Steve Waszak

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.

Planning on it for sure.

Historical and cultural importance play large roles here. Matashichi was a top-level smith who made tsuba for Hosokawa Sansai. That alone is HUGE. It is said that the Shodai Nobuiye, as well as Yamasaka Kichibei, worked for Oda Nobunaga. These kinds of associations carry enormous cachet. It gives a level of relevance to the importance of the smith historically and culturally that 19th-century smiths can't really match. Then there is the matter of aesthetic sensibilities. For many Westerners, aesthetic principles such as yuugen, shibusa, sabi, mono no aware, wabi, etc... are elusive and cannot be (fully) appreciated. Such aesthetic values are often seen by Japanese connoisseurs as much more effectively embodied in and expressed by "simple iron" tsuba than in and by the flashy, bling-y, soft-metal Edo-kinko that appeals to the great majority of Westerners. A fairly direct analogy may be seen in ceramics, where a 19th-century Imari-ware piece will "obviously" be "superior" to a "simple," misshapen, distorted, incompletely-glazed 16th-century tea bowl, yet the Imari-ware work might sell for $2,000, while the "amateurish" Momoyama tea bowl sells for $100,000. The combination of these values -- historical and cultural importance along with aesthetic sensibilities and taste -- may be linked with provenance to best explain the very high prices realized by what are seen as top-level pieces. As often as not, it is the "simple" works, whether in iron tsuba or in Tea ceramics, that command the loftiest figures of all.

The question, really, is whether this particular tsuba is Shodai Hikozo or Nidai Hikozo. I have my doubts that this is Shodai work, as the plate comes across as a bit too "tame" or lacking in the vitality that usually infuses Shodai workmanship. The plate here is relatively quiet. This doesn't mean it can't be from the hand of the Shodai, but in the end I suspect it is a Nidai tsuba. I suppose the "low" hammer price may be explained by its being seen as either a lower-end Shodai work or in fact that of the Nidai. Just as an aside, my personal view of Shodai Hirata Hikozo tsuba is that they are -- at their best -- the finest soft-metal sword guards ever made. That is a topic for a different thread, though...

Tsuba are sold.

Tsuba #2, 3, and 4.

Price drop and special deal. The following four tsuba are still available, all with price reductions: #1. Ohno tsuba. Owari Province. Iron. Mokko with snowflake motif. Profuse tekkotsu. Early Edo Period. 71.5 x 65 x 5mm. Price drop from $250 to $200. #2. Strong iron ji-sukashi tsuba. 74 x 72 x 4mm. Price drop from $150 to $125. #3. Iron ji-sukashi tsuba with Aoi mon, perhaps a Tokugawa crest allusion. 73 x 73 x 4mm. Price drop from $125 to $115. #4. Iron ji-sukashi tsuba. 65 x 65 x 3.5mm. Price drop from $100 to $75. Special deal: all four tsuba for $400, plus shipping.

Sorry about that. I'd thought I'd get a message telling me my inbox was full; I hadn't realized it. Thanks for letting me know. I've just cleared a bunch of PMs. #25 is now on HOLD.

#24 is on HOLD.

Weekend price drop on the following tsuba: #23: From $300 to $250 (a bargain for a strong, early-Edo Ohno tsuba) #24: From $200 to $175 (a silly-low price for this tsuba) #25: From $450 to $225 (a very good price for a large tsuba with good metal, and a Nobuie mei... ) Prices above do not include shipping. I may be able to come down a little if someone wants a package deal, but these prices are already low...

Great! Thanks for letting me know it has arrived safely, Brent. Enjoy your tsuba! Steve

Tsuba # 26 is on HOLD. Tsuba #27 has SOLD.

Price reductions on a few of the above tsuba: #23, the Ohno tsuba with the snowflake motif, now $300. #24, the Kikugata tsuba with the kirimon motif, now $200. #25, the large tsuba with the umbrella motif and "Nobuie" mei, now $450. #26, the large tsuba with the brass inlay and silver fukurin, now $250. All prices above do not include shipping.

Tsuba #28 is SOLD.

There are still about a dozen tsuba available, but they are going fast. If there are particular pieces that interest you, and/or if you are interested in putting together 3-4 of these in a package, let me know.

#18 has SOLD.

Tsuba #22 is on HOLD.

Here is the final group of tsuba I am helping my friend move: Tsuba #26. 8.3 cm x 8 cm x 4mm. Brass inlay (two colors). The inlay is almost completely intact -- just three dots missing from the leaves. This guard features what appears to be a silver "rope" fukurin. $325. Tsuba #27. 7.8 cm x 7.7 cm x 5mm. Kyo-sukashi style sword guard. $175. Tsuba #28. 7.6 x 7.4 x 6mm. Interesting alternating diagonal carving on rim (shifting from lobe to lobe). Note the chrysanthemum punchmark in the tagane at the top of the nakago-ana on the omote. Shakudo glides at the hitsu-ana. $250.

Okay, resuming with more tsuba now. . Tsuba #23. Ohno tsuba. Early Edo. Pronounced tekkotsu with snowflake motif. Mokko-gata. Excellent condition. 71.5 cm x 6.5 cm x 5mm. $375. Tsuba #24. Kiku-gata/motif. Fine kebori on the leaves. Excellent condition. 7.2 cm x 7.2 cm x 4.5mm. $250. Tsuba #25. Large maru-gata sword guard with motif of an umbrella. Fine tsuchime complemented by a light amida-yasuri on the plate. Beautiful color to this iron. There is a signature on the right side of the seppa-dai reading "Nobuie," though this is hard to see with the abrasions to the metal there. The rectangular hitsuana are very pleasing. 8.5 cm x 8.4 cm x 2.5mm. This is a strong tsuba. $650.

HI Brent, Sorry about that. I just cleared some space in my PM inbox. In any event, I am holding tsuba #20 for you.