Yamakichibei tsuba with nice tsuka.

[Rawa]

Your opinion please on this assembly. Tsuba is signed. Sekigane was made for Bishu Osafune Sukemitsu, sword dsn't rattle.

[Steve Waszak]

Hello Marcin,

 

The tsuba here is not a genuine Yamakichibei tsuba.  It is a later (likely 19th-century) copy.  

[Rawa]

24 minutes ago, Steve Waszak said:

Hello Marcin,

 

The tsuba here is not a genuine Yamakichibei tsuba.  It is a later (likely 19th-century) copy.  

Thank you for info. What details convince you towards it being copy? Facture? Hitsu-ume? I found similar pattern.

https://varshavskycollection.com/yamakichibei-tsuba/

[Bugyotsuji]

1 hour ago, Steve Waszak said:

Hello Marcin,

 

The tsuba here is not a genuine Yamakichibei tsuba.  It is a later (likely 19th-century) copy.  

Re "is not"

Steve, that is kind of absolute, no? Are you 100% sure it is not genuine, or 95%, or 90%?

 

[Curran]

2 minutes ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Re "is not"

Steve, that is kind of absolute, no? Are you 100% sure it is not genuine, or 95%, or 90%?

 

 

95% on my end. Steve is probably higher.

[Bugyotsuji]

It was more a question of language use, really, Curran. From the other fittings alone, I was already getting a feeling that they would not put a real Yamakichibei on there. Even so, I would want to say something like, "I'm pretty sure that", or "It gives me a strong feeling that...", etc. Absolute statements can challenge people, put their backs up. Wait for the inevitable backlash, the demands for absolute proof, etc.

I guess I prefer to be more diplomatic! 

[Steve Waszak]

100%.  This piece is modeled after Meijin-Shodai work.  But the mei is wrong in several areas, the sukashi are not formed correctly, the plate is flat and featureless, and it lacks the dynamism and liveliness that is unmistakable in shoshin work.  Some years ago, I uploaded a long article I wrote on this group of smiths to the Articles section on NMB.  Yamakichibei has been a special area for me in my research on early Owari Province sword guards, so I can say with a very high degree of confidence (100%) that the tsuba here is not shoshin.  Also, much of the content of the Varshavsky page linked in Marcin's post here is riddled with errors, so, it is not a reliable source of information on Yamakichibei works.  Below are a few examples of genuine Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei work.  Compare.   

 

P.S.  The other tsuba Marcin posted an image of from the Varshavsky page is also a later copy.  Absolutely not shoshin.   

[Rawa]

1 hour ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Re "is not"

Steve, that is kind of absolute, no? Are you 100% sure it is not genuine, or 95%, or 90%?

 

Oh men I see mei diference clearly in yama alone. I don't argue if @Steve Waszak is right or not especially as he is quoted all around [even on site I linked]. Cheers boyz buying this I was expecting all being trash. 

[Steve Waszak]

No worries, Marcin!  It's great to ask questions.  It's how we learn and make progress.    

[Mushin]

 

6 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

 

No worries, Marcin!  It's great to ask questions.  It's how we learn and make progress.    

 

What about this one Steve? I don’t even recall when or where I picked it up. All thoughts helpful. 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Bobby,

 

I'm afraid that would be another "homage" piece.  Many details -- from the plate work, shape, sukashi, surface finish, and mei -- are problematic.  It can be difficult to see and appreciate the differences between the genuine early Yamakichibei work and that of those who made such "tribute" guards or outright copies.  The early Yamakichibei tsuba possess a lively strength that later imitations don't really come close to.  It is the same with the later Nobuiye copies or homage works:  very far from the real thing.  

[Mushin]

1 hour ago, Steve Waszak said:

Hi Bobby,

 

I'm afraid that would be another "homage" piece.  Many details -- from the plate work, shape, sukashi, surface finish, and mei -- are problematic.  It can be difficult to see and appreciate the differences between the genuine early Yamakichibei work and that of those who made such "tribute" guards or outright copies.  The early Yamakichibei tsuba possess a lively strength that later imitations don't really come close to.  It is the same with the later Nobuiye copies or homage works:  very far from the real thing.  

Thank you sir!

[Steve Waszak]

You're very welcome.  

[Mushin]

45 minutes ago, Steve Waszak said:

You're very welcome.  

Steve, 

Any idea of the timeframe for when these "homage" pieces were made? And by whom? Just curious. Were Yamakichibei tsuba in such demand as to start a cottage industry in copies? Or were these late Edo smiths testing their metal and trying to master different techniques?

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Bobby,

 

I believe the majority of these copies were 19th-century products, created out of the revivalist spirit that percolated through the Bakumatsu Period.  At this time, there was a great nostalgia for the outstanding tsuba of times gone by, especially those of the Momoyama and early-Edo Periods.  This is why we see many "homage" works copying the brilliant Nobuiye men of Momoyama, as well as of Yamakichibei, and then also Yagyu.  The great father and son Norisuke tsubako of Owari Province -- who were excellent makers of iron tsuba in their own right -- are famous for their efforts to create worthy copies of Yamakichibei and Nobuiye.  However, despite their dedication and skills, their works are a far cry from the genuine article, and they were among the very best at making these utsushi.  This all goes to show that genius is difficult (read impossible) to replicate convincingly.  Real is real, and if one wants that experience -- of seeing and appreciating and "bonding" with that genius, one must have the works of these early masters in hand.  Photographs, even the best, simply cannot capture their magic.   

[Mushin]

6 minutes ago, Steve Waszak said:

I believe the majority of these copies were 19th-century products, created out of the revivalist spirit that percolated through the Bakumatsu Period.  g

Steve! Thanks, that is really interesting and so good to know. It's fascinating how many copies of so many schools were being made at that time period by so many folks. And it seems they weren't meant to deceive so much as to supply market desires with a look and feel of the past. At least, that is what I am thinking based on your response. Some copies were good. I have a Tsuboi utsuhi of an early Higo masterpiece by Nidai Kanshiro, and while it doesn't compare to the original, it's great work in its own right. Moving from swords into tsuba is like going back to beginning and learning all over again. Looks like I now must seek out original Yamakichibei works! Exciting. Thank you for your generosity and insight!

 

[Steve Waszak]

You're quite welcome, Bobby.  Happy to help if I can.   

[ROKUJURO]

Let's not forget that the TSUBAKO of the late EDO JIDAI were masters of their craft and well able to forge very good TSUBA!

In our TSUBA forging workshop this summer the participants experienced how much work is involved to just make a TSUBA blank. From there to a well balanced functional TSUBA with a good size, even thickness and appealing surface texture is still quite a jump.

And then imagining the long experience, commitment and talent that are necessary to create a real masterpiece leads to great respect for the old masters and their work!