Iekatsu

In the current market papers definitely add financial value and provide piece of mind for those that don't yet have the knowledge to make confident judgements for themselves. Items papered as Tokubetsu Hozon and above can significantly impact the value, generally exceeding the initial investment and the submission fee, which is why a lot of dealers buy or get items papered. There are also people who get a thrill out of finding quality items in the wild and having them validated with high ranking papers, a test of knowledge and skill of sorts. I have always appreciated that the NTHK at least gives an estimate on the period.

Even if we were to suppose that the successful attribution rate is relatively high, we are still stuck with categories that are often arbitrary in nature and do not necessarily reflect the latest research/scholarship. This is very much understood and discussed privately between collectors, and why a lot of collectors do not really submit items unless it is an outstanding example, they are looking for confirmation on a Mei or if the financial investment makes it worthwhile for sale. Collectors in this category generally have a pretty good idea of a likely attribution before submitting and are unlikely to learn any new information by having an item papered. It is a game, the game has rules, but at the end of the day a lot of the attributions are meaningless outside of the small number of people that understand the game. This is not necessarily an easy problem to solve though, as Steve mentioned there is so much that is unknown and may never be known for certain in this field, but I feel that arbitrary categorisation does stifle legitimate research, that could improve the situation.

Glen's suggested approach is the only serious way for this field of study to progress. There needs to be a significant overhaul of the current system and how judgments are made. Ideally this would be driven by the NBTHK, but they are somewhat stuck between a rock and a hard place, because any major changes to the current system would potentially invalidate tens of thousands of issued papers/attributions, and honestly they are overwhelmed as is.

Modern cloth, this stuff is machine made and sold by the yard. The materials, the cut, construction and details are not period. Lots of modern Jinbaori get made for various festivals. The key give aways are the style of fabric, the bias tape and how it is sewn.

Never fun to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the original posted Jinbaori is a modern reproduction.

Here is the cast San-mai. The top and bottom plates have been cast and are held in place by the Fukurin.

Well summerised, I could not agree more.

Generally pre-Edo San-mai would fall under the categorisation of Ko-kinko, like Mauro said. That being said, I actually have a cast San-mai Tsuba, the only one I have seen (so far). I will add some images when I get a chance. I actually do not like the term Kagamishi and instead use Ko-Chūzō Tsuba, which I think is more fitting. This example is actually not cast, and only mimics the visual characteristics that were popular in that period. It would therefore fall under Ko-kinko.

That is a famous published example and very nice, whoever picked it up is going to be very happy. I have seen a few others in a similar style, but I have not personally seen another with exactly that design, that does not mean that others did not exist, only that we only have one surviving example to draw from (so far). I have a Tsuba that is very similar to that in construction, I find it very hard to determine if it was cast and worked, or made using more conventional methods, generally I look for casting flaws/artifacts and then confirm with XRF analysis to determine the material, because cast fittings are always bronze and will not be Shakudo or Yamagane. The soft details and lacquer on Ko-kinko examples can sometimes give the effect of it being cast when it was likely not.

Kagamishi are all cast in bronze. The several similar examples above are likely from the same workshop. There are enough examples with the same designs that we can establish that they were likely created in batches and were cast from masters.

Sadly It is quite common for NBTHK Tachi Kanagu-shi attributions to be aribtrary and incorrect, often based more on a vibe or feeling than any clear evidence that it was created for a Tachi.

It does not fit Tachi Kanagu-shi, as it is not a Tachi style Tsuba and it likely would have been mounted on an Uchigatana. It might just scrape in for Ko-kinko, but I would place it in the early Edo period.

Beautiful Patina, and again a really nice example. I know what you mean Brian, it is why they are the focus of my collecting these days.

Lovely piece Ian, and a rare theme indeed.

Interesting that it got a Ko-Kagamishi attribution, which is far less common. There is no clear threshold for the Ko attribution, but it is generally reserved for the oldest examples. Stylistically I think it is more likely a later variant and would place it in the Momoyama period, the form, size Hitsu-ana and motif all point in that direction. Regardless it is a really nice example that anyone would be happy to have in their collection.

I agree with Piers and Luc. Unfortunately restoration costs would far outweigh the value of the armour. Try to keep it in a stable environment, study and enjoy it, in it's current state.

The second one is definitely Nerigawa.

I agree with the others sorry, I can see why you thought it was earlier, the shape language is similar to early examples. Condition aside it is still a nice Hanbo.

Another good example, id say this one is slightly older than Curran's example, but not by much, maybe late Muromachi-Momoyama. The fact is that we don't really have a super reliable way to date Kagamishi Tsuba, there are couple associated with Uchigatana Koshirae of the same period, but other than that no manfuaturing sites or other evidence is avaialble to draw from.

Interesting, I have a couple of examples with a silmilar polished surface that I think "may" be cast and then have had Nanako etc added, but I still need to have them tested to see if they are bronze. Given the details that can be captured in a cast, I wonder why the extra steps would be necessariy and that the glassy surface properties could be from polishing, or even wear. I will post some similar examples later.

Nice example, you might want to treat and stabilise the rust, some oil and TLC will go a long way.

As in cast into water as a blank, like Ford demonstrated, or cast in a mold and then the design and details added by hand?

I am still skeptical, there are a couple of reasons that I think it might not pre-date the Edo period. I think your dating is rather optimistic, looking at extant examples, we do not start seeing defined Seppa-dai until the late Muromachi period, and they only become common place from the Momoyama period onward. While the shape of Hitsu-ana can be useful in determining relative age, there are many variables at play, particularly with an oval shaped example, which could have been reshaped and adjusted many times. If the Hitsu-ana is indeed cast into the design, that would also generally indicate later dating. Concerning the motif, while animal and creature motifs are not uncommon, the way the dragon has been rendered does not align with any other examples I have seen, I also still do not think that the way the design is rendered aligns with Sasano's #10, but perhaps some additional photos from different angles might help with this. The shape being being Kaku-gata is interesting, not something typically seen with Kagami-shi, but something that is common in Namban style Tsuba, as are squarish Seppa-dai and and flat faced rims. Cast bronze Tsuba were definitely produced in the Edo period, they are usually pretty easy to spot because they follow Edo period trends and styles, some Namban Tsuba were also cast in bronze. The dates for Tsuba of this type are all over the place, there is a lot of "vibes" based dating for early Tsuba in general, not just in the Kagamishi book and Tosogu no Kigen, but many other publications. There is very little evidence to support how the date attributions are made. We are all guilty of accepting these at face value and a lot more research needs to be done in this area.

How sure are you that one is cast Curran? To my eye it looks like Momoyama period Ko-kinko, a nice example may I add. I don't see any of the usual hallmarks of casting.

Much appreciated Tim. Concerning your Tsuba, I don't really see the similarities to #10 in the Sasano book. Given the shape, motif and style I think it might be Edo period, not that there is anything wrong with that.