Steve Waszak

Really too bad. Never a problem with them. Always quick, polite correspondence, excellent service. Sigh...

Ah, yes, I hadn't scrolled down far enough to catch the dimensions. Thanks, Pietro. Yes, these dimensions are in keeping with what I would expect from an actual period bowl. Revival works usually have a smaller diameter across the rim, often 12cm or less. All considered --including photos of the rim (thanks for these, Ed) -- and working only from photos, I would say with some if not full confidence that this is a Momoyama Period work. Beautiful chawan. A couple of years ago, there was another Momoyama Kuro-Oribe chawan that went for nearly 3.5 million yen. It was spectacular. Kind of amazing they're ever available at all, really... Cheers, Steve

Hi Ed, I know the feeling. All too well. My sympathies. There was a Yamakichibei tsuba up for auction once. A really good one. I put a really good bid on it, which turned out to be laughably inadequate (it ended at over a million yen, just as this chawan did). This bowl does seem to be a worthy piece all right (would still like to see photos of the rim, though, as well as to know the dimensions, as later "homage" works are often significantly smaller than the real thing). Thanks for these extra photos. Actual Period Kuro-Oribe chawan available for acquisition are very rarely encountered, in my experience. Thanks for posting this, Ed. Cheers, Steve

Ed, Thanks for posting. Do you have any other photos of this chawan? Dimensions? I'm wondering if this is really Momoyama... Cheers, Steve

Thinking of you, Ford. Really sorry to hear this, needless to say, and wishing you the best. Very glad you're getting the attention necessary: that's not something to take lightly and brush off. And really sorry to hear of the negativity you've had to endure. Here's hoping that these weeks of rest will bring some clarity in any areas it may be sought. Cheers, mate. Steve

Nobuie. Steel. 8.2 cm. Yattsu Mokko-gata. The thickness of the tsuba swells considerably from the nakago-ana (4 mm) to the mimi (6 mm), creating an "expansive" effect to the motif, which I believe to be a stylized lotus blossom. Tsuchime-finished surface. The signature is of the type that is referred to as "Futoji-mei," attributed by most scholars to Nidai Nobuie. I do not know if the plugs are solid gold or another material with a gold sheeting applied. Momoyama Period.

...and let us remember, too: sometimes, it really is only the bath water that needs to be thrown out, rather than the baby, the soap, and the whole damn tub. :beer:

Hi Ford, Okay, well, I guess we'll just always have different requirements for our epistemological confidence about this topic. If I ever make it out your way, or you mine, we'll have to sit down over a bottle of 18-year-old something and hash this out properly! As can be seen by my ponderous posts, fora have their limitations, and given that I have a lot more speculation/circumstantial evidence than what I've scratched the surface of here, a good two- (or four-?) hour conversation, books and tsuba at the ready, is what we're primed for... Cheers

Ian, Well, two examples, both from later periods, hardly suggest that "information is [usually or even often] there in full when somebody took the trouble to look for it" to any degree where we should be suspicious about any lack of such information pertaining to 16th-century smiths. Your singular example of the armorers for the Maeda functions as the exception that proves the rule, or at least, certainly could. Think about it: there is no more illustrious name in Tsuba than Nobuie. Those two early smiths, the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei Nobuie, represent the pinnacle of steel tsuba making in the history of Japan, with good reason. IF the "information [were] there in full [for] somebody [to take] the trouble to look for it" as concerns the "real names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...[as Ford would like]," of these two unsurpassed masters of the craft, how on earth could/would it be explained that far more information than merely real names, dates of birth and death, and where they lived wouldn't be known? There would be no other smith more deserving of such dogged and relentless inquiry, investigation, and interrogation than these Nobuie. And yet, virtually nothing is known (as fact) about them, biographically. This would seem to be the rule, not the exception: how many 16th-century tsubako do we have reams of reliable biographical information on? Are there any at all? Essentially, what we have as regards the Nobuie are their sword guards...and also critically examined, carefully considered, informed speculation that allows us to arrive at likelihoods, however tenuous or otherwise. Even the most tenuous likelihoods reached in this manner, though, are a far cry from knowing "nothing" about them. The guards themselves say A LOT. *Note: my comments about "useless speculation" were not directed toward you, Ian. Ford had implied earlier that speculation carried little if any value. Since this sentiment is incorrect, and since much of his post appears to have relied on it, I needed to refer to it again.

Ian, Running out the door here, but real quick: 1. Your first point doesn't really counter-argue my position. You say "some of the craftsmen working during the Edo period and earlier did leave...details..." Sure, no doubt. Some. During the Edo Period especially. Some does not equal most, nor of course, does it equal all. And I specifically make my points concerning PRE-Edo workers. Your Muneyasu example doesn't accomplish anything to undermine my concerns, Ian: you note that he is, "admittedly, a Bakamatsu smith." So that's 19th-century, some two hundred and fifty years plus after the period I am speaking of. I did say that post-1700, information was more plentiful and probably reliable, didn't I? I'm not sure what your Muneyasu illustration has to do with the early Nobuie smiths. It seems not to be germane to the points I was making. If anything, it helps to support them. 2. At the end, you observe that the problem of the chronology between workers who used the same name persists, saying that "[t]he only resolution of this problem would be if someone, whose dates are known, wrote about an identifiable signed tsuba." Yes, perhaps so. But when you use "resolution," you seem, too, to be speaking of arriving at 100% known fact, and would appear to be discounting anything short of that as useless speculation. This line of thinking, as I said earlier, is problematic. There is a reason that circumstantial evidence is known to convict: if you have enough of it, especially in the absence of any other reasonably plausible explanation for the existence of the evidence, probabilities may be arrived at with some confidence. And I'll say it again: PRE-EDO, much of what we understand about swords and fittings is based on informed speculation, circumstantial evidence, and logical likelihoods, if not necessities. So, sorry, Ian, but your points here don't really take away from anything I've said, as far as I can see. Cheers, Steve

Ford, I'm pretty sure we've covered this Nobuie thing in the past (though a quick search didn't turn up our dialogue on the subject). Anyway, while I like a good heretic as much as the next guy, I'm afraid your dubiousness regarding the matter of Nobuie doesn't get much traction. There are several problems with what you say above. First, your saying that you're "still waiting to see some actual evidence of whose these supposed first and second Nobuie were," followed by a plea for "[r]eal names, dates of birth and death, where they lived...anything really," is patently disingenuous, and really, you should know better. In this field of Nihonto and Tosogu, how often do we EVER know the "real names, dates of birth and death, [exactly] where [artists and smiths] lived" or much of "anything, really"? How many swordsmiths and tosogu artists, say pre-1700, could you provide that information for with confidence? And since for smiths and artists after 1700, and especially after 1800, our knowledge of such biographical information is greater and more reliable, the very lack of this information pertaining to Nobuie is suggestive of their having worked (much) earlier. Is it proof? Of course not. But it is one brick in the wall. You then go on to to ask "which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second." Since you say you've read all the "bits and pieces of Nobuie 'scholarship'" (why do you have "scholarship" in quotes?), "with interest and great care," I'd have expected you to arrive at the likely answer to this question. Sasano and others see the "fat mei" (Futoji-mei) Nobuie as the first because of the highly dubious criteria of "looking older" and "being more consistently excellent," both of which reasons are hopelessly subjective, AND the latter of which would have nothing to do, anyway, with establishing which man was first. It is the "thin mei" (Hanare-mei) Nobuie who is much more likely to be first. As I do not have my library handy at the moment, I cannot access the specific content in Markus Sesko's translation of Nobuie Tsuba Shu where the point is made by one scholar that the Christian iconography seen on Hanare-mei Nobuie guards is strongly suggestive both of the particular period this smith was working in, as well as his being the Shodai. The connection between Oda Nobunaga and the Nobuie name is one I have seen for a long time, and Oda was a big fan of European imports, including his tolerance/support for Christianity (even if this support had at least something to do with his being "at odds" with certain Buddhist factions). The Christian iconography we see on some Hanare-mei Nobuie tsuba would not have been permissible with the Tokugawa, of course. And since Nobunaga dies in 1582, and having been effectively in power (or some degree of it) for around 20 years while Christianity's presence is taking root, locating Hanare-mei Nobuie within that period (and beyond by perhaps a decade or two) is not unreasonable. And since we do not see many, if any, Christian motifs in the tsuba of the Futoji-mei Nobuie, this suggests his being a bit later than the Hanare-mei smith. There is more we can consider here, too. The Futoji-mei Nobuie made more guards which were similar in finish and (apparent) technique to Kanayama and Yamakichibei works (heavy tekkotsu and yakite). We don't see many such works with a Hanare-mei signature. This peculiar Owari combination of bold and dramatic tekkotsu and yakite is not only especially, if not exclusively connected with Owari, it is also a late-16th-century phenomenon, continuing into the early 17th-century, fairly convincingly connectable to Furuta Oribe's sensibilities as the Tea Master of Japan for nearly 25 years in the 1590s on to his death in 1615. Neither of the above points proves which Nobuie was first, but to ask "how anyone has divined which mei, fat or thin, was the first and which the second" is answerable, as I have just done. As to whether this answer settles the question, well, go back to my earlier point: in this field, how much pre-Edo knowledge/"knowledge" is really reliable? Which leads me to the next weak point in your post. You deride "speculation without any literary evidence" as though speculation is an utterly worthless and dubious undertaking. There are at least two problems with this line of thinking. First, there is a rather large difference between wild speculation with nothing informing such conjecture, on the one hand, and the sort of speculation that is based on legitimate scholarship leading to knowledge in relevant contextual areas (e.g. Tea culture, Christianity's presence in Japan, political associations, etc, etc, etc), which, of course, is what we have with the topic of Nobuie. You seem to be implying that speculation not only isn't a valid exercise in intellectual inquiry, but that any (tentative) conclusions pointing to probability, rather than 100% definite fact, are thereby wrong. This is illogical, and in fact points to a biased agenda informed by strong leanings toward heresy. The fact is that since much of what we do know in any field began with informed speculation (inquiry), and in particular as concerns a complicated field whose focus is often on periods dating to many centuries ago, to hold or even suggest that anything less that 100% KNOWN fact means that prevailing ideas are then LIKELY to be wrong, as you seem to be doing, is itself demonstrably wrong-headed. There is more. Your comment that "trying...to ascribe specific pieces [bearing] this label to specific individuals who are unknown and anonymous seems like a fun fantasy games worthy of theologians" is really curious: it ain't exactly rocket science to look to tie certain and idiosyncratic design, motif, construction, and finish details to a particularly-rendered mei. Isn't this how kantei is pursued? If and when we can identify specific patterns of design, construction, etc... with a mei chiseled in a particular manner, again and again, the last thing we should conclude is that we have engaged in a "fun fantasy game" with zero legitimate understandings. And with the Nobuie men, such patterns and tendencies linked with the Hanare-mei smith and the Futoji-mei smith can be seen. It is not foolproof, of course, but again, working under the assumption that anything less than 100% certainty creates so much doubt that we cannot say we can be confident of anything is an extreme approach that does not hold up well to scrutiny. Your final comment may be the most head-scratching of all, Ford. You note that "there are some tsuba with the Nobuie mei that are wondrous, and many that are just so-so, and some that are dire." Huh? Let's see, could it be, just maybe, that the "wondrous" ones are authentic early Nobuie (those with the Hanare-mei and Futoji-mei signatures), that the "so-so" ones are (the better) efforts of students and/or those looking to copy the masters, and the "dire" ones are the product of hopeless hacks? How many works carrying the name/signature of a famous artist could your words be applied to? Hundreds? Thousands? Sheesh. Seriously, Ford, your various posts casting so much doubt on Nobuie scholarship and understanding seem so driven by a biased agenda that it seems to have warped what is your usual on-point critical inquiry and frequently resulting heresy. At least two of your points above make no sense even as abstract positions, never mind in direct application to Nobuie. Since this is so unlike you, I have to wonder what is causing this.

Guess so...

You guys have lost me. No idea what you're talking about...

Well, I will say that Juko's quote begs the question of what counts as "excessive concern." One person's "excess" is another's "just right," and again we are brought around to matters of taste and judgment. As to the matter of balance, the idea of harmony between the two "extremes" manifesting in particular objects is an interesting one to contemplate. Balance needn't always be a 50-50 thing, especially in the Japanese sensibility of things. I might see "balance" as better reflected via the term/idea of tempering, of taking the "excess" or extreme edge off of one aesthetic and/or the other. Returning to the original topic of wabi and sabi in tsuba, some Nobuie guards might be seen as a good manifestation of this balance/harmony, with more weight, perhaps, given to the wabi side than the other.

Could you elaborate, Pete? I'm not quite following...

Thanks, Henry, for this link. Completely missed it in your earlier post. I'll have to pick up a copy if I can find one! I am very curious indeed to know more about this Juko quote.

I honestly think (and have thought for some time), that the linked term "wabi-sabi" was a post-Edo creation, perhaps even of far more recent vintage than that (i.e. Post-WW2). One of the reasons I believe so, as my initial post in this thread nearly a year ago states, is that wabi and sabi are but two of many terms conveying particular aesthetic principles. As such, and since wabi may combine with one or more of any number of these others, as could sabi, there would be no specific reason to tie wabi and sabi together in some some fixed way. Not, at any rate, at the time they were in fluid use with regard to Tea (Momoyama and early-Edo Japan). I would be quite intrigued (and frankly, surprised) were there to be uncovered some written work from the period that actually used these terms in this joined manner. Henry, you observe in your post that, "...for Juko, excessive concern with the imperfections and rustic aesthetic of Japanese utensils was as bad as a preoccupation with the regular forms and perfect glazes of Chinese ceramics, so a merging of the two different attitudes was necessary to keep a balance." I'm not sure what your source is for this idea (the youtube video doesn't say this, does it?), but it seems quite dubious to me. The reason is that in Juko's time, the rustic aesthetic you speak of hadn't yet become established in Tea, at least not among the Buke. That doesn't occur for nearly another one hundred years, in the latter 30 years (plus or minus) of the 16th Century. I would be very interested to know the deeper source for the idea that Juko expressed such an opinion (unless he was speaking of himself in saying this... ). For much more on this subject area, besides the book I recommended in my original post in this thread (A Tractate on Japanese Aesthetics, by Donald Richie), I would also highly recommend Japanese Tea Culture, edited by Morgan Pitelka. I remain convinced, incidentally, that any pursuit of a deeper understanding of and appreciation for higher-level Momoyama and early-Edo steel tsuba is nearly fatally hampered by the lack of an equal pursuit of understanding the Tea Culture (and all of its many aesthetic principles and terms) that was so ascendant in those times.

Thanks, everyone. But yes, to clarify, I was referring specifically to the "wabi-sabi" joined pairing. I recognize that these terms go way back as references to certain aesthetic principles and sensibilities, individually. It's the trite "cuteness" of "wabi-sabi" that has me dubious about early (i.e. Edo Period or before) uses. Thanks again, all. Cheers, Steve

Hi Henry, Yes, I would agree with just about all you say here. The only part I'm not so sure about is when you say that "...[the] late Muromachi to Early Edo Period is key only in that it made wabi sabi 'main stream' and accessible to most people outside an elite group." I realize that you have "main stream" in quotes, but I would just want to emphasize that mainstream here may still have a fairly limited context. I don't believe that the esoteric aesthetic principles (including wabi and sabi) informing the Tea Culture of the roughly 100 years you're referencing had much currency (never mind fluency) among the lower classes. I rather doubt that farmers and low-level artisans and merchants would have had much exposure to and teaching in such principles, of which sabi and wabi are but two of many. So the mainstream I would take your statement to be describing would be more likely to be mid-level bushi, maybe even some lower-level bushi, along with those merchants who had amassed enough wealth to get to "play" in the upper-echelon circles (e.g. Sen no Rikyu). Since the understanding and mastery of these principles, especially as applied to Tea, would have been a mark of one's learning, taste, and of course, station in life, it would seem reasonable to see there being an effort to some degree to keep them as privileges of the upper classes. An area that would be useful to research in the context of this discussion is that of forms of (esoteric) Buddhism and whether and to what degree these found their way down into the lower classes (and if so, how they may have manifested). In a culture as rank-happy as Japan's, it seems probable that esoterica -- including such aesthetic principles as sabi, Yuugen, Shibusa, mono-no-aware, wabi, etc... -- would have been at least somewhat guarded/protected by the upper classes at least partially to reaffirm and reinforce their (legitimate) privileged status. Cheers, Steve P.S. Does anyone know what the first recorded (and verified) use of the term "wabi-sabi" is? Somehow, I find the cuteness of the rhyming aspect suspect, and I can't help wondering if it isn't in fact of relatively recent vintage (that is, not actually in use in the period we're discussing...).

Hi guys, My view is that Robert's thoughts about this piece being a later Yamakichibei-style tsuba are correct. The mei is not right for any of the early Yamakichibei masters (there are several ways in which it departs from those of the early smiths), and the tsuba's metal appears to differ markedly from that of any of the Momoyama/early-Edo tsubako. The sugata and general form of the piece is also quite upright and rather stiff, lacking the more "organic fluidity" of actual early works. Having said this, it isn't a bad tsuba for what it is: a 19th-century "homage" to the early Yamakichibei artisans, employing one of their classic motifs. Cheers, Steve

Great. Many thanks.

Thanks, John. Do you happen to know the title of this photography book?

Where does one purchase the book/catalogue?

Number 6, the Saotome, for sure.

Thanks for posting, BaZZa. Very interesting...