Steve Waszak

I would agree with Rich here: Saga Kaneiye or maybe later. There are a number of design elements that speak to this (sorry, I'm not seeing Saotome here), not the least of which is the Kaneiye-esque tsuchime in the plate. The shape of the tsuba, too, is suggestive of the Kaneiye aesthetic, I think. I'm always curious about tsuba which seem to be fairly clear "references" to a specific past (or even contemporary) master, but then which don't carry a mei, too. To "speak the aesthetic language" of a particular artist and then not "finish" the reference by including a mei is intriguing. I've heard various reasons offered for why this might be, but somehow, they don't quite satisfy my curiosity on this matter... Cheers, Steve Waszak

Hi John, Thanks for the photos. Well, I certainly can see Saotome, as many here are saying. Of course, it would be nice to be able to see it in-hand to get a better sense of the metal (forging, color, etc...). The tsubako who came to mind when I saw this first was Owari Sadahiro. Granted, I've not seen a mumei Sadahiro (that I know of), but the motif/subject and its treatment/placement on the plate do recall Sadahiro for me. This artist was known, I believe, occasionally to use irregular shapes; this one does recall Kaneie a bit, but I have seen the odd Sadahiro tsuba or two present such irregularities. The metal looks right for a Momoyama/early-Edo dating, and while some have Sadahiro as a mid-Edo artist, the pieces I've seen have the sensibility of an artist working at an earlier time, perhaps as early as Momoyama. Of course, one would have to wonder why, if this were a Sadahiro guard, it wasn't signed. Of course, by the early-Edo and certainly beyond that time, there was such a rapidly increasing cross-fertilization among the various schools and artists that it's not inconceivable to see this tsuba as one exhibiting traits of two or more schools/artists (i.e. Kaneie shape, Saotome metal/hammering, Sadahiro motif). Whatever it is, it's a nice piece... ) Cheers, Steve

Hi John, Looks like a nice tsuba. Would it be possible to post images of the other side of the guard, as well as a 3/4 shot so that the mimi is more visible? I see aspects of different schools/tsubako in this piece, but I'd like to see more of the guard in order to try to whittle down the possibilities. Cheers, Steve

lol... You're going to go THERE again? Cheers, Steve

Exquisite work, Ford. I particularly like the first one. Very Shoin Tea in feeling... ;o) Thanks for posting these... Cheers, Steve

I'm afraid I have to agree with John. It seems to me to be a copy of Echizen Nobuie's work, but I don't think it is by that artist himself, for the reasons John gives. Echizen Nobuie's work, while not approaching that of THE Nobuie (I and II) of the Momoyama period, is still quite skilled and relatively well finished. I am not aware of Echizen Nobuie using any inlay, and as per Pete's example, this artist's iron is superior to the piece in question, at least it appears this way from the photo. Cheers, Steve

Interesting topic, Ford. Thanks for bringing it up. I think it's run its course for me, though. Adios, Steve

You are calling for objectivity that cannot exist according to your previous posts. Theoretically non-Japanese persons can adapt to Japanese criteria of quality, but they have a long way to go. Almost all of them trying never reach true mastery. Their Western point of view is obsolete anyway. Crying for democracy is premature and ignorant in front of an old and most sophisticated culture. reinhard Reinhard, No, if you read my posts, including the segment you quote here, you'll see that I speak of "strength of reasoning and clarity of articulation in one's opinion," which is not a "call for objectivity." As to your other comment, surely you realize that the majority of Japanese themselves know nothing of "Japanese criteria of quality" when it comes to the "classic" arts. Everyone, Japanese or otherwise, has "a long way to go" in learning aesthetic concepts in the Japanese sensibility as manifest in the sword arts. "True mastery," when we are speaking specifically of aesthetic assessment capability, is an exceedingly elusive thing, and it remains unclear who decides when someone has attained "true mastery" in this skill. I have no idea what you mean by "[t]heir Western point of view is obsolete anyway." Who is "their"? Are you speaking of ALL non-Japanese? And Western point of view? That is rather broad phrasing. Can you clarify? Obsolete? In what specific context? According to what criteria? Your last statement is so bizarre and 18th-century in its sentiments that it's hard to take seriously. It sounds exactly like something a foppish English Lord would have said about that colonial rabble in America right around 1776. And yes, Japan's is an old and sophisticated culture. I suppose that's one of the reasons I've enjoyed my lifelong study of it, and my years living in it. Steve

I will e-mail Franco directly on this, so as not enter his sandbox publicly... Steve

Bravo, Ford. I'm with ya! Cheers, Steve

Okay, let's see... First, Ian, nicely stated... :D Next, Ford, you say: "I would argue that the symbolic role of the Japanese sword has always been it's most powerful presence, whether on the field of battle, on a katana-kake in a tokanoma in a private residence or on display in an International museum. The complexity of what it represents depends, as Steve rightly points out, to a great extent, on context. This context has always been in flux. To survive, all traditions must remain in flux and evolve to provide meaningful expression... one that is expressive of the times. I believe that is still happening as in the work of the finest swordsmiths at work today...and if I may be so bold as to count myself in their company, I like to believe my own work also speaks to a beauty that is much loved still and provides a vehicle to further develop new beauty within the context of this tradition. This is the crux of what I was getting at in terms of 'legitimacy'." Well now if you had just said this... :D In all seriousness, we may wrestle (rather fruitlessly, I would imagine, since we have no ultimate judge to say who's right) about whether "the symbolic role of the Japanese sword has always been it's most powerful presence (italics added)," including on the "field of battle," but I certainly do agree that its symbolic value, its semiotic function :D has always been of great weight. The rest of what you say here, for me, anyway, more clearly expresses your true aims in starting this thread, I think, and I can be quite open to and appreciative of the pursuits you describe in your last few sentences here. I find it interesting that you boldtype the phrases you do; that's what I'd have done, too... It's interesting to me that you find the term homage dismissive. I certainly don't see the term this way at all. For me, it's simply a recognition of what Ian gets at in his post... Perhaps the word has different connotations in South Africa than it does in the U.S? You also say, Ford: I think there is a whole new topic to wrangle over in relation to our evaluation of the qualities that these artefacts exhibit and the need for some sort of objectivity in assessing these aesthetics. I fully appreciate Steve's points regarding the ultimate impossibility of true objectivity but I would maintain that this is precisely where the study of aesthetics, [as a tool, not a dogma as some seem to fear, with which we can begin to more effectively analyse and study this art form], provides a framework for a more mature and balanced appreciation." Hey, if you can find the objectivity you speak of here, I think that would be wonderful. I am not being sarcastic at all. I remember, as a graduate student some years ago, being knocked off balance by the arguments made for the illusion of objectivity. It's very uncomfortable for many to accept. Quite frankly, if somehow we could arrive at "some sort of objectivity in assessing these aesthetics," as you say, that would be terrific. I just don't see how this can be done... Now, Franco, when you say, "Steve, don't expect answers if you're going to rant and take an argumentative tone, simply go find you're own answers," in the first place, I am most certainly NOT ranting (you'll know it when I'm really ranting), and secondly, "an argumentative tone"? LOL...we're debating here, are we not? Sheesh... You say: "Kantei is how experts are determined. People like Mr. Hagihara with tosogu (please correct and excuse if misspelled) and Mr. Tanobe with nihonto are able to demonstrate repeatedly their expertise in kantei, plus their immense knowledge of nihonto history, that's what makes them experts." You need to dig deeper, Franco. Kantei are focused strongly on identification of pieces and determination of authenticity. We are not discussing this aspect of "expertise." We are discussing (or arguing about) "expertise" in the realm of aesthetic quality, excellence, and validity (and how one becomes "expert" in this area). These are very, very different things. I for one would find kantei (and the whole shinsa process) much more intriguing and enlightening if it did focus (more) on the latter, rather than simply the former. Finally, you say: "We are talking about Japan and nihon-to here aren't we? Truthfully, I wouldn't expect to find any non Japanese on the shinsa teams, you see its their party, their culture, their history, they set the rules and standards and have every right to do so! Just like you wouldn't go to Venice and expect to find non Italian Gondoliers." A perfect example here, Franco, of projected ethnocentrism. Your sentiments here seem to say that because someone is Japanese they are therefore automatically more qualified to assess aesthetic quality in nihonto/tosogu than a non-Japanese would. Your words almost say that cultural knowledge is passed down genetically. I know you're not really saying this, but can't you see that you are building (or reinforcing) a wall of privileged exclusivity that would create or buttress an automatic deference to Japanese opinion simply because it is Japanese opinion? All I am saying is that what should matter in assessing aesthetic quality is the strength of reasoning and clarity of articulation in one's opinion, NOT the fact that one is Japanese or not. Otherwise it's something like saying that Italians are naturally better gondoliers than others would be, and I know you're not implying that, right? Cheers, Steve

Ever hear of "the exception that proves the rule"? Cheers, Steve

Franco, You say: "Steve, first I suggest you re-read what I'm saying. Second, we can spout off all we want about Ford's work, positive or negative, but the problem is we are not experts, so we must turn to "established standards and measurements" to legitimize, otherwise what do we have?" I have read what you're saying, and stand by my response entirely. In saying we are not experts, you assume that some other "sanctioning body" is comprised of such "experts." Tell me, how does one qualify as an "expert"? Who decides whether one is an expert or not? These "established standards and measurements" you speak of, precisely what are they? Who decided? What do we do when two or more "experts" disagree, maybe even strongly disagree with one another? How do WE decide, then, which expert is more persuasive, or who is "right"? You say, too: "Steve, like I said, you're free to agree or disagree with what the NBTHK or any other sanctioned nihonto authority says, all you want." But what your post strongly implies is that we're not "free" to disagree with sanctioned experts, not unless we wish to have our opinion/views shot down. Don't you say that, "like it or not," we have to abide by what these experts have deemed worthy, valid, etc...? I don't see a lot of "freedom" of thought encouraged by such words... To this, you say: "Steve, I don't know where this is coming from, but nothing could be further from what I think, thus my reference to Mr. Tschernega, again, please read more carefully, thanks." There is a big difference between what Brian does in MAKING habaki and what the "sanctioned experts" do in JUDGING validity, legitimacy, excellence, and so on. While we may find a nice handful of skilled craftspersons making pieces in the Japanese tradition, how many non-Japanese members of shinsa teams do we find? How easy would it be for a non-Japanese to become a shinsa team member? One of the classic ways in which hegemonic powers maintain their control in given contexts is by obfuscation, mystification, inscrutability. If the area of knowledge in question is presented as guarded, special, exceedingly esoteric, and reserved only for "those who belong," those on the outside will be forever looking in, kept at arm's length, and effectively excluded from the inner circle where power is actually wielded. Often, those on the outside simply accept this, question nothing, shrug and defer to the "expert and superior" inner circle. My point here is that we certainly may end up accepting and even embracing what the experts say, but we should do so not out of automatic default to the ineffably deeper knowledge of these experts, but because we have applied our own efforts at critically assessing the objects or questions at hand, and can articulate for ourselves what make a piece worthy, valid, legitimate, high-quality, and so on.

Sorry, Franco, but I can't agree. Your argument here implies that if the NBTHK, or some other Japanese sanctioning body, did not recognize Ford's work as legitimate, that would be, as you say, "case closed." Well, it would not be closed, actually. Ford's work is Ford's work. It is brilliantly executed and realized, whether or not the NBTHK recognizes it as such, or as "legitimate." My argument in this thread has been mostly, if not entirely, about CULTURAL CONTEXT, and the effect this has on an object's "MEANING." The phrases "tsuba-like object" or "katana-like object" speak to this point. For me, with blades and fittings both being as anachronistic as they are, their meaning---and "identity"---changes. Contemporary blades and tsuba thus become more like homages to their earlier cousins, or if one prefers, "katana-like objects" and "tsuba-like objects." Incidentally, this holds true (for me) with contemporary Japanese smiths, too, not just non-Japanese. I happen to like the work of Naruki Issei quite a bit. He is a 20th-century "tsubako." Even though I like his work as I do, I don't consider what he makes to be "tsuba" in the same way that what Kaneiye made were tsuba. Why? Simply because the culture in which each was made changed so drastically. Some may see this as being rather, um, picky. That's fine. But I will maintain that context is huge, and absolutely cannot be set aside. There is also a tinge of projected ethno-centrism in your assertions, Franco, that doesn't sit very comfortably. There is the suggestion that because one is Japanese, this automatically makes him more expert, more able, more qualified to determine validity, legitimacy, and quality as pertains to all matters concerning nihonto/tosogu. While I recognize that a deeply learned Japanese scholar---one who has had access to and understands intimately various texts and tomes that many non-Japanese would not---will have great advantages over his "average" Western counterparts when it then comes to assessing blades, tsuba, etc..., the simple FACT that he is Japanese does not mean that he will therefore hold a superior opinion to a non-Japanese. Let's acknowledge, too, that Japanese experts disagree with one another about things nihonto/tosogu all the time. So if one of these experts saw Ford's work as "legitimate," and another did not, which should we place our trust in? So I'm afraid it's not as simple as merely bowing down to "Japanese experts" to decide for us what is valid, legitimate, quality, etc... Cheers, Steve

Ford, Don't have the time to get into the sort of protracted exchange I'd like to with you (and I would LOVE to be able to engage you in person on this), but I've reproduced a few of your quotes from the last post you directed at some of my comments... First, these three: "The problem with your insistence on the apparent primacy of your subjective tastes etc is that we ultimately all end up claiming the same and we reach an impasse where everything is relative. Despite what some schools of thought hold I for one don't find this sort of accommodation to be particularly helpful." "As for wheeling in your "big boys" had you the energy to continue this discussion I doubt anything useful could come of it. Deconstruction of text ( al la Derrida) to the point it has no meaning makes having a conversation a bit of a non starter really." "I don't labour under a false belief that we capable of true objectivity but I had imagined that as you seemed intent on addressing the subject in philosophical term some degree of detachment from one's own preferences." Whether you find Deconstruction and its inevitable implications/conclusions "helpful" or "useful" or an effective "non-starter" for conversation, the validity of what it argues, and the results achieved by applying its tenets, principles, and methods cannot be argued with. It is Deconstruction, perhaps more than any other theoretical mode, that destroys the fantasy of objectivity so thoroughly and irrevocably. The "usefulness" you speak of here seems to reside in the tacit and continuing assumption of objectivity; you say here that you "don't labour under a false belief that we [are] capable of true objectivity," but your efforts to dismiss/set aside Deconstructive realities (as well as the fact that you directly speak of objectivity in a straightforward way in previous posts) belies this claim, I think. I only mention all this because what MUST result, logically, is, simply, the advancement of our views and opinions from a recognized, biased, subjectivity. Sooo...when you say: "Your critique of it is still so unreasoned, based as it is entirely on your own value judgements, that it's hard to take seriously as an honest appraisal of kinko work as opposed to your beloved Momoyama iron. Your critique appears to nothing more than a justification of your own taste. You claim to understand it but don't care for it, fine. Yet your criticisms are so easily countered by so many exceptionally examples of kinko work that I can help thinking you've deliberately chosen only to look at the very worst...while only viewing the finest of Momoyama work." ...you are missing the point that our own value judgments are ALL we really CAN go on. Many might like to pretend this isn't so, but they are, simply, mistaken. As for the many "exceptional examples of [Edo] kinko work" you mention, I'd be delighted to see some of these, and to then either eat my words...or explain exactly why I, yes I (me and my personal opinion), find them inferior to the best, second-best, and third-best of Momoyama iron... And again, when you say: "However, your choice does not render all other forms immediately "less than true tsuba" other than in your own scheme of things." ...I will maintain that each of us has to rely on our own "scheme of things." That's all there is. Of course, we may read, and we may study, and we may have deep-into-the-night discussions with experienced and learned scholars, collectors, and critics. But in the end, with objectivity recognized as a mirage, we must, finally, come down to our own judgments of what constitutes quality, excellence, brilliance, etc... If you have read, as I'm sure you have, Torigoye and Haynes' Tsuba: An Aesthetic Study, they say a few words about such things as quality, excellence, and brilliance to be found in early iron, and most emphatically NOT to be found in Edo kinko (see the early pages of this publication). They go into this at some length, actually, speaking specifically of such concepts as "first aesthetic qualities, second aesthetic qualities," and so on. Unfortunately, I do not have access to my library just now, or I'd reproduce some of these passages here. Are you free to disagree with these scholars? Sure. But I happen to agree with their assessments fully. Certainly not because these views are advanced by luminaries like Torigoye and Haynes, but because the values they detail agree with my values as far as aesthetic response and sensibilities are concerned. Finally, as for the tsuba's martial function as a guard BOTH to protect the palm from sliding down the blade on thrusts AND to protect it from (incidental) blades strikes, I really don't think there can be any doubt that, at times, at least, it has been effective doing each of these. Others here have said this better than I can. To doubt this based simply on not having seen many blade-damaged tsuba is eyebrow-raising, frankly. I myself have two tsuba in my small collection which give very telling evidence of having warded off the edge of a blade. And really, is it so hard to imagine, in the heat of life-and-death fighting, that a tsuba could, at this point or that, in that moment or this, catch an opponent's blade sliding down one's own, or be used for some leverage in extreme in-close struggling? Having said this, I do agree that, with the coming of the Edo age, a tsuba's primary function became more semiotic than directly martial, though as others here have said, if pressed into service, it could still function in its original capacity. In closing, let me just say again that I have a huge amount of respect and, truly, awe, in the skills you have, Ford, in creating the pieces you do. They are often breathtaking in their fine-ness and brilliance of execution. They may not be made to my particular taste, but that's irrelevant. They are tours-de-force of fine metal art. I applaud your efforts and results here. Regards, Steve

Ford, lol... Well of COURSE I'm biased! But we ALL are. The only difference is that some of us still labor under the illusion of the existence of objectivity. Several times in your response to me, you note my "personal preferences," my lack of "objectivity." There is no such thing as objectivity. We are ALL subjective beings. This is not debatable. Sorry, but it's just not. We can strive towards objectivity, but we'll not reach it. From the time we are born, through our rearing, we are subjected to countless shaping forces and mechanisms, all of which create the fully SUBJECTIVE beings we are. So for you to look to weaken/invalidate my views BY noting their subjectivity isn't exactly a convincing retort. In my post, I use phrasing such as "in my view" simply to stress my acknowledgment of my own INEVITABLY subjective bias (sorry for the redundancy there). At least I recognize it, though. Your response would seem to indicate that you believe objectivity to be possible. As I said, too, I believe that the subtleties to be found in the finest Momoyama tsuba aesthetics make those aesthetics superior to the sorts of aesthetics found in the great majority of Edo Period guards. Is this my opinion? Sure. If I look down on the aesthetics of what I see in most Edo Kinko, and if that makes me elitist/snobbish, I'm fine with that. And despite what you say here, my understanding of Edo aesthetics is not superficial; just because one doesn't care for something does not mean he doesn't understand it. In fact, one cannot arrive at the first without the latter as requisite. It's interesting that you would assume a superficial understanding here... Just a couple more things... You say in your second post in this thread that "We've generally agreed, I think..., that the tsuba was not intended as a guard to protect the hand..." But then in your P.S., you quote Mr. Ogawa's thoughts on the tsuba's function being that to protect...the hand (whether the top or palm of the hand, what's the difference? It's still functional protection of the hand). So it seems that you tend to slip around your own words in these posts, no? You say right off the bat in your last post here that it is I who have misunderstood your "fundamental position." If this is so, this is due to the murkiness of the title of the thread (Contemporary tsuba...can they be valid?), and the meandering way in which you then address this question. The first thing I said in response was that everything depended on what was meant by "valid." The best I can figure be re-reading your posts is that you see the ideas expressed in the following passage from the end of your latest post as a clear explanation of what you understand to constitute that "validity": "I was looking to see how the tradition might successfully evolve as an expression that is true to the spirit of the makers of the past ( I'm not worried about long dead warriors now ), maintains it's integrity and for contemporary work to have some legitimate place in the continuum of art metalwork that is this tradition." But in this passage, the phrases "true to," "the spirit of the makers of the past," "maintains its integrity," and "legitimate place" are, again, murky to the point of near meaninglessness. Each of these phrases is descriptive, and the would-be meanings they have escape any sort of ready and clear apprehension. They SOUND good, but really, what do they MEAN? EXACTLY? Of course I am returning us here to my initial point above---the impossibility and illusory quality of "objectivity." The phrases you rely on in this passage MIGHT have some purchase if they could be objectively realized. Since they cannot be, however, for you to take aim at "validity" as regards contemporary tsuba VIA the pursuit of these mirages represents something akin to the pursuit of Atlantis. Of course, I exaggerate here somewhat. It is, however, disingenuous of you to make the initial post you do, and some of the points you make, in the particular TONE you do, and not expect some to offer points of rebuttal in response. You also make this statement: "So if the['sombre iron guards' of the Edo Period] didn't reflect true warrior taste who was buying them...surely they were made for the warrior class? ah! yes...but not the romantic, idealised bushi with his superior taste." Listen to your tone here! lol... So dismissive. Does anyone dispute the devolution of the bushi over the course of the Edo Period from actual fighting man to corrupt, decadent bureaucrat? They became a class who could scarcely defend their own existence. The writing of texts like Hagakure, among others, effectively document this devolution. How might we imagine these "warriors" would (endeavor to) see themselves? How might this perception then be projected socially? Why, by adorning their swords with "warrior's" tsuba made by various of the "iron schools" (Choshu, etc...) of the day. This isn't a reach at all, your tone here notwithstanding. And as for the "romantic, idealised bushi" you note here, see my original post regarding the function of romantic imaginings in meaning construction; you don't seem to want to acknowledge this as important, but it is... Anyway, Ford, I think I've essentially said my piece here. If I get into it any more, I'll have to get into Saussure, Derrida, Levi-Strauss, Barthes, and the rest of the boys, and I'm not sure I have the energy to write a text book on a forum page... Cheers, Steve

Ford, Well, I think if you look again at my last two sentences, you'll see that my critique does not negate the activities of contemporary blade or fittings artists; it simply questions the way those activities are understood in terms of cultural meaning/relevance. ) Steve

Let me begin this response by stating right up front that I find your work to be excellently rendered, Ford. For this tiger piece here, exquisite doesn’t begin to cover it. I am truly awed... This out of the way, then, I return to your original post. I will be addressing a number of points, about which I could say more, but for the sake of those whose eyes may glaze over, I’ll try to keep the points brief... your leading question for this thread---can contemporary tsuba be valid?---depends entirely on one’s definition/understanding of “valid.” What, exactly, do you mean by “valid”? Valid how? In what context? For whom? Do you mean objectively, only? Without defining this term exactly, or explaining precisely how you mean it, the question cannot be answered. We must all recognize that you, Ford, have a rather hugely vested interest in an affirmative response to your question (however “valid” is meant). I think the real question you’re asking here in any event is whether your creation of contemporary “tsuba” AS TSUBA is “valid,” and this being the case, what you’re ultimately asking is what the definition of “tsuba” is/should be. Here there are two (at least) considerations, the functional (that is, functional in terms of martial applications) and the semiotic (cultural “meaning” of the tsuba’s outward presentation as an aesthetic, social, and political sign within the system of signs comprising meaning in a culture). I will get to these considerations a little further down, but it seems that you have an investment in seeing the pieces you produce as “valid” in the same way that tsuba produced 400 years ago were valid. With this perspective, I cannot agree. Before I get into why I cannot agree with that perspective, though, I have to get to your point concerning the “purist” collector and romanticism. In a word, your point here is problematic: probably 99% of us got into nihonto/the “samurai” due to romantic notions and imaginings, and remain “in the game” for these reasons. Romantic constructions of meaning, whether “reverse-engineered” or not, are virtually inescapable in the human experience; more importantly, their being romantic constructions does not invalidate them as real builders of meaning (one might ponder what a “better” base on which to construct meaning would be, one entirely devoid of any romantic tinges). Since all meaning is constructed socially and culturally, romantic constructions are no less “valid” than any other variety (assuming for the moment that there is any such thing as meaning with zero romantic associations). Your apparent dismissal of “this little bit of romanticism” is therefore very wobbly in its assumptions, and in fact, does not hold up to scrutiny. Further, your focus here on the “old” is misapprehended/misdirected: it’s not the age of pieces itself that matters to such “purist” collectors (except that subset you identify); rather, it’s the cultural relevance of warriors AS warriors in a given period, and the weapons, armor, and other objects they used in that period that is important (here we return, inevitably, to romantic imaginings). The fact that the period(s) in question is(are) older than subsequent periods does not mean that it is age itself that is relevant. To continue, then, by the time of the “settling” of the Tokugawa administration, and the ceasing of fighting men to actually be fighting men, the production of the “sombre iron guards” you mention becomes irrelevant, culturally and romantically speaking: a derivative, bland, relatively poorly-constructed and materially-deficient tsuba, whose motifs/subjects not infrequently reflect the rapidly accelerating decadence of the “warrior” and the often hopelessly cloying tastes of the plebian merchant class (and the merging of these), is not going to appeal to the collector whose romantic investment is in the bushi AS bushi. Now onto the point of tsuba being primarily aesthetic and semiotic objects rather than functional protection: the falsity of this is belied not only by the fact that not all fighters were first-class swordsmen, and thus might rely more heavily on tsuba for protection, even if partly psychologically, but also by the fact that, if protection from cutting edges was not a concern for these men, the heavy industry of armor production over centuries would not have occurred. And if the material from which armor (and tsuba) were made should be understood not to matter (because sword guards were, in your view, not really martially functional), why all the time and effort invested by Muromachi and Momoyama armorers and tsubako in forging and folding iron/steel? Further, if a tsuba’s primary/sole function was aesthetic, even from earliest times, why do we see many early iron tsuba made as simple discs, without any decoration? And why fold the metal? Why would such tsuba be made, if the function of tsuba was, from earliest times, as you say, simply aesthetic? The either-or of your argument is a false dualism: tsuba were both functional in the directly martial sense and in the cultural, semiotic sense. It is silly to see them as either one or the other when they are so plainly both. The stress you place on the tsuba being “primarily” aesthetic is specious: there is no way quantitatively to measure the degree to which aesthetics mattered more than direct martial application, even if one were to accept your initial assertion that tsuba-as-functional-martial-accessory is a mistaken understanding of their use (which I, of course, do not). Now, to matters of taste. Personally, I quite dislike Edo-kinko. This has nothing to do with “identifying with” the warrior class, or martial spirit, or any of that. Rather, my taste has entirely to do with aesthetics (the fact that my taste happens to coincide nicely with the romantically-elevated earlier periods, and the men who lived so colorfully in those periods, is a happy accident...). The majority (as in vast majority) of Edo-kinko is an orgy of cloying sentimentality. Designs are often conceived and rendered with painful obviousness as regards motif, subject, and placement of design elements, and then are also ostentatious, ornate, and gaudy in the materials used. Sometimes, they are exceptionally well made, exhibiting an almost miraculous execution, about which I couldn’t care less, except in the sense of a detached “appreciation” of the pure technical virtuosity. In other words, I don’t care about technical wizardry if the design itself is faulty. In my view, Edo kinko is faulty. I’m not even considering here its being so decidedly inappropriate as regards the martial functionality of tsuba (I maintain there is a martial functionality to some degree); I am speaking here solely of aesthetics. And incidentally, the degeneracy and decadence of Edo Period aesthetics in not limited to tsuba or even tosogu: we can see it manifesting in a variety of art forms in this time. The “wabi-sabi” term you so dislike is in fact a misnomer: during the actual time in which wabi and sabi aesthetics were most highly valued (they were valued separately, and in different periods), along with such aesthetic concepts as yugen and mono-no-aware, there was an elevation of aesthetic “meditation” and development, one that gave primacy to the subtle, the nuanced, the elusive, and the allusive, with few exceptions none of which is seen in Edo kinko. Works which manifest such aesthetics were highly valued, and rightly so: they present more energy, more strength, more “pathos,” more evocative quality than the hopelessly tired, derivative, obvious, predictable offerings coming out of Edo kinko workshops. The “wabi-sabi” (as you have it) aesthetic DOES look down on the gag-me sentimentality of so much Edo Kinko, as well it should, as far as I’m concerned. Is this “snooty” or elitist. You bet. Too bad. Perhaps an analogy would help: Edo kinko = McDonald’s burger, fries(chips), and a coke; Momoyama fine iron = five-star sushi. Again, if you want to call me elitist, or a snob, I’m fine with that. Finally, there is this tension to weigh in on: Tsuba vs. tsuba-like object. In the end, I maintain that cultural context is CRUCIAL. Let me repeat that: cultural context is CRUCIAL. As in cannot be set aside. Tsuba AS tsuba have not existed for well over a century. Now, when I say this, I return of course to the first point above: what is the definition of “tsuba”? For me, these objects gain their greatest cultural relevance and resonance (romantic? Fine...) in pre-Edo times; they are far less relevant in terms of martial application, though still culturally relevant and somewhat resonant in the Edo Period. After this, however, their cultural relevance and resonance diminishes to the vanishing point (that is, in terms of their still being produced post-Edo). Removed from the times in which a sword guard had cultural meaning in both martial application and semiotically, contemporary tsuba are thus not really tsuba. Attempting to see them as such is anachronistic. In fact, it is hard to think of a better example of an anachronism than seeing a contemporary “tsuba” AS a real, contextually relevant and resonant sword guard. They are homages, perhaps, or “tsuba-like” objects, but they cannot and do not function in either of the ways specified above. There really can be no argument here. And this is what collectors recognize, which is why few will opt to acquire contemporary homages to tsuba instead of real, culturally- and historically-resonant sword guards. If you find yourself offended by this, you should examine your assumptions, namely, why you find it so important that a “contemporary tsuba” be identified/recognized AS a tsuba (rather than as an homage to tsuba, or as a tsuba-like object). If the work you do is brilliantly realized as an expression of metalwork (which it is), why is it so vitally important that it “count” AS a “real” tsuba? Why are you so invested in such an outcome? THIS is what you should be pondering, not whether contemporary tsuba are “valid” AS tsuba. Incidentally, there is nothing wrong with contemporary homages to tsuba, specifically, with their being recognized as such. Why some must insist that “this is not all they are” is a fascinating question to consider. Steve P.S. I am on Pete's side here, and echo his sentiments...if that weren't already evident... ;o)

I, too, will be posting a rather long-ish response...but not tonight. Tomorrow, perhaps. I can say right now, however, that I find several areas of Ford's stance to be problematic, at least potentially. Some of these are relatively minor, others are not. He is essentially broaching ground philosophical, semiotic, and epistemological in nature, and none of these is a simple area to be flailing about in. Perhaps in the meantime, Ford would be good enough to reveal that "obviously flawed" aspect of the first collector type he noted, so we can have that on the table... ) Steve

From the photos, this tsuba looks to me like 19th-century revival work. This was a period when some of the famous Momoyama tsubako (Nobuiye, Yamakichibei, among others) were copied rather copiously. Since Nobuiye and especially Yamakichibei produced tsuba with pronounced Tea sensibility aesthetic features, it is not that surprising to see such features reproduced in the "Nobuiye-esque" and "Yamakichibei-esque" tsuba made in the 19th-century revivalist times. One of the tell-tale signs of revivalist work is the rather "overdone" quality of the features that distinguish the work of the original Nobuiye (shodai and nidai) and the original Yamakichibei smiths. These would include, especially, exaggerated tekkotsu, but also overdone tsuchime, mimi, etc... On this particular guard, one other thing that stands out is the somewhat awkward placement and execution of the hitsuana. They appear amateurish to me, skewed in their relationship to one another, and haphazardly finished (even given the rustic aesthetic the tsuba is going for). This is not to say, though, that this tsuba isn't an appealing, tactilely pleasing object that one cannot enjoy. I can see its appeal, too, and can imagine that it feels great in the hand, especially with the weight that must accompany its size. Enjoy your tsuba, whatever it may be! ;o) Cheers, Steve

G.G., E-mail me. I live in San Diego (though I'll be on the east coast for a four-month sabbatical of sorts shortly). Hope to hear from you... ) Cheers, Steve

Hi guys, For those of you attending the San Francisco show next week, Bruce Kirkpatrick will be giving a talk on Higo tsuba. He will have his usual astonishing assortment of very fine Higo pieces, and, Bruce being Bruce, will no doubt offer some intriguing (if iconoclastic) assertions on the construction, history, and cultural meaning of Higo guards. The talk will be informal in that it will take place at the downstairs lounge/bar of the Airport Marriot (same venue as where the show itself will be) at 2:00 on Friday. Likely, the best tsuba of the show will be on display and under discussion... Hope to see some of you there... ;o) Cheers, Steve

Hi Chuck, There is a fairly major sword show in San Francisco in mid-August. If you want an opportunity to see AND handle a variety of tsuba, ranging from mediocre to excellent, attending this show is pretty close to a must. Arguably, it is the best of the year in the U.S... The other thing I would stress is to put your dollars toward more books before you indulge in the acquisition of pieces. The tsuba Pete posted the photo of is by a tsubako named Kaneiye. He is considered one of the greatest of all tsuba artists, a superstar's superstar. Without spending significant time immersing yourself in reading some of the "essential" tsuba texts, as well as in handling at least a few hundred pieces, it is really quite difficult to see and grasp why, exactly, this Kaneiye is a masterpiece, rather than merely "good." Likewise, it can be hard to recognize why another, would-be similar piece, is better fit for a doorstop. I would recommend getting the two Sasano texts on sukashi tsuba (1972 and 1994 publication dates), as well as Tsuba: An Aesthetic Study by Torigoye and Haynes. For sheer reading about tsuba, especially qualitative considerations, these are three of the better texts out there (assuming you don't read Japanese). The second of the two Sasano books, too, has outstanding photographs of some great tsuba. Other books may have good factual information, useful for reference, and/or excellent illustrations only. In my experience, however, it was important to gain an understanding of what made a high-quality tsuba so good, and THEN to examine photos or pieces to look for those characteristics. So the actual textual content was paramount for me... Finally, towards the bottom of Dr. Stein's site, there is a section which provides links to commercial sites. Some of these offer some pretty excellent tsuba. I can't emphasize enough, however, the importance of reading and studying before you buy. These books aren't always cheap, but it's money far better spent than on a tsuba of the same price. Do this, and attend the S.F. show if you can. If you're serious about diving in, this is the Way... lol. ;o) Cheers, Steve

Hi Mark, An interesting tsuba here... Do you have the dimensions on this one, including seppa-dai and mimi thickness? Also, it's a little hard to make out from the photos how the surface reads... Is there a lacquer or other surface treatment at work here? Is there surface rust damage that has been cleaned up...? Is there evidence of folding in the nakago-ana? Not sure what to make of the big notch in the rim, either... What is the nature of this notch? Does it read as damage caused by a blow of some sort? It's frankly a rather curious "blemish," I think... Thanks for posting... Cheers, Steve

Beautiful. There's something about a really good naginata(nagamaki)-naoshi blade that appeals in a certain way... I can see why you regretted letting that get away. Congrats on recovering it. And thanks for posting. Cheers, Steve