raven2

Beautiful pieces

Nice Menuki, Ken. They almost look like they are smiling.

One last thing I would like to add Bernard, is that the tsubas you have shown us are not usually in schools that are my favorites but I have thoroughly enjoyed each and every one of the ones you have shown us. Please stay with the board and enjoy and learn.

That would be my guess at first glance.

I agree with you Dave and this would be the same as what you are describing, a Ko-Tosho with another sukashi and nunome added later to change the aesthetics, maybe in the early Edo after the Tokugawa edicts.

Thanks Bruno, That would be great.

Hi Pete, I realize that they surround both(I mentioned that earlier in the thread). But if the plate originally had both sukashi, why is the round one cut so more poorly than the "gourd". If the nunome was a later addition it could have been done after the round sukashi was added. I am certainly not totally convinced of anything. I still have not been able to find pictures of early Canton pieces other than what Fred G was so good to send. But this looks nothing like any of those.

Ok, I have been doing some more research and I have talked with a friend who had some interesting thoughts after looking at the pictures I sent her. She clarified to me something I had noticed but didn't put together. She felt that the round sukashi seems not to have been cut at the same time as the "gourd" which I believe is original to the tsuba, but put in when the nakago-ana was enlarged. The sides of the gourd are perpendicular to the face of the tsuba but the sides of the round sukashi slant in and are not very skillfully done. The nakago-ana also slants in the same manner although on the opposite side (not sure which is the omote and which is the ura on this one). The nakago-ana has also been enlarged and not in a very skillful way. The inner edges of the round sukashi also are not the same as the inner edges of the gourd, but rougher and not as well cut and similar to those of the nakago-ana. If this is so, then I am going back to my original thought that this is a Ko-Tosho from early to mid Muromachi that originally only had the "gourd" as decoration. The size (7.8 cm diameter and 3 mm thickness at the seppa-dai and 1.8 mm at the mimi) and the single, small ko-sukashi all fit. Some time down the line, the owner, decided to have it put on a different sword and had the nakago-ana enlarged and the other sukashi put in at the same time. The nunome would also have been added at his time to embellish the appearance (as evidenced by the decoration going around both sukashi and not interrupting it, which it would have if it had been applied prior to the round sukashi). Added nunome is not unheard of (see the second tsuba down here: http://www.shibuiswords.com/EDLcollection.htm which also has a bit of nunome left on it). Obviously, this is all conjecture, but it seems to fit better than what I have been struggling to reconcile. I would still be interested in any thoughts or comments. I will say that this has been a very pleasurable exercise so far. :D

I agree with you Brian. Just some really great tsuba. The sukashi in this one is really special. :D

Lethal Elegance does consist of the Boston MFA collection only. But a nice book, nonetheless.

Robert, I really didn't do any research into the mei. Sorry.

Hi Dave, I am not sure, I have been thinking about it but it depends on a number of factors. I will need to think about it.

Hi Andrew, It is nicely made, I might keep it as it is since it is soft metal and could be damaged if you try to put it into a kozuka.

Hi Fred, Good to hear from you. :D Not sure what you mean by "no early Namban". Is it a typo and actually "on early Namban". All information is greatly appreciated since it is hard to find attributions about it. Looking forward to seeing your posts.

Thanks for the info Pete. It does seem to be a bunch of contradictions when you try to fit it in a school. As you said, everything all together just doesn't seem to work. Perhaps it is an early Chinese import.

Hi Robert, I was looking at that one also. I like it quite a lot. :D

Another very nice piece, Bernard.

Hi Dave, It does make some sense now that it has been brought up, although the thinness of the plate puzzles me and also isn't Ko Shoami sukashi generally positive rather than negative? I had also thought that the larger sukashi might represent the moon. The Buddist symbol is new to me although it does seem to be similar to the smaller sukashi.

Thanks for the thoughts Henry and Dave. Dave, I have read both the thread and your website and got a lot of information there. Henry, I think you are on the right track. The more I study this the more I am convinced that it is really not Namban but Ko-Tosho. I forgot about the raised rim on Ko-Katuchshi and the rest of the Tsuba seems to fit in pretty well including the apparent age and thinness. The question would be if the openings are sukashi, what do the represent? They certainly are original to the plate (it is hard to see, but the remnants of the nunome do work around the openings). The design is definitely floral. I am going to keep researching sukashi designs. My other question is wouldn't the nunome be an unusual decoration for a Ko-Tosho?

In my dreams: Darcy's Osafune Kanemitsu Attainable: A nice papered Ko-Mihara

Hi everyone, This is a new tsuba I just got from Grey. Dimensions are: 7.8 cm x 3 mm. It is very interesting to me because of the fairly obvious age and the very unusual hitsu-anas. Skip Holbrook’s tag says "Namban, nunome flowers, Muromachi period". I have been doing some research into the early Namban but this doesn’t seem to fit dimension or style-wise(being a very thin flat plate with no sukashi) and it seems to be older than the Momoyama dates given for the earliest Namban (I would tend to think it is early to mid 15th cen.). Please note actual color is darker and more brown than pictures. My thoughts are these: 1) Is this a very early Canton? I am not sure the style fits although the silver numone would make sense. Perhaps the unusual hitsu-anas were made by a Chinese smith? 2) Could this be a ko-katchushi decorated for export to China in the Muromachi. If so, is that why the hitsu-anas are so unusual. Could they have been made for a Chinese sword since they obviously wouldn’t fit Japanese. I am not familiar about Chinese weapons so I don’t know if I am way off base here. 3) If it was made for the Japanese market, why are the hitsu-anas so strange? Did the smith not understand what he was doing, as Grey suggests. If so, would that not tend to support Chinese? It seems unlikely to me that the smith would have been Japanese. Any comments would be appreciated.

Wow Bernard, another great one. Love your collection.

Hi Bernard, Not sure about the maker (at work without my books) but the insects are preying mantis and crickets.

Wow Bernard, They just keep getting better. It reminds me a little of this one of mine with the great carving: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10279

Definitely horse bits.