GRC

wow, it seems like I've been missing all the fun in this thread On the issue of cast-iron tsuba: The simple truth is this: We still have no definitive date to assign to the initial production of cast-iron tsuba in Japan. Whether that be pre- or post- Edo, neither has definitive proof, so neither one can be stated with any certainty. So, I agree with Ford on this point: we cannot state with any certainty that cast-iron tsuba were produced during the Edo period. Even if we identify a tsuba as cast, it doesn’t come with a date that we can assign to it. And, I also agree with his point that there have been several instances where a specific tsuba’s method of manufacture was questioned, and perhaps falsely identified… However, that does nothing to contribute to the discussion of WHEN cast-iron tsuba were first produced. There is no doubt that mistakes will be made as people try to sort through this quagmire. However, it’s through situations like these that everyone gets to learn something, which should be the main goal of a forum like this. So, I would make the case that threads like this are NECESSARY, so we can all get a better understanding of what to look for, so that everyone can make a relatively informed decision when it comes to spending their money on a potentially questionable tsuba (Colin, this is said with absolutely no judgement on your tsuba! I’m just generalizing here). Identifying that this particular tsuba motif was repeated in near carbon copies by the Choshu school, is a valuable piece of information. This seems to be unusual when looking at Japanese tsuba production as a whole, and may just coincide with what we saw in the Echizen Kinai thread: with a quote documenting that school's shift toward “mass-production” in the early 1800's, with examples of a pre-set, rote pattern being repeated. The more examples of these that get presented, the more everyone can start distinguishing those ones from the other instances of carbon-copy repeats that typically show up as cast-iron tsuba. And to reiterate a point that has been stated by many, it would be great to have some non-invasive material analysis on some of these examples, to know what their composition is with a high degree of certainty, rather than solely relying on online images with limited viewing angles and detail.

Um, Mal (Mecox), I'm guessing you're Malcolm? I should have posted the link to your site directly along with the quoted text Kudos to you for doing the research and providing the summary

True enough Florian. Definitely not out of the question Personally, I think they are a nice pair of tsuba, regardless of when they were made.

I'm not going to commit one way or the other on this one. But personally, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. I'm just advocating for people to be fully informed before spending their money. These two have the same "verticalness" to the stem on the left, and the same lopsided seppa-dai and faux punch marks as tegane-ato... definitely cast These three look more like the one Vitaly is looking at (I had to remove the background on the second one, so there's some chunks missing from the image, not the tsuba). The third one is obviously cast, while the second one has some interesting "remnants" and irregularities inside the sukashi in certain areas.

I found the quote ...and it is not a direct translation, but a summary of a Japanese book. SUMMARY OF ECHIZEN KINAI TSUBAKŌ 越前 記内 Malcolm and Sueko Cox Nihonto-no-Bi website: 2006 Introductory Note This summary is based on the book “Echizen Kinai Tsuba” 1998, by Nobuo and Nobuhide Tsuruwaka. Dr Nobuo Tsuruwaka has spent 50 years researching temple, local government and personal records to derive the findings in the book. These notes are not a direct translation of the book, but a summary of the main features of this school. "Rokudai Takahashi This generation introduced a dynamic and prosperous period, in which there was both rapid production of pre-made tsuba, as well as quality ordered work. The rokudai was also a good business man and employed at least 6-7 deshi, who produced much routine work. As production was high, it is difficult to know who produced what, although quality is a guide. Some of this work was also produced to sell in Edo (Tokyo). The mass produced deshi work is quite variable but often technically inferior, and is called “decchi-Kinai”. These tsuba tend to be small with omote mei. In this dai it is hard to know the tsubakō; there were several different mei styles, even on the same design. This was especially so with the aoi, a very common design because it was that of the Fukui Han mon. Many variations of the aoi design were made; in this dai even the poorer quality work is signed. It is of note that several designs used by the Kinai group were also used by Shōami tsubakō. These pre-made tsuba gave a poor name to this dai, especially the mass produced ones, however, good quality tsuba were also made. Most tsuba are ji-sukashi, but there are also katachi nikubori, such as shells and shitake. Most rokudai period tsuba have omote mei. Rokudai Takahashi died in Bunsei 4 (1821, April 10). [Tsuruwaka (1998) p.23 table, misprint with kanji as Bunka.]" Also, the "Godai", 5th generation smith died in 1809, so these aoi themed tsuba made by the 6th gen Kinai were mostly made from 1809-1821.

Vitaly, it's likely authentic in the sense that it was made during the Edo period by the Kinai school, but it probably wasn't intended for a "samurai". It doesn't look like it was ever mounted on a sword either. At a certain point, this school cranked out lots of mass produced "shiiremono" (ready made) tsuba, often with some light hand finishing (like that gold nunome) to dress them up a little. They also did quality handmade commissioned pieces. I've got a good quote somewhere to back that up, based on Japanese research on the Echizen smiths that was translated to English... gotta dig that one up again and post it, but this is what I recall from memory. So when it comes to this school, you need to take your time and learn to distinguish the high quality ones from the generic tsuba that were made for the masses, as souvenir items. These types of "ripples" in the seppa-dai are quite common in cast pieces. There should also be "alarm bells" going off when you see weird gaps or missing areas in the relief pattern, like on the mimi (rim) of this tsuba... it doesn't look like a proper delamination of layered/folded steel, and looks more like a strange casting flaw. Whether it was cast or not, it's not a high quality piece.

Detail of the first tsuba, complete with the outline scratch-mark for locating the boundary of the seppa-dai. ...and perhaps a slightly better view of the rim and hammer work on the second one:

I'm leaning towards Jean's view on the first two. I don't see the kind of usage or wear I'd expect to see on an even a late Edo period tsuba. I also suspect these were made in the Meiji period (or even later, maybe even contemporary?), although they were made by a metalworker with some skill. All the edges of every tsuchime strike are crisp and clean, so there's no wear at all. Florian, if you saw the listing on YahooJ, you can see that both tsuba are made from a single solid piece of a copper based plate, and in my opinion probably made by the same person. Both are done with a very similar tsuchime technique (hammered texture), not lacquer. It's always difficult to tell with a limited number of views and dark photos. But it's more clear when you see all the images in the listing. The second of the pair has a hammered back rim which you can see from the rough areas of hammered back copper, you don't get a clean edge along the surface of the plate like a proper fukurin would show. This hammered back mimi had scratching applied to the outside to give it a subtle streaked "rain" effect, so it's not layers of steel, just hand textured copper alloy.

This one doesn't look like the typical "ferocious tiger", so let's just call it a "tabby cat"...

Thanks Marcos, "Nagoya-mono" and "Hama-mono" are new terms to me. Also, well done in pushing the need for Western museums (and by extension, Western collectors) to properly preserve their nihonto and their fittings, and not let them fall into states of disrepair. I also liked how you were able to point out that "othering" could be seen in the misuse of or motifs used in sword fittings from both Westerners and Japanese alike (although there are many more examples from Westerners).

Thanks for clarifying Marcos and for uploading a recording (hopefully it works out).

I just received an email stating the time is actually: (Friday, March 31) from 8.30 (Romanian time). is it 12:20pm or 8:30am?

That's good info to have Steve. Thanks for letting us know Here's the main image of a menuki that came up, described as a "bird".... Strange looking bird, with no beak and some oddly placed gold "tendrils"... but sure enough, by the time you get to the 6th image, then you can see this for what it really is

Colin, the carving style and layout on yours is nearly the identical twin to the papered Shoami school tsuba posted by "Mauro P" on page 1 of the shachi thread started by Barry Hennick. It's clearly the same school, if not the same maker. The only difference is one is pierced through, while the other is not, and the pierced one has nunome (perhaps added later as you suggested in your original post). Unsigned tsuba with nunome often get binned in the catchall "Shoami" school, unless they look more "Nanban" in style or show some obvious signs of belonging to some other school. This type of late Edo style seems to be difficult to pin down to a particular school (lots of crossover of style and motif usage)... I would suggest Shoami, Echizen (Kinai), Hizen, maybe even Eiju Seiryuken are all fair possibilities. It was obviously a repeated version of this motif, albeit not a very common one. You're going to have to hold out and hope to see a signed one someday. I'm curious about the reasons for David's Ito attribution. It's not something I would have associated with the Ito school.

This one was posted on page 2... seems it got cleaned up and is back on the market Originally posted by Dale, in August 2022: Now:

The 3rd one with all the carved family crests is very nicely done.

Really nice example with excellent detail, congrats

This one just ended recently, and sold for some big numbers, but I'm not surprised. Looks even better than the Owari one from the Tokyo museum that Steve posted.

This one's for you Dale Flat-ish, but rough surfaces are visible on the tips of the petals where it was once attached to a mimi.

I was surprised you didn't beat me to it Dale

Almost certainly the same "mastermind" behind all of these, but then I assume that cranking these out then becomes a simple task with the large scale production capabilities in China. Tragic... you could get a really good, legit tsuba, for that price.

Found the first one I saw! Posting it to show the color variation to the first one posted above.

Cool, I didn't know that Piers, thanks! It did seem a little odd that these revival Yamakichi smiths would suddenly show a shift toward Christian motifs. Rosary beads with Buddhist Amida Yasuri rays makes the most sense Apologies to "BV" who started the thread... I may have steered it a little off course

And now that we're on it, I wonder if the "rosary beads" around the hitsu-ana of the unsigned Nobuiye tsuba are actually what the 5 holes are in these late Edo Yamakichibei (in name only) "revival" tsuba: At least it makes sense when matched with the "rays of enlightenment" on the plate.