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

Thanks very much, Henry, for sharing these memories. I wish more stories like these were going to be preserved somewhere, before they get lost forever. reinhard

This koshirae doesn't exactly represent the pinnacle of sword fittings and Robert, I think, is free to compile the parts the way he likes them. Nevertheless it should be kept in mind, that old koshirae were originally a mirror of the taste of their former owner. I fully agree with Henry here and even if the parts don't seem to match for a westerner: Sometimes they were chosen just for their individual merits and reflect their former owner's taste. - I'm aware of the fact, that many koshirae have been changed senselessly from late Edo days onwards; tastefully in Japan, often crudely outside. I remember seeing in Europe a complete Hamano-koshirae of the finest kind for a katana, signed and dated on some parts, but with a poor iron sukashi tsuba from Meiji-times flapping around nakago. Changing parts of koshirae has been done and will be done for good reasons, but it should be done with a sense for Japanese aesthetics, a basic knowledge of Japanese history and its myths and a basic respect for history itself, just in case you don't know what you're doing. As far as these two tsuba are concerned: Does the original one fit tightly to the blade? If yes, I would keep it. reinhard

Hi Robert, Taking pictures of hamon is quite tricky. One way consists in placing a spot or a single light bulb slightly above the top section of the sword and taking the picture from a low camera-angle slightly above the blade from opposite direction (i.e. from the bottom end of the blade), not unlike you are appreciating hamon when holding the sword in hands. This must be done in a dark room. The results will present you with at least a few inches of the hamon visible. You can see pics made by this techique on many Japanese web-sites and on Darcy Brockbank's, amongst others. reinhard

The signature reads: Iwamoto KONKAN + Kao (this is an artist's mark) It is one of the biggest names in the history of Japanese sword fittings. reinhard

Shan's history on this board is one of endless patience from mods side. He was in no way "assaulted", nor is he the innocent collector he is pretending to be. As it seems, he never learned a thing (on purpose?). All he ever cares is: owning and/or making a little profit. Whining endlessly, when being confronted with answers, he doesn't like and spreading his (or other people's) stuff all over the place, he never got the point of this board. You better check his board-history. I appreciate very much the principle of being held responsible for your own posts. It hopefully prevents at least some people from just sneaking around, finding new customers, spreading their "goodies" and changing their board-history as they please. A newbie posting in the wrong section is no problem, of course, and (s)he will not be "drawn to a tribunal", you should know that by now, but Shan's no newbie. He's familiar with the rules, but doesn't care. Guess why? reinhard

I don't want to make random guesses, when, where or by whom this blade was made, since most of the informations needed are not given. All I can see is a katana-size blade, probably traditionally made and of Japanese origin. Polish is bad, but that doesn't make it rubbish. Sugata is unclear most often on amateur's pics, because of distortion, resulting from wrong camera angle and wrong focal length. - All measurements of a blade are crucial (nagasa of blade/nakago, sori, moto-haba, saki-haba, moto-kasane, saki-kasane) and should be known/given. Without these measurements any attempt of understanding a blade is senseless. In this particular case, nakago (once again) is almost the only source of reliable information. It looks unshortened, for the only mekugi-ana is approximately where it should be and, as Mark pointed out, Hamon seems to stop around habaki-moto. Now this nakago is a textbook example for ground and repatinated nakago. Removing deeply cut mei/nengo, leaves a nakago markedly thinner than before. It's even worse, when kanji cross(ed) nakago's shinogi. Instead of letting shinogi apruptly end or continue suddenly on a much lower level, it was often gradually filed off. That is where the triangle-shaped marks come from. I made a little sketch for illustration. Next step was to add new patina. Chemically induced, it is called "sabitsuke nakago". The borderline between chemically treated (darker) surface and upper, clean part of the nakago is an almost straight and clearly visible line. Irregular patches within the darker area are also pointing towards "sabitsuke". reinhard

Before jumping on the "might be utsuri=Bizen=KoTo"-train and debating details of the nakago, you better start with the shape of the blade. Is it shortened or not? And why not? What do curvature and tapering tell? Shape of kissaki and quality of boshi are crucial. Can I see them? What are the blade's measurements? If you don't know them, you better ask. - At a later stage, still ignoring hada and hamon, for you can't see them properly on pictures anyway, you go to nakago's details. There is only one mekugi-ana and it is approximately where it should be. What does this mean? Supposed this blade is unshortened, and this is what it looks like, why is there no signature? There seem to be triangle-shaped parts filed off on each side of the nakago within and below the habaki-moto area and extension of shinogi-line into nakago is interrrupted. What's the meaning of this? There's a straight line separating habaki-moto area from a darker area below. What does this mean and does this look like anything I've seen before? - Having answered these questions to yourself, you haven't seen anything yet, for some crucial and tricky questons are still to come. reinhard

What do you think? reinhard

Samurai surely knew, but didn't care. Mr.Berlusconi, on the other hand, didn't know and cares a lot by now. This ambiguity makes us an enigma to the female sex. reinhard

Off topic and just for (Ken's) fun: This (very huge) mantis was sitting on a handrail outside the shrine's museum of Tsurugaoka Hachiman Gu in Kamakura last year. Unimpressed by curious visitiors, it displayed a cool air; reminding me of a warrior, focussing on his opponent. I understood, all of a sudden, why samurai felt attracted to this fascinating insect. reinhard

Martin, what I'm saying is: At the beginning of every sukashi process is chiselling. Even if these marks are effaced during later processes like filing/polishing and so forth, some traces are usually still visible somewhere. reinhard

Shan, this newly presented tsuba looks like one of the better works of fourth master TADAMUNE (a similar example can be seen on p.273 of Sasano sensei's book, BTW). I'm not quite sure though, what this is supposed to illustrate. Their design and workmanship are completely different. The new example seems to be well balanced in shape and design and traditionally made (although difficult to tell from a tiny picture alone). Just one more thing for the newbies out there: Judging an iron sukashi tsuba is trickier than it seems. Aesthetics, proportions and design are important as well as technical aspects: surface, including tsuchime, tekkotsu, color and condition of patina and some other aspects have to be considered carefully and should be seen in hands. Some fine tsuba have been deteriorated by careless handling and/or storage, but solid art can stand bad treatment to some extent. A shade of their former beauty, they remain still classy, but the tsuba in question has no quality whatsoever. Neither from a design point of view nor from workmanship's. What should be kept in mind is: Genuine iron tsuba were made by CHISELLING sukashi out of a carefully forged plate. At least some traces of the process and of the basic material should be still visible somewhere. During later Edo period sukashi tsuba were filed, polished and patinated afterwards in sophisticated ways, but if they look like uninspired, chemically treated fretwork, they are almost certainly modern copies. The attachement may help illustrating what I'm talking about. It is a close-up of the early Akasaka tsuba from the Compton collection. Everything about this tsuba is just perfect. Workmanship, steel texture, patina and colour, chisel-marks, color of the seki-gane and so forth. It may give you a reference point. It might be better to let this thread fade, for so many objections have been repeated several times by now, but this is up to the mods, of course. Shan reloaded, as we know him. reinhard

This may be a little help for understanding and comparison. This tsuba's design origins from the "kuruma ni tohroh"-legend. It is based on a Chinese story of a mantis preparing to attack a cartwheel. It may have been chosen to illustrate the brave attitude of the insect or it may suggest, that it is prudent to avoid meaningless conflicts. - What a great metaphor for what is going on here right now! - Apart from technical questions, this is also a matter of design. I would like to show you, what third master TADATORA made of this challenge and why Shan's tsuba looks like a parody. reinhard