Steve Waszak

Absolutely can be trusted. 100% great to deal with. You can have full confidence.

Hi David, Not surprised that the two Yamakichibei works you acquired from me in 2017 would come back gimei if submitted to shinsa. That is a predictable result, given the NBTHK's flawed perspective on Yamakichibei, as Glen and I have been referencing here. These two would have been daisaku/daimei works -- still a part of the late-Yamakichibei atelier in the early Edo Period, but not made by the master Low-Crossbar smith himself. Essentially, the Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei that have the best chance of passing shinsa will be pieces the master made himself, especially if these are larger works (as in the example I post above [which is unpapered, however, as I don't submit works to shinsa, for various reasons]). Tsuba with the Low-Crossbar mei that are smaller -- 68-72mm -- and which are more rote in their designs and workmanship, will rarely pass shinsa. Again, this is predictable (though the second example below, is an exception of sorts. It is larger than most daisaku/daimei works). Here is a link to a couple of Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei tsuba that have been papered. The first is certainly a piece by the master, a very strong, large, expressive form, appearing in the fourth row of tsuba presented in the "Tsuba Sale" section of this website: http://www.jp-sword.com/ This second one (see Row 8 of the Tsuba Sale section of the above website) is likely a daisaku/daimei piece. Note the relative lack of dynamism and vitality in this tsuba when compared with the example above, and when compareed with the large mokko guard I posted an image of in an earlier post. The difference in expressive power is notable. This is the rare exception where what (I am confident) is a daisaku/daimei work does pass shinsa and is papered. *While both of these examples here are described in the captions of the site on which they appear as "shodai" works, this, again, is in error. Please refer to my earlier posts above on this point.

Well, this piece is relatively bland, lacking the dynamism and sensitivity in aesthetic expression seen in genuine works. It presents as rather stiff, and the mei details do not conform to those of any of the true early smiths. So, this being gimei is a judgment I would agree with, and a determination that is easy to make. It's not a bad tsuba as tsuba go; it's just not a genuine Yamakichibei work.

Good post, Glen. Thanks for this. Yes, the Low-Crossbar smith was undoubtedly part of the early group of Yamakichibei smiths, well predating the Sakura Yamakichibei smith by as much as half a century. The daisaku/daimei phenomenon associated with the Low-Crossbar smith, though, clearly (to me) locates him later in the Momoyama Period to earliest-Edo period. These daisaku/daimei guards carry a definite Low-Crossbar mei, which differs sharply in many ways from that of Yamasaka Kichibei or of the Meijin-Shodai. This daisaiku/daimei phenomenon is culturally and temporally consistent with social evolutions in craft "factories" that emerged and grew after the dawn of the 17th century. The huge quantity and relatively low(er) quality of these Low-Crossbar-signed daisaku/daimei works is in keeping with the kind of production we would expect to see out of a higher-volume/output "factory" context. Since there are FAR more of these Low-Crossbar daisaku/daimei tsuba extant than all other Yamakichibei sword guards combined, we cannot logically locate their production time to the beginning of the Yamakichibei atelier. The actual Low-Crossbar master's workmanship is much superior to what we see in even the best daisaku/daimei tsuba, but the Low-Crossbar smith's guards are notably distinct from either the Meijin-Shodai's or Yamasaka Kichibei's. The difference between Low-Crossbar work and that of the Meijin-Shodai, in particular, is rather stark. Low-Crossbar work is often more overtly dramatic and bold, featuring plate work (tsuchime and finishing) that is significantly more pronounced than the Meijin-Shodai's, whose plates are usually relatively quiet and reserved (for a Yamakichibei work, that is). See images below. The large mokko tsuba is a Low-Crossbar piece; the other two (with the long-eared rabbits or dragonflies motif, and then with the suhama motif, respectively) feature plates whose expression is more subdued, but still resonant with strength, of course. As for the actual Shodai, this would undoubtedly be Yamasaka Kichibei. There can be no logical dissent here. It simply would not be done -- and would not even be conceivable, culturally, really -- for a later Yamakichibei smith to be audacious enough to ADD another character to the already-established Yamakichibei art name, when that art name had been decided by a different (would-be founding) smith. Moreover, the workmanship and design choices seen in Yamasaka works and then in works by the Meijin-Shodai show a clear and strong relationship between them, much more so than in any would-be relationship between Yamasaka and the Low-Crossbar master. The frequent use of kuruma-sukashi designs, additionally, locates them as contemporaneous with the Nobuiye smiths and with Kawaguchi Hoan, as all four of these smiths -- working in Kiyosu in Owari Province -- would have been in "design dialogue" with one another, as, in keeping with Japanese traditions, craftsmen in the same field often lived in the same neighborhood. Meanwhile, of the many Low-Crossbar pieces I've seen, there have been no kuruma-sukashi works, even by the daisaku/daimei workers. Evidently, that vogue had passed by the time of the Low-Crossbar smith. Even the Nidai Yamakichibei was scarcely making such kuruma-sukashi pieces: I have seen only one such piece by him in all the time I've been focused on this group. While none of the above may amount to "hard factual evidence," and may indeed be "only" a theory, I honestly do not see any other theory that does have merit. The Low-Crossbar-smith-as-Shodai theory does not have any merit, in my view. The evidence for it is so weak that it does not stand up to even the most casual scrutiny. This said, it is clear, as I stated to begin with (and echoing you, Glen), that the Low-Crossbar smith is indeed a part of the early Yamakichibei atelier, and that works by him are not "gimei" as the Shinsa results would have it. I am amused, actually, by the dynamic that explains why Low-Crossbar works may be papered (implicitly) as Shodai: the work is so good that it simply cannot be fake, yet the signature differs radically from that of the Meijin-Shodai. Rather than recognizing the obvious (the original understanding of the Yamakichibei group is wrong), they instead contrive the notion that the Meijin-Shodai changed his signature in all these different ways. Such "understandings" do a great disservice to tsuba scholarship. Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei. Mokkogata. Bird-and-kama motif. Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei. Nagamarugata. Long-eared rabbit or dragonfly motif. Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei. Mutsu Mokkogata. Suhama motif.

Hi Grev, Your question is a good one, and a bit more complicated than it might appear. The short answer to your question is yes, Yamakichibei tsuba with a Low-Crossbar mei have indeed passed shinsa; in fact, one of the 11 or 12 Juyo Yamakichibei guards features a Low-Crossbar mei. I know of several others with this mei that are papered as well. Here's the catch, though: tsuba with this mei that have passed shinsa are papered as though they are Shodai work. The truth, however, is that they are not, as close analytical comparison of Low-Crossbar-signed guards with actual (Meijin-) Shodai guards will clearly show, both in the workmanship of the tsuba themselves, and in the rendering of the respective signatures. The rationale for papering Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei works as (Meijin-) Shodai works is explained as follows: "Changes in the way that the Shodai inscribed his signatures are recognized and accepted." This is nonsense, I'm afraid. As I say, the actual workmanship of the tsuba made by the Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei differs significantly from that seen in the works produced by the Low-Crossbar smith. Beyond this, though, the Low-Crossbar signature is radically different from the Meijin-Shodai's. Every part of the signature, from the "Yama" ji to the "Kichi" ji to the "Bei" ji is not only dramatically different, but the differences are consistent in the works of the two. Moreover, there are no sword guards that I have seen (and I have been studying this subject for more than twenty years) that could remotely be identified or described as having a "hybrid mei" -- one that has elements in the mei drawn from a typical Meijin-Shodai tsuba and also elements drawn from a standard Low-Crossbar work. It is abundantly evident that the Shinsa teams are either genuinely erring in their papering of Low-Crossbar works as (Meijin-) Shodai works, or are motivated by some other factor. For a far more detailed analysis of this subject, see the article I did on the Yamakichibei group of tsubako, available in the Articles section here on NMB. Hope this helps, Grev.

Excellent tsuba. Even better price. If I collected Higo, this would be gone.

Great observation, Tim. I had seen the elements as chrysanthemums, too, but had not linked it to Kusunoki. Many thanks for that! I do wonder how these kiku are fitted into the larger sukashi element, though. What does the whole of this sukashi element -- kiku included -- mean? And since we see the same element in your tsuba here, what are the semantics in association with the respective sukashi elements opposite this kiku sukashi form? Good stuff, Tim. Thanks again. Piers, thanks for your thoughts, too! But IS that a broken water wheel? I have my doubts. The end elements of the "wheel" seem oddly truncated, if it's supposed to depict a broken wheen. I'm reminded more of something like a segmented arthropod.

Most curious, yes. I suppose the added hitsu must have been very slight, for the three elements that you refer to, Piers, are all pretty similar in size and shape, so it doesn't seem that adding the hitsu affected these much, if at all. Most likely, the added hitsu merely intruded on the seppa-dai slightly. Here is another piece I am puzzling over as regards the motif elements. The one on the left is similar to that in the tsuba above, but is missing the three extra elements. In this piece, I am reminded of a carpenter's planer, such as that seen here: https://www.jauce.com/auction/q1172873118

Thanks, guys. Appreciate it. I don't know that this reading of the motif is correct (seems like quite a reach -- even the kuruma/wheel sukashi is dubious), but many thanks for the replies.

Appreciate help with translating the kanji used to describe/identify the motif element this tsuba features. The description appears at the top of the vertical column of writing, specifically, it's the first two characters I need assistance with. Many thanks.

Very interesting post, Bobby. Thanks. I'd be curious to know the rationale used to "liken" a particular smith to a specific painter. What does "liken" mean here? I'd also be interested to see how tsubako would fare in this experiment.

I would echo Ray's excellent words here. The pursuit of studying and collecting nihonto and tosogu essentially necessitates some degree of comfort with what I call "living with the question." There is relatively little certainty in our pursuit; even in many cases with signed works, we can not be sure of the genuineness of a mei, or perhaps the generation of the maker when several generations used the same name to sign with. As with many or most fields, too, seasoned, experienced scholars and other experts can look at the same object or mei and reach different conclusions, disagreeing with one another slightly, or even dramatically. It is inherent in this field that such will be the case oftentimes. If one is uncomfortable with the lack of certainty that is so prevalent, then another collecting focus becomes more inviting. However, I would encourage new enthusiasts to experiment with living with questions, setting aside the "need to know," and in the meantime, enjoying the journey of learning and of appreciating the incredible objects that come before us.

An early-Edo koshirae for a Wakasa no kami Ujifusa O-tanto, blade signed and dated to Genki 3 (1572). The koshirae is thought by some knowledgeable folks to be original to the blade, but I feel it is more likely to be early-Edo, latest-Momoyama at the earliest. There were various times during late-Momoyama and early-Edo that bolder saya were briefly fashionable, but the Tokugawa government handed down edicts restricting/forbidding the use of such flamboyant displays. The periods I'm most aware of here would be the last 10-12 years of Momoyama (1603-1615), the mid- to late-1620s, and then Genroku at the end of the 17th century. I feel that this koshirae is most likely one of the earlier periods, maybe the 1620s, but those more knowledgeable than I can probably provide a much more informed opinion. The saya is lacquered in black, brown, and red, with some fading to all of it over the centuries. The saya is also peppered with more than four hundred inlaid elements, made of iron, perhaps, or lead? Pewter? I'm really not sure. The koshirae is in aikuchi mounts, with shakudo log-eared rabbit menuki (probably Kyo-kinko). The habaki is silver (or silver-plated), I believe, in a kiku motif. The blade presents with a hitatsura hamon; perhaps the boldness of the saya was seen by the individual commissioning it to suit such a blade. Detailed sayagaki by Tanobe-sensei extolling the virtues of the blade.

Love that work of calligraphy, Stephen. Very powerful. And thank you for the history on Tetsugyu. As you note in your post here, I really think that the calligraphic connections, so to speak, that may be made between the signatures/inscriptions on tsuba and other features/aspects of the work is a significantly under-studied area. Moreover, the various and specific meanings of the kanji used for (different parts of) the names of the smiths (and/or their ateliers) merits much more attention than I have seen given to that, at least in Western literature (or even in translated Japanese literature). An example of what I mean here may be seen in the notion of "good luck" associations between the way one part of a name is written and alternative ways it may be (or may have been) written. I know that in the Azuchi-Momoyama years, for instance, a considerable amount of serious weight was given to things like omens, luck, premonitions, and so on. How, then, this may have been manifest in the determining of "art names" for smiths, and for the particular kanji used for those names, is worth looking into with some serious effort, I think. I will be pursuing this some going forward, but also think that the actual calligraphic expression in the way some tsuba are signed/inscribed is itself a worthy pursuit. By the way, the flamboyant mei you mention regarding Hoan tsuba is, in my opinion, really seen only in works by Hoan Kanenobu, whose mei is quite distinctive owing to his "exuberance" in the rendering of it. Other Hoan smiths are more sedate in their signing of their works.

Excellent post, Jean. Thank you.

Okan, These last two tsuba you have posted, and the second in particular, remind me of the "San Diego tsuba" that were recovered from the wreck of a Spanish ship on its way to the Philippines in the year 1600. If you search around the Internet, you'll find some interesting information on this. Jim Gilbert's blog post (Tsuba Kansho) on these tsuba is enlightening, especially since there is a reference to molds uncovered from an early-Edo Period site in Nara. These molds are thought to have been used to cast tsuba in soft metal, such as bronze and yamagane. Your tsuba above appears to be cast, based on certain details such as the mei and the kiku punch marks around the nakago-ana.

Here are a pair of sword guards made by (Shodai) Kawaguchi Hoan in kikugata: 1. 16-petals, matsukawabishi sukashi with sukidashibori featuring kiri-mon, finished in light yakite-kusarashi (signed "Hoan" on the ura). Momoyama Period. 2. 24 petals, two gourds inlaid, one in gold, one in silver. This tsuba is noteworthy for the large nakago-ana present in a relatively small guard. The other tsuba included here is larger than this one, but with a substantially smaller nakago-ana. Momoyama Period.

You're most welcome.

Hi Dee, You may need to look into the history of the Goto a little more. They were indeed made for warriors, not the rank and file ashigaru and low-ranking bushi, admittedly, but for Daimyo (and higher), absolutely. Did you know that early generations of the Goto were of the Buke, and that Goto Joshin (3rd generation Goto) -- one of the most respected of the entire line of the Goto group -- actually died in battle in 1562? Killed by an arrow at the age of 50 or 51, I believe.

Ah, okay. Well, these are really appealing. Congrats on acquiring them. Such an expressive design for the subject.

Very cool, Curran. Thanks for posting these. Is one of these from the Tsuba page Jim Gilbert had here a while ago?

Here's one more interesting piece, relevant to this discussion. It is a Meijin-Shodai work in the same sugata as that seen in the Meijin-Shodai tsuba I posted above, twelve lobes forming the shape. This form is indeed a departure from his usual sugata, but he clearly did occasionally make such departures. Unfortunately, the photo quality is very poor, but the shape is clear, which is the main information required here:

Hi Glen I think the poor quality of the photos I posted, especially of the first tsuba, kind of affect our reading of the mei. The left "post" of the "Yama" ji on this tsuba actually is vertical; it is not angled inwards as we would see on a Nidai guard. Below is another image of this tsuba (still awful photo quality, but I think you can see what I mean): As for the degree of extension of the mei along the seppa-dai, there is actually a bit of a range here. Some Meijin-Shodai mei are more compressed, while some Nidai mei can be more extended. A few examples follow. First, the Meijin-Shodai: And here is an early Nidai: Here, too, a different photo makes a difference, I think: The above pictured tsuba is a piece I used to own, so I am very familiar with the metal with this one. It differs greatly from anything Ohno and significantly even from Owari sukashi, and is in keeping with Nidai iron I have seen on more than a dozen others of his works. As for the possibility of this being a Kanayama guard with a later (convincingly-rendered mei), well, I suppose it's not impossible. However, as I say, the mei is correct in a multitude of idiosyncratic details for the Nidai. Additionally, I don't recall having seen a Kanayama tsuba in this shape (nor an Owari-sukashi, or, of course, an Ohno). I am quite confident that this is indeed a Nidai Yamakichibei work, as both the metal and the mei conform tightly to his typical work in these areas. Additionally, the sugata of this guard is actually something of an otafuku-gata form, one that not only did the Nidai employ famously, but also one that Kanayama, Ohno, and Owari-sukashi did not. I'm a little surprised by your skepticism here, too, given your arguments in this very thread pertaining to the idea that there are definite "schools" of tsubako whose work is rigidly unvarying and limited in style, form, and construction methods to those schools. If it is actually the case -- and I certainly have long subscribed to this understanding myself -- that a given tsubako could make tsuba in a variety of styles and forms, whether he did so as the whim struck him, or because he was commissioned/ordered to do so by a patron or member of the Buke clan he served, would it be so surprising that these two Yamakichibei works would depart from their usual aesthetic of ita plate forms combined with ko-sukashi? It certainly isn't to me. In particular, if the various tsuba whose images you posted earlier (all attributed to different schools despite their obvious similarities, which is your point in posting them) presented with forms that were popular in the later Momoyama years, is it a major stretch to imagine that a Yamakichibei smith could be commissioned to create one, too? No, it is not. And again, when both the metal and the mei align clearly with each other and with other works by the Nidai, well, Occam's Razor once again appears. Those hoofbeats we're hearing belong to a Clydesdale or an Appaloosa, not a Przewalski's.

Hello Phillip, An interesting (and appealing) tsuba. Would love to be able to see it in hand to get a better idea of the workmanship, but your photos are pretty good. As Mauro notes there is a Nidai Yamakichibei work with the same motif and treatment, except that this other one lacks the scrolling-vine element on the rim. I'm not so sure that I see it as "good news" in and of itself that this other tsuba has been judged authentic by the NBTHK (though in this case I am in perfect agreement that this other guard is indeed a genuine Nidai Yamakichibei work). My concern would be that your tsuba is a later (probably 19th-century) utsushi ("homage"), mostly faithfully modeled after this piece that Mauro presents. There are at least a few points to consider in weighing this question. One observation I would make is that your tsuba presents as relatively "fresh"/new looking. It doesn't come across as carrying four hundred years of time. It doesn't appear to have a deep patina, and there are few if any signs of rust. Another is that the rim is quite a departure from those usually seen on Nidai work. The classic Nidai rim presents with two prominent features: 1. profuse tekkotsu, presenting like small, black, shiny "blisters" on the surface (these tekkotsu are highly appreciated by connoisseurs); 2. the edging of the rim presents with an uneven, "raw" or "scalloping" effect, forming a highly pleasing organic liveliness to the interface between the plate and the edge of the rim. These are sort of like calling cards for the Nidai. Your tsuba, Phillip, not only lacks these classic features, but also adds one -- the scrolling vine pattern -- that I have never seen on any authentic Yamakichibei guards, Nidai or otherwise. Finally, the particular rendering and placement of the sukashi elements appears to me to be too "rigid" and perfectly vertical. Compare this to the rendering of the sukashi in the example that Mauro posted. Note the skewed posture, the sort of "lean" present in the piece he posted? This is a very Momoyama thing, reflecting a sensibility of Kabukimono that was ascendant in the first years of the 17th century, a time when the Nidai was certainly active. In your guard, this openwork, as I say, is sort of stiff, and lacks the same dynamism. Among the above concerns, I have my doubts about your tsuba being a genuine Nidai work. However, as to the second of them, it is not impossible that the Nidai could have been asked/told by an individual commissioning him to create a tsuba like the one Mauro posted, but with a different rim (no scalloping, no tekkotsu, but with the scrolling vine element). Is this highly plausible? It seems somewhat unlikely to me, but it is not out of the question, either. The fact that I have never seen another Yamakichibei guard with a rim design anything like yours immediately makes me skeptical. On the other hand, if another (19th-century) craftsman simply set out to do a straightforward utsushi (or copy), why would he depart so significantly with his rendering of the rim? In other words, perhaps the radically different rim design is a good sign: on an otherwise so faithfully-rendered utsushi, right down to a pretty convincing mei, is it likely/plausible that this craftsman would create such a dramatic departure with the rim? Well, perhaps: if he were commissioned by a patron to make a copy/utsushi of the original work (the one Mauro posted) but with the instructions to do the rim differently (according to the patron's specifications), he may indeed do so. On the more positive side, the Nidai Yamakichibei is justly famed for his amida-yasuri. Some hold that his amida-yasuri are the finest of all, including other Yamakichibei smiths, the Nobuiye smiths, Hoan Kanenobu, etc... His is a most peculiar (and brilliant) form of plate treatment, sort of a "double amida yasuri," one that has particular energy and vitality. I think if it were easy to reproduce, we'd seen more of it elsewhere, including among those earlier smiths. Your tsuba, Phillip, has pretty convincingly-rendered amida yasuri. It is far better than would be seen in standard expressions of the form of plate treatment. Usually, though, the Nidai would marry his yasuri with expressive tsuchime, yakite treatment, or both, something your example here appears to mostly lack. Hard to say, then, where this leaves us. The old "Den-Nidai Yamakichibei" comes to mind. Ultimately, if were forced to decide, based on only photos, I would conservatively say it was a very well done 19th-century utsushi, due to the reservations I note above. A more optimistic approach would judge it as an unusually well-preserved example of the Nidai's work, albeit with a rim that departs quite radically from the norm. I apologize if all of the above hasn't been helpful, Phillip. I do find your tsuba to be quite appealing, whatever it may be. Please see the link below for more images of the tsuba Mauro posted. Cheers. https://www.seiyudo....08082.htm#movepoint1

Strong piece, Sam. Congrats.