Steve Waszak

Yes, I can see where I come off as rather stubbornly insistent... But I suppose it would be helpful, as John said earlier in this thread, if the various shinsa teams were (more) transparent and generous with their assessment processes. Doing so would not only make their judgements more trustworthy/dependable, but would afford a terrific learning opportunity for us poor, lost students... One wonders why such "generosity" is not made available, especially given the prices paid for papers... I know I would love to see the explanation offered up for determining the tsuba in question to be Saotome... Tu amigo vano, Esteban

You need to look a little more carefully, amigo... There are certainly the clear remnants of the "bei" character from the Yamakichibei mei present in the "Saotome" guard, right between the "e" kana character and the left bottom corner of the nakago-ana. Further, the subject in the upper right of the tsuba references skewered dumplings, which as a motif has very tight associations with Oda Nobunaga, whose home province of Owari the Yamakichibei tsubako lived and worked in as well. The Yamakichibei tsubako are known to have reproduced this particular motif with some frequency (see photos below). Scholar John Dower, writing in The Elements of Japanese Design, notes that "..."...Oda Nobunaga [織田信長 or おだのぶなが - 1534-82], Japan's great sixteenth-century unifier...wished to see the severed heads of his enemies skewered like dumplings on a spit." (Dower, 110) Nobunaga's well known fondness for dumplings even resulted in a nickname for this particular food: uesama dango---"his highness's dumplings." (http://www.busho-aichi.jp/english/index.html) This design motif alluding to "Nobunaga's dumplings" is reproduced in the first image below. That there is a firm, concrete connection between Yamakichibei tsuba and the use of this motif is thus clear enough, but on top of this, I know of no other group or individual tsubako who uses this particular design, certainly not the Saotome. And on top of that, the use of (what looks to be) the "e" kana (katakana) is another practice virtually unique to Yamakichibei tsubako (see photo below). When one combines this knowlege of use of "trademark" motifs, with the yakite treatment evident on the tsuba in question, AND the remnant "bei" ji visible just at the lower left of the nakago-ana, it becomes abundantly clear that this is a Yamakichibei guard, and not Saotome. Yet it is papered Saotome. Still chalk and cheese...?

Seems it's time to "demonstrate a...gap in my knowledge by contradicting one of the main sword groups..." Not too long ago, the first tsuba pictured here received NBTHK papers to Saotome. For many, such papers with such an attribution would put an end to any speculation as to who/what group may have made the work in question, as the NBTHK had "decided" the issue. The fact is that this tsuba was certainly not made by any tsubako of the Saotome group. It is positively a Yamakichibei tsuba. Not only is it a Yamakichibei tsuba, but the specific Yamakichibei tsubako who made it is identifiable. The style, workmanship, motif, and remnant mei(!) all confirm this "attribution." I am providing photos of two other Yamakichibei guards, made by the same tsubako as the tsuba in question, for reference. As I have said many times in the past, I don't necessarily fault the NBTHK for making mistakes, even ones as serious as this. The far greater fault is to be found in those who uncritically and unreservedly accept any and every NBTHK/NTHK judgment as inarguable fact. Because the inescapable conclusion, drawn from the egregious NBTHK mistake in stating this tsuba to be Saotome, is that one can never know when the NBTHK (or other "main sword group") will be in error, which means that having full and unqualified confidence in papers is necessarily sheer folly. And all of the above is besides the murky issue of the politics of shinsa/papering, which only further cloud the reliability of papers... This is not to say that there is never any circumstance in which it is reasonable to seek papers for tosogu; however, I would argue that even in such a case, whatever judgment is rendered is only a starting point in ascertaining the actual origins/maker of the piece in question. Steve

Hi Robert, Well, according to Okamoto, the "yon-dai" would specifically refer to an individual smith, the "fourth generation." Some may say that this fourth generation smith would be part of a "ko-dai group," in that any post-Momoyama-to-very-early-Edo Yamakichibei smith would be a "later generation" than those smiths working in the early 17th century. I think your locating of this "yon-dai" in the second half of the Edo period is likely to be accurate, specifically in the 19th century, when the revivalist spirit informed the zeitgeist of the times... Cheers, Steve

Hi Robert, Okamoto, author of Owari To Mikawa No Tanko (Tsuba Smiths of Owari and Mikawa Provinces) would identify this tsuba specifically as made by the "yon-dai." This assumes that one accepts the traditional understanding of generations of Yamakichibei tsubako. While the "yon-dai" was likely a later smith (i.e. not Momoyama or very early Edo), it is, as far as I know, simply convention that he is seen as the fourth-generation Yamakichibei. I for one am quite doubtful about this understanding of this "school." Cheers, Steve

Many thanks, Ford, for these very interesting photos and descriptions of the process. Looking forward to seeing more... Cheers, Steve

Exactly right. :D I'm always amazed at how relatively rarely such broader and deeper cultural connections are investigated with regard to nihonto and tosogu study. Cheers, Steve

Pete's post above, in particular his contention that "to understand Momoyama high-end samurai culture you need to understand wabi cha" is right on the money. I couldn't agree more. I might extend this to the "Oribe Tea" immediately following Rikyu in the 1590s as well. The Tea sensibility suffusing buke culture in the Momoyama Period is intimately connected to the aesthetics of high-level tsuba from that time and extending well into the 17th century, particularly in Owari and Higo. I firmly believe that attempting to study and appreciate iron tsuba from this period without also studying Tea and its aesthetics is nearly pointless. Cheers, Steve

PM sent.

lol... We'd have been scuffling for it, Pete! I actually can't believe it sold so cheaply. The tsuba is much better than that price, IMHO... Cheers, Steve

Hi David, That tsuba from page 181 in Sasano's first book, a piece he labels "shodai," is absolutely no-doubt "nidai." Even beyond the fact that it has since gone juyo as "nidai Yamakichibei," it is so obviously and iconically nidai in sensibility, design, style, and execution that it is frankly astonishing that Sasano could have thought it was "shodai" work. A very odd attribution. Pictured below is the tsuba in question. Cheers, Steve

Hi David, While this may be the best Yamakichibei to come out of Skip's collection (so far), and while it does appear to be a fine guard and a period piece (Momoyama to early-Edo), it is not a shodai work, in my opinion. I can see at least three things about it immediately which allow for this conclusion, but hand-held inspection would likely yield more. Again, I'm not disparaging the tsuba: I think it's a good piece (again, just going by the photos), but a workshop piece created in the early 17th-century Yamakichibei atelier. It's also possible that it is a much later work (i.e. 19th-century revival), but my initial thoughts are as I describe them here. Cheers, Steve

Umimatsu = "sea pine" = fossilized coral. Cheers, Steve

Right. Thanks, Grey. Fair enough. Cheers, Steve

Maybe if we all make enough of a racket, we can push Grey into some Black Friday deals... Cheers, Steve

I would agree with what Mark says here... And I agree, too, that this second bowl is not a modern work. A nice piece for sure. Cheers, Steve

PM sent.

Yes, many thanks to Markus and Pete... Much appreciated.

Example of kusarashi yakite here on this tsuba: the perimeter of the sukashi element to the right of the nakago-ana gives evidence of such a treatment, I believe. Cheers, Steve

Thanks, Uwe. Much appreciated. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the tsuba to try to post a better photo of the mei. Hopefully, your efforts here will help a lot. Thanks again. Cheers, Steve

Greetings gentlemen, I would very much appreciate assistance in reading the mei on this tsuba. The second ji may read "Nobu"(?), but I cannot make it out for sure. The first ji I cannot manage to read clearly at all. Thanks for any help... Cheers, Steve

Some really fine posts in this thread. Thanks especially to Kunitaro, Pete, and Chris... Pete, any further info on that kozuka? Enjoying this thread. Thanks, Veli, for raising the question(s). Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Isn't it the case that much, if not all of the history of Nobuiye and his name and progeny that you reference in your latest post is connected with the assumption that the great tsubako is the same man as the armorer Myochin Nobuiye? It seems to me that it has been fairly well established that the armorer and the tsubako were two different men, with the armorer working a generation or two earlier than the tsubako. I am with you, Ford, in remaining skeptical about the association between Takeda Harunobu and the tsubako Nobuiye, and about the notion that the latter received the Nobu ji in his name from Harunobu. If it is the case that Nobuiye was an Owari man, or even if he moved from Kyoto or Mino to Owari, his contact with Shingen/Harunobu would have to have been limited, no? I am not aware of the Takeda leader spending a lot of time in these areas. So how would Nobuiye have even been in contact with Harunobu? As for all the other names he is supposed to have signed with, has any of us ever seen a single tsuba anywhere with any of these mei (I mean a piece which stylistically and otherwise could be recognized as Nobuiye-esque work)? I don't believe I ever have. One interesting implication, too, about all this historical data is that if your idea, Ford, that Nobuiye guards were initially made and regarded as humble artefacts is correct, it would seem unlikely that such data/records about this tsubako would have been kept. Of course, for the armorer Nobuiye we might expect so (whether the data/records are invented or not), but for a "humble tsubako," not so much. Naturally, to invent such a history much later (Soken Kisho) would not have been a problem, but doing so 200 years after Nobuiye's time would seem to, um, make such a history suspect. Your thinking on Sasano mirrors mine, Ford. While I appreciate his passion and enthusiasm, his advice for identifying the genuine article is not exactly helpful in any concrete way. The quote you chose at the end of your post is a perfect illustration, and represents a frustration I have long had with his writing: an abundance of entirely subjective, unquantifiable, effusive adjectives, with little in the way of objective criteria to balance the subjective. It's too bad, because I sense a deeper, more accessible (via objective criteria) knowledge is there, but he was unable, or unwilling, to express it. Do you ever get the impression that the gods have simply ordained that Nobuiye shall remain a perpetual mystery? Cheers, Steve

Gentlemen, A few things to say in response... First, thanks, Henry, for supplying such a discussion-worthy tsuba. From such inspiration can come thought-provoking and intriguing dialogue... I also want to recognize with proper stress your point that it is the shinsa team that has seen the tsuba in hand; none of us has. So we have not been able properly to examine and assess the metal, the execution, the color, the patina, and so on... I realize this point has been made; I just wanted to (re-)emphasize it. Next, I think Chris is quite right in his observations on shinsa teams. They are experienced, passionate (I would imagine), and dedicated, but they are also human, and can make errors. I have been critical of some of the more hair-raising of these errors in past posts, but really, I have far less problem with shinsa teams and the occasional mistake they may make than I do (as I've also stressed) with those who unquestioningly accept a shinsa result as undeniable fact. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I see shinsa results as a very good place to start to research further into the work in question, rather than an end-point in studying or learning about that piece. Further, I think what Chris says about seeking out an authority/scholar who may not be part of a formal shinsa team is a great piece of advice (this echos what Pete had said in his initial post earlier on). Of course, knowing who such an authority/scholar is may take a little asking around, but it really would be worth it. I wanted to highlight this advice as insightful and valuable. Finally, yes, I agree, Ford, it's great to be able to generate an in-depth discussion of Nobuiye, who can be so frustratingly slippery to attempt to learn about. I understand better now what you mean about "refinement," or the "lack" thereof. Thanks for clarifying. And I understand exactly what you mean about Kizaemon, peasant potters, and the results of their unconscious and repetitive work. That such efforts sometimes bore fruit in the form of a celebrated masterpiece (or "masterpiece") is, I think, hard to argue with... But what I do wonder---and this, I think, would apply to Nobuiye ("shodai" and "nidai" work)---is how unconscious Nobuiye was in the creating of his great works. Much may depend here on exactly which works we're speaking of, and/or on exactly what part of his working life we're looking at. What I'm getting at is that, at a certain point in the Momoyama Period, at least in some circles, there was a conscious appreciation and seeking out of works (ceramics and other genres) that exhibited, expressed, or evoked feelings connected to shibusa, wabi and sabi, yugen, mono-no-aware, and others. We may at first imagine that it would be the patrons of artists who would bring such aesthetic consciousness to their appreciation of the works. But was this consciousness limited to patrons? I really think it's possible (just conjecturing here, of course) that artists of a certain elevated sensibility (a judgment inferred from a certain accomplished level in the work, not just execution, but conception, design, and choices in the finer points of rendering the finished product) would have been aware of the specific aesthetic principles and sensibilities valued in the higher culture of the day, and would have consciously sought to create works speaking to these sensibilities. I believe this to be the case not only with Nobuiye tsuba, but also those made by the Yamakichibei artists, and those made by the first Hoan (all three of these artists/groups were associated with Owari/Kiyosu, intriguingly...). When you say that "n fact the very attempt to consciously produce this sort of [unrefined, simple] aesthetic is regarded as false," I think you're right. In general. But again, I wonder if the finest artists didn't "break this rule" and consciously and convincingly create pieces which captured and expressed in magnificent form the aesthetic substance bowls like Kizaemon exhibited (or were seen to have). Perhaps tsubako as accomplished as Nobuiye (not that there were very many) could get away with creating contrived-but-convincingly-"uncontrived" works, due to their extraordinary sensibilities and skills. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Who knows? In thinking about this conundrum, though, I am more inclined to believe that there was conscious effort on the part of these artists, and that the work they produced was not simply the product of repetition and unconsciousness, only to be appreciated for its aesthetic particulars after the fact. As for the lesser example of tsuba with (genuine?) Nobuiye mei, I think your point, Ford, that the effort consciously to create works emulating the qualities of art/craft works like Kizaemon resulted in unconvincing tsuba is well-considered. It may be that, in part, those tsubako recognized by many as "the two big Nobuiye" are as well-regarded as they are because they were better than any of the others at the art of the contrived-uncontrived... Thanks to all for contributing so much good food for thought in this discussion... Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, I see what you're saying about that last bit concerning too much focus on details of mei; I guess I just zeroed in on the term you used in your original statement ("aesthetic value"), rather than other sorts of value... This is an interesting way of looking at things, but I don't quite agree with what you're saying here, only because the conscious intention on the part of an artist to sign his name in a specific way is not a prerequisite for later scholars to make valid observations about consistencies in the way that artist signed his work. We do many things in our lives unconsciously, including, I would say, the rendering of details in our signatures. This does not preclude, however, the analysis of others arriving at stable conclusions concerning tendencies (strong or otherwise) in the way we do things. What you say here is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of our discussion. I suppose a definition of "refined" as you mean it would help a little, but considering the immense amount of fastidious examination of Nobuiye works, it does seem unlikely to me that (the finest of the) Nobuiye guards would have been churned out with the efficient dispatch you describe. What you say about the variation in quality I fully agree with, the reasons for which we can conjecture about all day long. What I will say is that the best Nobuiye tsuba are, in my opinion, the best (or as good as the best) tsuba ever made by anyone. Those I posted photos of above are exemplary of such works, I think. But I wanted to get to what you say in the last sentence of the quote above. I find it difficult to imagine that the glowing magnificence of the best Nobuiye work could have resulted from such unassuming and unconscious origins. In fact, my current thinking is just about the opposite of what you suggest here: Nobuiye (I and/or II) was recognized by at least one great lord/daimyo as a metalsmith of extraordinary ability, and this lord/daimyo moved to retain Nobuiye as a "house artist." What you say about the meaning of the "iye" ji is correct, of course. What I am about to suggest can be shredded as hopelessly apocryphal and romantic, an accusation I would freely admit to understanding. Shrug. That's okay: At this time, Nobuiye (the first, original great smith, if you can entertain the possibility that there was such a first man) seems to be understood as having been an Owari smith. More specifically, he would have lived and worked in Kiyosu, which was the dominant "urban" center of warrior culture in that province during the Momoyama Period. Oda Nobunaga was also an Owari man. His time was late Muromachi and early Momoyama. He is known to have been a passionate man of the arts, which included Tea Culture. He is also known to have expanded, if not initiated, the practice of rewarding retainers, vassals, and the like with objects, rather than weapons, land, horses, or gold (for much more on Oda Nobunaga, I would strongly recommend Jeroen Lamers' book, Japonius Tyrannus: The Japanese Warlord Oda Nobunaga Reconsidered). Nobunaga was also a famous innovator in a number of areas. As you point out, Ford, Nobuiye works are "the first tsuba to bear any maker's mark," so when we consider the confluence of these facts, an intriguing possibility arises: Oda Nobunaga, recognizing the brilliance of the work of this particular tsubako, and being the innovator he is, confers upon the smith a ji from his own name, Nobu. Nobuiye is retained by Nobunaga as a tsubako working for the "house of Nobu(naga)." His tsuba are made either for the Oda family or as gifts to be given by Nobunaga as rewards for services rendered to those worthy of such a fine object. It costs Nobunaga no horses, no land, no gold, no weapons to reward his vassals in this way, it reinforces both his power and his taste, and being that the object in question is a sword guard, with all of its semiotic possibilities (including Tea associations), the bond between Oda and his vassals in the eyes of the public is tightened even more. Apocryphal? Maybe. Romantic? Oh, absolutely. Therefore false? Not necessarily. In any event, I just can't concur that the top-shelf Nobuiye tsuba were either made or received, in their day, as "humble artefacts." Cheers, Steve