Mumei Kanayama tsuba that point to a specific tsubako

[ROKUJURO]

21 minutes ago, GRC said:

.....I defy anyone to find a person who can hold up a piece of similarly "old looking" tsuba, with hand hammered steel, in a simple katchushi or tosho form, and can definitively say whether it was made before or after 1600......

 

Although I have not done it myself, I imagine it would be easy enough to corrode and repatinate a later but simple looking katchushi or tosho tsuba and make it look like an earlier "ko-tosho" or ko-katchushi"... so the designation is ultimately arbitrary.....

Glen,

I think you simplify things too much.

It is not only the shape and design that make a TOSHO or KO-TOSHO TSUBA but there are several criteria. The earlier type is much thinner, almost always large (> 80 mm, often much larger), has a special cross-section and the patina is not at all that easy to reduplicate in my opinion! 

And I never expect anyone to judge and classify a TSUBA with a 100% 'safety'. Here at the NMB, we have always agreed upon (and respected) that actual ORIGAMI by the NBTHK are educated opinions of a panel of experts who have seen thousands of TSUBA in-hand. Within the existing system of classification, we do not have more expertise elsewhere. But as humans make mistakes, wrong attributions cannot be excluded.

But I am willing to learn, so I am looking forward to your proposal of an expanded classification system. The problem might be to convince the NBTHK.....

 

[OceanoNox]

23 hours ago, ROKUJURO said:

but there was (and is) no research done in that field (I am working on it).

That sounds interesting! Can you share what you are doing?

[Soshin]

15 hours ago, GRC said:

So I guess my point is still this... if you truly do take the time to study these small art objects, you will inevitably see the need to expand the current classification system. 

The true "waste of time" is squabbling and dickering on the internet over which of the existing tsuba groups to place an atypical tsuba into... simply because those are the only groups people are willing to accept. 

15 hours ago, GRC said:

I'm OK with made up names... just make sure these made up groupings don't take on a life of their own.

 

I am simply arguing that we need more groupings... there is enough evidence in front of us to justify that.

We need to expand the system and reclassify some of the more dubious attributions.

 

@GRC nothing you have written proves anything, your classification system is just a subjective and arbitrary system as the current system used by the NBTHK. Why would I be interested in removing some subjective system that is linguistically and culturally appropriate and substituting your system that is equally subjective but lacks any linguist and cultural understanding or context?  Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.       

[Curran]

On 3/28/2025 at 1:51 PM, MauroP said:

Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
[L. Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, Proposition no. 7]

 

"Wovon". Loving the archaic German.

[Iaido dude]

I'm thinking of selling one of my kidneys to finance a collection of Juyo pieces with mei (Yamakichibei, Nobuie, and Kanaie). That would certainly simplify attribution assuming a thorough ability to attribute authentic mei. 

[Curran]

Yep. Helps when they are signed.

Sometimes the signature is faint, like on this Yamakichibei below.

 

I was excited to finally land a signed Saotome the other week.

It is probably the last thing I will buy out of Japan for a while, until the tariff and related shipping issues get minimized.

Will post an image of the signed Saotome when I get it.

 

[Steve Waszak]

Superb tsuba, Curran.  Many thanks for posting it.  So great to see a Juyo-class Yamakichibei, and to see it well-photographed.  Congratulations on this brilliant sword guard, my friend.    And looking forward to seeing the Saotome, too.  Which Saotome smith is it, if I may ask?

[Curran]

4 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

Superb tsuba, Curran.  Many thanks for posting it.  So great to see a Juyo-class Yamakichibei, and to see it well-photographed.  Congratulations on this brilliant sword guard, my friend.    And looking forward to seeing the Saotome, too.  Which Saotome smith is it, if I may ask?

Saotome Iesada.

I'd like to think the 2nd gen fellow circa 1600-1650 who supposedly also made armor. We'll see once I have it hand.

A screen grab should be attached.

 

Given the design, I thought it might be a nice compare-contrast with the Yamakichibei.

[Steve Waszak]

Wow.  Great tsuba.  Fantastic pair of sword guards here.  The iron in these pieces is just killer.  Any reason this couldn't be first-generation Iesada?  Congrats again, Curran. and nicely done.  

[Curran]

Just now, Steve Waszak said:

Wow.  Great tsuba.  Fantastic pair of sword guards here.  The iron in these pieces is just killer.  Any reason this couldn't be first-generation Iesada?  Congrats again, Curran. and nicely done.  

 

According to Haynes Index, the first generation was 1550s'ish and didn't sign.

That aside, I would have guessed 1625-1665 by various points. Perhaps later given how wide the hitsu-ana are from the nakago ana.

Still, i like the signature being to the left in a column format similar to the way we see armor maker signature on helmets.

 

Anyway:  all good fun.

   This thread started about Kanayama tsuba. Apologies for the minor hijack.

It would be nice if more historical record of Kanayama and Ono tsuba surfaced, but I won't hold my breath.

That said, some of the other "Owari" schools have had breakthroughs in understanding the last 50 years as families and other sources have shared historical records and family records to the NBTHK.

[Iaido dude]

Curran, no need to apologize. I intentionally and half facetiously steered in the direction of mei, which may or may not necessarily allow for more precise attribution. Thank you for sharing the incredible Juyo Yamakichibei and giving a preview of the Saotome (a category I know virtually nothing about). Congratulations on both accounts! My understanding and also based on your exchange with Steve, is that the later generation Saotome lineage is not entirely clear because of the high degree of variation of the mei for Iyetada (2nd generation), suggesting that at least several tsubako were using the same mei. Then, again, we have to fall back on inductive methods to go back to details that we can observe in hand to tease out the work of a specific tsubako or workshop producing tsuba in the Saotome style. Rather than despair, I see this challenge as the source of joy and stimulation for those who are up to the task and who can, at the end of the day, be "ok" with uncertainty so that producing a sound argument is both convincing and satisfying--and is "good enough" for the time-being! 

[GRC]

On 5/9/2025 at 8:57 AM, Soshin said:

@GRC nothing you have written proves anything, your classification system is just a subjective and arbitrary system as the current system used by the NBTHK. Why would I be interested in removing some subjective system that is linguistically and culturally appropriate and substituting your system that is equally subjective but lacks any linguist and cultural understanding or context?  Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.   

By all means, you do you David.

I on the other hand would prefer not to be a blind sheep who bows at the feet of a predatory group who pad their own pockets while blindly following an obviously flawed and inflexible doctrine. 

The sheep can stay penned in their peaceful fenced-in pasture, where they don't have to think about anything, while they blissfully keep their heads down and chew the grass.

 

By the way, I don't think I ever suggested using an alternate naming and classification system that would use non-culturally relevant terminology. That would be an egregious error... so I have no idea where you got that idea from. If I somehow build that impression, that was a mistake in my choice of words perhaps.

It seems obvious that relevant Japanese terminology should be used.

I am just pointing out that the current system, with its limited number of groupings to attribute unsigned tsuba to, is inherently flawed, and even the names themselves are mostly fictitious and arbitrary anyway.

 

I will always advocate for a collective reimagination and reclassification of unsigned pre-Edo tsuba that is based on an ongoing critical comparative analysis, which is always open to further modification as new evidence arises (just like in science). This constantly improving and evolving system must also be culturally sensitive and relevant.

No system is ever perfect, but surely we can all do better than this...  

 

I simple don't understand why would anyone would balk at such an idea?

...unless perhaps some people are already too invested in the current system because they have been buying tsuba for their papers rather than the tsuba themselves.

...or, maybe some people are members of the organizations who seek to maintain the status quo and profit from "certifying" tsuba in some way, so they have vested interest in maintaining their profitable system.

Just pondering the possibilities...

[GRC]

@Iaido dude well said about the joy of taking the time to analyze and teas out the details to narrow the uncertainty as best we can. 

For me, that's always been an inherent part of the appeal of diving into tsuba. It's still one giant bag of mysteries and puzzles to solve... that's the fun part. 

[GRC]

@Curran those are two great tsuba. Congrats and thanks for sharing.

[Soshin]

9 hours ago, GRC said:

I simple don't understand why would anyone would balk at such an idea?

 

@GRC  I have since cooled down from my above posts and need to address a severe problem in my life that cannot be ignored. I hope to get the problem resolved sooner than later and I can get back get back to this hobby.

 

PS.

@Curran Love the great tsuba(s) you are sharing and providing positive posts to this topic.