reinhard

Francois, that's about all you have to know from this particular corner. In short: There was a great and very famous artist named Tsuchiya YASUCHIKA. Later in life he turned his artist name into TOU. Seeing his work in hand make his outstanding skills visible immediately. Since this man's skills were recognized instantly, creating a thundering echo throughout Japan for generations, many "followers" and fakers tried to take advantage of this brand. No matter what older sources say: There was only one TOU. Kinko Meikan, a nice Japanese book with authoritative title and golden Kanji imprinted on its back, is mentioning a second and a fifth generation YASUCHIKA using TOU mei. - It's all nonsense; not to speak of Wakayama. (Ab-)using famous names was common. Remember all the "SA" and "KAENUJI"-signed blades made during Muromachi-period. They are not worth discussing. reinhard

You still don't get it, do you? reinhard

Well, there was only one TOU. Prove me wrong or shut up. reinhard

Lorenzo, the TOU mei is found in both writing styles. Tensho style is most commonly found on his tsuba, whereas the "regular" style is often found on the backside of kozuka (see attachment). Francois, although this is probably not the work of great YASUCHIKA/TOU, it is a nicely crafted piece of work with a good sense of humour. It is much better and far more interesting in many respects than the poor horse-theme kozuka. I would love to see a sharp image without reflections, if you please. reinhard

Kanji read: TOU This is the alternate artist name of Tsuchiya YASUCHIKA. He is probably not the maker of this kozuka. I like the sense of humour though. reinhard

Welcome Aris (and to all youngsters deterred by high prices), Studying NihonTo does not necessarily include collecting. As with all luxury goods, including arts, there should be fun, enthusiasm and passion in the first place. Looking for instant gratification by owning something is a bad guide. Take your time. Study books and good swords when- and wherever you can. As time goes by, you will find the sword(s) you like and can afford. This is not about collecting stamps or baseball-cards. Good luck and stay tuned reinhard

This is one of the mei used by KIYOMARO. reinhard

Difficult to tell, for there's not enough left of the red lacquer; but even if this attribution is by Hon'ami Choshiki, and Meiji date seems to confirm this assumption, it doesn't really matter. Choshiki wasn't free in his judgement anymore. Unlike his early predecessors, he was forced to make a living by delivering commissioned "expertise". It wasn't his fault. Times were like that. - On the other hand, his attributions aren't outlandish or very far from the real thing. After all he was a Hon'ami. For Hon'ami Choshiki see also: Japanese Swords and Sword Fittings from the Collection of Dr. Walter Ames Compton Christies NY 1992, Part I, Lot no. 270 reinhard

Sic transit gloria NMB. Sorry for a cheap joke. Couldn't resist. reinhard

What about this one? reinhard

You seem to be determined to make a fool out of yourself. reinhard

Check this thread. You were "participating". viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6890&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a reinhard

Dear Ford, All backing up so far, even yours, consisted of posting all sorts of Japanese horse images. A random potpourri of horse pics from a thousand years of Japan's history of art and decoration it was. I don't call this evidence or rationale. We should be talking about tsuba design within a frame of style and time instead. Sorry Ford, but what you are offering for "considered rationale" doesn't work. You can't just pick any image from Japan's history of art and turn it into evidence for tsuba design. And this is what it is all about: tsuba. When talking about considered rationale, I'd expect to see examples of comparable tsuba by HISANORI, the school of Omori TERUHIDE, Mito Kinko, whatever. I can't present them myself, but nobody else, including you, could so far. Up to now it's just a matter of opinions and the whole thing is dangerously close to drifting into the arena of "Japanese aesthetics" one more time. You may forgive my unwillingness to discuss this particular topic one more time right now, right here and on the basis of this particular example. We've had this discussion before with better examples at hand. best regards reinhard

Define "how reasonable people conduct a debate or discussion" according to your terms, if you please. Does this include bowing heads in front of grand master Ford? So did you. As far as I can see you have no better proof for your theories than me. It's just a matter of opinions, nothing more. Your gospel versus mine. Prove me wrong, if you can, but stop complaining. reinhard

Still struggling for "Deutungshoheit" (supremacy of interpretation), Ford? Let it be. reinhard

No. I'm saying that the tsuba presented on the forum and the tsuba shown in the 1966 catalogue are probably the same objects. And yes, both tsuba, dai and sho, were made for export and are not the work of the HISANORI trained by Omori TERUHIDE. reinhard

Don't waste your time, Ford. I'm sitting on tons of exhibition- and auction-catalogues from the 60ties, 70ties and 80ties. They don't count much anymore. Big names of collectors and "experts" were cut down to size in the meantime. There was a HISANORI trained in the school of Omori TERUHIDE, but he was in all probability not the maker of the pair in question. (see attachment) reinhard

the (katana-)mei reads: Ohara SANEMORI This is a very big name dating from late Heian/early Kamakura period in Hoki province. The signature is false (gimei). reinhard

i.e. delete and empty trash reinhard

That's correct and that's about all there is to say. The usual suspects will try and bring this silly topic up again and again, but it won't change a thing: Japanese swords were considered works of art TOO for many centuries and the art-factor defines the price. Silly attempts of reducing NihonTo to mere weapons have been made before. They are not worth discussing. Western pinheads trying to break down a intellectually demanding topic to their limited capacities. reinhard

Don't apologize. It's not irrelevant and some clearences on NMB are overdue. reinhard

Thanks Jean. That's about it. There's not much we can learn from discussing swords like these in detail. What we can learn however: There are many serious looking papers out there, written in proper Japanese and with nice seals on them. Some of them count for nothing. Some of you might wonder what makes me so sure this is not the work of Magoroku KANEMOTO. It's a compilation of "wrong" features. Seeing a sword like this, I don't start my check-list with sanbonsugi-hamon. Sugata is the first thing to look at. As Jacques pointed out, a nagasa of 71+cm and o-suriage hardly go together with a work by Magoroku. There are some prolonged works however, but even those were made in uchigatana-style with pronounced saki-sori. Furthermore the hira-ji of all of Magoroku's blades display flat niku and a rather straight fukura. The blade in question is representing quite the opposite. I could add many more points, but this must do for the moment. One more thing: You should not start appreciation or kantei with a one-track notion. In English Token Bijutsu magazine No.4 (p.22) is a comment about wrong nyusatsu on a Magoroku blade: "This blade is a good example of the basic rule that in kantei the final decision should be based on the comprehensive evaluation of various factors giving priority to the most pertinent characteristics. Additionally, this example as most of Kanemoto's works usually are, also happens to be a good specimen of the importance of actually holding the blade in the hands in identification. Kanemoto's works are so nicely proportioned in terms of balance among weigth, length and curvature that they fit perfectly and most comfortably into holder's hands." reinhard

Are we slowly drifting into the arena of the unwell again? reinhard

Quite right. The origami says: katana / kin-zogan-mei / Magoroku Kanemoto/ Daiei(era) / Mino(province) This leaves no room for interpretation. Since it is quite clear this is NOT Seki-no-Magoroku's work, I was wondering where these papers come from (thanks for the link, Thierry). Many of the possible objections against a Magoroku-attribution have been mentioned. Good job. Additionally I would like you to focus on the qualities of kin-zogan-mei more. This one seems to be of bad quality and was made no earlier than Meiji times, probably even later. Kin-zogan-mei are easy to apply, but they are also revealing much about the maker and the time when they were made. Unfortunately many people (especially Westerners) are loosing their cool when seeing gold, even if it's just a tiny amount on a nakago. "Where there is gold there must be something precious". Fraudsters knew and know about this. Selling worthless claims by presenting gold-covered pieces of lead as real nuggets worked the same. Anyway, nidai KANEMOTO is a legend. From the days of warfare in Muromachi times to Yukio Mishima's seppuku in 20th century: Every samurai in the past wanted and every would-be samurai at present would like to possess a saijo-o-wazamono by Seki-no-Magoroku. Forgeries in his name and false attributions are countless. reinhard

Show us the opposite side of this obscure certificate, if you please. reinhard