Steve Waszak

Keith, Think of it this way, since you bring up wrist watches: the proper analogy is not one guest wearing a rolex and his own tuxedo versus the other wearing a timex and a rented tuxudo; the proper analogy is closer to this: both own their own tuxedos, as do all guests at the party. Between the two guests in question, though, one is wearing a gold rolex with a diamond dial; the other is wearing a platinum A. Lange & Sohne with a simple, black dial. Both watches cost, let's say, $30,000. For you and me, to spend that on a watch is absurd. BUT, for those for whom $30,000 isn't a huge sum, the sign exchange value of these watches is very, very different and would be seen as such among the other guests at the party who would be in the know. They may make judgments of the two men (their respective tastes, sensibilities, sensitivities, etc...), based on the decision each respectively made on which watch to choose. Such judgments could affect their perception of the men in question when it comes to other choices these men might make. Certainly there would be opinions of the two men concerning the taste each shows via his choice in watch. For you and me, such distinctions may not have any weight whatsoever in our various social interactions. But in those circles, where economic status among the member is essentially equal, and therefore cancels out economic status as a social marker, it is matters of taste that ascend. This is a fundamental argument (and a correct one) coming out of theories of sign exchange value. Again, the old money vs. new money distinction, one which the would-be dominant social group would advance and amplify, and which the new-money group would attempt to deny or weaken as to its significance. I would also say that such dynamics are not limited to the closed contexts of fancy dinner parties, or if you prefer, high-court contexts. They would be especially resonant in such contexts, but there would still be an effect in "lesser" circumstances. Cheers, Steve

Sorry I couldn't comply, Henk. I'm afraid I reinforced it instead... :lol:

Henk-Jan, You present a false dichotomy here. It is not an either-or proposition. Studying and mastering weaponry does not preclude or exclude anything I have said. If you have not done so, you might invest in examining the life of Hosokawa Tadaoki. He was the daimyo of Higo province in the early Edo period, was a seasoned martial man, having fought in many campaigns, and was obsessively devoted to poetry, the Tea Ceremony, AND essentially was responsible for establishing the fantastic tsuba "schools" of Higo in the 17th century. He is, of course, but a single example. But it is sufficient to prove wrong the dubious notion that a devotion to improving oneself in the fighting arts therefore excluded a deep interest and investment in the "other arts." Your claim that there are "simply too many fancy (not sure what you mean by "fancy") tsuba in existence to make any claim about the social conventions of the super rich" is one I disagree with on two counts: 1. There are not "too many fancy tsuba in existence" when we consider that we are talking about hundreds of years across dozens of provinces for a class that comprised roughly 10% of the population. 2. You seem to be drawing a conclusion about "the social conventions of the super rich" based on the number of "fancy" tsuba in existence. This is a non-sequitur: conclusions about the conventions of the "super rich" (I never used this term, by the way; perhaps you are reading "upper-echelon" to mean "super rich," but I wouldn't equate the two) cannot be drawn based on the NUMBER of "fancy" tsuba in existence. And your questions about a "price list of the day and age," and how many "very expensive tsuba were made" indicates you didn't understand my points. Sheer "price" or "market value" become irrelevant for those who can afford anything (or at least, can afford to choose from many excellent items), as I stressed. One's taste, and the implications of the choice one has made, given that he could afford many possibilities, becomes the "currency" at such levels of culture. In asking me to "please state how many of those 'Wealthiest' samurai would have cared more about the aesthetics of tsuba as a social denominator than about military prowess and knowledge about how to handle weaponry," you, of course, are merely being rhetorical, right? I mean, it is a silly request. Perhaps I should ask you to specify exactly how many of these wealthy samurai cared more about military prowess than about aesthetics? Can you supply a number, and cite your source (since this would be THE difference maker for some...)? And when you say "cared more," can you quantify exactly how much more? Finally, as concerns the number of "high-level individuals" around, I would say again that we are talking about HUNDREDS of years across DOZENS of provinces. There wasn't just a tiny handful of important clans/families; there were many (across centuries and many provinces). Also, it doesn't require the absolute wealthiest .00001 % for what I'm saying to apply. When I speak of upper-echelon bushi, I mean daimyo, sure, but also their high-level retainers, and all of the families of these men. I'm not quite sure what your post here is meant to accomplish, but it certainly doesn't put a dent in anything I've said, as far as I'm concerned... Steve

I was ready to move on from this thread, but I simply have to take exception to two notions I keep seeing repeated here. The first of these is the idea pertaining to tsuba denoting “rank,” and, relatedly, that there would have been some sort of widespread “system” existing throughout the land that would support and reinforce the semantic framework of tsuba denoting rank. As I have stressed in previous posts, in my view, there would not have been any FORMAL, OFFICIAL, DENOTATIVE relationship between tsuba and RANK. Not in the same way, for instance, the double bars would DENOTE the rank of Captain in the U.S. army. If those of you who keep using the term “rank” mean the term in the same way that the U.S. army would understand it, well, I would just say you’re using the word FAR too literally. The same goes for the notion of there having been some sort of “system” or codified, formal structure in place that would sustain the “tsuba-as-denotive-of-rank” dynamic. Outside of a few esoteric, perhaps localized exceptions that may have existed, there was no such “system” in place, and tsuba did not DENOTE “rank.” Otherwise, as has been said here, we would all have been aware of this eons ago. However, the lack of such a formalized sign system does NOT mean that there was not an INformal, but no less substantively powerful connotative dynamic existing in the culture of the bushi. Hence the tsuba as semiotic agent. More on this in a moment. The second sentiment or conclusion I am seeing regurgitated in this thread is that, since there is no “evidence” to the contrary, all we are left to conclude is simply that wealthier samurai owned more expensive (“nicer”) tsuba, and those less wealthy owned lesser pieces, and that this is pretty much all there is to understand. Moreover, the suggestion that there is anything more to it than this is mere “wishful thinking” on the part of tsuba collectors who wish to invest their interest with greater weight than is warranted... Sigh... Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed to see such simplistic thinking here. Such an understanding is so demonstrably and profoundly false that it is a little difficult to know where to begin to address it. I suppose a quick start would be simply to refer those of you who hold the viewpoint described above to the concept of sign-exchange value. This is a key pillar in Marxist Criticism, and while I would have thought that the ideas associated with the concept of sign-exchange value would have been familiar to most by now (they are quite ubiquitous, after all), there is just no way that one could conclude that the only semiotic meaning tsuba had or could have had would be that of signifying the simple economic status of the owner, not if one were familiar with how sign-exchange value works. Relatedly, and most directly as a response to those who insist that the signifying of wealth (or lack thereof) was all a tsuba could “mean” (and that anything beyond this is “useless conjecture” or “rubbish”), I would say this: It wouldn’t have been (and wasn’t) the demarcation BETWEEN the “wealthy” bushi and the “poor” bushi that sign-exchange value found its most potent (though still relatively subtle and allusive) expression and resonance. It was AMONG the wealthy bushi that it would have been and was a force. Why is it that there is a distinction between “new money” and “old money,” and who is it that makes this distinction? Is it the middle or lower classes that make the distinction? Of course not: for the lower classes, there is no difference in how one came into his money or when or from where; it’s the simple fact that one is rich that is relevant. No, the answer to who it is that makes the distinction is those of the old-money crowd. They do so in order to maintain, reinforce, or rebuild the status difference between themselves and those who are now economic class equals, but who are NOT (in the eyes of the old-money crowd) SOCIAL equals. Among the Japanese, it wasn’t the lower classes who would have identified subtle semiotic function in the details (including and especially tsuba) of a koshirae; it may not even have been lower-level bushi who would have seen and understood such meaning. For the most wealthy and powerful bushi, the same sort of desire to make distinctions as that seen among the old-money crowd would have existed. When your fellow high-level bushi are your economic and political equals, the primary way by which to create or maintain one’s superiority over them is socially/culturally, that is (in this case), via expressions of one’s taste, one’s sensitivities, one’s sensibilities in art, design, etc... To be seen or known as a man of good taste had no small impact on the social standing of a high-level bushi. It elevated him to an INFORMAL (but no less significant for that) position of superiority over his economic and political equals, and the result of THAT could be and sometimes was that he would rise to a higher economic and political stations. Even a passing knowledge of the Tea Culture of the Momoyama and early Edo Periods would illustrate this easily enough. So, for such high-level individuals, the choosing of a tsuba (among other elements) for a koshirae would have been far more than simply selecting something that one “liked,” or making a decision based on how that tsuba might denote wealth. While there could of course have been efforts made by some to show that he was “even wealthier” than his neighbor, given the circles such an individual would have been traveling in, this would not have been the dominant factor influencing his choice of tsuba. And it CERTAINLY would not have been the only factor, as some here seem to want to believe. No, the far more likely factors would have been those concerning prevailing notions of taste within those circles, and/or those which allowed the owner of the tsuba to suggest the refinement of his aesthetic sensibilities. And again, within such circles, aesthetic concerns and matters of taste were NO small matter. Incidentally, this explains the phenomenon Henry observes in his post above. So THIS is where the semiotic power of tsuba most resonantly resides, not in the simplistic notion that tsuba merely (and obviously) denoted the wealthier samurai, and not in some denotative one-to-one relationship of tsuba to “rank.” And to pre-empt the inevitable comment that tsuba would not have been alone in this semiotic function, no one is saying they were. The point is simply to say that tsuba (too) had this function, and in a much more complex, nuanced, sophisticated way than some seem to want (or be able) to recognize.

Bowen, You are, once AGAIN, as is your wont, advancing a specious argument. Either you know you are, which makes you dishonest, or you don't, which makes you incompetent. One day, you and I simply must meet. We will, eventually. I look forward, greatly, to that. Till then, there is this: This notion you are basing your entire response on rests on the reliability of "sources." Yet you yourself observe that "some [sources] may not be accurate." So which sources, exactly, can you trust? How do you know you can trust them? How do you know others are not trustworthy? In case it wasn't clear, these are rhetorical questions. Ironic, really, that you're so on about "sources" here, when the vast bulk of your posts A. do not cite any sources; B. fail to provide any publications lists; C. provide no literature reviews of Japanese sources (again, as though these guarantee anything at all). In fact, a great many of your posts to this forum do nothing but present "unsubstantiated opinions." I'm quite sure you see yourself as a "recognized expert on pre-Meiji Japanese samurai culture and history," but of course, this counts for nothing. The speciousness of your "argument," however, is especially to be found in your (disingenuous?) assumption that something as unquantifiable as semiotic interpretation can be "researched" and determined to be "true" or not via "reliable sources." Sheesh. You are out of your element here. You may have done "research," but you clearly are in deep water when it comes to epistemological questions pertaining to semiotics. Are these questions conjectural? Sure. So? Are you suggesting that informed conjecture is without value? I suppose as one who invests so heavily in the gospel of shinsa you are hopelessly married to iemoto-ism. And your faith in "reliable, scholarly sources" only reinforces that. I'm done with you here. I know that you will have to post again to have the last word, as you have to live up to your eminently worthy nickname. But I'm done here. To anyone else, I'd be happy to discuss this topic with you via email or PM...

Even with "reliable (scholarly) sources or research" it would remain effectively conjectural, since scholarly sources do not guarantee factual accuracy. As for how "meaningful" "all of this" is, that is subjective, necessarily so. So your comment is inane. There is also such a thing as inferential logical necessity (or at least likelihood), which identifies tsuba as semiotic agents. To deny this is silly: as soon as tsuba were made with any sort of pictorial or even abstract design element, they became semiotic agents. This is indisputable. If you deny this, you don't know what semiotic means.

Hi Keith, Well, there are a few things I might say in response... One of these is just to observe that most of the tosogu that most of us are interested in (study, collect, etc...) and that, I would say, inspired the thread in the first place are those associated with the (relatively) rarefied atmosphere of which you speak... Same goes for blades, no? How many of us seek out the mass-produced weapons of the 16th-century? These are less interesting, less awe-inspiring, less beautiful, less-well-crafted (or "uncrafted"), less collectable. They may have been used predominantly by the "men who did the fighting and the dying," but that fact does not imbue those blades with greater value than those blades which are and have been traditionally more esteemed. Those mass-produced swords may have great value as historical artifacts, but as examples of blade-smithing mastery, they don't. Same goes for tsuba, except that in addition to qualitative superiority (at least as concerns artistry, if not necessarily physical functional performance), the more exalted tsuba also, as I have said, had multifarious and, at times, profound semiotic function. I would make two further observations: first, it's not as though all samurai had only one tsuba to his name. An Ashigaru may have had just one, basic, utilitarian tsuba fitted to his sword (I wonder how many such tsuba still exist). But for higher-ranking bushi (I don't mean only the highest-ranked men here; I mean those of even lower-middle rank, who certainly did plenty of fighting), to have had more than a single "fighting" guard for his sword would not have been uncommon. And, yes, I think it likely that the highest-ranked individuals had several tsuba to choose from in outfitting their several blades and/or koshirae. Second, unless you are speaking of the lowest of the foot-soldier types, I DO think the extreme rank- and hierarchy-consciousness of the buke---once they had established themselves as a distinct and identifiable class---would have "trickled down" to even the "lesser" samurai. This is not to say, of course, that in the middle of a battle, such men would have been thinking at all times of their rank and how it was being expressed. But these men were not always fighting. And when they weren't (which was most of the time, after all), I would argue that they were likely to have been conscious of their rank and social status, and the various ways in which these were expressed. That this would have extended to tsuba is not much of a stretch. Again, we have to keep in mind that according to period and province or region there were probably variances in these dynamics... Cheers, Steve

An interesting topic... I would be skeptical, too, about tsuba functioning as a formal, that is, "official" indicator of rank. But I have no doubt whatsoever that they served powerfully as status markers. I’m not sure how far back such semiotic function might have gained a foothold among the buke, but it is certainly clear enough that by the Momoyama Period the dynamic of object-as-status-symbol/marker was well established. And on a koshirae, THE dominant semiotic agent would have been the tsuba. There are a few points to be emphasized here: While the koshirae (including the tsuba) that houses a blade is of course secondary in importance to the blade itself, to see the koshirae---and the tsuba---as therefore of little importance is to show one’s lack of recognition of the extreme significance of semiotic function in a culture. And Japan is a culture whose exquisite sensitivity to subtlety, to nuance, to meaning-through-suggestion or allusion, to connotation versus denotation, is second to none in the world’s history. It is flat impossible to understand this and then decide that tsuba would have no important function as a semiotic agent. To do so would be an act of willful ignorance. By the Momoyama Period, we have some few tsubako signing their work. It is disingenuous to consider this fact and then conclude that, despite the clear implications of such a practice, the tsuba made by such individuals would not carry a greater cultural weight of some kind, whether that be expressly political or otherwise. The particular and specific artists of this time who were signing/carving names onto the tsuba they made were all associated with high-ranking bushi. Most if not all of these tsubako were retainers for these high-ranking individuals. The power-status dynamic is thus seen in that fact. It strains credulity to think that some low-ranking foot soldier, who happened in some manner to come into possession of such a tsuba, would be able to employ it on his koshirae and not be taking a risk. To say the least. Such an action would be seen as presumptuous by those who outrank him, and that wouldn’t likely go down so well. I am speaking here of a foot-soldier/low-ranking bushi who is actually affiliated with a family/clan, rather than of a ronin; even in the case of the latter, though, it is not difficult to imagine that he would find it harder to find employment if it were determined he was “putting on airs.” This would have been even more the case by the Edo Period than it might have been earlier, when the various codes and prescriptions applying to samurai were even more rigidly adhered to. In any hierarchical system of rank, there will always be a heightened sensitivity to propriety. That is, there will be an increased sensitivity as regards how one comports oneself according to his rank/station. We already know that the Buke of the Edo Period (and to some degree prior to this) were exceedingly conscious of their class, and of their rank/station within the particular clan/family they were a part of. Much of their “presentation of self” was heavily codified and ritualized, right down to the way they occupied space physically, the way they moved, the way they spoke (or whether they spoke), and of course, the way they dressed. It is nearly incomprehensible to think that extreme consciousness of how one’s koshirae presented publicly would not have been part of this larger dynamic. This would include, of course, the tsuba. For a class of men about whom nearly every detail of their being expressed meaning---political and social meaning---and for whom the sword symbolized and embodied their identities and purposes in life, how could it be that the single most important element of their “public swords,” that is, not the blades themselves, but the koshirae, didn’t express important social and political meaning? Clearly, tsuba must have had and did have this function. The specifics and degrees to which they did very likely depended on period and region. But there simply cannot be any doubt about the tsuba as semiotic agent. Cheers, Steve

For the life of me, I cannot understand why reasonably seasoned collectors want to bother with NBTHK papers for such tsuba. Look at the tsuba. Look at it. You can see what it is. Curran's comments about the same guard receiving two different sets of papers with different judgments/attributions echo what I've heard several times now, and only underscores how questionable it is (to put it mildly) to bother submitting such pieces for papers. I am genuinely curious to know why, given that it is undeniable that the NBTHK is unreliable when it comes to "identifying" mumei tsuba (and in some cases, non-mumei tsuba), collectors still A. send such pieces in for papers, and B. have any faith in whatever judgment is rendered. Let me be clear: I am not criticizing the NBTHK here, exactly. They are human, and can make mistakes, or, simply, can be unsure of what a given piece may be. This is understandable. What I AM criticizing is what seems to be an unshakable faith many seem to have in the not-to-be-doubted "last word" of the NBTHK, even when it is known that the NBTHK either makes mistakes when it comes to making attributions on these mumei guards or shows that it doesn't really know what the piece is when it issues two sets of papers with differing attributions for the same tsuba. As far as I'm concerned, there is no point to submitting mumei tsuba for shinsa. I can sort of see why a collector might submit a signed piece, especially if the authenticity of the tsuba and/or the mei is in question. Even then, I'd have doubts (as I've seen serious errors here, too), but for mumei works? No. Cheers, Steve

Mike, Thanks so much for posting these. Truly a fantastic set. Cheers, Steve

Superb effort, Clive. Outstanding. Cheers, Steve

Hi Hoanh, Sounds good to me. We could meet for coffee some place and chat... Have yet to hear back from Sam, though. Cheers, Steve

Seems there are actually a few of us here in the southwest corner... Cheers, Steve

Just want to extend my congratulations, too, Ford. Nicely done. Cheers, Steve

Greetings, gentlemen... Anyone here have dealings with Shuzando in Japan? If so, I'd appreciate your thoughts (via PM, of course...). Cheers, Steve

Hi Rich, Thanks for posting this link... I went back and re-read this thread, and I am still not convinced by the argument that the "off-balance" seppa-dai is a matter of the poor execution to be found on very latter-day tsuba. Or even on early tsuba. I understand the logic of the points made here regarding fitting the tsuba to the koshirae, of course. But here's the problem for me: in examining the tsuba Rich has provided the link to here, we can see this "misshapen" seppa-dai. But we can also see no small degree of care being put into the design and execution of the tsuba. The rendering of the monkey's face and fur was not done in slap-dash fashion, and some care was taken, too, in finishing the sukashi, etc... My point is that for all of this concern to be given to these various aspects of finishing the tsuba, are we then supposed to believe that the tsubako was so inept that he couldn't see the "out-of-balance" look to the seppa-dai, or, if he could see this, that he was incapable of creating "balanced" seppa-dai? This makes little sense to me. A second point: we see these out-of-balance seppa-dai from time to time, but not infrequently, they are unbalanced in the same way. Such a pattern of unbalance suggests that they are not unbalanced at all, rather, that we simply don't understand the reasons for deliberately rendering seppa-dai this way. I'm happy to be wrong in what I'm saying here, but I'm genuinely confused by the assertion that what we're seeing here is occurring due to sloppiness on the part of the tsubako, and by the implication that the same kind of sloppiness is recurring coincidentally. Cheers, Steve

For the record, incidentally, I would love to be proven wrong on the assertion that there were more than the two Yamakichibei masters working in the Momoyama Period. I don't really care if that is the actual case (I'm not especially invested in either outcome), I would just like to see the documented proof for this. And by documented proof, I mean some contemporary record (i.e. Momoyama Period record) specifying such. Short of this (i.e. some 19th-century dealer's notion of what was going on 400 years earlier), I'm not inclined to be persuaded that the more-than-two-tsubako idea is incorrect. And if there simply is no documented proof, then we're back where we started, working off of unsubstantiated assumptions on the part of traditional understandings. Steve

Chris, David, The problem with the whole idea of the "parallel but independent" group of artisans making copies without connection to the "real" Yamakichibei workshop is that there is no good reason I have ever seen stated and expounded upon that would sustain this viewpoint logically rather than the other. If Okamoto's words have weight, namely, that these "parallel" tsubako created works so exceedingly good that telling them from the work of the "real" Yamakichibei is as difficult as he suggests, why would the go-to conclusion be that it must be "parallel" artisans, rather than artisans of the actual atelier? This frankly makes no sense, unless one has information which none of the rest of us has. As for the idea that such "new theories" as these will not gain traction without additional evidence, I would just ask where, exactly, the evidence is for there having been just the two masters of the Momoyama period? This is, of course, the popular, traditional understanding, but where, precisely, does it come from? Is there actual evidence for it? I have never seen even the slightest hint of an actual, documentable source for this notion... Given all that has been published about Yamakichibei tsuba in various publications (including several I have had translated), it is surprising, to put it mildly, that not a single word would be offered explaining and documenting the "historical truth" of there having been just the two Yamakichibei masters. The point I was illustrating with the egregious error made by the NBTHK on the kanteisho in question had little to do with the "taxonomy" question, really. I presented this example in order to say not so much that the NBTHK are fallible (of course they are, being comprised of humans), but more to emphasize that those who place blind faith in the results of shinsa should not do so. And I will say it again: this was more than a simple "error." This was a harrowing blunder, indefensible, I don't care how the shinsa is staffed and operated. The kanteisho is the kanteisho is the kanteisho. There is no excuse for such a result. Steve

Gentlemen, A few things... For anyone who has the book Owari To Mikawa no Tanko, and the translation by Markus Sesko, there is the opportunity to read the author's (Okamoto Yasukazu[Kazuo]) rather long chapter on Yamakichibei tsuba. Okamoto was the head of the NBTHK Mikawa branch, and published this book in 1983. In the chapter on Yamakichibei, he offers a number of opinions on the "school," the "generations," and the quality/workmanship of the work of this group. Since Okamoto represents a high-standing member of the NBTHK, we might, naturally enough, suppose that he has access to individual pieces, as well as to information about the Yamakichibei tsubako that few of us do, and that the conclusions he draws (therefore?) are to be accepted without question. And yet, in reading and considering his opinion(s), I can find fault with quite of few of them. For anyone seriously interested in this question, I think it better if we correspond by email, as it would be too cumbersome to get into all the details of Okamoto's ideas/opinions and their weaknesses here. Just to provide a small illustration, however, one of Okamoto's points is that there were other "Yamakichibei" artists working "parallel" with the "real" Yamakichibei tsubako. He notes the extremely high quality of the metal in the work of these "parallel Yamakichibei," the excellent workmanship, the considerable difficulty in distinguishing them from "true" Yamakichibei tsubako work (for this, he relies on differences in the mei), and that these tsuba are contemporary work (made in the same period as those from the "real" Yamakichibei tsubako). Yet he nevertheless concludes that these outstanding iron guards are indeed not authentic works of Yamakichibei. He can't see what this really means: there was a Yamakichibei atelier in Momoyama times with several talented tsubako all making "Yamakichibei" tsuba and affixing their different respective "mei." They are not "fakes" or "forgeries," but legitimate, authentic tsuba produced out of the same atelier. But he is so invested in the old idea of a "shodai" and a "nidai" that he is not seeing what is right there in front of him. He takes for granted that there was a shodai with this mei, a nidai with that mei, and anything that varies from this is perforce a "forgery," "fake," or "copy." Given the existence of the tsuba he has described (excellent quality, exceedingly difficult to tell apart from "genuine," contemporary to the "real" Yamakichibei, etc...) one has to ask which is more likely: that there was only the shodai and nidai across decades of production, or that there was a workshop headed by one or two men over time and which employed a handful of talented artisans? The evidence of the tsuba themselves point emphatically to the latter. Moving on... There is a tendency, especially, perhaps, for many of us in the West, to look upon the word of the NBTHK as "final," as the "deciding voice" in determining the authenticity, authorship, quality, etc... of a given piece. I deliberately note Okamoto's standing as head of the Mikawa branch of the NBTHK in order to show that simple association with the NBTHK does not confer infallibility. In fact, the NBTHK is quite fallible (either that, or is being deliberately deceiving, which is even more disturbing) from time to time. Since we can never know when their fallibility may arise, this makes all of their judgments unreliable, unless we take the time and trouble to educate ourselves sufficiently to know how dependable a particular NBTHK judgment may be. Case in point: below please find a photo of a tsuba which was deemed by the NBTHK to be a "Saotome" work. It indeed was issued a paper specifying as much. Now, we must ask ourselves what is going on here. Either the NBTHK lacks the competence to identify this as a Yamakichibei tsuba (the "bei" ji is still visible on the omote) or at least as a "gimei" Yamakichibei (it is not "gimei," in fact, though; it is again a workshop piece from the Momoyama period), or for some reason is deliberately being deceitful in identifying it as "Saotome." This guard should register to even a casual observer as Yamakichibei in style, motif, and sugata, over and above the remnant "bei" ji to the left of the nakago-ana on the omote. It doesn't take much homework to see this. So how to explain the NBTHK's "decision" here? The fact is, there is no explanation, that is, none that would exculpate the NBTHK in terms of maintaining our confidence in their judgments. In my eyes, this is an unforgivable "error" on their part, and makes any paper they may issue, at least when it comes to tsuba, suspect to say the least. I often hear sentiments expressed in this forum to the effect that "the piece should be sent to shinsa; then we'll have our answer." Well, the "answer" in the above case was "Saotome," which is a patently false answer. The error, if it was an error, rather than deliberate, was egregious, and should be seen as a clear indication that believing the NBTHK will render unassailable judgments is sticking one's head in the sand. Next, as I said, David's tsuba is, in fact, an authentic workshop piece of the Momoyama Yamakichibei atelier. It is not the atelier's, nor this artist's best work, but it is authentic. The most directly visible evidence is in the "bei" ji of the mei. This is rendered in a very distinctive manner by this particular tsubako, and it is consistently encountered in his work. Below I have posted two other examples of his work. Note the way the "bei" ji is rendered in each. The metalwork and aesthetic sensibility are consistent among these, too, but it is the "bei" ji which stands out immediately. I would argue, though, that these other two are of a higher level achievement and are in better condition than David's (sorry, David). Finally, I have also posted a photo of a Norisuke tsuba done as an utsushi of a Nobuiye design. The tsuba is attributed via hakogaki by Dr. Torigoye to Norisuke. Since some on this thread have brought 19th-century utsushi/copies of Momoyama tsuba into the discussion, I thought I'd post this photo for reference. Please excuse the length of this post, but what I present here, I think, needs to be said. Cheers, Steve

John, 19th-century utsushi. Quite possibly, if not probably, by one of the Norisuke, though I'd have to see it in-hand to have a better idea. It copies aspects of both "nidai" and "shodai" work, right down to the mei. Could you provide dimensions, John? What is this tsuba's thickness at the nakago-ana and at the mimi? Thanks for posting... Cheers, Steve

Ah, David... I told you this tsuba would not paper when we spoke some time ago. It is most assuredly NOT by either the smith known as the "shodai" Yamakichibei, nor by the smith known as the "nidai" Yamakichibei. It IS, however, a legitimate Yamakichibei workshop piece from the Momoyama period, as Henry considers in his post. It is "gimei" only because the NBTHK are still stuck in their thinking that over the course of the entire Momoyama and early Edo periods, there were only two Yamakichibei tsubako working. What is vastly more likely is just what Henry describes: a Yamakichibei atelier, first in Kiyosu, then in Nagoya, overseen by a master tsubako, and employing a handful of very talented smiths who took direction from the master and who created some very good work. There are, in fact, a number of known pieces by this very same artist, pieces showing identifiable and consistent characteristics, including the particulars of the mei. I can think of at least four other examples off hand... Moreover, there were several other Momoyama period Yamakichibei atelier tsubako at work, pieces that are not mere utsushi of a later time. They exhibit certain characteristics effectively "marking" them as Momoyama, characteristics which do not show up in Edo period sensibilities, even in utsushi. Your tsuba is not by either of the Norisuke, David. The mei alone is enough to know this, as your tsuba exhibits a mei, as I stated, which is observable in a number of other pieces by this tsubako. Additionally, however, the Norisuke tsubako did not "sign" their utsushi of Yamakichibei in this manner. They also tended to copy the work of the tsubako known as the "shodai" and the tsubako known as the "nidai." Finally, just a small quibble with Henry's post, which otherwise I agree with pretty much entirely. Henry notes that your tsuba, David, "has all the characteristics of 1st generation Yamakichibei but lacks that certain special quality." I concur that this tsuba lacks that certain special quality, as Henry states, but I don't agree that it has all the characteristics of (the tsubako known as) 1st generation Yamakichibei. There are, in fact, significant differences in the tsuba made by these two artists. When one sees the works of the two in-hand, these differences become readily apparent, I think. Again, though, this does not make your tsuba, David, "gimei," unless one buys into the flimsy thinking that there were just the two early Yamakichibei tsubako. Cheers, Steve

I had a very bad experience with fujisan black (Carmen Altomonte) some years ago. Item was NOT as described (to say the least: the blade was described as in flawless condition; when I inspected it after it arrived, there were TWO fatal flaws...). Need I say that he refused to take the piece back, even with photos documenting the flaws? I would never consider buying from him again. Steve

Hi Mark, I believe the maker of this tsuba is Nishio Kunitomo Masayuki, a Mikawa province tsubako of the 18th century. It's hard to tell from the small size of the photo, but it might be the same piece illustrated in Owari To Mikawa no Tanko by Okamoto. The subject is Otafuku no zu. Hope this helps. Cheers, Steve

David, Fascinating history of your finding this tsuba. Its identical twin was for sale (quickly sold) some eight years ago on one of the sites listed in the links section here. I remember it because I hurried to buy it, but was too late. Very nice tsuba. Would love to see other photos of it... ) Cheers, Steve

Well, the real difference was the wall built at Hakata Bay. This prevented horsemen and foot soldier from penetrating inland en masse, and kept the fighting largely on the beaches, in small groups or in one on one face-offs. In such circumstances, the invaders were no match for the samurai, despite the vastly superior numbers for the former. Thomas Conlan's book on the subject should be required reading... Cheers, Steve