Henry Wilson

While "Tsuba: An aesthetic study" is a good reference book and guide to tsuba appreciation, in my opinion, it's main short coming is that at times it tends to categorizes tsuba with general definitions that appear to be subjectively derived. I think some well documented schools (Asakusa for example) can be studied in this way, however with earlier items this can make things confusing as the question arises as to what the author is basing the definitions on. One good example is what is "soft" iron? A distinction between soft and hard is mention throughout the treaties but it is left to the reader to deduce what that actually is (if I recall correctly). Like I said a good book but I would use it as a general reference and a source of food-for-thought, but not the final word. Regarding the tsuba in question, as for me, the jury is out. The new photos are different compared to the others and shine it in a different light. I have said my piece and wait for others to chime in. The only thing is that I would reiterate, as mentioned above, is that there seems to be too much going on at once for it to be "old" in my honest opinion.

Nice collection. On a side note... being a perfectionist, I would say that "Fuji San" is more appropriate. https://hinative.com/en-US/questions/564943

One more attribution that helps to distinguish Katchushi/Tosho is the type of metal. I would say that the tsuba in question is Tosho, based on lack of rim as well as the finish and colour of the metal. I am not sure what the Kamakura date is based on. From what I recall, conventional wisdom usually points to early Tosho as being relatively small, as they were generally created for the short one-hand swords of the foot soldier (ashigaru). Considering this, I also think a less complex design might be expected too for something dating back that far.

To me, the plate looks fishy too. It seems too uniform (sorry)

To be honest, something about it says to me a modern fantasy piece. I think it is the design and how it is near symmetrically arranged as well as its large size which all together in one place do not suggest an antique item.

Going by that one picture, I'd say real.

Feast your eyes. Banquets Against Boredom.pdf

I think you agree it looks like a flower! Referring to my post above, I would say it is Shoami.

No, not even nearly BOO HOO... I have a long way to go. Hats off to Mr Sesko

Looks like a flower.

Yes, you could well be right. But there is still an elongated appearance I think in the Edo pieces. The one Chris has posted has a quite rounded seppa-dai relatively speaking. According to my weary old eyes that is...

A good read that is relevant to this discussion https://markussesko.com/2018/02/26/challenges-of-translating-period-Japanese-sword-texts/

They are described as pure silk 正絹　　 *Said in a whisper* Stylistically each to their own I suppose... I think they look like the mother-in-law-from-hell's kimono... But that could be just me

Myochin?

I think a key kantei point to Kyo sukashi is a "koban" coin shaped seppa-dai, that is they are generally narrow and elongated. Yours seems slightly bulbous to me. Compare with the spread here: http://home.earthlink.net/~jggilbert/kyoto.htm I would say Shoami to be honest.

I have a tsuba papered to Ko Kagamishi by the NBTHK. This is an unusual classification and seems to denote that it is pre Muromachi.

I see 木 and 矢 as radicals of the first character.

Oh I could but life is short ???? Try this http://nihongo.monash.edu/cgi-bin/wwwjdic?1R

Could the first be 宗? The signature could be Shuzan.

My pleasure. Still working on this bad boy http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/24675-translation-of-poems/

It is a classic example of characters written in cursive style （崩し字). This website might help: http://naruhodo.weebly.com/blog/introduction-to-kuzushiji I have been pounding away at kuzushiji for a long time and never seem to get very far. From experience, context seems to help to identify characters. I can see kanji 大平 (a possible family name) so I imagine the character afterwards is 作 or 造 (make/create). Maybe. I can see date markers 一月吉日 so the kanji before could be one of the era names 平成　昭和　etc. Possibly. This could be verified (or not) by scanning and locating the characters in the cursive script tables. The problem is that no one seems to write in the style the tables have listed!!! As for the rest it could well be down the rabbit hole. At a guess the remainder might be a description of the plate. Something like 龍図 平皿　(dragon design flat plate). The disheartening news is that if you ask a Japanese person (not trained in the art of reading cursive) they honestly don't have a clue either (sorry for the sweeping generalization). The blacked-out bit reminds me of sword papers were the previous owner deletes their name as a way to protect their ID. If you want to go all the way this might help too https://www.nijl.ac.jp/pages/event/seminar/images/H27-kotenseki03.pdf I hope someone can add more if possible and I hope these ramblings are of help.

So the scriptures say????

Yes, good point Pete. I did not consider the thickness to be honest. Early Edo Owari seems like a good call.

More of that Kuro Oribe https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/k292679452

As Arnold suggests the "busy-ness" of the motifs is a noticeable point. Because of the lack of surface texture modulation and pronounced tekkotsu commonly associated with Kanayama, I would personally pigeonhole the tsuba to the Ono group. None the less, a nice tsuba that seems to be quite different.