Steve Waszak

Weekend price drop! Tsuba #1 is now $500. Tsuba #2 is now $800. "He who hesitates is lost!"

Thank you, Brent and Luca. Very happy you're enjoying your new acquisitions.

Brilliant, Marco. A wonderful addition. I am now signed up.

Tsuba is SOLD.

Offered here is a fascinating iron tsuba, signed Nobuie and very much in the vogue of the early masters of this lofty name. I doubt with some confidence that this piece is one actually made by the Nidai Nobuie, though the mei here is quite close to the "Futoji-mei" of the Nidai. The workmanship is excellent, featuring lightly engraved amida-yasuri as a backdrop for the bolder carving of several kiri-mon on the omote, and vines and leaves on the ura. The guard is notable and striking for a few different reasons. One of these is the deep yohkan color tightly associated with Nobuie, and apparently not easy to mimic, as it is not commonly encountered outside of Nobuie work. It is a color highly valued by many Japanese collectors. Additionally, the tsuba is quite thick, at almost/about 6mm, and is heavy in hand. The shape of the sword guard is one that the Nobuie smiths used with some frequency, especially the Nidai, and the fact that the piece is ubu (no hitsu-ana) adds a lot to the presentation of the motif and to the tsuba overall. Yakite work is more pronounced on the ura than on the omote, enhancing the beauty of that side, especially. The color and yakite are complemented by the tsuba's fine, natural patina, and by its excellent condition, as well as by gentlly-expressive tekkotsu in the rim. I think this piece is most likely an early-Edo (pre-1640) work, mostly likely created by a top student in an early-Edo atelier. The details noted above speak to a strong Nidai influence, and the mei is certainly much closer to his than it is to the Shodai's. This is a really good tsuba with a lot of presence, owing to its thickness, weight, color, shape, motif, treatment, and condition. Dimensions are 8cm x 7cm x 5.5 - 6mm. If I'm wrong, and this IS a Nidai Nobuie tsuba, whoever gets it is getting an all-time bargain. If you've ever wanted a real Nobuie-type swordguard but have been put off by the $five-figure prices they command, this is a real chance. *Note: I have no idea if the tsuba has been submitted to shinsa. $1,450, plus shipping.

Well, it seems I must have Marius write my sales posts for me! Thanks, Marius. Tsuba is now SOLD.

Tsuba #2 This is a beautiful sword guard featuring sukashi of "rays" in addition to gently-incised lines expressing the same. The motif here may be referencing the rays of Amida Buddhism. This tsuba boasts a subtly masterful shape, measuring 8.1cm x 7.9 cm. It is a very thin piece, just 2.5mm at the nakago-ana, and 2mm at the rim. The color and condition of the metal are both excellent. As with the tsuba above, if this, too, is an early example of Hirata Hikozo's iron guards, it is a fortunate find. $900 plus shipping.

Offered today are a pair of iron tsuba, both of which have Higo characteristics, and more specifically hint at being from the hand of Hirata Hikozo. It must be remembered that, while he is referred to as a Higo tsubako, Hirata Hikozo lived and worked in Higo province for only some three years, from 1632 to 1635, when he died. So, however long he lived, he spent relatively little time in Higo. His connection to Hosokawa Sansai (the Higo daimyo from 1632 to 1645), however, extends back well earlier than this; it was Sansai who brought Hikozo with him to Higo when he became the daimyo there in 1632. The degree to which Hikozo brought his designs with him to Higo may never be known, but these two tsuba may be examples of his earlier work in iron. Hikozo is much more well known for his incredible works in soft metal, but he is known to have created some pieces in iron; in fact, the only known signed Hikozo tsuba is iron. Tsuba #1: This is an eight-lobed sword guard measuring 8cm x 7.6cm x 4mm at the nakago-ana and 2.5mm at the rim. The nakago-ana on this piece is very large, indicating that it was fitted to a quite a sizable katana. Two extended rectangular sukashi are adjacent to the nakago-ana, and two udenuki-ana are present below it. The lobes are scalloped along the edges to create a beautifully modeled effect. The condition of this tsuba is excellent. There is a small notch cut out of one of the rectangles to accomodate a kuzuka. If this is in fact an early Hikozo work, it is quite the bargain. $650 plus shipping.

Kiri-mon Owari tsuba is SOLD.

Kiri-mon Owari tsuba is on HOLD.

Images for Owari tsuba #2:

Offered today are two Owari tsuba. I will provide descriptions for these separately below. 1. This tsuba depicts a kiri-mon motif designed in such a way as to depict a family crest, in all likelihood. The tsuba is iron, ji-sukashi, marugata, and dates to the later Momoyama or earliest Edo Period. Tekkotsu are present in the rim, and the finishing of the sword guard is done in a light tsuchime together with what appears to be yakite here and there. Dimensions are 78.5 x 77 x 5mm at the rim. This piece was included in the 2015 Kokusai Tosogu Kai catalogue, 11th International Convention and Exhibition. $550, plus shipping. 2. This iron sword guard is papered to Owari, and features a bold cross (ju-mon) design punctuated with inome in ko-sukashi. The particularly interesting aspect of this piece is that it is a design known to have been favored by the Yagyu, as it appears in the Owari Yagyu daimyo's illustrated inventory of tsuba designs. And, in fact, the appearance of the metal is reminiscent of Yagyu guards in that the surface has something of the "sandy" or "cloudy" quality associated with Yagyu works, and signs of striated laminations may be seen in places on the rim. The ju-mon motif has strong associations with the buke, especially in Satsuma Province. I believe this tsuba dates to the early-Edo Period. As with the other tsuba offered here, this one was included in the 2015 KTK catalogue. Dimensions are 73.5 x 69.5 x 5mm at the rim. Such dimensions are also consistent with Yagyu guards. $850, plus shipping.

Hi Luca, I've just downloaded your article. Looking forward to reading it! I'd love to see more of these well-researched, subject-specific articles on tosogu like this. Kudos, Luca, and many thanks for your efforts! Steve

Hi Michael, I think we're saying the same thing, though. Context matters, yes? I don't see how "things look different" based on your example. If anything, it reinforces my point. I would say, too, that one can't as easily compare blades and fittings. Blades were seen as important creations and signed (as such) from very early times, as you indicate, while the first regularly signed tsuba (which practice points to their being seen as elevated objects vis-a-vis their prior reception and primary function as simply "dogu" or "tools," for the most part) didn't appear until the latter half of the 16th century. But I like your example, because it strengthens the idea of considering objects not just for their material substance, but for their context and resulting cultural and historical importance. An additional statement to make here would be to note that such esteemed and, one would think, learned men as Gotoba and Hosokawa Tadaoki chose these craftsmen (among the many they could have selected) to work for them. In other words, I think we ought to be considering the fact that certain craftsmen, by virtue of their having been singled out for the honor of working for (being retained by) great lords (or emperors), have their importance elevated in the world of swords and fittings. This is part of the context of which I speak.

Agree with Thomas completely. For twice that I'd have snapped it up in an instant. Hirata Hikozo's guards are the ultimate in Tea-Culture soft-metal tsuba. And it must be remembered, Hosokawa Tadaoki, in addition to being a very active and successful military commander who saw dozens of battles in the field, was a very serious Tea Man. This mattered -- a lot -- in the times in which he lived.

I think what has to be recognized is the critical importance of context. Hirata Hikozo worked directly for Hosokawa Takaoki (Sansai), a highly significant figure in Japanese history. Futher, Hikozo was the elder tsubako among the "Big Four" Higo tsuba smiths (Shimizu Jimbei, Nishigaki Kanshiro, and Hayashi Matashichi being the others) that all worked for Tadaoki, and later, under his son. The combination of this hugely important history and the stupendous skill (and talent) and aesthetic sensibilities of Hikozo (for my money, easily the finest soft-metal tsubako ever) brings his tsuba to this level (and price point). The context in which much later artists worked was radically different, and was so far removed from the times when the Buke were active as warriors that their works must be regarded in this light. Hikozo died in 1635, which means he was born and lived his formative years in the brilliance, drama, and high tension of the Azuchi-Momoyama Period. All the cultural magnificence and political strife of this era constituted his milieu. A tsubako working at this time, for such an extremely important figure as Hosokawa Tadaoki, creates a contextual "magic" that the tsubako of the later, much more sedate Edo years don't enjoy. For me, personally, this context is everything. While artists like Natsuo and Goto Ichijo are brilliant in their technical mastery of material, the context in which they lived -- including a far lesser actively functional and semiotic importance of the sword and its fittings -- means that their work can't be regarded in the same way as that of Hikozo and others of the greatest tsubako of the Azuchi-Momoyama and very early-Edo Periods. The above just expresses my personal viewpoint toward simply saying that I understand the regard in which the tsuba in question is held, and why it would command the price it does. One other note in response to Stephen: I certainly can understand your feelings about six-figure tsuba. But considered in another light, if we view the very finest tsuba (including their contexts, of course) as pinnacle expressions of sculptural art in world history (which they are), and when we remember what sorts of sums highly-regarded Western artists (e.g. van Gogh, etc...) realize at auction, it could actually be argued that a $100,000 Kaneiye or Nobuiye tsuba is a bargain. But I digress here into philosophical rabbit holes concerning (relative) values of works of art...

Dan, You ask Brian why he (and others) are so totally against the idea (if, in fact, that is accurate to say) that cast iron tsuba were made as a common practice in the Edo Period. I can't speak for him, but I suspect it may have something to do with the first point I made in my initial post: you rely heavily on a deductive approach instead of an inductive one, and appear to be guilty of wanting it to be true that cast iron tsuba were regularly made in the Edo Period. Wanting a particular outcome to be true prior to sufficient evidence being produced for that outcome is usually a fatal flaw in research methods and practices. It is tightly associated with the begging-the-question logical fallacy. Your words are pretty damning evidence of this deductive/begging-the-question approach (wherein you assume the very premise you are arguing for is true, rather than taking the much superior approach of not knowing IF it is true, and then using a rigorous inductive approach to see if it is): You don't seem to realize how logically problematic your words here are. You say you are "certain of this and have no doubt," and that "...it will definitely happen." And you say this based on "the results on this thread." But the results on this thread have not provided much if any concrete, incontrovertible proof (as opposed to hearsay and (often way- after-the fact/ narratives) that cast iron tsuba were regularly produced during the Edo Period. This more than suggests how much you want this idea to be true. Why is it that you so very much want, even need this to be true? And what, exactly, would it mean if it were true? And if it weren't? What is the deeper significance of the truth of one outcome versus the other? In any event, I suspect that no small part of the resistance some may have to your viewpoint has to do with your approach to it.

You know, Dan, I agree with you. I know that, at times, my own tone can come across harsher and more aggressive than I intend. I think this is partly due to the nature of electronic communication, whereby, for some reason, tones can be seen as colder than they were meant (Isn't this why emojis were invented?). In some cases, though, if the content of a post (its actual ideas and academic arguments) incites a clearly dismissive response, especially if that response does not seem to have been borne out of careful reflection and consideration), I myself can react too aggressively. So, I apologize for that. However, I stand by my original post here, and the ideas/arguments it presents. Thanks for the post, Dan.

Jeremy, You're wrong. On several counts. We'll start at the top with this one: "Nobody is going to have a sudden revelation that they've been wasting their time when they read somebody's opinion on social media that they're wasting their time." No one -- ever -- has been exposed to an idea or argument, whether on social media or elsewhere, and due to that exposure, considered their own priorities, values, choices, and behavior, and from that consideration, recognized that the idea/argument they'd seen was right, or at least useful? Nobody? What an asinine statement. As far as "letting" people pursue what interests them goes, sure. Of course. I never said or suggested people shouldn't be allowed to pursue a particular line of inquiry. This isn't about "letting" people do what they want; it's about WHY they want to do it. "The definition of a 'waste of time' is highly subjective." Yup. It is. If you want to spend 10,000 hours mastering the art of juggling a dozen snapping turtles, and in your subjective viewpoint, this is a highly valuable pursuit worthy of spending so many hours on, by all means, exercise your freedom to chase such a dream. The point is not, and never has been, that what constitutes a waste of time is objectively decidable; it is that, because it is not objectively decidable, it must be argued for, or, of course, ignored altogether. I have already said why I think my position is worth arguing for, so I won't repeat it here. You say at the end of your second paragraph that "And, if new people take the time to read these threads, they will see both sides of the argument for themselves and probably be at least cautious if and when they decide to purchase a tsuba." Your comment here only reinforces my point that knowing when cast iron tsuba were first made is irrelevant. The value in the general topic of cast iron tsuba is limited to knowing how to identify them in order to avoid them. You then go on to say, "IMO, a certifiable Edo-period cast tsuba would not be valueless. It would be very valuable to a lot of collectors and historians just because of how rare it would be and the historical implications that it would carry." Rarity, by itself, is a highly dubious value. Rarity attached to an object with intrinsic value is another matter. But in this latter case, the overwhelmingly primary value is the object's intrinsic worthiness, not its rarity. Genuine Shodai and Nidai Nobuiye tsuba are not particularly rare. However, they have off-the charts intrinsic value. On the other hand, a certifiably authenticated mid-Edo tsuba made of tanuki feces would be an extraordinarily rare find, a true treasure! But of course, this is moot, since no such certifiably authenticated tsuba exists. We could only hope to stumble upon such an exciting unicorn. Rarity, attached to an object with zero intrinsic value, becomes meaningless. Cast iron tsuba possess zero intrinsic value. Do they possess extrinsic value? Well, the "historical implications" you refer to could count as extrinsic value, though I cannot see how the degree of this value would be anything but very low. If there are meaningful "historical implications," what, precisely, would these be, and exactly what value would they have? Can you identify these for us? And finally, you return to your start point: "But, saying something to the effect of "just stop it already..." isn't going to work. If these chains are proof of anything, it's that the back and forth will continue into infinity. What you mean is, "saying something to the effect of 'just stop it already...' isn't going to work" FOR YOU. You know, subjectively speaking. But you have no idea if it may not work for others. You are projecting your own subjective response onto others, imagining that "nobody is going to have a sudden revelation." Your post smacks of a knee-jerk response borne out of emotion-based indignation, rather than being anything carefully considered. And if "the back and forth will continue into infinity," about a topic (when cast iron tsuba first were made) whose intrinsic value is so low, then "these chains are proof," too, of the need to have a crowbar jammed into these uselessly ever-turning wheels. The expression, "There's no there, there" has seldom been more applicable to a topic in this Tosogu forum.

You're contradicting yourself here. Surely you see this. And, I would just say that if a few people, via my time-wasting efforts, recognize that their researching pursuits might have better goals -- concerning aspects of Japanese art and culture that possess higher intrinsic value -- then that time will not actually have been wasted (what a concept!). For example, I think Glen (GRC) absolutely stands out in the Tosogu forum as a thinker and researcher, who shows sustained focus, rigor, discipline, and doggedness in his efforts, as well as sharp analytical skills. Very impressive. I would love to see him target topics and questions with higher intrinsic value than can possibly be found in those concerning cast iron tsuba. If that were to happen, then my time would not have been wasted. I realize that even responding to your comment is likely a massive waste of my time, but (shrug), I'm in a time-wasting mood.

And now to Glen : You set up your first post by saying, "Here are some of my thoughts on this, regardless of the “value” of the objects in question…" Right off the bat, we have a bit of a problem. For me, disregarding the value of the objects in question is itself a questionable stance. This is partly due to a matter of practical considerations: we all have limited resources in time, energy, focus, concentration, etc... Why devote hours and hours of these resources in a direction where the relative intrinsic value of the objects is so low, and where the value of what is or can be learned is so exceedingly minor? The initial premise you seem to be starting with is that the "'value' of the objects in question" can or should be divorceable from the various investments in focus, time, and energy spent investigating them, and/or that any inquiry at all has some measure of substantive intrinsic value (knowledge for knowledge's sake). But if you spend dozens or hundreds of hours researching X, those are hours that could have been spent researching Y, when Y is intrinsically a far more valuable pursuit. And while knowledge for knowledge's sake can have some (usually trivial) value, it pales next to the pursuit of knowledge where that knowledge is attached to something of infinitely greater importance to the field in question. Let me ask: Just because something can be researched, does that mean it should? Time and effort and energy spent researching one thing is time, effort, and energy not spent researching others. So, to your Item 1 in your first post, I would agree that dispelling myths is critically important in this field, since there are so many that are pervasive and pernicious. But why not choose battles that matter more? Unless one has boundless amounts of time and energy, one cannot do the work to dispell all the myths flying about. You do describe a proper inductive methodology, however, which is great to see. "Gathering as much evidence as possible and 'letting the chips fall where they may," as you say, is exactly the right approach. You then say: "If the evidence gathered ends up supporting or refuting any aspect of the existing views on the topic, or reveals that there is still no definitive answer, then why not try to find out? Gaining any knowledge at all on the topic is better than to leave it unexplored." Why not try to find out? Again, is the topic worthy of such effort? And time? And thought? And energy? When there are so many better topics to devote oneself to? Really? I would argue that this topic (when cast iron tsuba were first made in Japan) is not. My words here echo what I've said above about value, both of the object of focus, intrinsically, and of our own time and effort. Should a blade scholar and connoisseur spend hours and hours studying the nakago shapes of rapidly-made cheap Muromachi Period swords meant for export? Why would he? As I have stressed, if there is value in such efforts such that knowledge of how to avoid being fooled by would-be high-quality items is gained, then those efforts have merit, I think. But to pursue something like that "for knowledge's sake" does not. Your second item again returns to the idea of disregarding a tsuba's "value, or lack there-of, in terms of their 'collectability'." I've already spoken at length on this. But just to emphasize via a question: is it really the case that ALL possible topics and sub-topics pertaining to tsuba are equally worthy of intense scrutiny and research and critical inquiry? Just for the value of knowledge for knowledge's sake? Item 3 in your first post states: "Learning about when such techniques began or were amplified, allows for the potential to gain further insights into the cultural, technological and economic conditions that led to those technical shifts. Why wouldn’t someone want to add to that understanding? It would be adding one more piece of information into a larger whole." Three responses here: 1. if the techniques and technical shifts in question result in a product whose intrinsic value is low, then the value of the knowledge of those techniques is reduced (not absent, maybe, but reduced). In the case of attempting to determine when iron tsuba were first cast, the intrinsic value of the product created is indeed low. 2. How, exactly, are we to "learn about when such techniques (casting of iron tsuba) began or were amplified"? What methods shall we rely on to determine this? Printed reference materials would seem not to be of much help, since none survive (apparently) that would have served as contemporary records of the techniques used and when they began. Can tsuba suspected of being cast be analyzed, whether invasively or otherwise, to determine the age of the item with precision? If the answer is no, then how can we accomplish this worthy goal? 3. As to why someone wouldn't want to add to that understanding, again, its a matter of the relative value of doing so, and the investments in time, energy, effort, etc... involved. Item 4: Well, if investigative efforts into the literature could result in a reliable, confirmed, original/primary source, then sure, that would be good to find, even for this topic, I guess. But if initial efforts show that there aren't any such sources, and that all the literature in question that mentions cast iron tsuba production and its origins itself begins with publication dates in the 20th century, then this effort becomes futile. This is even more the case when one recognizes the pervasiveness of iemoto-ism or "sensei-ism" in so much of the literature in this field. This factor cannot be overstated as a critical consideration, whether or not one is applying AI-assistance. Clearly, there is a potent philosophical element involved in determining value, whether we are discussing the value of objects or the value of our research and critical inquiry efforts. For me, cast iron tsuba are valueless, somewhat akin to painting by numbers. And so, the sole value (for me) to be gained in looking at or studying cast iron guards is to know how to spot them in order to shun them. And that means that when they were made is irrelevant.

First, to respond to Dan: I'm not quite sure what the commentary regarding the ingenuity of the Japanese craftsman is supposed to be achieving in this discussion. If you're suggesting that they were so clever as to be able to invent casting processes and then master them so fully as to produce iron guards that looked 100% forged (which I've never seen any evidence of), what does that have to do with when such tsuba were made? Could such testing determine dates of production when the object in question is steel/iron? If so, has this ever been done on a tsuba whose presentation was so poor that it was suspected of being cast and an Edo Period product? What were the results? And if such testing cannot, in fact, reliably and accurately determine the age of an iron/steel sword guard, what is the point of the comment that "the only way to tell for certain if a tsuba is hand forged or cast is to subject it to non-invasive or invasive metallurgical testing"? Setting aside the veracity (or lack thereof) of that statement for a moment, you seem to be conflating the matter of whether iron tsuba were cast and how one can determine this with when they were. Since the bulk of this topic as pursued in this thread has been mostly focused on the question of when, rather than whether or how (although the "how" could inform the investigation of the "when," I realize), I don't really find this content of your post here very directly relevant. As to the matter of the popularity of this thread, oh yes, for sure it has garnered a lot of interest. As I say, I have followed it, too (though my reasons have had much more to do with observing the analytical processes used than with any interest in cast tsuba, outside of the practical matter of knowing how to spot them). However, I suspect that the majority of this thread's followers are mostly interested in the general subject of cast tsuba in order to determine how to identify them (if this is possible without the testing you mention), with the purpose being that of avoiding them at all costs. As I said in my earlier post, though, if this is the primary reason for the interest in this thread, the question of when tsuba were first cast in Japan, regularly or otherwise, doesn't matter. As to the questions you ask at the end of your post, they both return to the matter of whether a tsuba is cast, not when, with a heavy underlying intimation filtering through both that a tsuba that turns out to be cast is a negative outcome. Both questions exemplify and reinforce my point that what matters is whether an iron tsuba is cast versus forged. Neither of your questions have anything to do with when a given sword guard was made. The answers to your questions, incidentally, are "Yes, you damn well should be," and "I'd use it as a coaster or as a doorstop, if I didn't simply throw it away." I would also go back to the drawing board to redouble my efforts to recognize the signs of cast works, although, if what you say is true that "the only way to tell for certain if a tsuba is hand forged or cast is to subject it to non-invasive or invasive metallurgical testing," then there would be no point in such efforts after all.

I have been following this topic for a good while now. Along the way, I have observed what appears to be a fundamental flaw in the approach taken by some to the question of when cast iron tsuba were (first) made, whether as a relatively rare occurrence or as a regular practice. Connected to this, a particular gnawing question has only grown in strength. And with these latest posts, a third concern has arisen. So, I have arrived at the point where I feel compelled to join the fray. To begin, early on in this long thread (as well as in the "last word on cast iron tsuba thread), it became abundantly evident that a certain outcome or "reality" was sought by some -- namely, that it would be acknowledged and recognized by all (or most) that cast iron tsuba were indeed made in the Edo Period, likely as a regular practice, from perhaps as early as the 18th (or even the 17th) century. This position, for some reason, seems to have been embraced with some degree of investment in its being taken as not merely a valid possibility, but as a probability, if not even a certainty. That is to say, some appear to have wanted it to be true that cast iron tsuba were made (as a regular practice) in the Edo Period. Wanting something to be true and then hunting for evidence to support it is a deeply problematic approach in analysis and scholarship. It is a fundamental logical fallacy that immediately throws deep suspicion on whatever "outcome" may emerge from the efforts involved. Such an approach is deductive, rather than inductive, and is therefore less stable, right off the bat, because a deductive approach utterly relies on the initial premise (i.e. cast iron tsuba were make during the Edo Period) being true (or very highly likely). The subsequent seeking of evidence to support and sustain that premise is then methodologically compromised by the biases, whether conscious or unconscious, that will infect the selection and analysis of whatever evidence ("evidence") is uncovered. Any conclusions drawn via this approach necessarily become dubious due to the begging-the-question logical fallacy attaching to the fact that the initial premise remains unproven. When it is seen by others that a deductive approach has been used, there will immediately be doubt about the conclusions reached, since it will simultaneously be suspected that bias will have infected the process by which evidence was found, analyzed, and accepted. In short, if someone wants something to be true, and then goes about hunting for evidence to support it, whatever conclusions are then reached are, at best, in serious doubt (or certainly should be). An inductive approach to topics like these will always be the safer, more stable, more reliable one. Do not begin with any premise, assumption, or belief ahead of time. A good scholar will formulate well-considered questions to pursue the most persuasive answers to, without caring in any personally invested way what those answers might be. Then, the gathering of evidence can commence and proceed with biases having a much lesser chance of contaminating the outcomes reached. Analyzing this evidence -- again, with no personal investment in where that analysis goes -- allows for a thesis to be arrived at inductively, rather than one begun with based on a potentially shaky premise (deductive). As far as I can tell, deductive approaches have been far more prevalent in this thread than inductive ones. In fact, I'm not sure I can recall any inductive reasoning being employed at all (but I can't be sure, and I haven't the time to comb through 10 pages, plus all the content of the "last word" thread on this topic). Side note: Sherlock Holmes actually employed inductive reasoning far more often than any deductive reasoning in his investigations, despite the popular idea that he relied on his deductive skills... This brings me to some of the most recent posts, those concerning the AI-located references/literature on the subject. The much bigger issue -- a far more fundamental one -- regarding the many references that the AI search turned up, is that it doesn't seem to be recognized that most, if not all of these references are simply parroting a single original reference work, one that first made the claim that cast iron tsuba were (regularly?) made from the mid-Edo Period on. It is not exactly a revelation to observe that Japanese reference works on nihonto and tosogu are notorious for repeating what sensei said. Again and again and again and again. Iemoto-ism has long been a thorn in the side of those looking to engage in and apply sound scholarly approaches to this field. So, to find dozens of references that all claim and "reinforce" the "fact" that cast iron tsuba were made from the mid-Edo Period essentially means nothing, even besides the fact that AI-generated results are not to be trusted. We could locate a thousand reference works that all agree that cast iron sword guards were being made, even as a regular practice, in the 18th-century, but if all of these references are simply repeating what the prior reference stated, the evidentiary value here is 0.00. What would need to be uncovered is evidence in the form of an unquestionably reliable written work (preferably more than just one) contemporary to the time that the casting of iron tsuba was being done so that the practice could have been witnessed directly and thusly recorded, again, by a reliable recorder of the practice. Short of this, to have some 20th-century reference work claim -- as a statement of fact -- that cast iron tsuba were made some 200 or 300 years prior, without providing any sort of concrete, uncontrovertible evidence, amounts to nothing more than empty words. Until the Holy Grail in the form of an indisputably reliable contemporary record (or two, or three) is discovered, reference books -- as a form of evidence for the production of cast iron tsuba in Mid-Edo Japan -- will not function in that role. This leads me to the third part of this post, that concerning the perplexing question that has loomed over this thread the whole time: Who cares if cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo Period? Outside of some sort of peculiar curiosity regarding exactly when certain technologies arrived in a certain place (curiosity for curiosity's sake), who cares? If the whole point for collectors, connoisseurs, and scholars of tsuba in learning to recognize the signs of an iron tsuba having been cast is to do so in order to avoid such tsuba, what difference does it made when it was made? It is generally, if not universally agreed that cast iron tsuba are emphatically not worthy of being collected (unless one has a quirky sense of collecting focus, or one wants of collection of What Must Be Avoided). Certainly, no such collection would be received as merit-worthy. *Here, I use the term "collection" as a gathering of objects that has been curated via processes of serious study and scholarly analysis; I do not use this term to mean or be a synonym for "accumulation." There is a vast difference between the two. Since it is inarguable that cast iron tsuba are seen by virtually all as (incomparably) inferior to forged works, and since this means that the value in learning to recognize tsuba as having been cast is that doing so will allow us to avoid them like the plague, why should we care when such things were made? I would find an 18-century cast iron tsuba (if they really exist) to be no more or no less unimportant and unworthy than one cast in the 20th century. Both would be equally useless to me. And, lest someone argue that 18th-century tsuba (if they exist) would have value as a mid-Edo artifact, this position collapses as soon as we remember that if what is sought is a mid-Edo artifact, one should pursue one of the forged iron guards made then. Even an utterly mediocre forged iron tsuba is greatly preferable to a contemporary cast iron work (if such a thing exists) from the mid- or late-Edo Period. And so, to me, this is a topic whose intrinsic value does not warrant the efforts to determine whether cast iron tsuba were made in the Edo Period, and, if so, exactly when. Beyond this, even if it did, a deductive approach used in the effort to determine the answers to those questions doesn't work. And reference books here are next to useless, even if AI-generated results were infallible, because none can provide direct and reliable witness to cast iron tsuba having been made in the Edo Period.

19th-century Tembo tsuba, in all likelihood.