Jesta

Nice piece. I have one that is almost identical. I really like these little tanto tsuba. It’s interesting to note that yours has space for both a kogatana and a kogai.

Well Jean… In my day job, I’m a teacher, so I try to live in the belief that people can learn (despite evidence to the contrary) 🤣🤣

You aren’t wrong… It goes with the territory, which I think is why the best advice for beginners is to avoid the auction sites that take no responsibility for what is sold (e.g. eBay), to be prepared to make a few mistakes, to keep those mistakes as cheap as possible, and to learn from them… Threads like this do help, since there is a good chance that someone looking to start collecting may well wander in and read them before buying.

Too many red flags for me. The sekigane and the treatment of the water are very similar to one that I bought at the start of my collecting journey: I would find it hard to think that this one is not a modern cast.

Thanks. That was what I thought, but wanted to check.

Very nice. I like the wood.

Thanks. I was asking more if the term was only used when the pattern was created with a punch, or if it could be used when the pattern was created say by a mould for a cast.

Quick side question: Does the term “nanako” refer to the design or to the method? Can you have a nanako design that has not been created with a hand punch, for example?

I immediately considered this to be nanako, but Franco makes a good point: It could well be intended as samegawa, in which case the lack of coordination and alignment would make more sense. It still seems too “muddy” to be punched rather than cast, but that could be the quality of the photos.

The nanako is definitely not high quality to my eye. The wave patterns look messy, and the nanako seems to be of varied sizes. I would be very surprised if this was hand-punched. My best guess is a separate sheet over a core: san-mai. This is what I would expect good quality nanako to look like (shared elsewhere).

Thanks. I like the theme, and the execution, just worried that the price has been pushed up due to the attribution based on the mei.

I am looking at a kozuka that is for sale right now. It claims to be signed by Goto Junjo, but I am not sure that the mei is genuine. It seems a bit… unrefined… Does anyone else have any authenticated signatures for comparison? Or any thoughts on the legitimacy of the mei?

Tigers, oh my… These tigers really don’t look that fierce. I do wonder why the artist chose to present them as almost comical.

The only dragons I have on tsuba (previously posted on another thread). Dai Sho

I can’t quite see, but if your decoration is silver, or brass, then a little careful application of some polish might bring it out, I like it. These little tanto tsuba are really pretty.

Thanks. I was tentatively going in the direction of Nagasaki too. Only because of a hunch really.

I meant to ask… Does anyone have any suggestions for the origin of work like this? Also, any suggestions for the shape at the top? Bird?

I have had this little tsuba for a while now, and it has always been a bit plain. I could see the pattern in a good light, but I had resigned myself to the fact that it was probably corroded and faded away. I then had a bit of a brainwave and thought that the scrollwork might be silver and therefore just in need of a bit of a polish. Here’s the before and after… It’s not something I would do to a good piece, but this was so far gone that I figured that there was not a lot to lose… But I am very pleased with the outcome.

Sensible move. Gotta set a limit and stick to it… There’s always “one more bid” otherwise.

Very useful. Thank you.

I don’t normally like plugs, but this one is my favourite… (shared previously)

Not sure that the second one is Goto. The nanako looks a bit crude, but that could be the patina letting it down. However, the first and third seem pretty high quality. Looking at the image in the book shared by Jack (thank you for the resource) the dragons on mine, and your first and third, seem to share the same characteristics: Long, sinuous shape with four legs Heavy eyebrows Flowing moustaches (?) Three claws in the same style Long, thin spikes along the back Same scales at the chest, and along the back The ken-blade tail The tama pearl They are all set against very detailed and close nanako, which I understand to have been a Goto speciality.

My own take is that you can collect for aesthetic reasons first. It remains important to me to collect pieces that are authentic, but I am less worried about being able to attribute each one to a specific school/maker/time etc. You can also look at this hobby as one that you will always have something to ask, you will never end up feeling like you have finished, which is something that I personally appreciate. Every collector of the arts has to contend with the fact that people have been forging stuff since the beginning of collecting. So, get to know the stuff you like, and accept that some of your collection will be questioned from time to time.

I picked this daisho set up recently. When doing some research on the board (and elsewhere) I noticed that there were some comments about how Goto dragons have certain characteristics. Could anyone point me to any resources on the Goto school and what characteristics their dragons might typically have? There seems to be a wide variety of ways to depict dragons, so any other types would also be welcome for comparison.

That is beautiful. Really a worthwhile restoration. Congratulations to you for seeing its potential and to Manuel for the outstanding work.