JohnTo

IMHO it is a Nagoyamono (thing from Nagoya) rather than a Mino work. The good news is that it is better than the 'standard series' (as I like to call them) of Nagoyamono that keep turning up in UK and Japanese auctions. I am not an expert, being more a book newby and often use the Christie's Compton Catalogue as my main source of info as it seems to be of a higher standard than info in the current major auction house of tsuba. Compton II, lots 132-135 show some nice examples which sold for over £1K (I don't think yours is quite up to that standard and prices were higher then). Using their catalogue notes. Nagoyamono were based in Nagoya in the Edo period and used the style of the Goto workers in Mino and Kyoto. The plate metal for the tsuba was nigurome, a base metal of katashirome (tin and lead) and unrefined copper (yamagane). This alloy is converted to shakudo when 3-7% gold is added, which was not done with the Nagoyamono. Nigurome gets a chocolate brown patina and not the lovely blue black of shakudo. The Nagoyamono that I have seen all look cast and then finished by hand (guilding and application of nanako), they also tend to have guilded nanako finished ryuhitsu, as yours. hope this is of help, best regards John

Hi everyone, It’s over three years since I posted this tsuba asking for help identifying the subject matter of this tsuba. I originally thought that it was just a mish mash of pleasant looking objects, but thanks to seeing a seemly unrelated tsuba for sale by Touken Matsumoto (see pic), showing the retreat of lady Kogo, I think I can now explain the composition and hope that you find it interesting. I believe that the subject matter is based upon an incident in the Heike Monogotari, written around the start of the 14thC, telling the tale of the Taira/Minamoto war. Apparently, the 20th Emperor Takaku (reigned 1168-1180) was a bit depressed about something and his wife sent Kogo, a lady of the court, a renowned beauty and koto playing musician, to cheer him up. This she did and Lady Kogo became the emperor’s favourite concubine. This situation seems to have been OK with his wife, (what an understanding woman!) but not his father-in-law, Taira Kiyomori. Fearing that he was losing influence, Kiyomori had Lady Kogo banished. Takakura was heartbroken and eventually sent out a servant to track down Lady Kogo, which he did one evening after hearing her playing the koto in the cottage where she now lived. Takakura and Kogo soon rekindled their romance with secret nigh time trysts which resulted in the birth of a child. Eventually Kiyomori found out and this time had Kogo banished to a nunnery. The front of the tsuba depicts the cottage where Kogo lived (as in the Touken Matsumato tsuba) surrounded by the idyllic surroundings of their love nest (flowers and butterflies). Bottom right shows Kogo leaving this idyll and going into her final banishment of a nunnery, accompanied by a maidservant and her child (name, sex and fate unknown to me, but I assume that it was not Takakura’s famous son Antoku, who was drowned at the battle of Dan-no-Ura in 1185). The reverse shows two quail in the moonlight, representing the two faithful lovers meeting. After four years of guardianship of this tsuba I feel that I have finally interpreted the subject. Now I just need to find candidates for the maker. Best wishes John (Just a guy making observations, asking questions and trying to learn)

Hi Joe, I have a couple of ‘Kaneie’ tsuba, one of which seems to have similar features to yours and may be by one of the Saga Kaneie. My tsuba was in a mixed lot and rather grubby when I bought it, but has cleaned up nicely and most of the brown patina seems to be extant. I gather that there were about a dozen tsubako named Kaneie plus students and fakers who also signed Kaneie. So I hope you find the following helpful. My tsuba is an oval flat iron plate with a slightly raised rim and Chinese landscape (sansui), both formed by sukidashi bori (engraving the ji of the tsuba to leave the design in high relief) highlighted with gold. On one side there are two pointed stooks of rice, each engaved with fine lines and tipped with gold, near the shore of a lake. At the top of the tsuba is the moon, or sun, depicted in gold, partially covered by cloud. The the other side shows a low bridge, supprted in the middle, spanning two shorelines and at the top is a mountain in low relief. A few specks of silver and gold are scattered around but there is no discernable human or animal form on either side. This type of landscape design is referred to as sansui (mountain and water). The surface of the ji shows areas of what looks like tsuchime (hammer marks), but may be due to areas of local corrosion and also shows clusters of small lumps (ca. 1 mm diameter) which may be tekkotsu.The nakago ana has a sekigane at the tip and is flared at the base, where a second sekigane may have been. There are no tegane (chisel) marks around the nakago ana. There are the usual two ryo hitsu for kogai and kodzuka which have been filled with cat scratched shakudo plugs (partly worn to expose the unpatinated copper base shakudo). My tsuba (like many others) is signed Yamashiro kuni Fushimi Ju Kaneie (Kaneie of Fushimi village [Near Kyoto] in Yamashiro province). Joshu Kaneie and two others of the same name were the famous Kaneie tsubako of the late 16thC. It is reported that they were probably Buddhist monks, perahaps all from the same temple. A large (8.5 cm) example attributed one of these (signed Yamashiro kuni Fushimi ju Kaneie) is shown in Masterpieces from the Randolf B. Caldwell Collection (#4, page 14). Other tsubako named Kaneie worked in the early Edo period and are usually referred to as the Saga Kaneie or Tetsunin Kaneie School in Kyoto. Aoki Tetsunin Kaneie was born in Fushimi in 1594 and later went to Edo to form the Tetsunin School and died in 1675. Various members of this School seemed to have signed ‘Kaneie’ as well as their own names. An example by kodai (later or last generation) Kaneie (signed Yamashiro kuni Fushimi Ju Kaneie) is shown in the Nhon To Koza, vol VI, page 177 and is similar in design, having the gold moon or sun. In conclusion, although the sansui design, sukidashi bori carving and limited highlighting in gold are all features of tsubako named Kaneie, there were several with this name (9 according to one source), plus their signatures were extensively copied by other workers within the School and outside. Another reference states that the 16thC Kaneie tsuba are thin (1.5-2 mm) and the Tetsunin tsuba are 3-3.5 mm, as this tsuba. Although no reliance can be placed upon the signature on this tsuba, it may be from the Tetsunin School. Height: 8.9 cm, Width: 7.9 cm, Thickness: 0.3 cm, Weight: 146 g Best regards, John

Just thought that you might like to see another tsuba with a sword cut (I believe). The tsuba is a classic Kyo sukashi of the Mikawa irises, popular around the Momoyama period. It came with a NBTHK Hozon. Loo king down at the tsuba from the blade side (ura) there is a cut in the rim at 11 o/clock. It would seem (to me) that the samurai was deflecting a blow by holding his sword vertically and his opponent's blade came down the side of his. I don't think that the split is a folding flaw in the iron. Regards, John

Peter Apart from the dragonfly the rest of the carving and nagako ana look 'soft' and poorly defined. In addition the copper seki gane are bright and look new. From the photos, I would guess that it is a modern cast tsuba. Hopefully I am wrong. Best regards, John

Hi Peter, Good article, thanks for posting it. Always useful to add to the knowledge base and discussion. I see that there are several similar tsuba to mine illustrated therein. I note that you feel that these tsuba are in fact Japanese made and that the masks are also a Japanese motif. While I agree that many nanban tsuba were made in Nagasaki, probably by Chinese artisans and that the style spilled out to Japanese workers and out to the neighbouring Hizen region, I think that some tsuba, including my two, are probably Chinese. The reason for this is two-fold. 1. The odd shaped nagako ana on these tsuba does not seem to correspond to any Japanese swords or pole arms that I know of. I'm sure that if they were made in Japan someone (dealers and customers) would have got them to change the shape rather than have churn out thousands of ill fitting tsuba that need modification to fit on a Japanese blade. . 2. The mask shapes on these particular tsuba seem to have been popular in Ming China. Please note that my observations are not based upon any actual knowledge, just reading around the subject and drawing conclusions based upon limited evidence. It seems to me that nanban tsuba were made by a number of nameless artisans (like most Momoyama sukashi tsuba), but had no real interest to later Japanese connoisseurs, hence the dearth of information. Best regards, John

Putting aside the metal bits, the same on example two is odd, it looks black. I have a gunto with black same, but can't remember having seen, or rather noticed, black same elsewhere. Does anyone know how common black same was and did it have any particular significance. best regards, John. PS, prefer the horse as it would make a nice compliment for a wakizashi tsuba that i have.

With all the recent correspondence regarding Nanban tsuba, I thought these two tsuba might interest NMB members. They are virtually identical mokko shaped Nanban tsuba with dragon/lion masks the main difference being that one is brass and the other iron. Both tsuba have the same basic design on the front and back, making it difficult to decide which is which. Like all(?) Nanban tsuba they are unsigned. They were purchased as part of job lots from two separate auction houses a couple of years ago. The first tsuba is brass (?) and the differences in colour indicate that it was once gilded, probably using gold amalgam. It has two devil/lion/mythical beast masks at the top and bottom. The Royal Armouries has a similar mask on the guard of the ‘Ming Sword’, dated 1402-24, but only describes the mask as a ‘monster’. It therefore adds weight to my assumption that this tsuba is of Chinese, rather than Japanese origin. The left and right central sections seem to be bounded by what is often referred to as drawer handles, but are actually stylised dragons holding a tama jewel between them. Within each of these areas are two more conventional dragons, the upper ones with open mouths (talking females?, sorry) and the lower ones with whiskers (male?). Eight dragons in all. The seppa dai is the usual grooved Nanban style and the nagako ana is an odd rectangular shape, modified to take a Japanese sword, utilising copper sekigane at each end. I know nothing about Chinese swords and pole arms, but the little I have found out does not relate to the odd shaped nagako ana. Any suggestions? Finally, mention must be made of the shakudo hitsu ana plug. It must have been difficult to shape and I would expect that this was a later Japanese addition. This tsuba is very similar to one sold in the Compton Collection, Part I, Lot 100, at Christie’s on 31st March 1992. The Compton tsuba was described as an early example imported from Canton into Nagasaki, ca. 1600. Both are brass and have the same elements in the design, though in different proportions. It is therefore likely that this tsuba is of similar origin. Dimensions: Height: 7.5cm. Width: 6.9 cm. Thickness (rim): 0.5 cm. Weight: 124 g The second tsuba is virtually identical in design to the first, but is made of iron. In this example the drawer handles, in gold nunome, are not part of dragons and a second pair of animal masks has been placed each side of the central horizontal axis of the tsuba. The four dragons in the centre have the same open mouth pair at the top and closed mouth dragons at the bottom There is only one hitsu ana, the other one being replaced by a gilded tama jewel. The gilding is another important difference, this time it is nunome hammered into criss-cross anchor lines. This seems more like a Japanese influence to me. Does this indicate that the tsuba was decorated in Japan, or maybe made in Nagasaki by Chinese and/or Japanese artisans? As for a date, I’m guessing here, probably 1700? Dimensions: Height: 7.3 cm. Width: 7.1 cm. Thickness: 0.6 cm (rim), 0.5 cm (nagako). Weight: 114 g I’m not a great lover of Nanban tsuba, too fiddly for my taste, I prefer the simplicity of Japanese sukashi of around 1600. However, when I look at the undercut karakusa scrolls (fern fronds) in these and other Nanban tsuba, I’m inclined to say that there appears to be a higher skill level in the cutting than the straight through, vertical, piercings of the Kyoto and Akasaka workers, for example. The karakusa on one side are only cut halfway through and then cut sideways to join up with the karakusa on the other side. Have you seen the Chinese balls within balls in 19thC ivory work? Amazing! Despite being of two different metals the two tsuba look as if they could have been made in the same workshop, even by the same hand. Interestingly (to me anyway), the three generations of Mitsuhiro in Yagami, Hizen, virtually next door to Nagasaki, are reported, in some sources, to have had training in the Nagasaki Nanban workshops. They are famous for their 1000 monkey (senbikizaru) tsuba, carved in the round, which they also made in both iron and brass (claimed to be sentoku on the signatures). Who were these tsuba originally intended for and when were they made? The odd shaped nagako ana would indicate that they were not made for the Japanese market, either for swords or pole arms. I can find no information regarding the shape of tangs of Asian (Chinese) or European (Spanish) swords. These tsuba look as if they could have been made in China for Spanish rapiers, but look a bit heavy to me. Perhaps they are not Chinese or Japanese at all, but originated elsewhere in Asia (I have seen mentioned Sri Lanka) and were imported by the Dutch VOC company. The Compton tsuba has been assigned a date of early 1600’s, but that is ‘auction catalogue’ information. Most references to Nanban tsuba seem to date them to around 1800, but this raises a question in my mind regarding the nagako ana. If the Japanese had been importing these tsuba from China for about 200 years, surely the importer would have got round to asking the Chinese to change the shape of the nagako ana thus making them more suitable for Japanese swords. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions and trying to learn)

Just happen to have been reading Harry Watson's translation of Nihon To Koza yesterday. Vol VI, p173 has a chapter on Kodai Kaneie with a couple of pics of tsuba on p 177 of Kodai (later or last generation) of Kanei, so I guess its just a general term. Regards, John

Thanks Pete, agreed. Looks more like plum. John

Hi George, Been away over the New Year, so I've just seen your reply. Thanks, you obviously have a very keen eye. Its not a story that I was familiar with, but you are obviously correct. I did think that it was a funny looking tiger, but animals not native to Japan, e.g. elephants, are often depicted as very strange looking beasts on tosugu. It just shows what a useful forum the NMB is, there is always someone out there who can teach us something new. Best regards, John

I’m not a fan of Soten tsuba, too fussy for my taste, but this one turned up in a mixed lot that I bought. Most Soten tsuba depict samurai battle scenes which are difficult to identify, but I think that this one depicts Kato Kiyomasa (1562-1611) hunting a tiger while on the Korean (Imjin) campaign (1592-1598). Kiyomasa can be identified as the figure on the right by his trademark high helmet (his famous one was higher) and spear. Apparently Kiyomasa enjoyed hunting tigers while on the korean campaign (OK, not exactly a recognisable tiger, but it does not look like any Japanese animals either). The faces of the samurai and tiger on the front of the tsuba are worn, but otherwise in fair condition. The faces are copper and silver and the details are highlighted in gold nunome. The reverse is in better condition and shows pine trees and a fire with swirling smoke (presumeably to flush out the tiger), highlighted with gold nunome. The rim also has traces of gold nunome. I think that the merit of this tsuba is that I have not seen this design elsewhere. The tsuba is signed Soheishi Soten sei (made), Soheishi being the founder of the Soten School, moving from Kyoto to Hikone about 1750. He used several forms to his signatures such as Goshu Hikone ju Soheishi Soten sei and Soheishi Nyudo Soten sei, the Nyudo added after he entered the priesthood. Soheishi can also be read as ‘Mogarishi’ and the craftman’s name ‘Soten’ was read as ‘Munenori’ before he entered the priesthood. The samurai designs of the Soten School became very popular and were heavily copied, with members of the school also signing Soten, in various ways. 17 members of the school are listed in Marcus Sesko’s genealogy charts. I believe that far more fakes than genuine Soten works are in existence and so I treat the signature on this tsuba as very suspect. I do wonder if Soten gave up making tsuba once his fame was established and he had several workers working for him, concentrating instead on drawing the designs for others to make. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

Happy New Year, guys. Just to start the ball rolling I’m posting a New Year tsuba. I believe that the design represents the ceremony of wakamizu, the drawing of the first water from a well on New Year’s Day, hence the rope garland around the tree. It must be in the south of Japan as the cherry blossom is out (ok, artistic licence). The tsuba has a hammered plate and is unsigned, but my best guess is that it may be from the Nara school where Kaneshige produced similar styled works around 1700. Comments welcome. The rim of the tsuba seems to be bound with an iron fukurin (band). This may just be carved into the plate of the tsuba, or possibly the rim has been hammered back on itself (uchikaeshi mimi), which seems to be a complex and skilful task. The tsuba has a takazogan inlay of coloured metals (gold, silver and shakudo) depicting a branch of a cherry blossom tree with a garland around the main branch. Below this is a square well head with a silver bucket and gold rope next to a small shakudo rock and ground plants. The reverse has a twig of blossom together with a small ground plant and rock picked out in gold and shakudo, respectively. Height: 8.2 cm. Width: 7.6 cm. Thickness: 0.3 cm January 25th is the Chinese New Year, the Year of the Rat. So lets see a few New Year tsuba. Best Wishes for 2020, but please don’t bid against me for the tsuba that I want to buy. John

Lovely tsuba. The Boston Museum of fine Arts has one with a similar basic design (unsigned Ishiguro School and does not look as good). Accession no. 13.1958 Nive prezzie for Xmas and New Year. regards, John

I believe that I have posted this tsuba before. It is decorated on the inside with red lacquer. On the outside are three engraved phoenix in silver and gold gilt (difficult to see in the photo). The boars eye (heart) piecing is also large for a tsuba. What religions do you no that are based on three deities (father, son and holy ghost), believe in rising from the dead (or ashes) and depict the #2 deity with a large heart? I believe that this tsuba belonged to a Christian (Roman catholic). Regards, John

Jerimiah, Just looked at the photos on the link supplied by Bruno, which show the area clearer. No sign of a signature being removed. Hope I did not frighten you. John

Hi Jeremiah, A very nice restrained design. One adverse observation is that the surface either side of the nagako ana looks like it has been hammered flat. If it was not for the NBTHK Hozon I would be wondering if someone had not obliterated a signature that they did not like. Any explanation? all the best, John

Thanks guys for your comments. It seems that there are some nice Tochibata tsuba out there that are not cast, despite the Nihon To Koza virtually describing the Tochibata School as a minor one of village blacksmiths. I see that the Ebay tsuba sold for about £90, so maybe someone got a bargain in terms of a rust free sukashi tsuba from a rare school, or maybe not. I’m still left with the question as to who/why someone should want to make cast copies of a little known school of tsuba makers when Akasaka etc tsuba would have been more lucrative. After all, painting forgers tend to copy Rembrandts and Renoirs, not unknown artists whose original work can be bought cheaply. I see we are moving onto tekkotsu again. Is it hard or soft iron? When I have suggested previously that tekkotsu is formed in a final heat treatment I have been told that there is no evidence that tsuba were subject to yakiire. Reading Markus Sesko’s excellent ‘Handbook of Sword Fittings related terms’ I find three references to ‘yakite’ (translation of ‘application of heat’) as the final stage in the production of some tsuba. I don’t know if ‘yakite’ is another way of reading ‘yakiire’, but Markus tends to be very exact in his translations and corrects general misreadings of kanji found in other books. My conclusion remains that heating and quenching would lead to the formation of hard martensite particles which would be prominent from the surface as softer iron shrinks more during quenching (as in sword making), whereas heating without quenching might lead to the preferential loss (oxidation) of hard iron (as in acid etching) leading to soft iron tekkotsu. After carefully looking at my tsuba, my money is still on hard iron, but as we scientists say ‘We need more research’. I have several cast tsuba, but none have tekkotsu. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

I have several Nobuie tsuba in my collection, they are in great condition and look as if they were made yesterday, or in the 19thC at the latest! The famous 16thC Nobuie (maybe two generations) is probably the most copied, signed, tsuba artist of all. But to be fair, generally, the copies are still nice tsuba. Regards, John

Hi guys I have a cast tsuba for your comments, timely with the example just posted by Guido and also because I have just seen an almost identical example of my tsuba on Ebay. My tsuba was part of a job lot from an auction seen only in a photo. I was disappointed when I saw it ‘live’ for the first time as the iron did not look quite right and, like a badly fitting wig, I could see the joins. Although the iron did not look like other examples of cast iron that I have, I put it aside and forgot about it until I saw an almost exact copy on Ebay today described as from the ‘Tochihata’ School. I can’t see the casting joins in this example, but the iron has a similar appearance. The Nihon To koza gives the correct reading of the School as Tochibata, a group of blacksmiths who made farm implements and seemed to have made tsuba as a sideline. Their work seems to be characterised by a rope pattern around the mimi, as my tsuba, but I have found no reference to their manufacturing process. Did they cast iron blanks and then finish by hand? I can see no reason why anyone would copy their work as the references that I have found do not rate them highly (Nihon to Koza: ‘few people took notice of them because these are not especially beautiful.’) On the other hand a NBTHK Tokubetsu Kicho paper for one can be found on the internet. Its difficult to judge from Internet photos, but some examples of Tochibata tsuba look forged, while others look cast. Size:6.9 cm x 6.6 cm x 0.45 cm (about 0.3 cm bigger than Ebay example) Your thoughts please. Until today I had never heard of the Tochibata School. Is this a genuine Tochibata School tsuba although it is cast? Any info on the School would be appreciated. first three pictures are my tsuba, fourth one is from Ebay. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

Another Efu ju Masayuki for you to see. I've posted it before in the translation page as I could not read the 'yuki'. Ruben pointed out to me that the long tail on the 'fu' of Efu is a dead givaway for Masayuki signatures. My example is an acid etched scene, I don't know if that was a common technique that he used. regards, John

Hi Roger, I'm a bit concerned about the number of toes that your dragon has. All Japanese dragons that I have seen (just a few dozen) and according to internet sources, should only have three toes. Chinese dragons have four toes, except if made for the emperor, in which case they have five (I gather it was a serious affront to inadvertently put five toes on a non-imperial dragon). So maybe it begs the question as to whether this tsuba was later embelished by a Chinese artisan. Regards, John

Thanks Steve, nice reply, so here are some more of my thoughts. Steve states that there is no evidence that tsuba were subjected to yakiire in similar way to swords. He may be right, but then is there any evidence no tsubako used yakiire? As a scientist I was always taught to take note of existing dogma, but to listen to the voice of the system and then form your own theories. I would like to present what I think is evidence for yakiire from one of my favourite tsuba (I have posted this tsuba before in a different context). I believe that this tsuba is from the Kanayama School, its simplicity IMHO is just pure Zen. I just love it, especially as I got it cheap as a previously unsold lot from an old collection, complete with old kiri box. A simple star, bobbin or shippo component forms the basis for the design (like the one in the original posting). There are stumps from pairs of bars going from the star to the mimi, which appear to have been cut off in historical times. Holding this tsuba in my (gloved) hand I can hear the iron speaking to me. Of course it might be telling me porkies, but this is what it is saying. The first thing of interest in this tsuba is the mimi (the outer rim). It is heavily pitted, like a teenager with bad acne, but there are no signs of rust scabs. This pitting is uniform around the whole rim. Unfortunately, I have seen more rusted mimi than I care to but I have never seen one with rust evenly distributed around the whole tsuba. Corrosion has always been in patches and usually around the whole mimi, not just the outer rim. This pitting must have been caused by over heating in a fire causing the iron to burn (done this myself on a one day blacksmith course!). So why is the pitting only on the outside of the mimi? I have no other explanation than to assume that the rest of the tsuba was protected from the fire in the forge either by coating with clay (as in sword making) or masking with a couple of iron discs (unlikely). The ji (faces) of the tsuba are in good condition and do not show signs of corrosion. A little ishime finish, but not pitted or scabby rust. The other feature of the ji is ‘stars’, tiny specs less than 1 mm that sparkle in the light. I assume that these are hard martensite (nie) particles that probably cannot be called tekkotsu as they are flush with the surface. They are scatterred all over the ji, on the arms of the shippo/star and around the seppa dai, on both sides. Maybe these particles did not take on a patina as readily as the surounding iron; I doubt that they lost their patina and became shiny due to rubbing, as tekkotsu on the mimi of some tsuba may have done. The edges of the central star are sunk in the centre. I cannot imagine that the tsubako cut them this shape. They would have been cut and filed straight and vertically to the face of the tsuba. I believe that the middle part of the iron shrunk during yakiire, the central iron being softer than the hardened surfaces. There is no evidence of san mai awase construction of the plate that I can see and no evidence of lamination, as in Akasaka tsuba (of course the tsubako may have been very skilful in welding plates together). Interestinly, the cut edges of the shippo/star also have small (less than 1 mm) specks standing proud from the surface. They look like grains of sand and I have to resist the temptation to pick at them to see if they would fall off like sand would, or whether they are iron and welded to the surface! All this seems to me to point to a tsuba that has been covered in clay and subjected to yakiire as a final stage in its manufacture. If Steve has another explanation of these phenomena I would pleased to hear them. I have often heard that iron tsuba were not hardened as they might shatter during impact. But consider the main purpose of the tsuba. In some fencing schools emphasis may have been to stop the hand slipping down the blade in a thrust attack, particularly if the oponent was wearing armour. In this case a cheap cast iron tsuba would have been sufficient for the task, despite being likely to shatter if hit with a metal object (sword). Note: I am not advocating the use or collection of cast iron tsuba. Ugh! Considering the rather insubstantial tsuba presented herein, a hardened mimi may may indeed break under a sword blow, but unless the cut was well executed, something unlikely during combat, the outcome may equally well be a chipped or broken blade. Edven if the mimi was cut through the blade would then come up against the star/shippo centre, with a hard outside and soft impact absorbing middle, again with an equal possibily of the blade, rather than the tsuba, coming off worse. Also, please note that I did not say that martensite floats to the surface like bubbles. Iron is pretty solid, even when hot, so not much floats around! I am quoting Yoshindo when I say that iron with 1-2% carbon will tend to form large crystals of austenite when subjected to long periods of heating (the longer, the bigger). It is only upon yakiire that these crystals become martensite, forming the iron lumps that we, tsuba collectors, call tekkotsu and sword collectors call nie (in their various guises). I believe that austenite only forms at high temperatures (above 723°C according to an on line iron phase chart), quenching from a high temp causes the austenite structure to ‘flash freeze’ as the martensite crystals we love to see, whereas slow cooling of iron reverts austenite to the softer cementite and pearlite; if I remember correctly from my student days. You also mention the old howler about tekkotsu only developing after rubbing away the soft iron. I used to think this was ridiculous as well, but realised that what rubbing actually does is to preferentially remove the brown/black oxide patina from tekkotsu making it more evident to the naked eye, i.e. rubbing does not form tekkotsu, but it might make it visible, as im my original post regarding String of Pearls tekkotsu. In summary, I have three observations that point to a final heat treatment (yakiire) of this tsuba: Burning of the iron outer surface of the mimi Shrinking of the (softer) core iron with relation to the outer (hard) surfaces Presence of martensite stars in the ji. As I said, I have no evidence for any of the above; I’m just carrying out what we scientists call ‘A thought experiment’. But that’s what studying and collecting is all about, challenging existing dogma, engaging in debate, even if your ideas are wrong. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

One of my first tsuba was a tosho tsuba from the RB Caldwell collection with a couple of prominent linear tekkotsu on the rim and so I thought that I knew everything about ‘iron bones’. However, I found ‘exploding’, ‘granular’, ‘fine’ and ‘speckled’ tekkotsu mentioned in books and catalogues, but examples of these were never actually illustrated (the tsuba were always photographed face on). Consequently, my knowledge of tekkotsu is from poorly described books and my own observations of my collection. I just love the various lumps and speckles that give iron character and so I would like to present, for your critical comments, a new phenomenon that I observed recently, namely String of Pearls tekkotsu (named after a Glenn Miller tune). The tsuba in question is a mokko shaped Kyo sukashi tsuba with a bobbin (or is it a central part of shippo circles?) with karagane links. Identical tsuba to this have been offered for sale by Aoi Art and Ebay, both with NBTHK Hozon for Kyo Sukashi around 1600. Mine came from a job lot from an old collection bought in 2017, which also had some other nice pieces, so I believe that it has a ‘provenance’. Recently, one late Friday afternoon, I was looking at some tsuba while having my usual end of week indulgence of a pint of Old Peculiar, which I find heightens perception and enables me to hear the ‘iron speaking to me’. This particular day was spent outside as it was a warm summer’s day and the evening sunlight caught some shiny spots on the rim of this tsuba that I had not noticed before. ‘Fine granular tekkotsu’ I thought, but on close inspection I noticed that the spots were in lines and appeared on all four lobes around the mimi. At this point I expect that some of you guys are jumping up and down and shouting ‘cast iron!’. While I would not profess to be an expert on cast iron tsuba I have identified five in my collection, which I inadvertently bought in mixed lots from on-line auctions (poor photos is my excuse). This tsuba does not have the seams inside the sukashi, the characteristic look of cast iron, odd looking seppa dai, etc. of my cast examples. That is not to say that some Japanese artisan of old was not skilled in casting iron which looked exactly like forged iron. However, it looks genuine to me. Here is my explanation of what I’m seeing. The tsubako folded an iron blank plate in on itself, in the same way as a swordsmith would (attached to a handle, tekkobo?). Before folding, the outer surfaces of the iron absorbed carbon from the charcoal fire (maybe left in too long) and when folded and welded together formed a thin layer in the middle of the plate of high carbon iron. The outer surface of the plate would also be expected to be of a similar composition, but the two outer surfaces would be subject to subsequent hammering, loss of iron from scaling in the forging process and then filing as the tsuba was made. Cutting out the blank tsuba from the plate would result in loss of an iron strip on all sides, including the folded edge. Thus all sides would be of identical forms of iron and contain a thin layer of high carbon iron right up to the edges. After the tsuba was shaped (including cutting the sukashi) it was given a final heat treatment. I don’t have any evidence (literature is blank and 17thC tsubako left no visual examples of their working practices on YouTube), but I believe that some tsubako protected the tsuba against burning in the final heat treatment by covering with different thicknesses of clay, like swordsmiths do. A final quench produced what would be called on a sword, sunagashi (drifting sand), i.e. lines of martensite particles, nie, along the weld lines between the iron layers. The difference between nie seen on a sword and a tsuba being that a sword polisher produces a flat surface and the nie becomes visible as changes in the colour of the iron. Such features in tsuba are normally hidden by the patina, but in this tsuba the nie are prominent because they stick out as granular tekkotsu and the patina has partially worn away. The swordsmith Yoshindo Kajihara (The Craft of the Japanese Sword, p 91-92) states that ‘quenching will produce bright grainy effects in the steel called nie…and sunagashi-all patches of martensite but with different names according to their size or location. The longer a blade is heated the larger the size of the austenite grains that form and thus the larger the size of the martensite crystals that remain in the final blade.’ I believe martensite has a lower density than the softer pearlite, so would stick out from the surface, as well as being the reason that a sword blade curves during quenching. The String of Pearls is difficult to see, and more difficult to photograph, and is not visible as a continuous line all the way round. One string stretches allmost the entire length of one of the lobes. However, it is visible on all four lobes and had they been joined together ‘necklace’ would have been a better description. To aid identification of the feature, I have included photos (with the spots circled) from a section of a blade by Midzuta Kunishige that has prominent lines of sunagashi (some tsuba collectors may be unfamiliar with features found on blades). Inspired by this discovery, I have bought a pair of magnifier eyeglasses and checked other iron tsuba in my collection. Some do in fact appear to have String of Pearl tekkotsu, some consisting of just four or five dots, but some are longer, though none are as prominent as in this tsuba. Generally, they appear as a line of nanako type spots, about 0.2 mm wide. I look forward to reading your critical comments. Best regards, John (just a guy making observations, asking questions, trying to learn)

By an odd coincidence I was admiring a similar tsuba in a sale catalogue this morning (Carlo Monzino Collection, Sotherby’s 18 June 1966, lot 34). It was described as Ko-Shoami, Momoyama Period, in Heianjo style. 8.2 cm. Ex WW Winkworth collection. It did not have the ‘guy swimming’, which I wonder if it is a stylised dragonfly (normally two pairs of wings), but at least it is associated with water. Best regards, John