Steve Waszak

My biggest regret came to have a happy ending. Some years ago, during a particular period of upheaval for me, I recklessly let the tsuba below get away. I regretted it almost from the moment I did so, but I had sold it to a collector who promised me right of first refusal in the event he would be looking to sell it. A couple of years later, this came to pass, and I was fortunate enough to get it back (thanks, M! ). I've had a few other smaller regrets, but none on the level of this one. So I am grateful that the gods smiled on me here...

Wow. That's a shame. Certainly looks as though some substance has been applied to the whole piece and then the tsuba was buffed with an electric shoe polisher. Can you even see the actual steel now? As you say, Curran, it's definitely worse off now. Steve

Thanks for posting this, John. Curiously, I was looking at this very tsuba just last night in regard to early mei... However, these dates for him are, I think, a little ambitious on the early end. To me, his work expresses a sensibility that is more Azuchi-Momoyama to earliest Edo than Muromachi.

Rich, Yeah, I've always liked this piece... You may want to do a bit of comparison study of the mei on this tsuba with those appearing on some of the kabuto with Nobuiye's name. Going by memory (always reliable... ), the rendering of the mei here with those I've seen photos of on the helmets seems to have some similarity. There is, of course, a rather large amount of debate/controversy surrounding "Myochin Nobuiye," though, with some arguing that he is a mythological figure, and that all Nobuiye mei on extant kabuto are fakes, so it may be hard/impossible to draw any solid conclusions about the mei on this tsuba and any of those on the kabuto.

Excellent, Ford! Thanks so much for directing our attention here. I am eager to see more of this unfolding story. Kudos for your diligence and willingness to share your thoughts and processes.

Hi Grev, There are actually quite a few tsubako who were chiseling their mei prior to Edo times. Among them are the Nobuiye men, Kaneie, the Yamakichibei tsubako, Hoan, Sadahiro, Umetada Mitsutada, and Umetada Myoju. There are also rare examples of other signed works believed to be pre-Edo, such as pieces by Myochin Takayoshi and Nobusada. The practice of signing tsuba appears to become established during the Momoyama Period, though it was still relatively infrequent considering all the tsuba makers working then.

Thanks, Rich. I have to say, I don't have a great deal of faith in the genealogies for pre-Edo groups. We've seen the question marks surrounding the genealogy of the Myochin family/group of armorers (at least pre-Momoyama), and the apparent murkiness of the origins of such tsubako schools as the Umetada and Akasaka makes me somewhat dubious of their published genealogies. You note that the Umetada made this design a lot: were they usually of this sort of dimension, though? This piece is, what, 86mm or so?

Rich, Great tsuba. The photo of the "blerb" you include here raises interesting questions concerning the maker of this piece. You note that the physical state of the guard suggests it was made in the Momoyama Period. I don't disagree: the various signs of age concerning the tsuba's condition, plus the size and exuberance of the motif point more toward this period than to Edo, I believe. But what's interesting here is that Umetada Myoju (the maker of the signed guard above) is a Momoyama man. So if this tsuba was not made by him, but is of his time, who might the specific tsubako have been who did make it?

Hi Barry, Your friend is spot on...

Curran is correct: Nobuiye.

Good question, Johnny. I find myself leaning toward their being arrows, as it seems there is depicted the extension of the arrow shaft past the feathers to provide the notch. But the motif is a bit on the abstract side, so Evan could be right. Does the motif on the other side look just the same as it does here?

Hi Ford, Thanks for that. What I'm encouraged by with your work here is the marriage of objective analyses and the weighing of cultural/historical contexts to more carefully fine-tune our efforts to understand these works. Too often in the world of sword studies (and the publications concerned), I have seen what I think is too myopic a view in which essentially the only things looked at are the pieces themselves. You do make a good point regarding our access to knowledge now versus what may have been available to scholars or other interested parties 150 years ago, but too often I haven't seen even an attempt made to take into account larger cultural and historical contexts. Your example of the Onin period is illustrative, I think, of how necessary it is to consider the likelihood of traditional understandings/teachings given the particulars of a context. What you are doing here with your book certainly appears to be taking cultural/historical contexts into account. Another example of doing so that I feel is necessary would be studying the intricacies of chanoyu and its associate aesthetic principles in seeking to better understand many of the tsuba made in Momoyama times. When such considerations can then also be combined with modern technical analyses, as you're doing, the way to a (far?) better understanding of what these pieces are, how they functioned socio-culturally when they were made, and how they were made looks very promising. Kudos again, Ford.

Thanks, Ford. Really looking forward to the book. Any estimated date as to its publication/availability?

Quick follow-up question, Ford, if this doesn't intrude on your book content too much: Your posts here have concentrated primarily on available Chinese technology; what is known about advanced zinc ore extraction/distillation in other cultures of the 16th century? In other words, might there have been another culture (India?) where advanced zinc processing technology may have existed and then reached Japan via all the helter-skelter trade occurring in the late 1500s? If this is a special chapter in your book, just tell me to shut up and buy your book...

Ford, Good stuff, once again. I have a question for you, even though it is purely speculative: what do you imagine has led scholars (or "scholars") of the past to settle on the Muromachi or Momoyama periods as the time of production for Onin and Heianjo guards? Of course, I realize that the same forces have likely been at work here as are responsible for the dating of all sorts of other unsigned early-ish tsuba, but I'm wondering if there might be something specific about Onin and/or Heianjo works that could/would have had these scholars zeroing in on a Muromachi or Momoyama dating. I guess what I'm thinking of specifically here is whether something having to do with inlay technique, inlay style, brass availability, etc... may have led to such dating. Or, conversely, was there something they saw in the plates, rather than the inlay, that directed them to their conclusions? Again, I know all of this is speculative, but such speculation has implications for many other types of tsuba beside Onin and Heianjo, and so is worth dabbling in, methinks.

Fascinating stuff, Ford. Most intrigued to know more...

I am thinking more and more that much/most (or even all?) of the brass inlay we see on Heianjo and even Onin tsuba is added later (latest Momoyama to early Edo periods) to existing steel plates produced perhaps decades earlier by the Saotome, tosho, and other groups of iron workers. The aesthetics of Heianjo guards, in particular, strike me more as in keeping with Momoyama sensibilities than those of Muromachi.

Book-length projects are like that: they take on a life of their own, and start to push the author around... Congrats on finishing! Now we all get to benefit!

Really looking forward to the book coming out, Ford.

Just one sparkling gem after another. Highly recommended reading.

Hi Luca, Heianjo guards aren't quite my area of focus, but I would date your tsuba to Azuch--Momoyama, not to Edo. As Henry notes, the style of hitsu-ana suggests a pre-Edo dating, and I see nothing else in the tsuba that points to an Edo Period time of production rather than pre-Edo. Even without the reference photos you supply here, the details you observe in the piece suggests (to me) an Azuchi-Momoyama tsuba. But with those photos to add to the consideration, I am scratching my head trying to understand why an attribution of Edo was given to this guard. Cheers, Steve

Ah, I see. Thanks, Curran, both for the good kantei test and the explanation here. I suppose it would help me to have the Hayashi book. Higo (and even more, Akasaka) are a bit outside my area of focus, but still, this was a great learning exercise. Thanks for posting. Cheers, Steve

Second set: first one is Hayashi Matashichi; the second, Hayashi Shigemitsu. ?

Oh Guido, Guido, Guido... Of course this is about taste. That's all it can be about. All the silly, sarcastic references you make to "real" samurai and "real" men, even if we were to take them at face value, would still boil down to conceptions of taste (i.e. aesthetic expressions "suitable" for such categories of individual). So it is, most assuredly, about taste. And your overstatement about the "sophisticated collector" just makes your post bombastic. Likewise your flaccid attempt to denigrate the appreciation of old iron via that inane reference to "slips of the hammer" and the Emperor's new clothes. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and produce an example here of an early iron tsuba that you KNOW presents with "slips of the hammer" rather than any conscious effort to produce an effect associated with specific aesthetic principles. SHOW us a no-doubter EXAMPLE of a celebrated tsuba which is really an "Emperor's New Clothes" early iron sword guard. Be sure to turn off your shakuhachi music when you do it so your head will be clear, and you'll be free of any "romantic" demons that seek to cloud your judgment. Sheesh. What I'm tired of is smug individuals who denigrate early iron collectors' affinity for the aesthetic features present in those works and which features can be cogently argued to have been intended (*Note: just because YOU don't understand or like the argument doesn't mean it's not cogent). And just because you don't/can't understand elusive aesthetic principles does not mean others can't or don't, or that they don't have positive substance and meaning . Does your inability to see a clear curving of the earth at the horizon make you a flat-earther, too? I mean, why wouldn't it? You can't see a curve, so it can't be there. Your comment about "collecting art, and not romantic notions" is, of course, an elitist one. Surely you see this. And carried within this attitude is one of superiority over others. And with this comes the denigration---sorry, belittling---of others' ideas, perceptions, sensibilities. Surely you see this, too. So you must be deliberately contradicting yourself. An interesting approach; not really working very well for you, though. By the way, how did you get involved with collecting "samurai art," anyway? What was the psychology involved? Since we know there was no romance connected with it, what, exactly, constituted the appeal? To collect this kind of object is a remarkably odd choice for someone who won't stoop to "collect romantic notions." Finally, your plea for comparing apples with apples gets at the very root of the issue, which apparently you don't understand. The whole point is that there is no Edo kinko to compare to top-grade Momoyama iron (here I do include first-generation Higo, since they were effectively of a Momoyama sensibility, given the various contexts to be considered, especially that concerning Hosokawa Sansai). The two groups do not have "equal artistic qualities" because they do not have shared aesthetic sensibilities. This is the point. And seriously, Guido, I don't have to "belittle others' choices to make [mine] look better"; I am simply giving reasons for why I find Edo kinko to be of poor taste (yes, taste), even if the craftsmanship in some of these pieces is exquisite. But as you would say, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Well, I tried to stress that my views on Edo kinko are just my views, and that taste is an individual thing that is very difficult if not impossible to account for. And I started off "innocently" enough, though I did make the comment about Hideyoshi's over-the-top tea room. But really, George, if you hadn't introduced the "manhole covers," "old charcoal briquettes," and "Emperor's New Clothes" business in relation to old iron tsuba, I'd likely have not gotten into my personal views of Edo kinko. I find it ironic that you can state that "too often when proponents of iron extoll its virtue, they do so by putting down kinko and its proponents instead of simply talking about the values of iron," when it was you who really started this conversation in this direction by making the post you did (#18). To say that you think that "there are far too many collectors who are admiring the Emperor's New Clothes" is implying 1. that the tsuba in question are not deserving of this admiration; 2. that those who do admire such works are less than astute or are clearly not seeing things "correctly"; and that 3. you have the authority to determine which iron pieces are "manhole covers" and which are, in fact, legitimately good pieces. Sheesh. I'm still waiting for you to produce an example of an "old charcoal briquette" that would represent Emperor's New Clothes syndrome at work. I am very curious to see what early iron tsuba that others see as excellent is actually, according to you, one that is not worthy of such admiration/appreciation, and is in fact fooling those poor benighted collectors. Having said all of what I have, I am not intending to suggest that I think all or most iron tsuba are masterpieces. In my view, most are actually rather banal and ordinary works---serviceable and appealing enough, but not especially noteworthy, and not worthy of particular praise or appreciation (again, in my opinion). There are only a relative few that achieve the level of masterpiece, I would say. But I would also say that the very best iron tsuba (I mean here sword guards of the level of Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, Hoan, the Higo masters, etc...) are aesthetically superior to ANY Edo kinko tsuba. Why? Not because of any automatic technical superiority, necessarily (although the forged plates of such early iron masters are, I think, far more interesting and beautiful than the featureless plates of the majority of Edo kinko tsuba, a sentiment I know Dr. Torigoye would share in abundance), but because of the aesthetic sensibility and vision possessed by these early iron masters versus that of Edo kinko artists. An analogy I might draw here is between Noh and Kabuki theater. Kabuki, like Edo kinko, has broad appeal. It is popular. It is aimed at satisfying the masses. The lowest common denominator here is, well, low. Noh, on the other hand, requires a more educated audience to fully appreciate its nuances, allusions, and implications. It is subtle, layered, and yes, sophisticated. Yuugen, it may be argued, is the chief aesthetic principle/quality informing Noh theater. This same aesthetic value informs many of the great early iron tsuba (much as it did the Tea of Momoyama Japan, which is why it is necessary to study Tea in this period to understand the iron tsuba produced in that same period). It is not an aesthetic value to be found in Edo kinko. Does it make one/me an elitist to appreciate, embrace, and extoll the virtues of this value in early iron (Momoyama) tsuba, and to see other (Edo kinko) works as lesser? If so, I'm fine with that. I have no problem being an elitist. I actually like your term---jovial elitist. I think I shall adopt it. When we evaluate tsuba, we can of course assess the technical qualities of a given work, i.e. how well an artist has executed his vision and design. But evaluating merely the technical aspects is secondary at best. The primary consideration, I would argue, is the vision and design (that is, the aesthetic sensibility) itself. If an artist has a mediocre aesthetic sensibility, if his vision and design are second- or third-rate, how well he executes that vision/design becomes essentially irrelevant. And this is what you have with the huge majority of Edo kinko: third-rate aesthetic sensibility (see the Kabuki analogy above). So, sure, some of the technical aspects of these works are astounding, and the pieces can be "pretty," if one does not mind the treacly sentiment so many of them express. But for me, the greatness of the early (Momoyama) iron tsuba is in their combination of a deeply allusive and nuanced aesthetic sensibility with awesome technical achievement in the forging of the plate and their treatment of the plate (tsuchime, yakite, tekkotsu, jimon, patina, etc...), together with sensitively placed and rendered sukashi, nikubori, etc... The brilliant forming of the sugata, niku, rim, and other elements into a tactile, three-dimensional work of art completes a total package. It is the aesthetic sensibility, first and foremost, though, that matters. And as an elitist, I just don't see a high-level aesthetic sensibility in Edo kinko guards, with very, very few exceptions. Shrug. That's just how I see it.