Jean

The second one: « Your other tsuba here is a classic and genuine "Sakura" Yamakichibei. The classical understanding of Yamakichibei is that he is the sandai, though he is known as "Sakura Yamakichibei" because he always adds a cherry blossom stamp in the lower right corner of the omote seppa-dai. Again, he is recognized as the sandai according to the classical understanding (though if the viewpoint that there were an O-Shodai [Yamasaka Kichibei], a Meijin-Shodai, and a Nidai is correct, then Sakura Yamakichibei should be better referred to as the yondai). However, I do not recognize Sakura Yamakichibei as the sandai (or the yondai), not only because I recognize two other smiths as the yondai and godai, as you will see, but also because Sakura Yamakichibei is working too late to be a part of the actual Yamakichibei atelier. The various sources put him in the latter part of the 17th century, which I think is accurate, based on the style of his work and in particular, his frequent use of goishi and fine amida-yasuri, which his contemporaries in Owari, Toda and Fukui, often employed as well. If this dating for Sakura is accurate, there would be too wide a gap from the end of the working period of the Nidai (whose work Sakura often emulates) and/or the Godai (Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei) to the start of Sakura Yamakichibei's working career. There would have to be a gap of something like 30-50 years here, which means that Sakura couldn't have been part of the original Yamakichibei atelier as a student of the Nidai or the Godai, unless he was apprenticed at an extremely young age right at the very end of the original atelier's existence (which is, of course, very unlikely). I think Sakura was probably a talented metal worker in Owari who was inspired by his province's heritage of superb tsubako -- Yamakichibei in particular -- and either received permission to use the name or simply adopted it as a professional name/brand to trade off of. His work is often of high quality, but it does not match the levels of the early, genuine Yamakichibei smiths. »

Here are in two posts an analysis made by Steve on my two Yamakichibei tsuba: the first one, an old one that I really like: « Did you by any chance download and read the article Brian just added to the Downloads section? I talk quite a bit in the article about the smith who made your tsuba (I believe him to be the fifth of five early Yamakichibei smiths -- Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei). I have him working in late-Momoyama to early-Edo; however, I also believe he established a "Yamakichibei factory" employing several "students" doing dasaku/daimei work. So, in my view, your tsuba here could have been made by the master himself or by one of these "students." It certainly carries the mei of the master, but then, daisaku work would be signed by him, even though he didn't make it, and daimei work wouldn't have been signed or made by him, but may exhibit a signature meant to emulate that of the master. In the article, the second alternative theory is mine, and I lay out my ideas pretty specifically. But it is only a theory; I could be wrong. However, I am pretty confident in it, as in my view, the evidence best leads to the conclusions I reach, and there are significant problems for other theories and beliefs about Yamakichibei works. » « on the four-lobed mokko guard, the paper seems to attribute the work only to "Yamakichi." I'm not quite sure why, though, since the "Bei" character is clearly present, though it is quite abraded (as is typical). Further, the "Yamakichi" smiths are really those 19-century workers who signed only "Yamakichi" (no "Bei"), and always made tsuba like those we see in the recent thread, and in the thread I linked to (Sergei's initial post): five small holes around the nakago-ana and the same look to the sugata and surface of the plate. As I say, these are 19th-century works, and have nothing to do with the real Yamakichibei smiths. So, seeing the kanteisho to your piece refer only to "Yamakichi" is odd for this reason, too. Once you've had the chance to read through the article, you will see, I think, why yours is clearly a work made by Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei, as I call him (due to the very narrow gap between the horizontal strokes in the "Kichi" character). Again, I might qualify this attribution only by noting that your tsuba could be a daisaku work made by a student/worker of the Yamakichibei "factory" that Low-Crossbar-mei Yamakichibei (the "godai," if you prefer) established early in the 17th century. »

A big thank to Steve who was kind enough to provide some information on my Kichibei tsuba.👍 if he gives me the authorization, I ‘ll share his information 😃

I can attest, Ted’s packages are wonders

Thanks Steve😀

Yoshiro

BUMP

One never knows Brian....😂🤣

RIp

One can be a good connoisseur without Owning/collecting swords (BTW, it is the same for allart fields). How many Rembrandt experts own one? Same for Van Gogh. Owning swords is a pleasure but can be very reducer. If You want to know early Aoe school, you will have to study many juyo ones to understand the essence of the school, owning one is not enough, you will have to understand the why of the « den » when the juyo is « den » ko Aoe.ades Study many good swords in hand is probably the key and not owning several Juyo ones. I doubt my friend Paul Martin owns a single Juyo swords and I am not sure that Darcy even has a Nihonto collection BUT their library is fantastic. Our friend Jussi has chosen Nihonto books rather than collecting books. His knowledge will become encyclopedic if he keeps on studying his books, comparing them, making statistics. if you take the NBTHK monthly Kantei challenge, one can strike atari without having seen a blade of this school. I am going to give you an example: more than 15/20 years ago, Darcy posted a Kantei challenge. I was the only one to strike atari, it was a Miike Mitsuyo juyo, I had never seen, a sword of this school but I did the kantei thanks to Robert Cole Sho Shin website.

Bishu and not Bushu, Bizen province.

The answer 😂😂. (if I readthe mei correctly)

BOMM

My first post on the following link: I agree with Ray

According to NBTHK, O kissaki is typical of the period starting Enbun ending in Joji ( 1356 - 1368)

Yes Matt 😀 a big thank to Ray S. For his work. Before posting this link to the Gokkaden, I made sure all information needed were there... People are not used anymore to search

If interested, is it so difficult to ask?😀

I thought I would kept it till I am 70, JP. But I have some important work to do on my country house.😁

JP, where is the father? 😂🙃

A few information provided in the following topic: price: 25000€ - Transportation to be added - serious inquiry by PM only

There is no question of being right or wrong, it is a question of being adult or not. who is going to spend bucks or quids blindly without knowing what they buy. buy books and read before buying any items Brano, you have been a businessman for 25 years, I have been dealing in international financing for more than 35 years from South America to Eastern Europe via Africa. Don’t advertise you are not ready to strike a deal on NMB in asking the good questions. David is right and it has been advertised on the Board at least a hundred times. No valid certificate=No added value if signed. now, there is another way to post in the For Sale section, watch my sale

To end this never ending question, it is so easy to ask in a post : is the mei shoshin or not. a few years ago I wrote a thread for newbies

20 years ago, I had a papered nijimei sword Signed Tadamitsu so it exists.

Another example: https://www.aoijapan.com/dai-sho-in-shirasaya-with-koshirae-attributed-as-yoshioka-ichimonji-and-sue-mihara/

I agree with Ray. A new polish won’t erase all the kizu, particulary in the hamon.