opinion? All I am saying is that what should matter in assessing aesthetic quality is the strength of reasoning and clarity of articulation in one's opinion, NOT the fact that one is Japanese or not. Otherwise it's something like saying that Italians are naturally better gondoliers than others would be, and I know you're not implying that, right? Cheers, Steve

Ever hear of "the exception that proves the rule"? Cheers, Steve

Franco, You say: "Steve, first I suggest you re-read what I'm saying. Second, we can spout off all we want about Ford's work, positive or negative, but the problem is we are not experts, so we must turn to "established standards and measurements" to legitimize, otherwise what do we have?" I have read what you're saying, and stand by my response entirely. In saying we are not experts, you assume that some other "sanctioning body" is comprised of such "experts." Tell me, how does one qualify as an "expert"? Who decides whether one is an expert or not? These "established standards and measurements" you speak of, precisely what are they? Who decided? What do we do when two or more "experts" disagree, maybe even strongly disagree with one another? How do WE decide, then, which expert is more persuasive, or who is "right"? You say, too: "Steve, like I said, you're free to agree or disagree with what the NBTHK or any other sanctioned nihonto authority says, all you want." But what your post strongly implies is that we're not "free" to disagree with sanctioned experts, not unless we wish to have our opinion/views shot down. Don't you say that, "like it or not," we have to abide by what these experts have deemed worthy, valid, etc...? I don't see a lot of "freedom" of thought encouraged by such words... To this, you say: "Steve, I don't know where this is coming from, but nothing could be further from what I think, thus my reference to Mr. Tschernega, again, please read more carefully, thanks." There is a big difference between what Brian does in MAKING habaki and what the "sanctioned experts" do in JUDGING validity, legitimacy, excellence, and so on. While we may find a nice handful of skilled craftspersons making pieces in the Japanese tradition, how many non-Japanese members of shinsa teams do we find? How easy would it be for a non-Japanese to become a shinsa team member? One of the classic ways in which hegemonic powers maintain their control in given contexts is by obfuscation, mystification, inscrutability. If the area of knowledge in question is presented as guarded, special, exceedingly esoteric, and reserved only for "those who belong," those on the outside will be forever looking in, kept at arm's length, and effectively excluded from the inner circle where power is actually wielded. Often, those on the outside simply accept this, question nothing, shrug and defer to the "expert and superior" inner circle. My point here is that we certainly may end up accepting and even embracing what the experts say, but we should do so not out of automatic default to the ineffably deeper knowledge of these experts, but because we have applied our own efforts at critically assessing the objects or questions at hand, and can articulate for ourselves what make a piece worthy, valid, legitimate, high-quality, and so on.

Sorry, Franco, but I can't agree. Your argument here implies that if the NBTHK, or some other Japanese sanctioning body, did not recognize Ford's work as legitimate, that would be, as you say, "case closed." Well, it would not be closed, actually. Ford's work is Ford's work. It is brilliantly executed and realized, whether or not the NBTHK recognizes it as such, or as "legitimate." My argument in this thread has been mostly, if not entirely, about CULTURAL CONTEXT, and the effect this has on an object's "MEANING." The phrases "tsuba-like object" or "katana-like object" speak to this point. For me, with blades and fittings both being as anachronistic as they are, their meaning---and "identity"---changes. Contemporary blades and tsuba thus become more like homages to their earlier cousins, or if one prefers, "katana-like objects" and "tsuba-like objects." Incidentally, this holds true (for me) with contemporary Japanese smiths, too, not just non-Japanese. I happen to like the work of Naruki Issei quite a bit. He is a 20th-century "tsubako." Even though I like his work as I do, I don't consider what he makes to be "tsuba" in the same way that what Kaneiye made were tsuba. Why? Simply because the culture in which each was made changed so drastically. Some may see this as being rather, um, picky. That's fine. But I will maintain that context is huge, and absolutely cannot be set aside. There is also a tinge of projected ethno-centrism in your assertions, Franco, that doesn't sit very comfortably. There is the suggestion that because one is Japanese, this automatically makes him more expert, more able, more qualified to determine validity, legitimacy, and quality as pertains to all matters concerning nihonto/tosogu. While I recognize that a deeply learned Japanese scholar---one who has had access to and understands intimately various texts and tomes that many non-Japanese would not---will have great advantages over his "average" Western counterparts when it then comes to assessing blades, tsuba, etc..., the simple FACT that he is Japanese does not mean that he will therefore hold a superior opinion to a non-Japanese. Let's acknowledge, too, that Japanese experts disagree with one another about things nihonto/tosogu all the time. So if one of these experts saw Ford's work as "legitimate," and another did not, which should we place our trust in? So I'm afraid it's not as simple as merely bowing down to "Japanese experts" to decide for us what is valid, legitimate, quality, etc... Cheers, Steve