Jake6500

I concur, the Nanako look pretty great, quality of materials are high and most importantly the mei+kao looks like a spot on match. I think you've struck gold, congratulations Okan! I've also had a look at a few other examples of the mei on various kozuka and such and there is little doubt in my opinion.

I think it has very clearly been carved up that way for decorative effect. Tsuba seems modern to me also. No signs of mounting, looks a little too perfect. Nakago Ana also looks weirdly off-centre as well, or is it just my eyes playing tricks on me?

Thanks Justyn, I must confess it is currently the single most expensive piece I have in my collection and I was happy to have an excuse to share it here! I have started to gravitate toward the Hamano style and am a big fan of contrast pieces. The contrast between shibuichi and gold is something I find quite appealing...

When you start out you tend to prioritise motif/design/theme more than quality. It takes at least about a year of deep involvement in the hobby before you start to develop the eye for quality. Honestly I am still developing my own. Your collection also starts off kind of random to start (at least, mine did). I recommend starting off just aiming to buy real authentic Edo Period pieces with designs you personally like, for reasonable prices. Aim to keep your purchases below 500-600 AUD at maximum when you start out and just focus on learning to discern real Edo pieces from casts or reproductions. As time goes on you'll begin to get a sense for quality of craftmanship as well as materials and then you can start to save up for more expensive pieces. You can get some very nice quality pieces for that price, believe it or not. The fuchigashira in my profile picture is one of my best pieces and I picked it up in an auction on Jauce for about $550 AUD. I've only very recently started spending more than that on higher quality pieces now that I have developed my eye a bit. I also recommend using Jauce or a similar service to access Japanese Yahoo auctions as you can find great pieces there, often for better prices than direct from dealers or from Ebay. Keep using and reading the forum frequently as it is a great source of knowledge and once you figure out what sort of style you like (which may take a while) start doing some online research and compiling examples of quality work in that style or from that school. Building something like a digital archive of pieces will help. If you read the forum consistently, train your eye by looking through listings regularly and most of all are patient, you'll begin to develop a decent eye for quality and an ability to discern reasonable price ranges within a year.

The design is kind of interesting. The oni peering through the bars is innovative so I understand where the sentiment comes from, but $3600 USD is crazy! $600 USD is already probably more than I'd pay unless it came with certification.

I still think it was made in Japan and likely is an authentic mid-late Edo Period piece. I don't think the quality is bad, but I also don't think it's spectacular. As Colin says, vastly overpriced. I wouldn't pay more than maybe 1/6th the asking price unless I was absolutely 100% certain the mei was authentic. When you compare it to the other examples I posted, I'm doubtful.

My opinion is it is likely an authentic tsuba. It looks like later Edo work (as the listing says, 1750's onward seems plausible). Quality is good (although price tag isn't cheap!) With regard to the tagane punch marks in the nakago-ana, my guess is that this has been inserted for beautification as a throwback to older styles. I don't think it is major cause to doubt the periodisation in and of itself. I think the biggest question for me is whether or not the mei on this tsuba is authentic or gimei, because I wouldn't even dream of paying the price I see listed on this thing unless it was a style + artist I was big on and I was absolutely 1,000% certain both the tsuba and the mei were authentic. The mei appears to be referring to Sugiura Issando Nagaharu Jo-i, an artist active in the 1760's who often signed "Jo-i" or "Issando Joi". From a preliminary search about this particular artist gimei pieces are quite common so I would be trying to find verifiably authentic pieces and making some very close comparisons of both mei and style before purchasing. One other concern is something about the linework in the tree on the Ura seems kind of modern to me and gives off a bit of a Meiji Period vibe. That said, I've seen marks like those underneath the tree in authenticated Hamano Shozui works from the 1750's so I still think 1750's is plausible. Some other pieces purportedly by the same artist for comparison: TLDR; Probably a real tsuba but might be gimei. Check style and signature extra carefully before buying. For me, I'd be wary just because of the price.

Yeah I've seen these popping up lately. There was one on Jauce the other day as well (not sure if it's still there). I pity anyone new to the hobby who gets burned on one of these hockey pucks... They are often listed with the "Hamano" attribution in the listing despite having few stylistic similarities or lacking any discernible clarity or similarity due to the poor quality. The papered tsuba looks more like something resembling Hamano style work. It gives you an idea of what the original tsuba from which all these copies were produced likely looked like. That said, given how many of these are floating around I would operate on the assumption that it too is just a higher quality reproduction. Certainly wouldn't trust it either.

True, their photographs are clear but very dark. I have had the same thought hahaha

Hi Damon, be aware that this tsuba is doubtful to be a genuine Nagatsune Minamoto piece and is most likely gimei. In general the majority of pieces floating around out there with this mei are gimei pieces. Here is an authentic Ichinomiya/Minamoto Nagatsune tsuba. The quality should be apparent at a glance... I myself have a fuchi signed "Echizen Daijo Minamoto Nagatsune" in my collection though it too is likely gimei...

A very famous scene that appears throughout the Edo Period in Tosogu pieces Justyn! You see this motif a lot on fuchigashira and on the occasional tsuba as well. Here is an example from my collection that I acquired not too long ago signed "Hamano Noriyoshi". You should hopefully recognise similarities from your own such as the bow in the mouth of the riding samurai on your tsuba! The samurai should be Kajiwara Kagesue riding Minamoto no Yoritomo's horse. Here is a woodblock for comparison:

Wow, this is interesting Dale. I purchased a high quality Yanagawa school kozuka just a couple months ago with basically this exact tanuki and moon design... Had never thought it might show up on a tsuba or other tosogu!

Quaint but not for me... But did you catch that Fujin tsuba that just sold for 4000 AUD? That one was right up my alley and way beyond my financial limitations! Would have liked to display it alongside the tengu kashira in my profile picture but alas, some big spenders locked eyes on it! There are a pair of other certified Omori school fuchigashira on Jauce up for grabs right now for anyone interested in this specific style...

No expert on these by any means but as for the period I'd probably guess early Edo, maybe 1650-1680ish based mostly on the shape of the Hitsu Ana and the apparent thickness which to me suggests early Edo but not Momoyama attribution. I've also read that Yagyu style tsuba became popularised by Yagyu Ren'ya born in 1625... I'm sure other forum members could tell you a lot more than I, so take my rough period attribution with an ample grain of salt.

I see what you are saying and you definitely can find the 9 star Kuyomon or Hanabishi in both areas, however as far as i know the use of the encircled Hanabishi and Kamei clan mon do not appear in the Eastern regions... Then again with all the different mon and samurai families that were floating around who knows? Thanks for posting the maps Piers, they're a great resource! This thread has resulted in an interesting discussion and I've learned a lot. Bruno's tsuba is definitely the closest matching example I have seen.

Interesting, thank you for the additional explanation. Tbh I don't really care if the tsuba is Shonai or Higo, I actually did not have tsuba from either style in my existing collection (until this one) and I don't have a particular preference. There is a reason why I have been fixated on the Hosokawa mon, namely that it is the most repeated mon on the tsuba appearing a total of 4 times (twice on either side). This would seemingly indicate (at least to me) that this mon holds particular significance. It is possible that this is over-fixating on my part but it is not without reason. The next most repeated kamon is the Kamei clan mon which is featured 3 times whilst the remaining mon are only featured once each. Both the Hosokawa and Kamei clans were based in Southern Japan during the Edo Period (Tsuwamoto domain Southern Honshu and Higo domain, Kyushu). Correct me if I'm mistaken but this would seem to be geographically incongruent with Akita prefecture, Dewa han (unless this is a different Akita) OR Shonai (which is not much further South). Another of the remaining two mon in the tsuba is the Goto clan who were based in Hizen (Nagasaki) and used a Hanabishi inside a circle as their crest... This also seemingly points to a Southern influence to me. So I suppose my question now is assuming the Shonai Shoami attribution is correct, why/how would a far Northern tsuba wind up featuring all these apparently far Southern kamon? EDIT: I also do want to add, the Hikozo example I posted was purely for a discussion of materials used. I was not trying to suggest it was stylistically the same and I referred to Dale's post for a comparison of shape. Essentially my point was that the shape and matching materials had both been observed within Higo, so it was not inconceivable that Nishigaki Higo tsuba with matching materials and shape might exist.

Interesting responses! Seems we have a bit of a 50/50 split between Akita Shonai and Nishigaki Higo, or at least no clear consensus... Whilst it seems like a divisive one I think the Hosokawa kamon is the determining factor for me given that the Hosokawa ruled the Higo domain and there is more of a direct link there, however the Shonai example posted gives a lot of new insight into how the NBTHK made its attribution. As Dale's example above and the following example from Hirata Hikozo of the Higo school indicate, neither the shape nor brass rim were exclusive to the Shonai school... On the other hand, I'm interested to know more about yamagane v.s. suaka as materials. How can I accurately discern the difference between yamagane and suaka? Is the deep red v.s. more brownish colour the key to differentiating the two and what would this suggest about the period or school of craftsmanship?

Hello fellow tsuba and tosogu collectors! I recently acquired a new tsuba that is still on its way from Japan, an interesting suaka tsuba featuring a number of brass kamon. This tsuba has papers and has been attributed as Shonai however the prominence of the Hosokawa mon lends credence to the idea that the tsuba may in fact be Higo work. The tsuba also appears to be quite early Edo and seems older than other Shonai suaka examples I could find. This is the first suaka tsuba I have purchased so I am far from an expert on the material. My question to the forum therefore is, how old do you think this tsuba is and do you think the attribution on the certificate of authenticity is correct or incorrect? What sways your opinion one way or the other? From my limited research and the assistance of a fellow collector and forum member I believe early Higo might be a better attribution but would love a second (third, fourth or fifth) opinion! Thoughts? How would you date or attribute this one?

Cornelius, as Ken has said mon are not that uncommon on tsuba and there are at least one or two collectors on this forum who go out of their way to exclusively collect tosogu with samurai emblems. I myself am trying to build a small subcollection of 4 early or pre-Edo tsuba with kamon on them. At this stage I have three such tsuba: One from the Muromachi Period featuring the Tsutsui clan mon, one from the Azuchi-Momoyama which appears to feature the Maeda clan mon and another early Edo Higo tsuba featuring the Hosokawa clan mon which I just purchased last week. I'll probably make a thread on that one soon to share and see what the forum thinks of it. The tsuba actually features some additional mon as well including those of the Kamei and (I think) Goto clans. All 3 of my tsuba are fairly simplistic in design with mokko-gata shape, but become increasingly decorative with the choice of base metals as time passes. Long story short, tsuba of kamon definitely do exist and the further back you go, the less decorative tsuba get design wise (as a general, but not ironclad rule). It's important to remember that in the Edo period the sword became more a symbol of status and aesthetic expression than a practical tool of war. This allowed artisans and presumably consumers alike to explore more decorative and aesthetically appealing designs that related to other aspects of their everyday life such as their religious beliefs, environment, or local folklore among others.

That would be great Dale! Never turn down an opportunity to obtain new information!

Why does the NGV keep these? Surely they could get their hands on superior pieces even before the butchery.....

Seeing as we've already bumped the thread anyway, the Mei looks pretty good to me... Another example: https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5498337 Seems like a plausible match. I will note a small inconsistency in the second kanji in which the stroke from your fuchi crosses over to form an x shape, unlike the linked example here in which the stroke appears slightly higher and does not cross over. The first kanji also appears slightly different but that could be put down to spacing. I'm not sure whether the quality is quite up to standard however that can be hard to judge through pictures. It seems decent, not spectacular. You would probably have to submit for appraisal to know with any certainty but I think you have a nice piece there.

Developing the eye takes time and is a constant process Simon. You'll get the hang of it! Keep an eye on the forum as it is a great way to gain exposure to a wide variety of Tsuba and accompanying expertise from some more knowledgeable collectors. This is just me, but I'm not one to be burned twice... If I had bought this Tsuba from a seller I would be very wary about buying from them again. I will stop short of Derek's rhetoric and suggest that maybe the seller's expertise lies with blades or some other type/aspect of Japanese militaria... I know there are some collectors who could tell you all about a blade and very little about Tosogu. I'm no expert on anything at all but for what little knowledge in Tosogu I have, I know nothing at all about armour, blades, etc.

Wow Ian, that is actually astonishing. I never imagined such a finely detailed landscape would even be possible in a Tsuba. Gives me a new-found appreciation for Soten style.

Tony, the number of times I have seen this exact debate/discussion play out on the forum must be approaching the double digits!