Steve Waszak

Hi Tim, I see. So, what do you make of the condition of this Kaneie, then? Would you say it needs a bit of TLC? Is what we're seeing simple rust only, or are there remnants of wax on the plate? Thanks, Tim... Cheers, Steve

Hi Tim, Thanks for these excerpts. Fascinating, especially that last one, which speaks to Bob's response to seeing this Kaneie tsuba cleaned... I can't help but wonder how this guard may differ today in its condition from 1988, when he describes his great disappointment at its having been cleaned. Or maybe the way it appears now IS its "cleaned" state? Good grief, so it's quite clear that, even with a given specific tsuba, there isn't full consensus among experienced scholars on what the ideal/appropriate condition should be, right? I find this fascinating and, somehow, disconcerting at the same time... :? Thanks again for the excerpts, Tim... Cheers, Steve

Yikes. That is a scary thought, given that tsuba made by THIS Kaneie are the equivalent in the tsuba world of a Masamune in the sword world. I suppose I would still pose the question, in any case, whether this tsuba in its current condition would or could be seen as acceptable or ideal. Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, Yes, that's just it. Clearly, such a guard as this Kaneie would rank at the top of the list of those tsuba to be especially lovingly preserved via the very best care/methods possible. And yet, it presents as we see it here. I am left with one of three conclusions (assuming what we see here is, in fact, active red rust): 1. rust isn't as bad as we think it is; 2. this sort of rusty accumulation provides an aesthetic plus to the tsuba's overall beauty, in the eyes of those who hold these pieces in their keep; 3. even the best and most experienced conservators are clueless about how to deal with rust, and so they leave the pieces in this condition. Of these, the third option seems the least likely (obviously), and so I'm left with one of the first two (if not both) to consider as the reason for the condition of this Kaneie as it appears here. Either way, the final conclusion I would have to draw is that the Sasano and Kremers exhortation to remove all traces of red rust with due haste is at the very least not shared by some pretty well-established and experienced conservators of tsuba such as this. Too bad we can't summon these conservators to "explain themselves" here; their views, whatever they may be, would be illuminating... Cheers, Steve

Hi Pete, Many thanks, once again, for the visual aid... What's interesting is that this image doesn't really suggest much in the way of rust on the guard, right? Okay, now if one were to download this image to one's computer, and amplify the color saturation feature, one would then see quite a bit of redness appear. In the various crevices, this manifests as a lighter-colored and crustier-looking rust, while over the raised portions of the plate, the redness is darker and smoother. Could some of this be rust, while the other is wax remnant? Cheers, Steve

Keith What you describe here at the end of your post is just the sort of process I went through in feeling ultimately stymied by the lack of clear direction to take when it comes to "proper" maintenance and preservation of these pieces. If so many Muromachi and Momoyama guards were lacquered to protect them, but those iron tsuba seen as top-shelf were not, it is implied thereby that some other method(s) must have been employed to protect them, since, as they are still ferrous, they would be subject to rapid rusting without such protection. At least, this is what I would think. I can imagine that black lacquer would have obscured too many of the fine features/qualities these tsuba would have had, thus another form of protection would have been preferred (Wax? Oil?). Of course, Sasano does suggest that the black-rust patina, coupled with the occasional rub-down, would be sufficient, so maybe this was enough? Our discussion here leads me to wonder how many great tsuba have been lost to simple rusting, especially any that may have been lost when supposedly appropriate care had been administered. I am reminded at this point of the Kaneie Nara deer tsuba I mentioned earlier. As I said, I saw this guard in person last summer in San Francisco (for anyone who has the Hosokawa exhibit catalogue, this tusba is well-illustrated there). It is a truly awe-inspiring tsuba, but it definitely does present with a fine coat of light red rust. At nearly 450 years old, though, if this piece had been well and truly neglected, the thing would be powder by now. So clearly, it has been tended to (and of course, any tsuba made by THE Kaneie is not going to go wanting for care and attention). Yet, rust dusts the plate. It has been explained to me that certain Japanese conservators are, um, conservative in their conserving efforts, and this is why such pieces appear with such rusty attire. But it seems to me that if such a philosophy had governed the maintenance approach used by all who had been entrusted with the tsuba's care over its lifetime, it would not have survived to the present day. Am I wrong in this assumption? If not, what approach was used in earlier times? Then, too, I can't help but wonder whether, in the Japanese aesthetic sensibility, some light rust on a guard with an otherwise excellent patina hasn't been seen by some as desirable on some level (i.e. part of the patina imparted by the guard's aging). If this were so, we'd be back at that distinction between the "preferred" aesthetics of a tsuba and the best way to preserve that tsuba, which may not always dovetail smoothly... I think it's time for an 18-yearl-old scotch and a couple of aspirin... Cheers, Steve

Pete, Yes, thank you for this illustration... ) See, for me, this raises question about how reliable Sasano's opinions on tsuba care and maintenance are. I realize the example you provide for us here is a rather extreme one, but nevertheless, it does beg the question: if not this degree of "cleaning," what degree is ideal or "proper." Of course, with this example, we see (I think) Sasano going well beyond his own advice in his earlier book on sukashi tsuba: this piece is evidence of much more than removing red rust and then simply wiping the guard down from time to time to allow the black rust to take hold and develop. Was Sasano just over-zealous, then? Thanks again Pete for the photos... ) Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, You make some very good points here about the way we approach these guards now versus how they were seen/used hundreds of years ago. Yet, I would think that the signed iron pieces produced by the men who are now regarded as "the greats" in the iron tsuba world would have been seen, even at the time they were made, as worth of special attention and care (the fact that they were signed works at a time when tsuba weren't signed suggests this, I think). Since we're talking about tsuba made of iron, and which are some 400 years old and then some, these guards must have received some pretty effective care in their time (and subsequently) simply to have made it into our world today. Given Sasano's words on oil (and wax, I believe), I can't help but wonder if the Japanese way back when similarly would have eschewed oil on these important iron tsuba, in favor of something else. I can't recall ever seeing any remnants of black lacquer on Nobuiye, Kaneie, Yamakichibei, Hoan, or Myoju pieces, however, so the black lacquer that may first come to mind as the protectant used in earlier times doesn't appear to have been the case in such tsuba. Sasano speaks emphatically on the wisdom of removing all red rust in allowing the protective "black rust" to take hold and develop. This black rust, he says, will protect the guard from the development of red rust. He indicates fairly strongly that, with such a protective "shield" in place, oils and waxes are to be avoided, as they may work to foster red rust development. A good black-rust patina, then, combined with the occasional gentle rubbing/"polishing" with a soft cotton cloth, would be all that is needed to care for tsuba, he suggests, once all of the red rust has been removed. So I suppose the question I would have, then, is whether this really would be enough to keep red rust at bay. If it is enough, why all the history of waxes and oils in the "protection" of tsuba? There is definitely a strong divergence of viewpoints here... Ian, thanks for that fascinating bit about the pieces in the Shinto Shrine at Chuzenji. Do you have any sense of what might account for the state of preservation of these pieces? Thanks, guys, for all your thoughtful consideration on this topic... ;o) Cheers, Steve

Keith, Yes, the question of how tsuba were cared for and preserved in earlier times is intriguing, isn't it? ) Did the owners of these pieces then ivory them? Apply camelia oil liberally? Sparingly? Ever? Did the never-clean-the-walls-of-sukashi-and-ana rule apply then? I know pieces were lacquered sometimes, but was any other coating applied? I imagine there may not be a lot of existing literature on this subject extant, even in Japanese, but who knows? Maybe there is an old pamphlet kicking around filled with such secrets... ;o) Ford, I see you referenced Sasano and his recommendations for tending to iron tsuba, but I understand that he was known for "over-cleaning" his iron tsuba, in some cases nearly taking the patina off the piece. I don't know if this is accurate, but I have heard this on more than one occasion, and the tone used in recounting the stories was rather reproving... Given that he also recommends eliminating all red rust on a tsuba, I just wonder if some might not view his approach as a bit on the over-zealous side. Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, Yes, good questions. Very good. Another term that may need defining is "iron" or "steel." What I mean here is that, discussing rust and patina and how these affect our iron/steel guards without considering that the various composition of the metal we're referring to might react differently to oxidation, may be only marginally beneficial. Things start to get a bit wobbly conceptually when we really settle into defining our terms, especially when we throw in the destabilizing factor of varying opinions on how these metal works "should" look, and even more so when we consider how they "should" look NOW, versus at some point in the past. Of course, the "proper" appearance of a tsuba, on the one hand, and the best state in which to conserve/preserve it, on the other, may not be the same thing, at least not to all of us. Whose judgement, then, decides? All of the above have direct bearing on how we approach the question of how to tend to and care for our temporarily-held possessions. This is what prompted my question here on the forum in the first place: it is frustrating to have the best intentions and desire to care for tsuba in the most conscientious way possible, to have the willingness to devote time and resources toward that end, and to then be stymied due to a garden of divergent opinions on the matter. The trouble for me is that I find several of these opinions to be persuasive, including some that directly contradict one another! I am left wanting simply to leave well enough alone, and do nothing. Except that, according to some, such "negligence" is perhaps the worst thing I could be (not) doing, either for the aesthetics of the guard, or for its proper preservation, or both. I thus can't win for leaving things be, nor for taking up my ivory and choji oil (and/or wax) and scrubbing away every whisper of red rust... It would seem that the conservative Japanese perspective is to allow some red rust to remain. Based on what I've seen from the condition of a number of ultra-great, iconic tsuba (including the Kaneie Nara deer tsuba at the Hosokawa exhibit at the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco last summer, which is virtually frosted in light red rust), the more conservative Japanese element in whose care these tsuba are entrusted see little/no harm in letting a bit of red rust stay on the surface of these pieces. They may even argue that the aesthetics of the tsuba are enhanced thereby. Perhaps they're right, I don't know for sure... But given some of the opinions I've heard on the harrowing dangers presented by red rust on iron tsuba, that conservative Japanese viewpoint is a little hard to embrace... Sorry to ramble here... Just thinking out loud a bit... Cheers, Steve

Ford, Thanks for that example of before and after. Now, did you remove that rust by simple ivorying? And could you elaborate on what you mean by "neutralising"? Finally, a word or two on how one goes about "touching in" the patina would be very interesting to hear (if that's not a trade secret, that is... ;o). Keith, many of your questions here echo my own. Your observation that tsubako of old knew, of course, that their guards would rust to some degree is a good one to keep in mind. My question, as a follow-up to yours here, would be how the Japanese dealt with/cared for these iron guards over the course of centuries. Did they clean them? How? How often? To what degree? How was it known to what degree they "ought" to be cleaned? I mean, some of the tsuba we have are a good 400-500 years old (or more). Without care, they'd have rusted to dust long before now. So clearly, they received some attention. But what kind? How often? ) Cheers, Steve

Grey, Curran, Martin... Many thanks for your thoughts on this topic. It's very useful for me to hear about your experiences and viewpoints. I encourage others to share theirs as well, as getting a fuller dialogue on this subject is important, I think. Grey, I especially appreciate your words on what constitutes worrisome (i.e. ACTIVE) red rust... Very helpful. And Curran, your recounting of what you saw at the Boston Museum was a bit harrowing, but what you say here is exactly why this topic is warranted. After all, the wisdom out there in many circles is to NEVER touch the rust in the sukashi and ana walls... I would love to hear what those who subscribe to this last dictum think about what Curran describes here. Just to be clear: I am NOT looking to start any sort of feud of viewpoints; I just really want to understand in depth what the opinions are, and why they're held by those who espouse them. Thanks again, guys... Cheers, Steve

Greetings, men... Having acquired some rather fine iron tsuba over the last few years, the question of the proper care of tsuba has become more pressing. Specifically, the issue of rust arises. Most of us are aware of Jim Gilbert's site on tsuba, which contains advice on the care and cleaning of tsuba. The advice is clear and detailed, and is to be greatly appreciated for these qualities. However, if one reads the advice on this subject offered by Sasano, Kremers, Sean Sweeney of the NCJSC, and others, the details in the language there would have it that the elimination of all red rust on a tsuba is essential; the advice even goes so far as to suggest that picking away at the red rust in the ana and sukashi elements is acceptable, if the rust is pronounced enough. Reading such advice after having read Jim's presents one with something of a dilemma, as his words make it clear that the cardinal rule is not to overdo it. Describing below the part of the process of cleaning where one has successfully removed the most egregious of the red rust on the plate and rim of the tsuba, he then states the following: "If you think you've got the rust under control, take your tsuba out in the sunlight and have another look. Most artificial lighting hides red rust somewhat, but sunlight will reveal all. You will probably find that there is still more rust there, but don’t get carried away with trying to remove every trace. Don't over do your cleaning. The idea is not to make a 500-year-old tsuba look new. Older tsuba can have quite a lot of oxide build up that is best left alone. The idea is to remove any active corrosion and restore the beauty of the surface, not to fundamentally alter it. An over cleaned tsuba is always worse than an under cleaned one." Remember, the words of Sasano, Kremers, Sweeney, et al have it that removing all traces of red rust is vital. So, now what? I think the matter is confused, perhaps, by the lack of full clarity I have of what, exactly, constitutes "red rust." One question I have is this: does ANY rust-COLORED tinge on a tsuba constitute ACTIVE red rust? I see many tsuba with bright orange, crusty rust spots, and these, to me, do seem to be evidence of rust activity. But what about those tsuba whose "red rust" is describing only thin hints of washed-out maroon or coral colors, areas on the guard where the "rust" is only suggested, looking more like a remnant of rust or like some sort of rust "residue" than actual, active red rust? Or those spots we often see on tsuba that appear more like rust in "arrested development," dark, reddish/rusty-brown? Is this the sort of "red rust" that Sasano and his team would see as requiring removal? Personally, I am much less bothered by the presence of red rust on a guard if I know it is not active, so I ask again: does ANY rust-COLORED tinge on a tsuba constitute ACTIVE red rust? One final thought here. I have gone through my library, attempting to find examples of iconic, superstar-type iron tsuba, to see whether they present with any traces of red rust. After all, as Sasano and Kremers would have it, to allow these icons from Japan's past to suffer the neglect that the continuous presence of red rust would constitute is tantamount to a cultural crime of high order. And yet, I can find Kaneie, Nobuiye, Myoju, Jingo, and others whose tsuba exhibit red rust ranging from the merest echo of rusty coloring to fairly pronounced patches of reddish-orange/brown. In some cases, this manifests only in the various interstices on the guard's plate (due to tsuchime, bori, etc...), but in others, nearly the whole of the plate is covered in this "film" of rusty breath. If one wants to see the degree to which this exists in these tsuba, try amplifying the color-saturation mode on your computers as you're viewing the images. Sorry to have gone on so long. But I find it frustrating that this subject does not appear to have been dealt with as fully as it should be. Too many ill-defined terms and meanings, too many pieces of contradictory advice from very experienced, knowledgeable scholars and collectors. As I get more deeply involved with the holding of these pieces for a time, I want to know more definitely how to deal with the matter of "red rust." Below, please find examples of great, iconic tsuba, each of which exhibit clear red rust. Please note that I have amplified the color saturation in each image to show more clearly the presence of this red rust. Cheers, Steve

Absolutely fascinating, and wonderful work, Ford. Many thanks for the terrific "process photos." Cheers, Steve

Hi Mariusz, Well, to answer your question, one needs to consider the particular qualities of the metal itself---the nature of the iron/steel, its color, its density (weight), its treatment (finish [i.e. the "yakite shitate effect"], tsuchime, tekkotsu, etc...). Then there is the design of the tsuba in question: shape, handling of the seppa-dai, mimi, sukashi elements, proportions, motifs/subjects, size... Of course, familiarizing oneself with the Yamakichibei mei doesn't hurt. I realize that these observations are quite general and aren't very useful in and of themselves. There are certain traits real Yamakichibei tsuba are known for. Among these are a distinctive color (a certain "black" associated with Yamakichibei), a peculiar resistance to red rust, a tendency to develop a slight "graying" in the color if neglected for too long, the fact that the mei was placed on the guard before final treatment (many copies apply their signatures last, resulting in too crisp a mei), etc... This subject is a complicated one. The best course is to read as much material on Yamakichibei tsuba as you can, and even better, to examine in hand several known Yamakichibei guards (much easier said than done, I know). One complicating factor is the question of whether the accepted idea of there being two early generations of Yamakichibei is to be embraced. Might there have been more than these two working in the Momoyama and very early Edo periods? Might there have been a workshop of sorts, where a handful of highly skilled artisans, learning from the master, apply the Yamakichibei mei as a kind of "brand name"? There appear to be more than two mei which speak strongly of being authentic... The Norisuke copies are, to my eye, rather easy to distinguish from real Yamakichibei tsuba. The former are too "perfect," too slick, too "in the style of" to be mistaken for the real deal. It's hard to explain, but authentic Yamakichibei have an "energy" or presence to them that Norisuke (or other) copies lack. If you don't have the Owari to Mikawa no Tanko book, where both Yamakichibei and Norisuke tsuba are featured, you really should get a copy. It's in Japanese only, but there is much to see there anyway (try Koshoyama). Good luck on your quest, Mariusz... Cheers, Steve

Hi Jinsoo, I will echo the others in welcoming you back... Good to have you aboard again! We'll look forward to seeing your here regularly in the future... Cheers, Steve

Mike and Craig, I wasn't able to be at the Chicago show, but I will be going to the SF show, so here's one vote for further presentation/discussion on this beautiful tsuba. I certainly would second Craig's motion, though, for an actual article on the piece, too, as there is such a relative dearth of good material on tsuba in English (especially highly-focused material, i.e., discussing the finer points of this Musashi guard, rather than just general info on tsuba). I will look forward to any presentation you might give on this, Mike... ) Cheers, Steve

Good point, Ford... Of course, there's no knowing for sure. It's possible a Myochin tsubako sought to "experiment" with effects... The rim-work is certainly reminiscent of the Myochin, but again, as you say, it could be some "non-Myochin" artist looking to create a "Myochin-esque" tsuba... Frankly, I would expect a mid-to-late-Edo period Myochin tsubako to be sure to sign his work. Whether it is or isn't actually Myochin, I do think it is a 19th-century guard... Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, Mokume has almost a default association with Myochin tsubako of the mid-to-late-Edo period. However, in the several pieces I've seen, the mokume treatment has not been so pronounced as this. The "ringed" perimeter of the hitsuana also are suggestive, I think, of later-Edo period work, as is the continuation of the mokume pattern fully onto the seppa-dai. My guess is 19th-century Myochin work. Cheers, Steve

Hi Ford, Many thanks for your excellent insights here. Very clearly explained. Much appreciated. Cheers, Steve

Hi Keith, Sorry. I was just trying to say that however challenging it might be to locate and identify specifically an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility, I do think that such a thing may be said to exist (there is a there, there; there indeed exists such a thing)... Apologies for my clumsiness... Cheers, Steve

Hi guys, I have been following this excellent topic for some days now. I have rather a lot of thoughts on the subject here, so I may wander a bit as I delve into things. Please forgive me if I stray too far onto a particular tangent... The question of whether there is and then pinpointing an essential Japanese aesthetic is a tricky one, I think, because (among other things) it seems to remove the individuality of artists, at least to a certain extent. That is, would the aesthetic sensibility expressed in the works of Shimizu Jimbei (Jingo I) be any "more" or "less Japanese" than that expressed in the works of Hirata Hikozo? The tsuba of these two artists could hardly be more dissimilar, and yet, not only are both Japanese artists of the very early Edo period, but Hirata was Shimizu's teacher(!). One might expect a fairly strong influence of the former's sensibilities on the latter, but there isn't a lot of evidence for this, not in materials used, in style, or in subject matter. Is one of these artists more "essentially Japanese" in his aesthetic sensibility? Is either more or less Japanese in this way than Umetada Myoju? Switching gears here for a moment, I think the list of aesthetic terms Ford provided earlier in this thread is a fascinating one, not only for the respective meaning of each of these terms, but also in considering whether there is or ever was any sort of "ranking system" or hierarchy describing the relative status of the qualities described by the terms. For example, do/did the Japanese (if I can group them so generally) see shibui as an elevated aesthetic quality when contrasted with iki, or with karei? Does/did yugen ascend above miyabi, or vice-versa? Was it simply a matter of individual artists to decide such questions, or are these sorts of concerns alien to the Japanese? I wonder if we could say that, among these terms/concepts, some are "more (quint)essentially Japanese than others. It would seem not. After all, if the terms exist in Japanese, one would suppose they would all be "essentially Japanese." And yet, I think we tend to associate certain of these terms/concepts with a Japanese aesthetic sensibility more readily than we do others. For me, such concepts as wabi, sabi, yugen, mujo, shibui, and kanso resonate as more distinctly Japanese than do, for instance, iki, karei, and miyabi. I'm sure this says more about me than it does about the Japanese, but nevertheless, this is the view I hold (if largely unconsciously). As has already been noted in this thread, one aesthetic sensibility that I would agree stands out as distinctly Japanese is that of subtle suggestion in the depiction of or reference to a subject. The power of the unfinished statement is a notion that seems to be vibrant in Japanese aesthetics. Whether this idea exists in other cultures or not, it is the Japanese who have elevated it to its most exquisite manifestation, I would argue. This isn't to say that this is the only---or the most distinctive or most important---Japanese aesthetic value, however. Indeed, what I would say captures something of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility is the frequent combining of several of the concepts described in that list of terms Ford provided. The adroitness with which great Japanese tsubako (including those who never signed their work) fused many of these concepts into the physical object that is the tsuba is, also, in itself, a characteristic of an essential Japanese aesthetic. That is, the very degree of accomplishment in realizing their ideas and values in the guard itself is distinctively Japanese. And when we then focus on the joining these two---the combining of aesthetic concepts on the one hand, and the technical brilliance in the execution of the designs on the other---we have then an art tradition that is distinct and recognizable. The matter of Western (or other foreign) influence on Japanese artists remains, of course. The real question here, I would say, is whether there is truly any form or example of purely Japanese art, totally free from foreign influence. It's an interesting question, but perhaps not as important to pursue as it at first seems, for it would appear to presuppose that any such form of art would perforce be "more" Japanese (more purely Japanese) than those which "suffered" from foreign impact. Two things occur to me in response to this concern: first, going back to my initial point regarding the individual Japanese artist, even if we could identify any such would-be pure Japanese art, we would be likely to see considerable diversity in sensibility and expression of that art form (thus diluting the notion of an essential Japanese aesthetic sensibility); and second, if it is the Japanese propensity to take foreign elements and absorb, modify, tweak, and meld them with both other foreign elements and "native Japanese" elements, wouldn't such a propensity itself be part and parcel of the Japanese process of art creation? One could argue that it is the unique blending of disparate elements into a fresh and vibrant new whole that is itself a distinct hallmark of Japanese art. I would be curious how many of us would be able to locate such concepts as shibui, yugen, wabi, kanso, and mujo in any art other than Japanese, especially in combination. Even if one were to argue that it is the "art critic" who determines these concepts/values to be present in a given work, not the artist who creates that work, it would nevertheless be the Japanese critic who would describe the aesthetic characteristics and qualities expressed by that work; in other words, it would still be a cultural valuation, whether through the eyes of the artist, the critic, or both. Finally, the sheer quality of the work produced is, to me, a distinct feature of Japanese art. Of course, not everything produced by the Japanese is of superb quality, but the marriage of aesthetic sensibility (as described above), concept, design, material, and execution achieved by so many Japanese artists, across so many genres of art, across so many centuries is, I believe, unique among the world's cultures. It may be frustratingly difficult to pinpoint what it is that makes Japanese art Japanese, but that difficulty doesn't mean that there aren't characteristics adhering to their art that won't be found (especially in combination) anywhere else. There is a there, there, I think, despite its elusiveness... Sorry to have rambled... There's just so much to this topic! Cheers, Steve

Good eye, there, Ford... Just for clarification, what you're referring to here with this tsuba of Colin's are the very tiny "grains" of metal around the mei area, right? I'd just like to be able to recognize a clear demarcation between the "bubble evidence" on the one hand, and the various other surface features on the plate of a forged tsuba. At times, especially with some of the more "worked over" pieces, the variety of gouges, hammer marks, sundry bori, divots, dents, and digs can be a bit perplexing when it comes to grasping how a particular piece was made or finished. Your views on yakite shitate are quite intriguing. I must admit, I've always wondered about this process and the effects it was supposedly achieving. Your speculation that it is actually a descriptive term, rather than one accurately referencing a process, certainly is plausible. I am inclined to agree with you here, though I remain very curious as to how, exactly, the makers of Yamakichibei and Kanayama tsuba realized those melted surface effects in their works. I've attached photos here of a Yamakichibei tsuba. Apologies for the mediocre photos, but I'm wondering what you think of the surface treatment of this guard. In particular, the area just below and to the right of the katakana "e" character (the rough, bumpy area). I find it interesting that this part of the tsuba's surface contrasts with the relative smoothness of the rest of the surface area. What process do you suppose was employed to realize this effect? Also, as is rather well knows as concerns Yamakichibei tsuba, the mei is often faintly present as opposed to the signatures of most other makers. Some explain these "faded mei" as a by-product of the yakite-shitate process... Anyway, I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the working of the surface of this tsuba... Cheers, Steve

Ford, Keith, George... I will be engaging in this thread shortly; circumstances have made it difficult just now to participate, but as the number of hits on this thread suggest, there are many who are interested. The topic is exceedingly worthwhile, as it speaks to the reasons (nearly) all of us are even here in this nihonto world. I suspect that many feel they are not sufficiently knowledgeable to contribute meaningfully to this discussion, but I would only say, as Ford has, that it is through actual, active discussion that new insights and understandings may come to light. So I will toss in my two cents, for whatever it's worth...lol. I look forward to "joining the fray" a bit later on today and/or tomorrow... Cheers, Steve

Hi Colin, An interesting and appealing guard here... To my eye, the tsuba does appear to be a 19th-century "homage to Nobuiye," but with a curious nod to Yamakichibei work, too: the sukashi turtle is reminiscent in style and placement of the sukashi designs of a late-Momoyama/early-Edo Yamakichibei tsubako. Not the peculiar "surround" in the area around the sukashi, but the sukashi work itself. It also seems as though the tsuba has been treated using yakite-shitate, which the Yamakichibei were well known for employing. Of course, the treatment of the rest of the tsuba recalls a famous Nobuiye design (the tortoise-shell bori), including its being interrupted and then continued elsewhere on the guard, including up onto the mimi. The metal doesn't look to be of the quality that would be associated with either Nobuiye or Yamakichibei, and the mei doesn't appear to me to fit into the ga-mei or futoji-mei groupings of Nobuiye mei as recognized by various scholars, but I could easily be wrong about these doubts... ;o) especially since I don't have the guard in hand. Anyway, it's an appealing tsuba, Colin, as I said. Thanks for posting it for us to see. ) Cheers, Steve