BMarkhasin

Thanks for circling back to the discussion Peter. I also don't care for 'tricked-out' koshirae as you say, and I think that it is reprehensible behaviour to break apart an intact (unmolested) koshirae for profit. However, I can see some grey in this debate. With age, koshirae degrade - worming, lacquer loss, corrosion, disintegration are all realities with koshirae. Consider if the koshirae in question was already 'Frankenstein-ed' beyond hope by some previous misguided owner, or damaged beyond any reasonable hope of salvage. How about a partial koshirae - saya, tsuka, tsuba, kashira, f/k hopelessly damaged or missing. Broken saya, missing kojiri? Wormed kaeritsuna and kurikata? Splitting, cracking lacquer? Disintegrated or badly damaged tsukamaki? Lost menuki etc... I personally don't see a major issue with reassembling or replacing a part that is damaged beyond salvage, or a part that was an obvious and poor swap by the previous owners. Nor do I see a problem with disarticulation - ie. stripping a tsuba if inappropriate/ contrived. The underlying motivation however must be for conservation / restoration. All such things need to be done in moderation in my personal opinion, and keeping the item in historical context is paramount. If such activities are undertaken thoughtfully and unhurriedly, they can benefit the koshirae and mitigate previous errors of judgement. There are some exceptional shokunin in Japan who specialize in restoration / conservation with an eye to maintaining historical and aesthetic integrity. They are as much historians as artists. I have used such services before and have been extremely satisfied with the results. Let me add another verse to Jon's original rant... As usual, greed motivates people to do some terrible things for a buck (or Yen). One of the most nefarious activities of dealers in Japan, is not simply 'tricking out' koshirae by swapping tsuba and tsuka, but creating fantasy pieces, from authentic period bits of individual tosogu. The same shokunin who are proficient at restorative work are increasingly being employed for big Yen to compile full koshirae. These are then quickly papered Juyo or Tokujuyo and sold for extremely high prices as originals. Last year I am sad to say I saw three such examples - 1 in a collection, 1 being marketed and another in the 'conceptual design' stage. I should add that they were all Muromachi period tachi and koshigatana koshirae (or designed to look like them). Makes swapping out a tsuba seem mundane, and opens the door for other uncomfortable debates. As Jon originally asked, The answer unfortunately is hell no. Caveat Emptor. Know your stuff... Best, Boris.

Beautiful works that should serve as benchmarks for those pursuing Edo Koshirae. Thanks for sharing Kunitaro-san! Best, Boris.

I'm with Curran on a vote for Sado. Boris

There is a martial quality to this piece that brings it to the top of early iron tsuba I have owned (Photo was taken by Richard K George). 9.5 x 9.4 x 0.25 cm seppadai x 0.45 cm mimi Boris

Hi Gethin, Nice appealing tsuba - Skip has a great eye for aesthetic. This type of motif is most commonly ascribed as a Sun and Moon motif, where the overlarge rounded hitsuana are the sun and the crescent sukashi are representations of the moon. Allowing for artistry, I can see how the mountains or hills theme is also worked-in to the description. Best, Boris.

Mikolaj, Very nice collection. Its not easy to pin ages to such tsuba, and there was a quite a diversity of styles and overlap in age between Onin and Heianjo. I would say most of your tsuba date to the Muromachi to Momoyama periods. The colour of the brass is proper - a deeper yellow/orange and attractive. My opinion as follows: Onin1/2: sukashi motif may be drawer pulls. Standard variety of inlays in brass and yamagane. Style of mimi, shape of hitsuana and workmanship is suggestive of a later age, perhaps late Momoyama to early Edo. Onin 3/4: motif is a Rinpo. Decent inlay. Great looking, robust mimi and I really like the naive hitsuana. This in my opinion is late Muromachi - Azuchi Momoyama. Onin 5/6: the earliest one in your collection. Mid to late Muromachi. Classic early Onin motifs and inlays. Obviously lots of black lacquer left on the plate. Ubu with a nice plug, possibly original to the period. Onin 7/8: Octagonal tsuba. I think this one is a bit later - early - mid Edo. Onin 9/10: Heianjo style with karakusa and mon motif. Nice with overwhelming majority of the zogan intact. Hitsuana likely original. Onin 11/12: Tenzogan / senzogan sukashi tsuba. Classic size and style with remnants of black lacquer on the plate. A good amount of zogan is intact, and hitsuana may be original. Mid to late Muromachi. Its nice to see a good collection of early brass-inlayed Onin and Heianjo pieces. These are actually quite rare in good ubu condition and are under-appreciated by collectors. Thanks for sharing. Best Regards, Boris.

I have seen this type of pattern in Momoyama period tachi koshirae which used imported Portuguese gilt leather / embossed leather. Similar designs were also used on armor. Is the suggestion here that this 'tsuba' was created from reused armor bits dating to the 16th c.? Best, Boris

I have a 1911 book given to me (65 pages), devoted to Japanese calendric floral symbolism. The author compiled a symbology for each flower, taken from modern Japanese as well as historic sources, and it was interesting how some changed through time. I dont doubt that if one was to delve deeper, they would find numerous obscure daikon symbologies. I suspect some would be indigenous, while others borrowed from Chinese historic/cultural sources. Didn't Joly compile a book on Japanese mythology, symbology? Best, Boris.

Junichi, There is of course an amount of variation through all periods, so no hard and fast guidelines I can promote. Fyi, I measured the dimensions of a Muromachi period koshigatana koshirae in my collection, which has one 'inside' slot. My koshirae has a kogai associated with it, which measures 22.4cm x 1.43cm x 0.29cm and fits smoothly into the pocket. Out of curiosity, I also tried a Muromachi kozuka with old blade which not surprisingly fit comfortably and snuggly. A total of ~13cm of the kogai is inside the pocket, which is considerably longer than a Muromachi kogatana blade, so this supports the idea that the pocket is designed to accommodate both options. Best, Boris

Good examples Guido, thanks for posting and bringing this nomenclature issue into the spotlight -- too bad about our collective short memory. Best, Boris.

It is absolutely acceptable, especially on pre-Edo koshigatana, before etiquette and customs were standardized under the Tokugawa. Kogai and Kozuka location was more matter of taste and not set as general protocol. Nor was there necessarily an attempt to 'match' themes between the two implements if both were used. When you reveiw old original Muromachi / Momoyama kakejiku of daimyo, you occasionally see kozuka facing out, which suggests if a kogai was also used, it would have been worn on the inside. As Junichi mentioned, Sasano and others have also addressed this matter in some of their writings, but I would not say I have ever seen a comprehensive discussion on the subject. PS edit.. Some Muromachi wakizashi / koshigatana saya were designed with only one slot (facing the wearer), but the slot would accommodate very long implements. Presumably, the owner could then decide whether to use a kogai or kozuka. Best, Boris.

Junichi, See KTK 2009 book for an article about habaki evolution, which details some iron habaki. As for the concept of lower-ranking smiths making tsuba and as a result not signing, well that idea has been largely abandoned. It is quite likely that many iron kotosho/kokatchushi tsuba represent works by smiths also responsible for sword and armor production. This is thought to reflect that during times of protracted war, the economics for mass production, utility and ease of manufacture / repair mandated that individuals could multitask field production/maintenance of tosogu. It is incorrect to think Muromachi iron tsuba were lower quality items. If anything, the longevity and general high regard for these early iron tsuba through the centuries suggest they were considered reliable and generally high quality. Signatures are totally irrelevant in this context. Tsuba have been in production since Kofun period, but only in the latest Muromachi did artisans begin to organize and start signing with any regularity, and only then did 'schools' spring-up, as a result of broader socio-economic reason. Signed tsuba dating to earlier periods have been identified, but literally only a handful remain. Best, Boris.

Here is an image of a katate maki style wrapping ca. late Muromachi/Momoyama. A decent example. This example was from Fred Wiesberg's site several years ago. A very nice, typical late Muromachi example. Best, Boris.

Junichi, John has hit the relevant points in his posts. Thickness is variable in any period, and was especially so in the Nambokucho through Muromachi, since this was a time of transition in blade style. You cant point to any one line of reasoning to account for the relative thinness of the plate in some guards (especially kokat and kotosho) . Balance, size, aesthetic, structure, economics etc are intimately linked and all played a role in early guard styles. As to kantei points, it is generally accepted that especially early to mid Muromachi iron guards are thin in the plate (~2 mm), and the kokachushi group had thicker rims to balance the thin web and provide some additional strength. Some of the rims also were ornamental. However there are also examples of thicker iron guards (sans significant sukashi) during this period, so thickness has to be considered along with other attributes. Seppadai shape and style are also kantei points, but not directly related to thickness. I have seen very thick Muromachi guards, very thin Kamakura period guards and everything in between. As to soft-metal examples, it cant be confidently stated that a thin plate equates to an earlier period. I would actually gravitate towards the opposite situation - early periods are characterized by relatively thicker soft-metal guards. Sorry for not providing any clear resolution to your inquiry, but you shouldn't expect a neat/decisive answer to such a complex topic. Best Regards, Boris.

Stunning work. The nanako is great, and the shibuichi tsuba with poem is elegant. It underscores how much is being lost each time a person like this passes. Boris.

I have also seen some very well-wrapped two-tone tsuka. As others have pointed out, certain clans/regions are well known for favouring more 'flamboyant' colours such as whites (ie. Satsuma). I recall a comment by a Japanese collector that such two-tone wraps are generally considered a late product (late Edo - Meiji), not specific to a han, but rather reflective of individual tastes and (correctly or not) associated with the merchant class or as export items. Best, Boris.

As I understand, the butterfly idea stems from seeing the design as including the double holes as part of the design, whereas they represent the two eyes of a butterfly, the septum between the sukashi as the thorax, and the sukashi as the wings. In this inclusive perspective, they can be seen as two stylized butterflies (if you squint and tilt your head just so...). The eyes should be uncovered, right at the periphery of the seppa when positioned properly. The menuki are a variety of pods (bean/pea). these images come from the Sano Museum book Sukashi Tsuba: Swordguards with Openwork Design from Kofun to Edo Periods. A wonderful reference book. Best, Boris.

Very well done Robert. It refreshing to see beginners in this forum commit as you did to buying from known and reputable dealers, and acquire pieces of tosogu and nihonto which afford avenues to grow your knowledge. The tsuba is great as you can learn some kanji, appreciate and learn carving technique, composition and aesthetics, and get a feel for the iron. Keep at it! Best Regards, Boris.

Gents, This is a really entertaining and useful thread. Reading this thread got me thinking of all the times I have been in Japan, discussing pieces with Japanese collectors, as well as the purchase process in Japan from private collectors. In my memory, I honestly can not recall more than a handful of times, when an experienced Japanese collector (not affiliated with a dealer or shinsa organization), has been confronted with a difficult piece to attribute (tosogu, not blade), and has said '... well send it to shinsa for their opinion...'. Instead of suggesting a shinsa submission, they more often than not point to another individual who is considered as an expert and make the introduction for a future meeting. In addition, I have many times been told something to the effect of '.. submitting this to shinsa devalues/insults the piece..'. It sounds like bravado, but there is some foundation of reality in comments like this. I think this says something, and in my view, it suggests that in Japan, some consider shinsa as a process for the uninitiated who need independent verification, as well as those interested in a positive commercial result from attaining a shinsa paper. There is often also a direct knowledge of who is on the respective shinsa team, and a view on their qualifications to opine on a given submission -- if they are viewed as un- or under-qualified, statements like the one above come out. Some of Chris Bowen's statements in this thread resonate. The exposure to items and access to experienced collectors with a deep understanding of specific groups is more attainable in Japan. A consensus is more quickly established, and the reliability of that consensus is greater, thus making a shinsa process somewhat irrelevant to many Japanese collectors. Japanese collectors view a shinsa simply as a peer opinion, and do not attribute any higher value (as we tend to do in the west). They also openly recognize that some papers out there are simply crap for a variety of reasons, and don't expend any energy debating them. As others have said repeatedly in this thread, a shinsa determination is an opinion, which is supposed to be a qualified opinion predicated on a thorough understanding of a group through hands-on experience, not 'picture book' education and third-party opinion. If a shinsa panel does not contain a member with that understanding of a particular group, what exactly is the point in submitting a piece by said group? For western collectors however, access to 'experts' is far harder. We rely on dealer opinions, boards and each other. The blind leading the blind? This situation naturally brings greater reliance on shinsa determinations. Unfortunately, I don't see a way to get beyond this rut. Unless western collectors can gain access to Japanese collectors / collections and interact as peers in discussion groups which contain experienced members willing to educate, we will never decrease our need / desire for shinsa determinations. Best, Boris.

In a utopian, non-commercial world order where unicorns and hobbits dwell, a shinsa would be a single tier process where submissions receive the mei verification (if present); a comprehensive overview of the motif (deeper insights included); the highest ranking the pieces deserve; at a reasonable fixed price. In this magical place, the shinsa team would be composed of certified (vs. certifiable) experts able to collectively cover all groups and periods in an unbiased, clinical manner, and members should be forbidden from providing independent certifications/qualifications (hako-/ sayagaki etc...). The group and its issuance should be recognized by the government, and they should be obligated to service a regular non-profit, educational public function. Perhaps tonight I will enlist a good bottle of wine to usher me to this wonderous, happy place..... Best, Boris.

Below is a graphic showing the similarity of the ko Mino karakusa design of the mid-Muromachi (15th c.), and that of Goto Yujo's (1440-1512). It seems that Yujo essentially reproduced the Mino sinusoidal, slightly offset design construct and added a central mon, which actually looks a bit haphazard. Perhaps this was an early work by Yujo, before he branched and created his own distinctive style. The nanako are more reflective of ko Mino as well, with small punches, not as clean and linear as later Goto works. Yujo is actually not known for perfect nanako, and the second master's (Goto Sojo) nanako work is considered superior to Yujo's. Best, Boris.

Very nice Pete. Do you have any thoughts or insights on early influence of koMino on Goto works? I found a comment in notes I took from a conversation with some Japanese collectors, which I am trying to pursue. They relate to orientation of karakusa in early works. I will post if/when I can track examples. Best, Boris.

John, Thanks for the pix and great summary. I have a number of questions developing related to the kantei features, age dating of this group and relation to early Goto. As I understand, the steep-sided execution and height of good quality ko-Mino works is a key kantei point. We see this on virtually all Juyo level pieces, especially evident on kogai/kozuka. However, the earliest menuki examples I have seen did not really show this kantei point very well. The menuki had a gradual rise from edges to center (~2 - 5mm) -- see first picture below to reference this style of menuki. Was this a phase of development before the steep sided varieties became dominant? Below are a couple of photos of a set I used to own. Note that the top-down view completely misses the sense of height of the edge view (thanks to Richard K. George for the side view pic). Also, I have heard from others that silver was not used initially, but is more associated with the late 1500's into Edo period. This coincides with the age attribution of Momoyama for the posted menuki (see silver zogan dew droplets), but what about earlier examples - was silver used in mid-Muromachi? And regarding the Goto relation, can someone show an image of Yujo work which has ko-Mino aesthetic/ attributes?? Thanks. Best, Boris.

Nice find. Simple and elegant. Boris.

Junichi, I really admire your questioning and persevearance but you are asking for a crash-course from ground zero in Ezo and ko-Mino. Some of these answers and understanding comes from years of exposure which you also need to pursue. Some answers are readily pursuable with independent study and collection (recurring theme). You can ask a million questions, get a million (and one) opinions), and establish extensive databases, but handling /owning trumps all of that. We cant take all the fun out of it for you! I'll try to address your questions below. Question #1. It is widely accepted that Ko Mino is a Muromachi/Momoyama period group, that especially in the early examples shares stylistic characteristics with Ezo. Most Ko Mino examples are made of shakudo, or a shakudo-like alloy, while a smaller subset are yamagane and even solid gold. They also share characteristics with ko Kinko and Goto works of the period. It is generally believed that this group is of mainstream origins - Kyoto/Nara and other key urban centers. Ko Mino are found associated with numerous koshirae, some of which have been associated with individuals or have some form of attributed dating ie. donation date to jinja etc. There is a lot of literature out there on this group, and it is a very popular area for collectors. I hope other forum members will contribute to the ko Mino discussion... Construction techniques are not my forte. Question #2. Shibuichi has been used in high-end tosogu for a long, long time in Japan. I dont think these types of fittings (at least not the high quality ones) would be considered 'basic fare', and are likely more prestige items. I think we have to assume multiple production centers throughout time. Artisans prior to Edo period restrictions were relatively free to move, and took their skills with them. As for locations of resources, Japan is relatively rich in gold, and to a lesser degree silver. Mines are scattered throughout the islands. Gold tends to be more concentrated in the northeast. Some mines some have been in use since ancient times. The winners/losers line of thought I dont think is realistic - there was a prevalent, unified culture operating through most of the country. Styles, aesthetics evolved/merged, died, as they always do. If you dig deep enough, you can actually find cultural / religious representations in tosogu that can be dated based on what we know of their relative periods of acceptance -- but this is rare. Ezo style was supplanted, but it never really died. Same can be said for Mino I think. Question #3. Koshirae are extremely rare and cherished possessions. They have usually been carefully preserved and attended through time, and look the part. Disarticulated fittings rarely enjoy the same treatment. Considering the timespans involved, a difference in appearance is of no surprise. Best, Boris.