Iekatsu

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.

I have read it, I think it does a good job of outlining some of the issues that prompted this thread, there are similar issues with Nobuie etc.

When there are multiple Mei for an artist that is not particularly well documented, they are generally grouped into different "generations", Shodai, Nidai etc. Generally this is done on the basis of perceived quality or mastery. I believe that this is an erroneous assumption that has more to do with Japanese hierarchical social conventions than logic, and that generally there is no evidence to determine which artist was the founder or primary artist and what order they worked in.

Humans like to put things in neat little boxes, collectors like to know what they have and covet things that are rare, important and/or have artistic merit. The NBTHK provide a service to help categorise and sort objects, there is a general consensus that they are in the best position to provide this service, there are clear rules and most collectors accept the categories and rankings. It is a game that most people accept and play, many collectors have a vested interest in the system and maintaining favourable attributions and I do not think there will be any significant shifts in the near future. That said there is vast gulf of information about Tosogu that is just not known and may never be known without new research and evidence surfacing, particularly for items pre-dating the Edo period. I agree that the categories used are often quite lose, sometimes totally illogical and are not adequately supported by sufficient evidence. I think the primary issue is that most people take the attributions at face value, without much thought, not realising that many of the categories are nothing more than groupings and educated estimates.

Glen, First of all, a great idea for a series of threads, perhaps long overdue. I agree with your summary and conclusions, there are way too many variables at play to use the condition of Sukashi walls as any indicator of age. This practice is totally subjective and lacks any credible scientific methodology. It is important to study the walls of Sukashi, Hitsu-ana and Nakago-ana as there may be indications of the construction method and how the object was used, but the amount of rust/grime is for the most part irrelevant.

Definitely Edo, but size is not necessarily a determining factor.

I have not seen it in person, but the photos on the website are high enough resolution to form a judgement. Unlike swords, armour can be easily judged from photos as long as you have the right angles and know what you are looking at. If you want a thorough deep dive, DM me.

Hello Yves, The armour is composite, meaning that the armour has be complied from unrelated components in modern times. It has been recently relaced, to make it look more like a matching set. The Sangu (arms, thighs, shins) do not match and the Haidate (thighs) have been heavily restored, a lot of the silk has been replaced. There is some nice individual pieces in there, including the kabuto, but the armour being composite has a pretty big effect on the value, as can extensive restoration. At the current asking price a much better armour can be found.

Sadly the way of the world, the best thing to do is research and train your eye.

Yup Ko-kinko, a shame that it ended up like that.

Dan, the problem is that it is a logic leap, you are not applying a scientific method to your research, starting with a conclusion and trying to find evidence to support the theory has inherent bias. They were casting soft metal Tsuba, it has a long history and there is plenty of evidence to support this, including the site discovered in Nara. You are assuming that it would naturally lead to casting in iron, but there was not necessarily a need or demand to do it in iron, soft metal is perfectly functional for the task, it is much easier to cast and likely more cost effective. Until further evidence surfaces (and it may in the future) it is just a theory that is not yet supported by evidence, none of the evidence that has been provided thus far is sufficient.

No problem, you will have to excuse the poor photography, I do not have a macro lens. All of these are Ko-kinko, none of them are San-mai in construction.

You are correct, flaking material might be a better description. It can happen when force is applied.

Very nice, I would love to see some more images of your Koshirae.

Well you can get a very nice helmet for cheaper than you can get a very nice sword. And if you were to compare it with European armour of the same age, it is not even in the same ball park price wise.

A charming little Ko-Kinko in my collection, understated but I really like it.

Armour is a personal representation of their owners, it involved the skill of multiple craftsman and is a synergy of function and style. It is an interesting field of study because it is not as well researched and is relatively inexpensive and under valued in the great scheme of things.

The first one posted and the second and third ones Dale posted are modern.

Aoi-gata Tachi-kangushi Tsuba with inome (boars eyes) go back to late Heian/Kamakura, and continued to be made in various forms all through the Edo period and beyond, but none of the examples in this thread have any real age.