FlorianB

Agreed with the previous opinions. There are many Akasaka-Tsuba without distinctive traces of layers. At least it means they are well forged. Visible or even open layers are often result of corrosion because the inner core is made of low quality iron. I would advise You to get a look on other Akasaka pieces to gain more experience how to recognize layers even if they are not clearly visible.

Concerning the tax lists: The book „The Culture of Civil War in Kyōto“ by Mary Elisabeth Berry is a more scientific book thus not easy to read and contain the history and development of Kyōto in the pre Edo-era. In chapter #5 she mentioned lists of products and manufactures which seem to have been assembled and published from time to time. The footnote No. 5 of this chapter (p. 324) says: „The earliest extant list of local manufactures and products is TEIKIN ŌRAI (…between 1394 and 1428) which notes 22 specialities for Kyoto and its environs. KEFUKIGUSA (… publ. 1645…) lists more than 1.800 products of the country, 39 percents of them issuing from the home provinces." (Kyoto no Rekishi vol.3, pp. 418-19) In the same chapter she cites „a rare census report of 1593 … listings 95 workplaces and shops“ in Kyoto. The footnote 36 (p. 327) says Kyoto no Rekishi vol.3, pp. 414-16, Kyōto chūsei toshi-shi kenkyū pp. 433-35 If those references will reveal some facts about Tsuba making in Kyoto I don't know, but it could be worth a look. Probably similar lists will exist from other towns, but I don't know.

Wouldn’t those be described as Shoami according to the idea of a „movement in design“? I also notice the different sizes of the hitsu-ana, a peculiarity frequently seen on Shoami works.

Glen, my upset settled down while I understand Your motivation. I read Your posts not twice but thrice to absorb it. Thank You for the input! Gut feeling and doubts also also based on particulars which are worth to be discussed. We all know (or should know) that there is no system at all to refer to. Akiyama’s cautious suppositions became facts by the thankful descendants. And today the same: It’s easy to follow these "facts". Give me a paper and I can cling to it. The NBTHK folks are the experts so who am I to doubt it? But Your mentioned „money making machine“: I can’t believe they do it solely for the sake of money – there must be higher ideals. BTW proofs: Maybe tax lists (if available) could be significant? When I read „The Culture of Civil War in Kyoto“ by M. E. Berry there have been tax lists mentioned. Although the reference was given I was not able to get insight in these. I don’t expect details but it would be interesting at least to get the number of workshops at those times (not so many I presume).

Sorry, to be a pain in the neck, but there was no reaction on my request for explanation of the ID-challenge-outcome, so at least I tried to write one by myself (concerning the initial three Tsuba based on the given attribution): „These three Tsuba with similar motif were made probably early Edo or Genroku/middle Edo period when the design came into fashion and was copied and varied by different schools/artists. The first seems to be the oldest because of it's surface, it is not as perfect as the others and the outer rim is plain while later variations show a kiku-gata. The rim itself seems in comparison a little bit meaty. The elements are still inside the rim, the upper parts of the slim daki-myoga fit into the inner bends. I presume the spikes in the bars left and right cite the wings of the birds what got lost on the others. The extraordinary form of the hitsu-ana looks like what we find in the Higo schools. So early Hayashi seems to be a good choice as inventor (?) of this design. The second one show more contrast in the width of the bars, the birds for example are very thin. That leads to Akasaka (probably 4th or a later generation with Higo-influence) which design often display distinct differences in thickness. The somewhat rustic appearance with imperfection in the elements and the different sizes of the hitsu-ana support this. The typical shape of birds with wings tending to be circles resemble Owari and differ somewhat from the roundness of the outer semicircles. The last one seems to be a perfection of the original design with polished plain surface and elaborately worked. The rim is like the first one stout, but sophisticated with slightly exaggerated dents. The birds have similarities to the first one and their shape echoes the curves at the edge. The daki-myoga are well done not just with kebori like the others but slightly niku-bori, too. The upper ends are cleverly integrated in the rim. This is similar on the second one but there the ends curve a little bit uncontrolled into the inside. All in all the third one gives a very harmonious impression known from Higo-Tsuba so Nishigaki seems a good choice.“ Because of the lack of my knowledge I apologize for errors in the argumentation and conclusions (maybe these lines are absolute nonsense at all) but I hope to make clear what was the idea. Certainly there mustn’t be such a rigmarole like mine, but it would be helpful at least simply pointing out important particulars to justify an assignment and to be remembered next time.

I get the impression that the attributions are based solely on gut feeling. Yes, there are proofs presented: books and papers. But some people with knowledge and experience doubt these and state another opinion. Who’s right? What I'm missing here is an explanation of which detail point to one school or another. I'm thinking about for example the width of the bars, angles, shapes and proportions of the elements, the proportions of the elements to each other, composition, kebori and so on. These are things that can also be seen in pictures, and I'm ignoring details like tsuchime, tekkotsu, insides, and so forth, for which I would need to have the piece in my hand. Otherwise, it will remain just a „clash of opinions“ from which no one can really learn.

There must been an old Chinese story about binding slips of paper with messages into the feathers of birds. Thus musubi-karigane are bearer of good news and at least good luck as Jean mentioned. There was a thread on this motif some years ago:

Didn’t we already have the whole discussion in 2024? Good to remember the imperfection of the entire classification system but I can’t see any progress in creating a new one. Until then for the most of us it seems the easy way to stick to the existing one. I must admit the mass of crossovers and copies of a certain design are not helpful and – sorry I stubbornly repeat it – pictures alone are not sufficient. Concerning birds and the direction of flight: I believe that in most cases geese are depicted because they have a significance in Japanese culture. We know that geese are leaving Japan in autumn and coming back in spring and thus the motif is used in Haiku as a „kigo“, a word wich indicate the season. I think those birds are flying outwards are leaving, those with flight direction inwards are coming. Another aspect is their regular formation in flight. This could be the reason for the use in a regular pattern especially in the abstract works. In other cases certainly other birds could be assumed according to the motif (i.e. bamboo and snow are connected with sparrows).

I had already considered it myself, without coming to a conclusion. Because of the many reproductions of a trendy design it is difficult to determine a school by pictures alone. Maybe the pieces in hand would narrow down a decision.

I just found this in the second volume of „Hyaku Tsuba“ by chance: Not the same, but a similar design. Only the front is depicted. The hitsu-ana, however, are thicker than on the piece in question. The text says „Mumei Echizen“. Maybe it helps.

Those "flowers" are pines. Not sure about, but the base metal for the ornaments is copper which was gilded and the gold wears off.

Mere a hint in which direction to research. The shifty look of the person on the kashira was crucial.

Not to forget the stick on the Fuchi: Benkei beat his Master Yoshitsune to avert suspicion of the officials.

Seems to be Benkei on the kashira reading the fake subscription list at the Ataka barrier. The hat on the fuchi could hint to Yoshitsune in disguise. The other detail seems to be a barrow used for traveling. (print copied from Fujiarts.com)

One rare example where You can see the punched down iron (from E. Kremers book)

I think I can see the point. You’re wondering about where the material has gone. If You punch down the areas in question the metal is expanding to the inner space naturally. This rude hammering isn’t sufficient alone to get a correct adjustment to a tang. So after the hammering the inner sides of the nakago-ana are filed down again to get on the one hand the favoured fitting and and on the other hand smooth inner walls of the nakago-ana. At least by this filing process a part of the metal is lost indeed.

Maedate is correct. The motif was simplified and adapted to the Tsuba shape, but if it is actually a kamon is in the eye of the beholder. After all those years I’m still fascinated by the way how tsubako used all sorts of motives to create an appealing composition in a small space.

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 (?)