FlorianB

Found this in an German catalogue from 2000: A smaller octagonal (thus simpler) specimen with silver fukurin and the bars filled with enamel. No motif mentioned. The Tosho-attribution („enamels added later by Hirata-school“) can be doubted. It is signed „Shigekatsu“ (on the backside?), but without the kanji it's difficult to assign.

Hello, You allude also how to recognize good or poor workmanship. You are obviously not sure on your piece in question. There are a lot of examples discussed in this forum which show clearly a low level workmanship in comparison with more elaborate works - mostly depicting scenes. It is much more difficult to judge on Tsuba with simple design. And here’s only one picture. However, what I can see here is a well made shape: the kaku-maru-gata has regular curved corners and slight curvature at all sides. In my eyes a good impression. The surface seems to be very plain, without any intended irregularities. But that’s typical for Edo-Tsuba. I made a quick sketch to show the construction. Even it is a simple composition it is properly made at least. There’s a contrast in between the straight bars (which meaning is still unclear) and the curves at the edge. I remember a similar example somewhere in my books in which the bars have been filled with shakudo (if I remember correctly). Maybe I will find it. Is there a difference in thickness between edge and seppa-dai? Dimensions will be helpful, too. Best

Concerning the first one I agree with wachigai. The second tsuba maybe shows a modified form of ivy- or tsuta-kamon. The tendrils would fit.

The motif on the first Tsuba (Chinese general Guan Yu or Cao Cao?) looks remarkably simple. Maybe a forgery - or maybe the figure has had overlays once but those got lost.

Better pictures but sorry for further nagging - dimensions of the items (width, height and thickness) would be helpful, too. BTW Tsuba are correctly pictured with the pointed edge of the nakago-ana upward, even those with symmetric themes or even no motif at all.

In this case rather „koshi kiri sukashi“ because it looks like a lattice with plants (and birds?). Sometimes slanting lines are associated with fog. Weird anyway.

I want to hint to the plants on the reverse: on the left is hagi (bush clover), on the right we see silver grass or obana, both connected with the end of summer and the beginning of fall. The motif on the rolled up fabric comprising a dragonfly and apparently nanakusa (seven herbs), also autumnal symbols. Maybe this time of year helps to indentify the strange tool?

Last one Tembo-style, signed 春 貞(?) Haru Sada (?)

The problem ares the differences in the tail-like form. Some show a widening at one end, others an even opening. Some have those lines beside, others not. I can’t even decide if it is a positive or negative sukashi. In the last Tsuba the design is part of a bizarre landscape and thus clearly positive opening. I think, in repeated copying of this detail the original idea got lost - or changed. Some of the examples above reminded me to deterioration like worm eaten wood.

Maybe the shinsa team got the insight that the traditional classification system of the pre-Edo works is based on pure speculations…

I think the larger size of the butterfly and its elaborate shape together with the existence of a hitsu ana lead to a Tosho instead of Ko-Tosho attribution. Today the NBTHK is more cautious about using a „ko“ prefix anyway. For me the surface looks O.K.. If You compare the surface of Tosho Tsuba You’ll see a variety of finishings. There’s no rule because some Tsuba have been more cared for, other suffered more or less through the centuries. And, yes, as Jean pointed out it could be a younger revival piece.

I own a modest Tsuba with Tanabata festival motif. It depicts several papers with inscriptions hung in bamboo trees. Note the shape of the one upper right (upper left on the ura). I wonder if such paper (used for what? Uchiwa fans?) is the origin of the sukashi in question.

One of my favourites - an all time classic:

It seems that the Hoan smiths have had difficulties to earn their living. The Shodai and the nidal worked mainly for the Asano but also for other clans. The reason for this seems to be meagre wages: the Shodai received 10 Koku rice by the Asano which is said to be little. It is not mentioned they sold their works to civilians like wealthy merchants. Possibly that’s the reason they where not prosperous like other schools and changed business later. Their works have been made for an exclusive circle and not for masses like Akasaka so the demand was limited.

There’s an interesting discrepancy in the dates. If the first Generation died 1613 or 1614 the Nidal was 13/14 years old. Very young at least. It is mentioned in the sources above the Nidai became the head of the family not until 1645 (thus explaining the later death date of the Shodai in Markus’ list). If the Shodai died at the earlier date, the school was „headless“ about 32 years.