Iekatsu

I think that Luca's proposal is a good idea, but to get the best out of it there would need to be some sort of framework or official body to oversee it.

https://tsubakansho....-tensho-dated-tsuba/ This is a pretty good summary, as you can see there is a lot of uncertainty about the of legitimacy of extant examples, with examples ranging from plausible to obsurd.

It is always going to be a sliding scale of probability, there will always be significant gaps in what is known and that is ok. I think that the primary point of this thread is acknowledging that those gaps exist and that some of the established and accepted knowledge is not much more than conjecture without credible sources. The NBTHK grading is flawed because many categorisations are based on dated or flawed logic. This is something that is unlikely to be rectified, because it would potentially nullify papers that have already been issued. A new system could be created, but perhaps that is a topic for another thread.

Do you have more information about this piece?

It is hard to beat Kagami-shi for worst category grouping. Looks a bit like cast mirror .... the end.

Anthony is right, there is no evidence to support that the Saotome were active before the Edo Period. There is also no link to support the spoked Kiku and Tembo style examples that are so often associated with Saotome. The Saotome definitely made Tsuba, there are many examples, the vast majority of which are signed.

Yeah it is clearly Yamagane, there is actually quite a bit of variation in colour depending on the composition, browns of various shades all the way through to greens like the example in my avatar.

This thread pertains to early Tosogu in particular, which has far less documentation to draw from than sword smiths. But your point is definitely valid.

I think the biggest problem we are going to encounter is the lack of reliably dateable complete Koshirae in between Nanbokucho and the Late Muromachi period, it is a bit of black hole, a sign of the turbulent times I guess. For the investigation to continue, I think it will be important to source Koshirae examples from this period, even if they do not include Sukashi Tsuba, so that we can form a base line of what was in use.

Definitely a Ko-kinko Tsuba, late Muromachi-Momoyama period. The one in the link is later, Momoyama-early Edo id say.

Another Tachi, known as the Hanya Tachi, said to have been owned by Uesugi Kenshin (part of the Uesugi family collection) has a Sukashi Tsuba and likely dates to late Muromachi - early Momoyama.

I have held off on responding to this thread while I have been gathering my thoughts. My focus is on Pre-edo soft metal fittings, I need to know where we draw the line with Sukashi, because some Tachi Tsuba have simple Sukashi, not including Inome.

I think Momoyama period is plausible, but yeah definitely not Owari work. Here is an image of the Tsurugaoka Hachimangū Koshirae with the Tsuba visible, that Jussi was discussing above. It can be reliably be dated to late Muromachi.

This is exactly what I was getting at, I think that it is very much the by-product of Japanese tradition and Confucian thought.

It is clear that the categories and methods for evaluation need to be overhauled, but this is something that is unlikely to happen without a new organisation being founded, which would then have to build the trust of collectors and dealers. At the end of the day the attributions are only as good as the faith in them.