DirkO

Hi Piers, description matches the tsuba perfectly. And yes I know people like to have a picture to go with the description But I didn't want to bias the translation. As per the outside lid - it's a ko-Shoami

Thanks @YourBabyBjornBorg think you might be right - the kanji 竪 and 堅 are very close and the tsuba is still in transit, so I can't check in hand, but your reading makes a bit more sense! For my records: how would 素心鑑 be read? Soshin kan?

I've tried to puzzle it all together and here is what I think it says. Please correct me where needed. Also putting this one in here as a reference, seeing we don't get these that often. 堅格子桐紋透 ken koshi(hard lattice) kiri-mon (paulownia crests) sukashi 無銘 桃山期作 mumei Momoyama ki saku 鉄地透 tetsu ji-sukashi 古雅 清朗 傑作 koga(classical elegance) seirō(crisp and clear refinement) kessaku (masterpiece) 平成二年霜月 Heisei ni nen shimotsuki (11th month in the 2nd year of Heisei - 1990) 素心 + seal (Soshin - pen name Sasano Masayuki)

I think it could be a tsuba after a painting by Iwasa Matabei (岩佐 又兵衛): Iwasa Matabei (1578–1650), a highly influential artist of the early Edo period often celebrated as a precursor to ukiyo-e, created a rare and haunting monochrome ink-wash painting known as Garouzu (餓狼図), translated as Hungry Wolf or The Starving Wolf Howling at the Moon (Garou Kougetsuzu). The character 正 (typically read as Masa or Tadashi) featured on a signature following a phrase referencing a painting usually translates to "copied by" or "honestly executed by" So the kao would be the actual artist. Just my own reasoning though.

Sold 5 years ago for 15M yen - curious what the current asking price would be.

They're uncommon, but as you assumed not unheard of. They're referred to as chûya-tsuba (昼夜鐔, lit. “day and night tsuba”).

Dear Geraint, Rather than asking for an explanation I couldn't find, I went down the rabbit hole, researched and asked around and did a little write up - all comments are welcome! ------------------------------------------------------- Among the many attribution problems in tosōgu, the distinction between (late) Mino work and the Kozenji school is a challenging one. At first glance the two can appear remarkably similar. Both employ scrolling karakusa, shakudō grounds, gold hirazōgan, floral ornament, and richly decorative surfaces. Both participate in the broader aesthetic world that emerged from the enormous influence of Mino metalwork during the late Muromachi and Momoyama periods. It is therefore that collectors frequently encounter guards which appear unmistakably “Mino,” only to discover that the NBTHK has papered them to Kozenji. Conversely, certain highly refined Owari-style works still receive broad Mino attribution. The reason for this confusion is that Kozenji did not arise in opposition to Mino aesthetics. Rather, Kozenji emerged through the absorption and reinterpretation of Mino decorative language within an Owari context. The distinction between the two schools therefore lies not primarily in motif vocabulary or isolated techniques, but in something much deeper: the philosophy of ornament, the treatment of surface, and the emotional structure of the design itself. To understand the difference properly, we must move beyond the question of what is depicted and instead examine how the surface behaves. The Mino tradition developed in Mino Province during the Muromachi and Momoyama periods and became one of the most influential decorative metalworking traditions in Japan. Mino artists cultivated an aesthetic built around vigorous carving, energetic takabori, rich metallic embellishment, and deeply animated surfaces. Their work often possesses tremendous physical vitality. Ornament in Mino work feels carved into existence through the force of the chisel itself. Even highly refined examples retain a sense of movement and tactile energy. The plate feels worked, excavated, and alive. This sculptural vitality became enormously influential. Mino aesthetics affected not only later Mino generations but also Gotō traditions, Owari kinko, and even aspects of Kaga metalwork. By the early Edo period, Mino visual language had spread widely beyond its original provincial boundaries. The Kozenji school emerged later in Owari, likely during the early Edo period, after Mino artistic influence had already spread westward through political and cultural realignment under Oda Nobunaga and his successors. Kozenji artists inherited many elements of Mino decorative vocabulary: scrolling vines, asymmetrical compositions, gold accents, and soft-metal ornamentation. Yet they transformed these inherited forms according to a different sensibility. Where Mino prized carving vitality, Kozenji increasingly emphasized decorative integration. Where Mino celebrated sculptural movement, Kozenji pursued ornamental coherence and surface harmony. This difference may be summarized very simply: In Mino work, the carving creates the ornament. In Kozenji work, the ornament organizes the surface. That distinction explains an extraordinary number of attribution decisions. In Mino work the eye is drawn first to the carving itself. The relief possesses physical authority. Lines vary with the movement of the chisel, shadows accumulate in compressed recesses, and vegetal forms seem to push outward from the plate. Even when gold or silver decoration is present, these additions generally reinforce the sculptural structure rather than flatten it into surface pattern. The ornament feels organic and energetic. One senses not only design, but physical action. This is particularly evident in Mino karakusa. The vines tend to be deeply cut, asymmetrical, and rhythmically compressed. They twist through the surface with muscular energy. Negative space often feels crowded and pressurized. Around the hitsu-ana and seppadai, the ornament seems to gather force inwardly, creating visual tension and density. The resulting atmosphere is one of Momoyama vitality: forceful, tactile, and animated. Kozenji adopts much of this same vocabulary but alters its function. The karakusa remains recognizably Mino-derived, yet its behavior changes fundamentally. The vines become more evenly distributed, smoother in movement, and more consciously decorative. Rather than appearing as sculptural vegetation carved into the iron, they begin to resemble ornamental patterning spread across a unified surface. The rhythm becomes calmer and more controlled. Space is allowed to breathe. This transformation is central to understanding Kozenji attribution. Kozenji surfaces often possess what might be called a textile sensibility. The entire guard behaves as a coordinated decorative field. Individual motifs no longer dominate through sheer carving energy; instead they participate in an integrated ornamental structure. Hirazōgan becomes especially important in this context. In Mino work, gold inlay usually accents relief carving. In Kozenji, however, flat inlay frequently becomes structurally important to the design itself. Gold highlights distribute visual rhythm across the plate, contributing to balance and ornamental unity rather than simply emphasizing sculptural depth. The emotional atmosphere changes accordingly. Where Mino often feels vigorous and physically charged, Kozenji tends toward refinement, restraint, and composure. One might say that Mino preserves something of the energetic instability of the Momoyama period, whereas Kozenji reflects the cultivated decorative balance of the Edo period. These distinctions become especially important in modern attribution practice, particularly within the NBTHK. In practice, the NBTHK tends to separate Kozenji from late Mino not by isolated motifs but by overall artistic behavior. The central question is often whether the piece fundamentally behaves like a Mino carving object or like an Owari decorative object influenced by Mino. If carving dominates the visual experience—if relief retains sculptural authority and the surface feels physically excavated—the attribution tends to move toward Mino. If, however, the ornament behaves as a coordinated surface system, with controlled spacing, decorative integration, and ornamental calm, the attribution tends to move toward Kozenji. This is why collectors are sometimes surprised by papers. Many collectors naturally classify by subject matter: karakusa, shakudō, gold decoration, and scrolling vines immediately suggest “Mino.” Yet the NBTHK often evaluates according to broader aesthetic logic. Two guards may share almost identical motifs while embodying entirely different surface philosophies. The two example guards illustrate this distinction well: The first guard, papered to Mino, retains strong sculptural vitality. The dense karakusa appears deeply worked into the plate, and the ornament generates considerable visual pressure. The gold mon serve primarily as accents within a carving-dominated structure. The eye responds first to the physical movement of the carving itself. The surface feels excavated and tactile. Even within its refinement, the guard preserves a distinctly Momoyama-derived energy. The second guard, papered to Kozenji, employs similar decorative vocabulary yet behaves very differently. The karakusa is more evenly distributed and rhythmically organized. The hō-ō bird participates in the ornamental field rather than emerging as a dramatically sculptural centerpiece. The entire plate possesses greater decorative unity and calm. Here the eye reads not carving force, but ornamental coordination. The surface feels designed rather than excavated. The lesson is that Kozenji did not reject Mino aesthetics; it refined and reorganized them. The two traditions exist along a continuum rather than within rigidly separate categories. Indeed, the problem becomes even more difficult because late Edo Mino work itself increasingly adopted decorative refinement. As a result, there are many guards that legitimately inhabit a grey zone between late Mino, Kozenji, Kaga-influenced Owari work, and broader Owari kinko traditions. Ultimately, the distinction between Mino and Kozenji is not simply technical. It is philosophical. Mino expresses ornament through carving energy and sculptural vitality. Kozenji expresses ornament through surface integration and decorative order. Both traditions share a common visual ancestry, but they embody fundamentally different ideas about how ornament should inhabit the plate. TL;DR Summary: Mino and Kozenji tsuba can look very similar because both use decorative motifs like karakusa vines, gold inlay, and rich surface ornamentation. However, the key difference is not what is depicted, but how the surface is treated. Mino work is driven by carving energy. The design feels physically excavated, dynamic, and sculptural. Ornament emerges from deep, forceful carving, creating a vivid, almost “alive” surface. Kozenji work reinterprets this vocabulary into a more controlled, decorative system. The surface feels calmer, more unified, and patterned—like an integrated design rather than carved action. In short: Mino = ornament created by carving force and tactile energy Kozenji = ornament arranged as a balanced surface design Because Kozenji absorbed Mino aesthetics rather than rejecting them, many pieces sit in a grey zone, which is why attribution (including NBTHK papers) can be difficult and sometimes surprising.

This one popped up at Aoi (and Wakeidou before) and I'm having a hard time understanding the Mino papers - I would've thought Kozenji (光善寺)? Compare to papered Kozenji - I think they went Mino on the top one, because of the nanako?

Now there's someone I didn't expect! Welcome back!

Yep same here, they're quite easy to work with. And reactive to mails.

I think your choices are limited - Massimo Rossi would be my bet: https://www.facebook.com/100063626135305/photos/

Textbook no, but looking at the design, it's close to Yagyu, albeit less subdued. So late Yagyu?

The only reason I have one up for sale is because I know some people don't like to order from Japan. Obviously this is my spare copy

Not buying at the moment, but I think especially the Kanekuni is a really nice package!

For sale is 1 copy + English translation. Advantage is it's already in the EU, so no additional customs. Limited Ed to 500 + signed by author. The book features high-resolution photographs of Nobuie tsuba, enabling readers to observe appraisal points, stylistic changes, and variations in signature across different periods.The quality is sufficient to examine iron textures, chisel marks, and forms from the mimi to the seppadai. This makes the volume not only a treasure for enthusiasts, but also an invaluable academic resource for researchers. Building upon Ito Mitsuru’s decades of scholarship, the book presents both well-known and newly identified Nobuie works in a clear, structured way. Set against the dynamic cultural background of the late Momoyama and early Edo periods, it explains the characteristics of the hanare-mei and futoji-mei works, traces how these signatures evolved, and explores the aesthetics behind them—offering a fresh perspective on Nobuie studies. A complete English translation and commentary on Nobuie — in softcover. This comprehensive edition includes every hanare-mei and futoji-mei Nobuie description, along with a substantially expanded commentary and glossary. Price 330€ + shipping

Sent test email

Maybe an interesting point of view by Mitsuru Ito (rougly translated, probably some small faults in there) February 9, 2025 Nittoho Yamanashi Branch Regular Meeting About the Hitsu-ana Holes on Tsuba 1. No Hitsu Late Heian to Late Edo Period These are the originals, and old tsuba no hitsu are highly valued. 2. Square and Yamagata These are old, elegant shapes with a taste that are suited to thin kozuka and kogai, and originals are rare. Kamakura (?) to Early Muromachi Period Square and Low Suhama Shape 3. Square and low Suhama shape Kamakura?~Early Muromachi period This is also an old and elegant shape suited to thin Kozuka and Kogai, and there are few originals remaining. It is thought to have originated from the same period as 2. 4. Thin half-moon shape and low Suhama shape Kamakura? ~ mid-Muromachi period This is also an old, elegant shape with a taste that is suited to thin kozuka and kogai, and there are few originals remaining. It is thought to have originated from the same period as 2 and 3. During the time of Ashikaga Yoshimitsu. 5. Both hitsuana are thin and crescent-shaped. This shape is seen in Kyoto porcelain from the Northern and Southern Courts (Nambokucho) to the mid-early Muromachi period. It is also seen in older armor makers. It is also found in Kamakura, Owari, and Koshoami. 6. Both hitsuana are Suhama-gata. This style is seen in many tsuba from the Momoyama period. This style was seen in Hirata Hikozo, and continued to be made in Higo afterwards. 7. Thick crescent shape and high Suhama shape are the most common shapes from the late Muromachi period to the late Edo period. Slightly slender ones are from the Muromachi period. In the time of Goto Norimasa, there were also ones with large cabinets to accommodate larger poles.

Looks like the cert of the website expired, causing issues for most browsers seeing they enforce HTTPS. Common Name (CN) militaria.co.za Organization (O) <Not Part Of Certificate> Organizational Unit (OU) <Not Part Of Certificate> Common Name (CN) R11 Organization (O) Let's Encrypt Organizational Unit (OU) <Not Part Of Certificate> Issued On Tuesday, July 8, 2025 at 12:34:23 PM Expires On Monday, October 6, 2025 at 12:34:22 PM

Hi Jean, took me a while to track down the original Japanese text, seeing I had this on file and I probably used Google Translate or something. Here's a new translation using AI, which I think make more sense: Japanese: 1975年（昭和50年）頃　砂鉄を吹いて鐔の地鉄を作ろうと考え始める。それ以前は洋鉄使ってみたり、江戸時代の古鉄を集め刀匠に依頼して板状に伸ばした鉄を使用し鐔製作を行っていた。 Romaji: 1975-nen (Shōwa gojū-nen) goro, satetsu o fuite tsuba no jitetsu o tsukurou to kangae hajimeru. Sore izen wa yōtetsu tsukatte mitari, Edo jidai no kokutetsu o atsumete tōshō ni irai shite itajō ni nobashita tetsu o shiyō shi, tsuba seisaku o okonatte ita. English translation: Around 1975 (Shōwa 50), he began thinking about smelting iron sand to produce the base iron for tsuba (sword guards). Before that, he had experimented with using Western iron, or gathered old iron from the Edo period and asked swordsmiths to forge it into plates for use in making tsuba.

This is mine, signed Houzan

made by Naruki Issei (成木一成 ) - mukansa 2009 - he was a very prolific tsuba maker and especially his Owari tsuba were very nice Born on September 10, 1931 (Showa 6) in Nakatsugawa, Gifu Prefecture, as the eldest son of Seiichi Naruki. 1945-1950 (Showa 20-25) He studied ancient ceramics under Fujio Koyama and Toyozo Arakawa. In 1960 (Showa 35), he was unable to move his lower body due to illness and had to abandon his research into ancient ceramics. He was deeply impressed by an iron tsuba his father showed him, and began researching and prototyping. 1963 (Showa 38) He began full-scale production of iron tsuba in Saneto, Nakatsugawa City. 1966-1969 (Showa 41-44) He learned the Kaga inlay technique from Isamu Takahashi. Around 1975 (Showa 50), he began considering creating the base metal for tsuba by blowing iron sand. Prior to that, he experimented with Western iron and collected reclaimed iron from the Edo period, which he then commissioned a swordsmith to roll into sheet form for his tsuba crafts. In 1977 (Showa 52), he held his first solo exhibition, "Tracing the Four Seasons of Mino," at Ginza Matsuya. He expressed the simple yet powerful painting of ancient Mino ceramics on his tsuba. He was awarded the Gifu Prefectural Governor's Award for Outstanding Craftsmanship. In 1978 (Showa 53), he began making tsuba from his own steel. He was awarded the Medal with Dark Blue Ribbon. He held his second collaborative exhibition, "Reproduction of the Tetsuhirumaki Tachi Koshirae," at Ginza Matsuya. In 1981 (Showa 56), he was designated a holder of an intangible cultural property by Nakatsugawa City for his iron tsuba-making techniques. In 1982 (Showa 57), he began performing the entire process, from charcoal making to tatara (smelting) work. From November 1982 to January 1983, he worked daily on the kettle pressing and kept records. He collected iron sand and iron ore from over 50 locations across Japan. In 1983, he held his second solo exhibition, "Making Tsuba with Homemade Steel," featuring homemade steel made from iron sand from various regions. He compared iron made from iron sand and iron ore from various regions across Japan. He also published "Making Tsuba with Homemade Steel." In 1986, he received the Medal with Yellow Ribbon. In 1987, he held his third solo exhibition, "Yagyu Thirty-Six Immortal Poets Tsuba," at the Kuwana City Museum. Yagyu Ren'ya passed away just as 31 original Yagyu tsuba had been produced. The drawings, drawn 20 years later, reveal that the illustrations for the remaining five tsuba are unknown. Naruki, based on the secrets of their names, also produced those five, resulting in a total of 36 pieces on display. In 1998, the "Tsuba: The Keystone of Japanese Swords: Naruki Kazunari and Ishida Tetsuo Exhibition" was held at the Hoshi to Mori no Uta Museum. In 1999, he received his first Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the Nittoho New Masterpiece Swords Exhibition. Since then, he has received the award 11 times in a row, and his award has been included in the "Special Exhibition: The Beauty of Tsuba: The Challenge of Tsuba Craftsman Naruki Kazunari." In 2000, he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Swords Exhibition. In 2001, he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Swords Exhibition. The "In Pursuit of the Purple Rust-Colored Steel Bark: The World of Naruki Kazunari" exhibition was held at the Hoshi to Mori no Uta Museum. In 2002 (Heisei 14), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. Held the exhibition "Pursuing the Beauty of Naruki Kazunari's Worldwide Iron Tsuba" at the Gifu Prefectural Museum. In 2003 (Heisei 15), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2004 (Heisei 16), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2005 (Heisei 17), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2006 (Heisei 18), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2007 (Heisei 19), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2008 (Heisei 20), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. In 2009 (Heisei 21), he received the Grand Prize (Chairman's Award) at the New Masterpiece Sword Exhibition. Certified as a non-judgmentalist Since 2010 (Heisei 22), he has entered competitions every year. Since he was non-judgmental, he did not receive any awards. In 2011 (Heisei 23), he was awarded the Gifu Prefecture Traditional Culture Inheritance Award. In 2013 (Heisei 25), he held the exhibition "The Beauty of Tsuba: The Challenge of Tsuba Craftsman Kazunari Naruki" at the Gifu Prefectural Museum. He passed away at the facility in 2022.

Already reserved a couple of copies with the softcover English translation (due end of October). Indeed, don't want to miss out.

For those of you who haven't noticed - Ito Mitsuru (well-known Japanese collector which you know for writing the 3 Higo books, Nobuie articles, book on Katanakake,...) has started a blog. This looks like it will be well worth the read. Blog

Yes, they're usually available locally before they're put online. Some shops also work with magazines and they refuse to sell anything online for a certain grace period, making sure all subscriptions get a fair chance first. However, online doesn't mean that non-Japanese can buy it. In 2 cases when I inquired about a piece I was told it was for Japanese market only and they don't sell to foreigners. So I had to involve someone locally as an in-between to buy those pieces on my behalf.