Shugyosha

It's by a fairly well known artist, Otsuryken Shozui of the Hamano school. If you have a google around for tsuba with that name that have authentication papers you'll get an idea of prices - also you'll see other tsuba from this school that might interest you. Sorry, I'm running out the door to do some Christmas stuff but I'm sure others will chip in soon.

Gary, that's not a house, that's a museum. Amazing collection!

I'm with you Colin, the two signed pieces are the most interesting and the one with cranes wins the race.

Hi Michael, Welcome to NMB. I'm with Dan, I think that all of the ones that you have picked are genuine antique tsuba for the reasons that Dan points out. With fake tsuba, they are often cast and the sekigane (metal fitted to the hole for the sword's tang) and the punch marks around it are also cast and it's relatively easy to spot once you've seen a few and they don't show the marks of wear from the washers fitted to fine tune the fit of the tsuba to the handle of the blade. The other thing to look out for is marks left by the casting mold which can show around any holes or open work in the tsuba. Back in the day, the manufacturer would make the plate from forged iron or steel (sorry Dan) and the holes would be made by perforating the plate with a drill and then finished with a saw or file so the holes should not to show any excess metal left there. Also cast tsuba can show a crystaline structure to the metal (particularly with brass) or holes where air bubbles have burst on the surface which isn't there with forged metal and modern steel tends to be uniform in structure so you don't get something called tekkotsu ("iron bones") showing, usually on the rim, and which are evidence that the plate contains metal of varying qualities of hardness and which are eliminated by modern manufacturing processes. Look at the rim on the tsuba immediately above and you can see irregularities in the metal which probably wouldn't be the case with a cast copy or other modern copy. The other thing that leaps out in all of the examples that you have presented above is the quality of each of them which you will come to recognise as your eye develops. Essentially, if something looks like it takes a long time and a great deal of care to produce, then that is a pointer towards it being a genuine tsuba. Take what is (for me) probably the lowest quality example above, the one with the cockerel sitting on a hedge or hurdle: if you look at the hurdle itself, all of the branches and fronds are distinct and sharply defined which must have taken the maker a good deal of time and effort to create, by hand and probably with a hammer and chisel. The same is true of those tsuba above where there is a bird, shell or other element in a different metal to the base-plate. That takes time, skill and effort which isn't there with the fake tsuba. The final thing to say about this hobby is that, to avoid the fakes, buy from reputable dealers who have a website and a trading history and avoid Ebay and the Japanese auction sites until you know what you are looking at. Tsuba with authentication papers are still relatively cheap and that can give reassurance and, of course, you can post stuff on here that you are thinking of purchasing for a sanity check if you need to.

Hi Glen, I don't think that anyone would argue that the shinsa system is perfect, but it is about as good as it is going to be unless it changes to a rolling system where there is no pressure to push items through the process on a given day and members of the panel can take their time to fully evaluate the items they see and judge accordingly but I doubt that will happen as the people involved probably have paying jobs to do. I think the issue is that, at the moment, shinsa all takes place on one day with sometimes hundreds of items to evaluate and if tsuba presented are unsigned and don't fit precisely into one of the established "boxes" in terms of their attributes then what do the panel do? They presumably ascribe it to a group that is known (or thought) to work in a variety of styles and stick a finger in the air as regards whether it's Edo or pre-Edo period. The owner gets a paper verifying that he has a genuine antique tsuba so is either satisfied or goes elsewhere for a second opinion and picks the one he likes best if they differ. The problem is, to state the obvious, there are a vast quantity of tsuba out there that lack distinct characteristics. If you have several million swords in existence, each one possessing at least one tsuba you can see the size of the task particularly where many of the swords were of low value and carried low value fittings, shiiremono and the like. These are just going to be knocked out by mass production and the designs will be from the design books that did the rounds in the Edo period hence similarity in motifs across different schools/ provinces. I guess, if someone had lots of free time, access to the necessary books and research articles and the linguistic ability pick through them, it might be possible to divine how the shinsa panels set their parameters but in the absence of that, when you see a tsuba papered to Shoami one just concludes that it is a genuine antique, but a John Doe effectively.

Thank you for the kind words Sam. There's a Heinjo/ Onin style tsuba with a rectangular hitsu ana on this page of the Varshavsky collection. https://varshavskyco...tion.com/onin-tsuba/ so perhaps it isn't so unusual. It did occur to me that the tsuba might have originally had some Heianjo-style decoration done in copper that had been lost or that the copper is the remnants of a means of fixing another design element to the plate but that has now been lost but I'm guessing. Dee, would you mind sharing the seller's description of the item?

They’re usually shiny when they’re fresh Jeff!

I don’t like talking down items but I’m not sure it isn’t modern (Sorry Dee!). The rectangular hitsu ana is unusual and both this and the nakago ana seem quite crudely done and it doesn’t look like it has been fitted to a blade as there’s no tagane or seki gane. Also, I’m not sure I’m not seeing a mix of metals there with some copper either in the plate or in whatever has been used to patinate it and that isn’t something I’ve seen before and I’m inclined to think it’s a recent hobbyist’s piece - apologies again. I’m hoping you’ll now post the papers and prove me an idiot or at least that someone else will chip in with a counter argument.

To channel Guido from the other kazu uchi mono thread, what is it that is always said when someone asks if a signature is genuine? The response is that you need to judge the blade by the quality of its workmanship before considering the mei... It does seem improbable to me that the entire workload of Sue Bizen smiths can be characterised by a split between custom ordered blades and kazu uchi mono: either top notch or junk. If a blade has survived 500 or so years without showing shingane or significant delaminations then the chances are that greater care was shown in the quality of the materials used and its making than for a blade to be given to the spear/ musket fodder of the era. Furthermore, as Alex says, if an effort was made to put a date on a blade it has to indicate a greater degree of pride shown in its manufacture compared to the unsigned or undated blades. Nicholas's blade is ubu which might indicate that it merited greater care in its use and keeping than a throw-away weapon which might take a beating and be shortened to remove the damage or simply thrown on the orishigane pile to be formed into a new blade. Anyway, this being the military swords section of the forum I do find it a bit rich that when a traditionally made blade is found in military mounts there is a rush to denigrate it. Given the enormous quantity of mass-produced blades of the WW2 era or thereabouts, which are pretty much sword-shaped pieces of metal with no distinguishing characteristics between one and the next, it does seem a little ironic but we all like different stuff for different reasons and the world would be a dull place if that wasn't the case.

What Bruce said: it’s your heirloom now.

I think the message is "don't go swimming in the shark tank"...unless you're confident that you're the biggest shark of course.

Hi Philip, Welcome to the forum. From the paper (the non-standard bits): 一井桁小透鐔 – One igeta (well curb from crossed wooden beams) [design] ko sukashi tsuba 銘山吉兵 – Mei Yamakichibei 鉄地丸形小透 – Tetsu ji, maru gata, ko sukashi – Iron ground, round shape, ko sukashi From the photograph, it looks like there is an Amida yasuri design (the rays of the Amida buddha) on the ground and a vine motif (karakusa) on the rim but that's all I know other than it looks like a very nice piece and I think the design is very tasteful.

Hi Mark, your post put me in mind of another thread from a while back about using laser micro welding to repair flaws in swords. I’ve no idea if that has been done here but There’s something about Lewis’s post with the shadow running up from the hakobori that made me think of it too. Piers’ post a little way down is telling.

Hi Jean, There’s one here by with the same signature Noshu ju Sukenobu) and an RJT star stamp to compare to the one you’re looking at. https://www.Japanese...katana/2210-1161.htm For me there’s something odd about the signature and tang of the one you posted. He’s an RJT smith but the signature on this is really roughly done and the file marks are missing from the lower half of the tang and, as you say, no stamp, though it might be hidden by the tsuba. To be honest, the tang looks like it has been doctored to me. I can’t comment on the fittings as military swords aren’t my thing but unless you get some reassurance from other members on the forum I’d suggest looking elsewhere.

Yes, Piers has it. Another one here for comparison: https://www.Japanese...katana/2510-1003.htm