Iaido dude

I think it is an utsushi in the Yagyu style with a motif that I've never seen before in Yagyu tsuba. It's a bit thin for the classic Yagyu tsuba. The appearance of iron is difficult to judge as "sandy" (not sure if it would appear differently with different exposure).

Nice observation, Ken. This has the large dimensions of Ko-Katchushi tsuba with the seppa-dai thicker than mimi. Kanayama are smaller and thicker. Evolution doesn't often take place in discrete jumps, but rather incrementally. This may be such a transitional piece moving towards symmetrical and abstract sukashi elements that emerge as the other categories of early sukashi tsuba we are familiar with.

Here is another "grouping" of Kanayama tsuba (small size, lumpy tekkotsu), but with unusually pictorial imagery. Sasano doesn't quite argue that #1 and #2 are likely by the same smith, but he presents them together and describes them as unusual. If this is another distinct Kanayama workshop group, then the taste is more of the "rustic elegance" sensibility of Enshu's kirei sabi. An additional one (#4) from my collection (ex-Sasano, Gold book, #75) has the same yakite shitate "melted" surface treatment and hitsu-ana that are similarly if not identically shaped as those of #3 (especially the kogai hitsu-ana).

My argument is that, as often is the case for mumei tsuba and even when there is an identical name (but clear stylistic differences in execution) on tsuba with mei, in the absence of historical identification of named individuals or ateliers—the best we can do is to use our powers of inductive reasoning to observe the work of such distinct individuals or their workshops. We are in fact doing that through a community on this thread and have to be comfortable with uncertainty even as we do this because there is no other way. I think that relying on conflicting theories from a small group of “experts” will give a false sense of certainty and will not really move the needle forward. We must be discriminating and decide for ourselves whether any argument holds water. Additional analytical tools (eg using AI for more accurate identification, more detailed spectroscopic testing) may be brought to bear if validated. BTW, Sasano sensei often remarks on the likelihood that a specific tsubako made a number of tsuba that have striking similarities (gold book). So, this is by no means a new approach I am using to propose the existence of Hyotan-dai.

Point well taken, Tim. If not individuals, then a handful of workshops producing distinctive sub-styles of what we call Kanayama tsuba. Within a workshop it is not meaningful or possible to identify a named person since they are historically unknown.

Yes. My contention is that we have to use an inductive approach. Start with a description of notable features. Identify a “signature” that can group tsuba into a few distinctive groups. This signature serves to identify the tsubako in lieu of mei. Same principle.

Here is the $175 Kanayama tsuba I picked up somehow along the way in Singapore (about 2001) at an antique shop, not realizing what I stumbled on until a year ago when I saw it published in Owari To Mikawa No Tanko. It is just chock full of tekkotsu and dripping with Wabi Tea Ceremony aesthetics. It has punch marks around the nakago-ana.

I’m also a Kanayama/Ono lover. I only have one Ono. They seem to rarely come up for sale online (busy family life keeps me from attending shows). Here’s what Steve texted me from Japan, where he is wrapping up a visit: “My feeling is that they were likely made from the 1580s or 1590s through the Momoyama Period, so, maybe something like 1585-1615. Past 1615/1620, they would have become more Edoified, losing their vitality. It’s possible they could have arisen as early as the 1570s, but not before that, I don’t think. I would agree: perhaps as few as 3-5 smiths working in a small atelier. Almost certainly near the Yamakichibei atelier, as they share the same aesthetic sensibilities. 😉”

Excellent, Tim. I have an example of each of these in my collection. Again, in the absence of mei, I think it is possible to identify a small group of tsubako by the "signature" features of their works--in this case a kind of hallmark consisting of bevels and punch marks aroung the nakago-ana.

I’m referring to Steve Waszak’s study of the relationship between Kanayama tsuba and they Wabi Tea Ceremony aesthetic that they reflect. I have to go back to my notes and touch base again with Steve, but it is a very short period of time on the order of 30 years, give or take.

Kanayama tsuba are thought to have been produced only during a 25-30 year period spanning the late 16th and early 17th centuries during the Momoyama and earliest Early Edo Periods. They reflect the aesthetics of the Wabi Tea Culture of their time. However, like all trends occurring in a small sub-population of refined connoisseurs (the buke in this case) amidst the rapid changes in sensibilities that accompanied significant transformation of the sociopolitical landscape, their demand and production were short-lived. We presume that there were, therefore, only a very small group of tsubako in Owari Province at the center of this artistic development. The problem is that none of their creations are signed. Is it possible, nonetheless, to identify individual tsubako based on characteristic features of their mumei works (e.g. motifs, composition, forging techniques, etc.)? Just as we have Shodai, Nidai, and Sandai masters of a particular school such as Yamakichibei (at least 5 masters and perhaps other smiths in their workshops). I submit two tsuba from my collection that I display together because they share so many features in common that they are highly likely to have been the products of a single smith or small atelier, whom I call “Hyotan-dai” (maybe someone can offer a better phrase) because of his apparent fondness for gourds as depicted in my two tsuba. This is speculative of course, but nonetheless compelling. Same iron forging technique (including tsuchime and tekkotsu), perfect marugata type, similar style of seppa-dai, square mimi, and same color/texture. In toto we see a defining profile of his workmanship.

All highly cringeworthy. I do find it tragic to find an otherwise rare and desirable tsuba that has been severely damaged or purposely ruined.

Perhaps we should include tsuba-shaped or tsuba-like items that make one’s skin crawl. The tsuba-shaped paper weight I posted commemorates the Japanese Imperial Army occupation of Manchuria (1931-1945). It clearly has collecting value by the looks of that auction. As cringe worthy to me as this ash tray.

Gifu prefecture appears to be a very active swordsmithing region. My new custom iaito is en route from there after months of waiting.

There are several forged tsuba of this “model,” it seems so you may have seen this composition before if not this specific one. He’s quite good, but the price tag on this is actually quite a bit higher than several Kanayama Suba that I own. I was just fortunate enough to recognize what I was buying for bargain prices in the past. Still, I find his work to be very good. I might be in the market for a very convincing Nobuiye utsushi.