reinhard

For those, who like to participate in the translation game. You better hold your nose while diving..... reinhard

Richard, Thanks for sharing this very nice tsuba. My first, ignorant guess would be: Dewa Akita (no) Ju Shoami Dembei or one of his followers. My approach is: This tsuba was made during later Edo-period. Elegance and refinement exclude an earlier date of manufacture. Nakago-ana and seppa-dai show hardly any signs of wear and there are no seki-gane. The "simple" design of Amida-yasuri can be seen on pieces for export made during Meiji period, but the supreme craftsmanship displayed on this particular example is excluding this option. It is almost hypnotic. It makes the difference between Samurai aesthetics and plain craftsmanship. Shoami Dembei is the one TsubaKo, whom I associate with strong devotion for Buddhist motives (like Amida-yasuri) and this kind of workmanship. reinhard

Thank you, Moriyama-san, for your extraordinary patience. reinhard

Can we see these papers, please? Otherwise it's not worth a second look. reinhard

Like Moriyama-san pointed out already: This mei reads KANENAMI. Since it is written in a clear and simple way, the kanji for NAMI and TOSHI can hardly be confused. reinhard

The signature is quite deteriorated in some areas. My best guess is (from top to bottom and right to left): Kiku-mon, followed by "Raijo" The right column reads: "Nihon Kaji Sosho" (master swordsmith of Japan) The left column starts with: "Iga (no) Kami Fujiwara", followed by two undecipherable characters. It ends with the name of "KINMICHI". Correct me, if I'm wrong. reinhard

This cannot be explained in short terms to someone, who isn't familiar with basics. My advice to you would be: Study books and, if possible, genuine Japanese blades and their fittings. Soon you will start to understand. Until then you better stay away from buying. reinhard

Where did you get the home-videos of Monsieur Stern from? reinhard

All authorities I've checked are pretty affirmative in their statements about shumei. Ogawa Morihiro f.e. says about kinzogan-mei: "usually on shortened tang" but also about shumei: "on the intact tang". Point. No "usually". Ogasawara Nobuo and other scholars are affirmative in similar ways: On ubu mumei nakago is the proper place for shumei. This leaves me with hardly any space for speculation. This is also important to know, because there are so many false attributions (kinzogan-,kinpun-,shumei) added to increase the value of swords. Shumei on shortened blades are literally "red alert". Collectors and sword dealers had them put on all sorts of unsigned blades for commercial reasons. By late Edo and Meiji period, the authority of shumei, established by early Hon'ami appraisers, had been corrupted by the new ones. If one of those commercial attributions accidentally turns out to suit the blade, it's great luck and this cannot be a guideline nor expected. I agree with Franco though: A good blade should be submitted to shinsa anyway; no matter what's written on it. Proudly presenting the one (possible) exception to the rule doesn't make much sense on a board like NMB, where many newbies are looking for guidelines. It is just confusing and misleading them, where they should be given reasonable advice, especially when exceptions are presented without relating their insignificance compared to the rules. This is "having fun as I can" at the expense of reasonable advice. Oh,and Jacques, the one about "always having the last word" was really funny since it came from you. reinhard

I was refering to that sentence Of course you were, Jacques. I wonder what took you so long? Of course you will provide us with some more details about when, where and by whom this shu-mei was done and what it says, for your link doesn't give much informations so far. @Franco, Like Guido said: There's no reason at all to trust in shu-mei on shortened blades. Many Japanese scholars made this clear beyond doubt. If there happens to be one single exception to the rule (although I haven't seen one by now, including this YOSHIHIRO), it is not very helpful encouraging people to believe, shu-mei on their shortened blades might be genuine. BTW, you should have realized by now, what kind of game is played here. reinhard

Time and especially number of these exports differ greatly. Ogawa Morihiro states in "Japanese swords and sword furniture in the museum of fine arts Boston": "The licensed trade between Japan and Ming China was inaugurated in 1404 and continued until 1554. According to the Daijo-in Jisha Zojiki and the Zenrin Kokuho-ki written during the middle of the Muromachi period, the principal products exported from Japan to Ming China included swordBLADES, sulphur, maki-e lacquerware, and folding fans. A vast number of swords, estimated at around 300'000 over a 150-year period, was exported." This leaves me with some questions: Did the Japanese export fully mounted swords or just blades to be mounted by the Chinese? Since hardly any examples survived from these exports, the Chinese probably imported just the blades and didn't know about sword care nor Japanese koshirae. Even if they did, the knowledge was probably lost after one or two generations. - Looking at genuine Chinese swords makes me stick to the theory of cheap import ware in the case of some "namban" tsuba. Illustrating what I'm talking talking about, I would like to show you an example, described as: "Sino-Tibetan dao sword, possibly 19th century.....". - Apart from the inserted coral, this guard looks very "namban-style" to me. Why not take some of these and sell them to the Japanese? Somebody might like it. This could have been the point of view of the VOC. reinhard

You are wrong. Genuine Shu-mei are only to be found on ubu-mumei blades. Shu-mei on shortened blades are always fakes. reinhard

I wonder. Looking at "namban tsuba", I notice a deep misunderstanding in quite many of them what tsuba actually are. Quite often they seem to be made by people, who were not familiar with NihonTo and basic principles of tsuba. Seppa-dai should match fuchi and opening of saya when they are first mounted. Some "namban tsuba" appear to be made by people unfamiliar with the purpose of tsuba. Others seem to be copies made by Japanese craftsmen, being fully functional, and there are some in between; i.e. made outside of Japan and adopted later. Illustrating my thoughts, I post this "namban tsuba" from the "permanent collection of the city of Birmingham museum and art gallery" (wonder if it still exists?). Seppa-dai is way beyond Japanese principles and hitsu-ana were cut out brutally. - Just for fun I add the cover of the catalogue as well. One shilling! What a time it was! reinhard

Sorry for not making myself clear. What I meant was: Depicting objects upside down on tsuba is a no-go before and after namban(-style) tsuba. Considering the purpose of tsuba, this is only logical. I agree though, that this alone is no proof for a tsuba of not being of Japanese origin within the borders of namban-style. By raising the question what "namban" tsuba actually means, I didn't ask for textbook explanation. It was meant to be a kick-start for collecting ideas. This subject has been neglected by most scholars and I'm wondering, if there might be a general misunderstanding. Maybe the term "namban tsuba" doesn't mean the same thing today what it meant four hundred years ago. reinhard

Hello Ian, Coffein level satiated? - I agree with you. The dragon design sukashi was definitely made in Far-East, but there are some elements, which make me believe it was made from a European guard. First are the four freakish faces on the rim, which, in this particular example, look more European in design and craftsmanship to me; also the fact, that the bottom one is upside down. This is quite contrary to Japanese conception of tsuba. The most important indicators to me are seppa-dai and nakago-ana. Looking very closely, the carvings on the seppa-dai don't really match the surrounding sukashi. It seems the carver of sukashi tried to create connexions but didn't fully succeed. The nakago-ana was changed from a nearly rectangular one into nakago shape. Some of these features are also somewhat different from the examples Chris posted. Those appear to be made tsuba from the beginning. - This is just an amateur's notion, but I suspect the dragon sukashi to be a later addition on a Western guard. These two tsuba are nice touchstones to check somebody's, or your own, perception with. Trained to see things from a Western point of view, one will see the deviations from Western guards first. A Japanese viewer will probably be most irritated about deviations from what he expects to see in "proper" tsuba. reinhard

These two tsuba were taken from: Kanzan Token Koza, vol. 5, page 163. Very much recommended (all six volumes) reinhard

blade: Takada (no) Ju SADAYUKI fuchi: (MITSU?)HIRO saku These pics are on the verge of being illegible. Better ones for translation are most appreciated in the future. reinhard

Piers and Ian are probably both right. Overall design of most Namban Tsuba is most certainly of Chinese origin in the first place, but some Namban tsuba were made under Western influence without doubt. This appears to be only logical. Europeans, and everything that came with them, made a tremendous impact on Nippon during Azuchi-Momoyama period. There is no reason to believe, Japanese craftsmen just ignored it. Attachment shows two Namban tsuba, which seem to be made out of parrying guards taken from western swords. This leads me to the question: What does "Namban tsuba" actually mean ? Maybe there is a general misunderstanding? reinhard

Since you just didn't get it by now: CAST = MODERN (i.e. after Edo period and without any value whatsoever) There are more stylish paper-weights available for a buck (but you are insisting on some kind of reward, as it seems). Forget about the mei. It's sheer crap anyway. Looking carefully, you will notice, it was chiselled weakly over an older (cast) mei, which was unsufficiently erased. Its translation: "Yamashiro no Kuni Nishijin no Ju" was done quickly and probably out of a reflex, for this mei is so common. Obviously many things are definitely wrong about it. Well, you haven't "collected" enough to know even basics. Nobody cares what kind of stuff you are handling on a "weekly basis" as long as you don't learn anything from it, but most important: I'm friends/familiar with some of the most important collectors/curators in Japan and am visiting Japan on a regular basis for some years now, but I have never bumped into a small-time dealer from uk named nickn by now nor did I ever hear of his collection of "high-end swords" by now. Your are just not in the position to have a claim for any kind of authority on this board as you pretend to have. I met Ford last year in Japan and he seems to know what he is talking about, at least to some extent (sorry,Ford;-)) - You, on the other hand, have no clue and are stuck in "uk fairs". You won't like this to hear, but global players don't care so much about uk militaria fairs. The one reason, why I'm wasting my time on NMB with silly posts like these is: I don't like the idea of honest and enthusiastic newbies lead astray by small-time dealers like you. reinhard

Robert and Brian (Barrett) seem to be talking about two different blades here. Any explanation for this would be helpful and prevent from further confusion. Thanks. reinhard

Since you are the expert around here, you better come up with some examples now. reinhard

Well, I sold it to her father 70 years ago. It has been mounted to my sabre, when I crossed the Beresina together with the grande armée in 1812 and the tsuba suffered some damage there again. It had been sold to me earlier by a Persian silk merchant in 1753, who used it as a counterweight within a silk weighing-machine. The dragon lost some scales in the process there already. I was told, it once belonged to a Chinese firework manufacturer, who got it from a pirate, whose ancestors saved a samurai from drowning near Hakata-bay. This makes it over 700 years old. - How do I know? It's full-moon tonight, my fangs are growing and bad blood starts throwing stones. reinhard

The long signature in scan2 eventually reads: Taka-yama To Tan-ren(?) X X UJIFUSA tsukuru (kore) i.e. "made this". Both mei look like Showa-To/WWII to me and somebody more familiar with ToKo of these times might come up with a more precise answer. reinhard

I took the liberty of erasing shadows and brightening things. Some look good, others don't. reinhard

As Michael said: One possible explanation for this kind of design is "senmen" (or "semmen"), meaning "fan paper", "folding fan". Comparing the following example with your tsuba, I see one problem: The seppa-dai of your tsuba seems to be somewhat off balance. reinhard