What school has the best iron?

[Brian]

Ford,
Forgetting any discussion about patina and surface appearance...
Do you believe that there is such a thing as "good iron" or "good steel" when it comes to tsuba schools, and if so, do you believe it can be a) seen and/or b) felt without the use of tools?
Or is this all much ado about nothing? Or do you believe it is only the way it is worked that makes the tsuba great?
I am just curious about the answer to these. I know it is a massive topic, but any thoughts?

[lonely panet]

Please Ford,

[Curran]

I wont even try to start a discussion about iron quality and any imagined connection with patina and surface appearance ....

Wisdom--.   I was a little slow to realize I should resist it too.

    My next thought was to post, "go ask [sample size X] from [group Y]", but that too has issues. I couldn't settle on an appropriate [group Y].

 

Kind of a circle jerk, isn't it?

I'll go with the Jacobellis v. Ohio opinion of Justice Potter Stewart, " I know it when I see it"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it

 

If you don't wanna bother clicking on the link, a good summary is:

 

"This simple phrase, embedded in a plurality opinion, carries with it many of the conflicts and inconsistencies that continue to plague American obscenity law. In effect, “I know it when I see it” can still be paraphrased and unpacked as: “I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that’s okay.”

— William T. Goldberg

[mas4t0]

In effect, “I know it when I see it” can still be paraphrased and unpacked as: “I know it when I see it, and someone else will know it when they see it, but what they see and what they know may or may not be what I see and what I know, and that’s okay.”

 

— William T. Goldberg

 

I still don't know what 'iron quality' means in this context, but I'm not convinced that it's a case of "I know it when I see it."

 

I'd understood Ford's comments as saying 'iron quality' can't be seen; that we can't assess it by judging the surface appearance and patina.

[Ford Hallam]

Sorry Gents, I'm not ignoring this discussion. I will order my thoughts and see what input I might be able to offer that might be useful in helping to better discuss this slippery aspect of tosogu.

[Ford Hallam]

It's been a hectic week but I haven't forgotten....this was something I read last night that seemed temporarily appropriate though.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."

 

 

Aristotle:  Nicomachean Ethics

[Ford Hallam]

Ok, I don't suppose I can put this off any longer.

 

I've been thinking about how best to address the initial question, who made the 'best' iron. It's immediately complicated, as many have already pointed out, by a lack of precise agreement on what is meant by 'best'.

 

To my way of thinking, whether the question is about the material itself, the mechanical and physical properties OR purely aesthetic, what it looks like, an absolute answer is neither possible nor meaningful.

 

On the aesthetic assessment we must recognise that this is, in the first, a subjective quality. We can, and do often, agree, as a community of what we might call specialists ( as opposed to uneducated eyes) on what constitutes desirable visual and tactile qualities. For example we can point to the lumpy , wet and 'earthy' appearance of a fine Kanayama tsuba. We can then be taught that these qualities are characteristics of that particular group. We might go so far as to say, Kanayama does 'lumpy' iron best. But, while an individual may be satisfied with this state of understanding and even appreciate the qualities so presented it remains objectively true that this appreciation remains subjective and not a scientific and physical fact. 

 

Turning to a single physical feature of iron, by contrast, we might ask which group produced the 'best', but only if we define exactly what we mean by that. Lets say the fineness of the material, for example.

 

Pretty much all pre-industrial iron and steel used in Japan was derived from tatara type processes. As I'm sure everyone well knows, this delivers a spongy looking mass that must then be carefully consolidated by hammering together. In the process of repeated folding and forge-welding together extraneous non-iron matter and slag ( molten sand from the ore and flux ) is driven out. This final product is called wrought iron, it's been wrought!

 

Depending on how well/thoroughly this process is performed the usable iron produced may be very fibrous and coarse in its internal structure (easily seen when a piece is bent to breaking point) or, as in the case of the very fine late period carved iron work, almost flawless in terms of slag inclusions and having virtually no visible linear structure, to the naked eye at least. Interestingly though, when it comes to corrosion resistance the less well wrought iron resists corrosion better than the very pure stuff. This is due to the slag inclusions actually inhibiting the galvanic action that is an essential aspect of ferrous metal corrosion. So we can see that even a single, apparently straightforward, detail isn't so easily judged in the context of tsuba.

 

As to the questions of battle functionality and mechanical suitability I'm strongly of the opinion that these aspects were of little to no concern to working warriors.

 

There hasn't been a great deal of scientific examination of ferrous tsuba to date but the few that I have found, perhaps a dozen or so, reveal that the material is virtually carbon free (it's iron or low carbon mild steel and un-hardenable) an where canning electron microscopy has been used the internal structure reveal it to be wrought-iron as I've described.

 

In addition, consider how routinely nakago ana were reshaped, hitsu added or enlarged, and even decoration added later. All of which are processes that would not be possible were the guards hardened.

 

Also, it's worth remembering that the very first tsuba used on uchigata were extremely thin, 2mm being fairly typical. Lightness, would seem to be more of a consideration, with 2mm of unhardened iron plate evidently deemed perfectly suitable. So much so that they immediately stated cutting holes in them too   .

 

Pre-industrial iron and steel was far more 'organic' and variable than our modern metals and these variations are what the tsuba-shi explored, just like a potter would delve into his local clay. Would we ask which kilns made the best bowls?

 

As a final thought perhaps it would be helpful to think of the varieties of iron in tsuba like we think of different woods. Different appearances, material qualities and differing degrees of processing....all having a legitimate place and use for those tsuba-shi who know the stuff so well.

[Ken-Hawaii]

There is the answer, from NMB's Residnt Expert.

[lonely panet]

Ford san

 

Arigatōgozaimashita

[Ford Hallam]

Thanks gents, for the kind comments. Hopefully that's a bit to help frame further thought and discussion.

[Japan2112]

I would like to understand more of the iron sand source influences in tsuba, and how they can affect the "best iron" later resulting from processing and finishing. As Ford says, it's from the tartara that the tamahagane is sorted and the less desirable (carbon content and level of impurity) imparted to armor, tsuba...? The raw material suggests a certain foundation.

 

To me Owari (Nobuie, Kanayama, Ko Owari, Yamakichibei...) have "strong" iron, and among the best in terms of material.

Higo and Akasaka, based partially on their later manufacture (and homogenous material), seem to have  produced "great" tsuba by their iron finishing. Especially yondai Tadatoki. He seemed to have had an exquisite palette.

 

And the Edo Myochin, had gotten the hammer work down, and made well beyond the "factory plate". 

 

I would say that these three components all come together in different ways and in different tsuba, and it becomes the tsuba, not necessarily the school that posesses the best iron.  One tends to know that when it's experienced - the ring, tactile sense,color,  kitae, and weight.  My humble opinion.

[Ford Hallam]

One tends to know that when it's experienced - the ring, tactile sense,color,  kitae, and weight.  My humble opinion.

 

 

"the ring"; well I can make a simple plate of mild steel ring like a bell or sound as dull as lead. It all depends on what I do to it, it depends less on the inherent quality of the material.

 

"tactile sense"; almost any surface texture can be applied to pretty much any quality of iron/steel///except perhaps the very coarsest wrought iron.

 

"colour"; again, patina has very little to do with actual material quality but more to do with process, and care over time. There is no demonstrable link between so called quality of the iron and that of the patina colour. This become very evident when the nature and composition of patina, artificial and natural, is understood.

 

"kitae'; I assume here is meant the quality of the forging? Again, good forging can make s**t iron come together well and thereby improve it...which was one of my points. But just because a piece of wrought iron doesn't show any obvious external flaws doesn't automatically mean that the material is entirely sound, flawless or even particularly clean. Metalsmith, of all ages, have been, and are, by necessity expert at presenting their metal looking its best. It this means plugging a casting flaw or working a crack closed, or even inlaying it shut, a pragmatic craftsman never wastes time, material or fuel.

 

"...and weight" ; this one is, I'm afraid, the most subjective. Do you mean somehow that a more dense piece is somehow better, so that a heavier (than what) piece must be 'better"?  Forgive me if I've missed your point... but the only objective way we can think about weight as a quality measure is to have to pieces of exactly the same volume of metal and then to compare the difference is actual weights. Only then can we say one is in fact heavier. All we really mean, imo, is that something feels heavier then we expected. But then I would argue that as someone who has bit of all sorts of metal in hand most of my waking life I'm almost never surprised at the weight of the bits I pick up. It wouldnt automatically occur to me that because something feels heavier then expected it must therefore be more dense. And besides, I doubt very much, even if we did have two piece of identical volume, and one was more tightly forged to try and force more atoms into the same space, any difference could be accurately sensed by human hands. Somehow sensing this with only one object would be beyond me, but I'm no dragon or Jedi.

[ROKUJURO]

It is indeed impossible to hammer any kind of iron "denser" than another. With physical means, you cannot put more atoms in one cubic centimeter than intended by nature. The theoretical density of pure iron is 7,874 g/cm³, whatever you do with it (at normal temperature). The density of a carbon steel alloy with no other components can be as low as 7,750 g/cm³, making such a low alloy carbon steel less dense than iron.
Martensite in the YAKIBA of a hardened sword blade has lower density than the rest of the blade's body, thus creating the SORI in the YAKIIRE process as the edge portion expands.

[Ford Hallam]

Actually, Jean, you've highlighted another of those misunderstandings in tsuba, that of the well tempered guard.

 

If, as is claimed by some, these fine tsuba were actually capable of being hardened and tempered they'd need carbon...which would, as you point out, make the alloy less dense and heavy than pure and very much softer iron.   

[ROKUJURO]

We only need the expert who can analyze the density of a TSUBA steel - in hand! Most probably Chuck Norris can do that.... 

[Ken-Hawaii]

Excellent point on density, Jean. Too easy to forget physics.