Steve Waszak

Hi David, Where we run into problems is in the fact that some/many of these sources rely on each other for their information. If some early/esteemed source pronounced a certain dating of a particular work (sometimes without evidence or explaining the reasoning used to arrive at that conclusion), that source may be used by other, later scholars as though it were well-researched, accurate, reliable, etc... But without hard evidence locating the production of Kanayama guards in the 15th century (I am not aware of any such evidence), we are left to consider broader cultural contexts such that we may make an educated guess as to when these tsuba were really made. Those contexts point much more convincingly to the late 16th century as the production time for Kanayama tsuba, specifically, the mid- to late-Momoyama Period. Of course, I am happy to be wrong about this, if any really sound, hard evidence can be brought forth... Cheers, Steve

Hi David, It's a great tsuba, in any event. Congratulations on acquiring it. Cheers, Steve

Yeah, about what I figured in terms of dating. However, such a date (mid-Muromachi) makes little sense in terms of cultural context. That was a period dominated by preferences for things Chinese (and a Chinese aesthetic). The particular features of this tsuba (yakite and tekkotsu) make far more sense as a Momoyama-Period product than one made in the middle of a time predating the Tea sensibilities Kanayama guards express. I know Sasano's theories quite well; they simply fail to convince in the case of Kanayama tsuba. Steve

Hi Junichi, While you and I are generally on the same page here, your noting that there are "objective criteria" avaliable to determine the level of a work's artistic merits (versus the level of its craftsmanship) does give me some pause. Could you specify---using two or three examples in any genre of art---these objective criteria? It may be useful/necessary here to first define what is meant by "art," which of course, invites a rather gaping Pandora's Box. But setting that aside for the moment, I am genuinely intrigued to see what might be offered up as examples of objective criteria in arriving at a judgment of a specific work's artistic quality. Cheers, Steve

An excellent tsuba: Momoyama period (though the papers will probably say Muromachi, these guards are pure Momoyama...) Kanayama Owari province karigane and gourds kanteisho, 80 points Steve

Junichi, You're certainly raising some good questions here, at least insofar as they generate thoughtful responses... However, I would agree with others than classifying/taxonomy is one thing, and appreciation and/or evaluation of quality is another. It seems that some of what you express in your posts comes from a frustration that too much focus is placed on merely identifying a "type" of tosogu, and not enough attention is given to appreciating why, exactly, a given piece is of a higher or lower quality. On this, I couldn't agree with you more. Even if the taxonomical divisions were much cleaner than they are, and even if they existed as we know them now five and six hundred years ago, this would still be for me (and I suspect, you) a wholly unsatisfying end to reach in the appreciation (not merely study) of tosogu. I find the task of attempting to fit a particular piece to an often conjured category to be rather dull; the much more interesting (both intellectually and emotionally) thing is to assess that piece's quality, what characteristics work together to create that quality, etc... Of course, this is subjective. So what? Some philosophers will tell us that all we can ever "know" is subjective, yet there are certain individuals who denegrate that which is "merely" subjective. Needless to say, such endeavors (attempting to see/understand/ascertain quality) is much more difficult than seeking to locate a piece in its "proper category." But that's part of the fun of it. You also mention that it would be worthwhile to research "the signal or statement the overall tsuba would have indicated during the time and place and station it was worn." You're speaking here of the semiotics of tsuba use (or koshirae use, or types), and again, I wholly agree with you. This is a vastly under-appreciated and under-researched area of study. I believe there have been a few threads that got into this in the past few years, but suffice it to say, I am with you, Junichi, in the sentiments you express here. Not so much with the desire to find a way to categorize the aesthetic aspects of tosogu, but to emphasize these aesthetic aspects---especially as they might be tied to quality---as well as the semiotic effects of tsuba and the like, in the time we devote to these objects. It means a shift away from "schools" and shinsa and categories and classifying, and as far as I'm concerned, this would be a good thing. Cheers, Steve

Yeah, I guess I was just thinking that since the Kamiyoshi Ehon was Rakuju's personal pattern book, and since he had the motif as butterflies, I thought there might be something to that... :D Cheers, Steve

Awa Shoami.

I believe the Kamiyoshi Ehon has the design as butterflies... Cheers, Steve

Better photos here. Measurements are 72mm x 4.2mm at the seppadai, 4.6mm at the mimi. I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are as to the school this tsuba might be attributed to, and why... Cheers, Steve

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