Steve Waszak

Sorry, that's the only photo I have. It's not my tsuba... Steve

What school/"school" would you attribute this tsuba to? Based on what, exactly? Cheers, Steve

I think this tsuba was probably originally made to look like the tsuba below... Cheers, Steve

Received mine. Excellent presentation of some terrific pieces. Many thanks, Markus. Cheers, Steve

Thanks for that, Ian. This more detailed explanation helps a lot (at least for me). Do we know what the relative malleability, ductility, and strength of metal produced via this decarburation method would be vs. forged material? From your explanation, I can see where the cast iron would achieve a level of malleability, etc... that would greatly affect its suitability for certain applications. What I wonder, though, is if this level would make products made from it equal to (or perhaps even better than) those made from forging (tsuba, let's say...). I find this discussion fascinating (even if my lack of hands-on metallurgy means I know little of what I'm talking about), so I appreciate the contributions of those who can add their knowledge gained from practical experience. Not sure how related this is, but I find the history/speculation on the history of the Ulfberht viking sword very intriguing as well. Here is a video concerning this topic. No idea if what it presents is loaded with problematic data, sources, etc... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXbLyVpWsVM Cheers, Steve

Just following up on Ian's previous post on decarburation, would the Japanese of the period he is referencing have been able to control the local environment for hydrogen presence/concentrations? My understanding is that hydrogen-induced problems might be mitigated via the use of steel with very low levels of impurities, by heating the material to remove absorbed hydrogen, and/or by modifying/controlling the local environment to reduce hydrogen charging. Would any or all of these methods have been known/available to the craftsmen in question in the period(s) under discussion? It seems to me, too, that what you say, Chris, about only the surface metal being affecting (and leaving the internal material virtually or wholly unfazed) would indeed be the case, even if decarburation were beneficial (I'm still having difficulty understanding how the usually negative effects on steel's ductility and strength via decarburation would be eliminated [in fact reversed] via some process used by the craftsman in the years we're referencing, unless, I suppose, the answer to my question in the paragraph above is yes. Cheers, Steve

My understanding of decarburation is that it would result in reduced ductility, reduced strength, and the formation of cracks, making it more vulnerable to breaking. And this is to be sought? What am I missing/misunderstanding here? Steve

One other thought: Suruga?

Hi Gethin, Just a few off-the-cuff thoughts here... The tsuba is likely too thin and too "polished" for Ono work, which is usually quite thick and "massive," and which often presents with rather bold tekkotsu, which this tsuba lacks (I mean the degree of boldness of tekkotsu). The general sense of design and expression is not one I would immediately associate with Shoami work, which somehow reads as "softer" than this (I realize how subjective that statement is... . I have not studied Sado work sufficiently to offer an opinion there, and Kanayama work is usually quite definite in its use of bold tekkotsu plus a yakite finish. Myochin work of the Edo period is usually signed, I believe (with a famous name, why not advertise it?). Teimei and Umetada are, in my view, the closest possibilities, but I haven't seen enough Teimei work in hand to be too confident in that possibility. As your original posts notes, there is some thought that the Akao shodai learned from Umetada Myoju, and though this is apocryphal, there is some stylistic similarity with other Umetada work I've seen. Akao tsuba, in my understanding, are often finished with a relatively polished surface, featuring bold designs whose construction is rather "sharp-edged" (the sukashi elements do not have much of a soft, rounded edge/corner to them). I don't see anything about your tsuba that would strongly point away from Akao, but this doesn't mean there aren't a few other possibilities. I think more research/work needs to be done with this group before we (I) can feel more confident in identifying the smiths'/school's tendencies with more confidence. Cheers, Steve

Hi Gethin, Nice tsuba. I wonder if you might elaborate on what other groups you have in mind when you say "there are many other schools it could likely be"? You mention Akasaka; is this one of those schools? I think many would see the rim as being too squared for Akasaka. What other candidates did you have in mind? Cheers, Steve

Hi Evan, If you get your hands on a copy of Sasano's Silver book, you'll find two tsuba which look very much like this one. Of the two, one is almost identical, while the other has an additional variation; one of the tsuba is included in the Owari section of the book; the other is included in the Shoami section. Sasano (typically) is cryptic about why one guard is in the former section, while the other is in the latter. This is a must-have book for you, Evan, if you're an early iron (really should be called steel) tsuba connoisseur. Cheers, Steve

Hi David, I used to own that tsuba. It is indeed a wide-mei piece, though I do not think it is the same mei as is found on your tsuba. Cheers, Steve

Nice guard, David. These wide-mei Nobuiye are a fascinating subset of Nobuiye tsuba. In the Haynes catalogue #7, tsuba #37, in particular, appears to be similar to yours in several ways (details of metal work, mei, sugata, etc...). I trust you've seen the wide-mei Nobuiye in Haynes' Gai So Shi as well? It seems there may have been more than one craftsman who made these (based on variances in the mei, anyway), but they aren't very commonly encountered. I hope you'll provide more photos, including of the ura. Good acquisition, David. Cheers, Steve

Excellent. Do you happen to know what time the event opens?

Hi Mike, Sounds great. Will there be kodogu as well? Cheers, Steve

Funds sent. Thanks, Markus. Cheers, Steve

Hi Markus, Your efforts are much appreciated. Mark me down for one copy. Many thanks, Steve

Markus, do you happen to have any idea of the general availability of the catalogue? That is, when you were contracted to translate it, was it made known to you what the intended distribution/availability would be? It seems that the effort to have the book translated would suggest an intention to have it be relatively widely available. Thanks. Cheers, Steve

Hi Piers, Thanks so much for posting on this. I'd very much be interested in a copy, too. Any updates on availability that you might have will be most appreciated. Cheers, Steve

The mei looks fine to me. The thing to remember about "Sakura Yamakichibei" is that he worked long after the Momoyama Yamakichibei artisans---several decades later. His actual association with the original Yamakichibei atelier, then, is tenuous to say the least. He is a typical Edo Period tsubako in that he made pieces in many styles, including utsushi of (especially "nidai" Yamakichibei) work. Mariusz has such a piece up on the sales page now, I believe. The tsuba in question here is not, of course, of the classic Yamakichibei sensibility. It's a fine enough piece, I suppose, but is rather generic, in my view. Cheers, Steve

Hi John, Stopping by for a sec... I hear what you're saying. Let me ask you: do you know individuals involved with Japanese swords and fittings who receive shinsa results as the final word, the unimpeachably correct judgment? I do. This whole argument from me has been about one thing: don't take shinsa judgments as the end of the learning process; take them as grounds for beginning/continuing the learning process. In my experience, there are many who do not see it this way; rather, they do see a shinsa result as "having resolved the matter." As I have said, ad nauseum, I take far less issue with shinsa and its results than I do with those who see those results as "the word of God." When shinsa results are not accompanied by the reasons for those results, it does a disservice to those who have paid good money in order to further their learning by having the piece in question submitted to shinsa. To uncritically accept shinsa results and not insist on the reasoning for those results (which I have said already, should be automatic) is to meekly submit to authority simply because the shinsa team is seen as (and presents itself as) authority. Sorry, but such a position is akin (to me) of "knowing one's place" and supplicating oneself to some "high and mighty" panel. And actually, I don't really have much of a problem, necessarily, with supplicating oneself to that panel, IF that panel is forthcoming with their reasoning. But at the same time, if that reasoning (or result) is not convincing for whatever reason (as in the cases, for instance, when the same panel has contradicted itself in the process of issuing two different opinions on the same piece), it is incumbent upon the submitter to critically question that reasoning, and the result. Not necessarily outright reject it (though that can be valid, as in the case of the "Saotome" Yamakichibei I started with), but critically question. This is not an unreasonable position. For those who see it as such, there clearly is no point at all in continuing the dialogue.

Leaving this thread now... Anyone who wishes to contact me via PM or email for further discussion is welcome to. I want to thank all those who have already contacted me with their support. It is appreciated. Cheers, Steve

How would you be so sure that it is authentic? You can't be there at the time the piece was made to verify yourself. You need to compare it with something else that you think is real and how do you know for sure that the test sample is authentic too? You seem very confident of yourself and your grasp of tosogu. Hi Henry, Yes, I am confident. To a point. But then, I specialize quite narrowly. I'm not all over the place in my study and focus. There are many areas of tosogu that don't appeal to me, especially later (post-early-Edo) tosogu. I am also extremely practiced in inductive analysis and reasoning. You are raising good questions. Well done. It's questions like these that few seem to ask. In short, it's important to have access to enough examples which, via inductive analysis of patterns, traits, methods, tendencies, and idiosyncrasies allow for a clear baseline to be established against which to assess any new works by that tsubako. It's also useful to discuss such pieces with other collectors who think the same way (apply the same analytical methods). Further, investing in learning in depth about the specific culture (time, place, events, etc...) of the period from which the pieces come (are believed to come) helps to assess the likelihood that a given work actually does come from that time (this is another line of inductive analysis that I have not frequently seen employed, but some of the more fruitful thinking in this way has been done by Nobuiye scholars in recent decades). Finally, the matter of authenticity is a slightly different one from that of quality. That is, assessing quality (according to either some set of established criteria, or one's own, or both) is a simpler task (though not necessarily easy) than establishing authenticity of some works, especially those predating Edo times. Sometimes, though, the two will intersect in a way so that one reinforces the other: the high quality (as well as certain idiosyncrasies and cultural contexts suggestive) of a piece will be strongly indicative of authenticity. I don't think I'm really saying anything here, though, that you don't know, Henry... Steve

*Edited by Admin to remove personal comments* You comment at the end of your post that "those familiar with native fluency in the reading and writing of the language have abilities and advantages ( they can often judge the veracity of a signature simply by inspection of the strength, fluidity, and confidence of the strokes) that non-natives such as yourself do not have." In his 1972 book Sukashi Tsuba, Sasano sensei had the tsuba below as a shodai Yamakichibei. I would assume that Sasano would "count" as a "knowledgeable, experienced authority" on iron tsuba for you, no? Would you say that he has a "native fluency in the reading of writing of the language," and thus has "abilities and advantages" that non-natives such as I (and you) don't have? This tsuba now has NBTHK juyo papers to Nidai Yamakichibei. So which is it? Is it shodai or nidai? In any event, it is clear that I will never convince you or your ilk, and you certainly will not convince me. We might have better luck in person, though: Any chance you'll be at the SF sword show?

Mike, Interesting. Okay, now let's see. A couple of things you say here would pique the curiosity of the skeptic. You note that Tonobe sensei could "tell me when my Tadahiro was made just by the writing style even though it had no date." You also observe that his teachers were Homma sensei and Sato sensei. This is the immediate question the skeptic would ask (all in the interests in learning, of course... : what is the foundational document or other information that allows either Homma sensei or Sato sensei (or anyone else, for that matter) to know what specific, exact, concrete detail in the "writing style" of Tadahiro (the generation of your Tadahiro) establishes confident dating? HOW do these sensei know? Not who taught them, as this does not answer the question. But what objective detail/information exists for them to know? Are there period documents, contemporary to Tadahiro's time and verifiable (reliably verifiable)? Sorry, but given the realities of iemoto-ism, I remain dubious of such information pipelines. Again, I am NOT saying that they must be wrong or false, just that I don't have confidence that this information is unquestionably factual. To the question you ask, since my special area of interest is in Owari tsubako of the Momoyama Period, I would have no problem buying an unpapered Nobuiye or Yamakichibei tsuba for $30K, if I believed the piece in question to be authentic and to warrant that price, and if I happened to have a spare $30K lying around... If I didn't believe the piece to be genuine or otherwise worth it, a paper wouldn't convince me otherwise, unless, of course, it came with convincing, persuasive, enlightening reasoning attached... Cheers, Steve