GRC

By the way, I should point out that the "Shoami" attribution has been used as a dumping ground for unsigned Edo period tsuba for many years now.

So, it makes sense that "Ko-Shoami" would follow in its footsteps.  ...or does it precede it because it's "ko"? lol

Two other "garbage dumps" for unsigned pieces are "Ohno" and "Hoan".

And don't get me wrong, I'm not dumping on the tsuba themselves, not in the least!

I'm merely dumping on the existing system, with all its flaws... 

For the most part, categorizations of unsigned pieces and dates of production are indeed rife with theology Mauro @MauroP.

That's abundantly evident once you start gathering multiple papered examples to try to glean some sort of insight into possible kantei points for specific "schools".

Well, I was hoping people would actually give the twelve tsuba I posted an honest attempt... with no fear of judgement.

But it seems that everyone is either too busy at this point in time of the year (speaking of theology ) or just don't even have an idea where to begin trying to group together such seemingly disparate examples

I'll spare you all the angst of trying to figure it out.

It turns out ALL twelve of these tsuba were papered as Ko-Shoami, which is a purely fictitious attribution that really gained a foothold with Sasano's publications.

It seems to me like the only kantei points the NBTHK is using for this attribution are:

-must be unsigned (so there's no way to check)

-pre-Edo period or Edo period (it really doesn't seem to matter, even though the "ko" in Ko-shoami is supposed to mean "pre-Edo period") 

-steel plate (which can be solid or have just about any type of sukashi you can think of)

-and most importantly, it must be difficult to place in any of the other limited number of "schools" that have been pronounced and established over the last 100 years. 

...so pretty much any steel tsuba that you can't stick into an existing category. 

It's kind of like the "Island of Misfit Toys" (a seasonal reference for those of you who know it...)

Actually, "ko-shoami" is a very handy category to have for an organization that needs to label things for money.

It's like a "get out of jail for free" card for those troublesome tsuba 

OK, I just want to see if we could "crowd source" a grouping of twelve tsuba, and look for opinions on the following:

1- which tsuba might "belong together as a group"

2- maybe even dare to offer a suggestion as to "pre or post Edo period"

These all have papers by the way... that's the fun part

Dale, solid post as a reminder to everyone

I'll second the idea from Peter, but with a twist...

Please don't buy any Hozon papers for unsigned, and not uncommon tsuba from the Edo period 

... because those would then qualify as "hosing" instead of "hozon" papers?

or maybe even straight up "fleecing papers" 

@Iekatsu Sadly, that example doesn't provide us with any reliable information as is...

We'd need to know when that particular sword was donated to the shrine, because these things were typically donated by samurai after a particular battle, so the sword would likely have been fitted with whatever the "fittings of the day" would have been when the samurai took the blade into battle.

I have no doubt the sword was made in the Nabokucho period (as stated in the description), but the fittings and the entire koshirae itself would have changed many times over through the years before it was donated at some point.

I would stake my claim here and now, that this sword was likely donated during the Azuchi-momoyama period... right when these guruma style openwork tsuba were in their prime production period.

Hi Steve @Steve Waszak

Sorry, but both of those tsuba look to be clear examples (or attempts?) at the Nidai mei.

I honestly don't see how you're getting a meijin shodai read on the first one (the more rounded one)... it has an angled stroke on the left side of the "Yama", and the length of the mei as a whole is shorter vertically than the nakago-ana... both features are distinctly more "Nidai-esque", rather than "Shodai".

These tsuba certainly bring up the debate about what makes a tsuba what it is?

Is is the features, or the mei, or both (which it should always be in my opinion...).

Both of these sukashi tsuba are so far out of the realm of what would fit within the YKB aesthetic that they would certainly qualify as "extreme anomalies" if they were indeed produced by this YKB smith.

They certainly have a similar sukashi style to the group of tsuba I posted above, but these are clearly more "rugged", thicker rimmed, thicker bodied (I assume from shadow angles at the bottom of the 2nd one), and have a somewhat heat treated but mild "yakite" surface finish (but not one that meets the standards of other YKB works in my opinion).

I suppose there's an outside chance that these two tsuba could have been produced by the Nidai smith, but are so far out of even his broad range of works, that I'm more inclined to think these were some sort of "Kanayama/Owari/Ohno-esque" tsuba that were later given a yamakichibei mei in order to deceive.

Even the mei on the more oblong one is too "absent" for my liking on that tsuba... there is no good reason for parts of the "kichi" and "bei" kanji to be missing while the "Yama" is so crisp on this particular tsuba.

...which again makes me think these probably aren't what they claim to be.

So for me, the mei does not instantly make these genuine YKB tsuba, and comparing them to all other YKB tsuba, they just don't seem to fit within the group.

It's exactly these oddball anomalies that bring us into the dark realm of "den X" attributions... and there will always be such cases, especially when we're dealing with times of transition in tsuba styles and aesthetics during the very expressive Azuchi-Momoyama period, when artistic expression through tsuba forms, textures and sukashi elements had just begun.

Sorry to say it, but I would say it's definitely a later utsushi, and certainly not a piece made by the Nidai smith.

It could have been made by any smith in the late Edo period and could even be a post Meiji-era copy.

It doesn't look like any of the Futagoyama copies of the late Edo period either... totally different style to theirs. 

Sadly, it's yet another example of where the NBTHK is giving out attributions for tsuba categories they know little about.

Yamakichibei papers from the NBTHK are particularly egregious, and it is one of their weakest areas (although they have multiple weak areas... as discussed in this recent thread https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/50714-established-ideas-that-need-to-change-3-pre-edo-period-schools-reliance-on-nbthk-papers/).

here are the key points to my conclusion (many of which were already pointed out by Steve @Steve Waszak:

It doesn't have any of the surface features one would expect (demand?) of a YKB piece that went through their characteristic "yakite" style of heat treatment.

This piece is a flat plate that has been chiseled to have the yasuri lines, but has none of the surface texture features of the original.

The steel in the copy also has a dull flat grey color rather than the expected variety of dark earthy shades on the real pieces.

 compared to 

The hammered back rim is far too even and uniform, and lacks any of the defining characteristics of the rims of the Nidai Yamakichibei smith... his rims always show some purposeful irregularities like these:

And in the same view you can see the same rough organic-ness of the hot-punched sukashi lines in the real piece vs what looks like clean-cut or sawn sukashi lines in the copy. 

 compared to 

There isn't a single other example of engraving on the mimi of a YKB tsuba. It's almost like this was a clear "signal" of being a copy because the maker added on a feature that has clearly never done on any YKB tsuba.

Yours is actually the first example of this that I have ever seen that has anything like this at all. Stylistically, it's also completely out of sorts with any of the aesthetics that are exemplified by YKB work... almost opposite in character actually.

  this is just an instant "no".

Another dead give away for me is the linear chisel mark in the "tegane" at the top of the nakago-ana. This is simply not something you see in YKB tsuba. 

  this looks like it was an original feature... therefore also an instant "no"

That's interesting Jussi...very valid points about the flood of submissions from sellers, and international owners sending their stuff in by proxy. 

I would love to know if anyone out there knows anyone who has received papers and has then had the opportunity to ask questions about the attribution from the shinsa team.

I personally have never heard of such an example, but i don't know anyone in Japan, who is a Japanese speaker and who has gone through this process in person. 

If I had to put a label on that one, I would have to agree with John J's Owari style (which is a a whole province by the way, not a singular school), can't pin down a date for certain, but the surface and edges look a little too "refined" to be an early one, so it's likely an Edo period piece (and who knows when in that 400 year period ).

As for the S shape... I would suggest it could be a classic blacksmith's "S hook" for hanging a tea kettle on a chain over hot coals.

The S motif is not something that is seen too often on sukashi tsuba. 

Oh by the way, I started collecting digital examples of these quite a while back, and brought up the issue I was seeing in this group of tsuba with the multi-decade long-time collector "Bruce K". 

He actually said that he once saw these described as "kyo-kanayama" in a a book at some point, which is essentially a "hybrid name" of sorts, because it is labeling the tsuba as though it was made in two completely different areas of Japan (Heian-kyo (now Kyoto), and the province of Owari (where Kanayama tsuba are presumed to have been made)). 

I liked the acknowledged hybrid nature of this name, so I started labeling all these examples with name just to keep track of them all. 

Clearly, attempting to assign these to a single school name under the existing system, is a complete disaster.

... so I'll spare everyone the headache and jump straight to the reveal 

There are FIVE DIFFERENT ATTRIBUTIONS FOR THESE FIVE TSUBA!!!!

In my opinion, this is clearly NOT just an issue of "human error", but instead, points to a "systemic error" in both the categories, and the system itself.

These are posted in no particular order, but numbered left to right, and top to to bottom:

1, 2

3, 4

5

1- Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi

2- Owari

3- Kanayama

4- den-Kanayama (i.e. "kanayama-ish"... or sometimes also interpreted as "in the tradition of" school-X... but you'll never know which, or why, under the current system)

5- Ko-Shoami

Ok, found a bit of time to post a great example of how these pre-Edo attributions are built on a whole lot of nothing....

For each of the school names I will show examples of (eg. Owari, Kanayama, Heianjo-sukashi/kyo-sukashi, Ko-Shoami), I think we all would agree that there's are a fair number of tsuba that fit our "ideal archetype" of what we have come to believe are the representative aesthetics and show the same/similar production method.

One of the main problems is the lack of certainty and clarity in the criteria that are being used to make these judgements, because the categories themselves are merely "constructs of convenience" that have somehow become generally accepted factual realities over time.

However an additional problem is this: what do you do with all the tsuba that seem to have some but not all of the vague characteristics assumed to be at the heart of some of these "schools"?

The result is that the system itself cannot deal with these effectively and will result in inconsistent attributions that will vary among "schools" with some overlapping attributes.

This is likely the principle factor that leaves people feeling disappointed, frustrated and even angry with some of the "unexpected attributions" that they get. Especially when they have paid quite a bit to get these papers from the "black box" that is the NBTHK.

Here's a sample of tsuba that I would consider all the same "type".

There may be some variation in the seppa-dai, tegane marks, hitsu-ana shapes,  and other features, but not enough to truly separate any of these tsuba from the group as a whole (in my opinion of course ). 

I'd love to know what everyone out think thinks these should be labeled as... but I won't ask lol 

... that might start an endless battle and debate that might never end until someone with enough "perceived experience and political clout" weighs in and tries to get everyone else to fall in line.

Unfortunately, situations like those run the risk of eventually becoming "autocratic systems of belief"... and if you don't agree with the ruling mob, then you're cast out as a heretic of sorts.

@Steves87 Transparency and accessibility would be the key difference... and should be mandatory. 

The absence of an explanation for the attributions assigned on NBTHK papers is a major problem with the current system.

By never providing this information, it essentially  necessitates that collectors continue to pay for the services of this primary agency of "official judgements".

If the NBTHK did provide statements of rationale, or allow for questions of their judgements, then it wouldn't be long before they made themselves obsolete, because the information would be "out there" for anyone to see even after just a relatively small sample size of a particular "type" of unsigned tsuba. 

Keeping the information hidden away in a "black box" that no one is ever granted access to is actually in their own best interest, not ours...

Also, a new system of acknowledged "knowns and unknows" with regards to unsigned tsuba (and even the ones that are "gimei" (deemed to be a false signature)), would already be a better system than one that upholds and perpetuates fictitious attributions to a narrow list of supposed "schools of smiths" that have little to no factual evidence for their existence. 

Also, i stumbled across this last night...posted on www.satcho.com: Japanese Sword · Books · Supplies

It's a quote from Sato Kanzan (written in 1983), commenting about the controversial nature of certain aspects of Sasano's writings.

Sasano’s scholarship was not without controversy.  Nowhere is this more evident than in the bibliography for The Japanese Sword (1983), wherein Sato Kanzan wrote:

“Few will be able to appreciate [Sasano’s] rather vague criteria for categorizing the guards,” referring to Early Japanese Sword Guards. 

In case Sato’s sentiment is missed, commentary on Sasano’s Tosogu no Kigen(1976) noted that it was “Controversial work with an ax to grind. http://www.satcho.com/images/forward.JPGThe author believes that uchigatana, the kozuka, and the alloy shakudo were all in use by the late Heian period”(sic).

Just for an additional point of reference, here are images of the English version of Sasano's sukashi tsuba book.

I think it is important to note that the book was translated by a Japanese person, but was "EDITED BY JOHN HARDING"... so it makes for an interesting comparison to the direct translation of the original Japanese text that I posted.

First the Owari school:

Now Kanayama school:

@Dan tsuba When I get some time Dan... I've got a selection of tsuba that are all clearly the same "type" and most likely produced by the same group or lineage of smiths, but they are papered to 4 different "schools".

I think it's a clear case of flaw in the system, rather than a flaw in the evaluators themselves.

Again, i think we need to cut the "experts" a bit of slack, because ultimately, their hands are tied by the categories themselves... just trying to be nice 

Lovely post Steve!!!

The heart was from me.

...definitely daunting but necessary 

@Steve Waszak Steve, i think we'll have to agree to disagree on some of those points. Maybe a discussion to be had over a few drinks rather than on a forum 

But no matter what, in the scientific community, if a new concept is published, it must be peer reviewed and be supported by evidence.

No novel statement can ever be taken as factual without meeting those standards. 

It stays in the realm of "theory" until then.  

@Iekatsu Thomas, I couldn't agree more about the last statement you made.

I'd also like to suggest, in the defense of the actual real people who work for the NBTHK...

If the current grading system is already built on flawed categories (which it is), then the many "wrong" attributions we have all seen in papers, are perhaps less due to random "human error" (although surely some accidents will happen under rushed shinsa conditions), and perhaps more to do with the fact that the categories themselves are flawed and not clearly definable under the current system that only has a limited number of "school concepts" to place the attributions under.

12 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

suggesting that, without that verification, this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely. 

Steve, you have clearly erroneously interpreted my statement.

How does "it may or may not be true, but require verification" become "this idea should be rejected or dismissed entirely"?

It couldn't be further from the actual words that I wrote.

Let me paraphrase what I said: It could very well be true, but one mention by one author in 1983, who does not directly cite the source of this information, CANNOT be taken as a certainty. It needs some validation of some kind before it can be accepted as a fact.

Plain and simple.

12 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

How then to proceed?  Do we adhere to a relatively rigid standard of epistemological confidence (i.e. something must be objectively factual) before we can accept the information in question?  Or, would a "sliding scale" of probability be sufficient?  For me, personally, I have comfortably settled on this latter.  The specific degree of probability is then subject to constant adjustment as new information, new considerations, and new insights come into play.  If one's epistemological position is that, if something cannot be known 100% factually, then we cannot really say we know anything at all about it, I think it will be difficult to get very far in this field, owing to the relative paucity of objectively factual information we really have (and are likely to ever have) about early tosogu and their makers.  So, if the essentially necessary alternative is to embrace that sliding scale of probability, progress can be made, I believe.  

I 100% agree.

Sliding scale of probability, not "either or", is the only way to go (scientific method once again).

Frankly Steve I don't see how you've gotten the impression that I was using "either, or" "is or isn't" in any way.

I'm just pointing out some of the gaping holes in the apparent "validity" or "certainty" of existing written statements regarding certain aspects in the world of tosogu.

more later... gotta work

I hope to tackle some of the Shoami stuff soon... gotta wait for my next "window of time" to dig up the sources and quotes that I have floating in my memory. 

These were passages that I read that, in my mind, completely destroyed the notion of pre-Edo "Shoami-ness" or "ko-shoami ness" in specific connection to ji-sukashi iron tsuba. 

Re: Kanayama's area of production

23 hours ago, Steve Waszak said:

The second reason I wanted to call attention to the quote above concerns certain logical likelihoods which, in the absence of certainties and objective proof, stand in as "the best available thinking" on a question or issue. 

I totally agree... "highest probability" is always my aim... always has been and always will be.

Using the scientific method is at the core of my being. 

Based on all the similarities (both in iron bone production method and some of the aesthetic sensibilities) between the Kanayama tsuba and the Yamakichibei tsuba, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to assume they would have been produced in close proximity, perhaps both in time and location.

However, does "similar method of production" = "same location of production"? 

Those two concepts cannot be automatically connected or outright assumed.

Is it highly probable? Sure.

Ultimately, I was merely pointing out that we have absolute NO HARD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND to support anything about the Kanayama tsuba.

For example, I would love to know all kinds of things about them...

when they were first produced?

how long they were produced for (as the thick ji-sukashi types with lots of iron bones on the rim)?

what connection do they have with the Yamakichibei? How was this shared technique established and under who's direction?

who were these smiths retained by? i.e. who did they work for?

We can theorize all we want, and may even end up being correct about many of these theories, but we might never be able to "know for certain".

But under these circumstances we must acknowledge the statements we make about them are just theories for now.

That's all I was trying to say.