Jake6500

i highly doubt that any museum would do such a thing today but in the past, say in the 1890's or something? Absolutely. The city of Troy was excavated haphazardly by an amateur (at least by modern standards) with dynamite. He literally blew a huge hole in the middle of the ancient city without a care in the world in pursuit of gold and treasure. Compared to that a couple numbers on a tsuba is nothing!

Agree with Curran, I have also observed this same auction listing. The numbers are undoubtedly very old museum catalogue numbers indicating this tsuba has been around for a long time and is probably in some very old book somewhere.

I am not a Goto school expert by any means (or an expert at all) but as a general rule menuki are not often signed. You sometimes see signatures on the backs with inserted metal plates or sometimes on the sides as in this example, but mei on menuki are less common than on tsuba, kozuka or fuchigashira and it is usually only your mid to high quality menuki that got signed. In my opinion signatures on menuki are therefore more trustworthy on average than say fuchigashira, where there are gimei floating around all over the place. All this is to say that if you have a decent quality menuki with a signature on it, especially when that signature is a tiny detail on the side of the piece like this, the chance of the signature being shoshin is higher, relatively speaking. I concur with Brian, though I would like to see what someone more versed with the Goto school thinks... Regarding the reuse of the menuki, this was a fairly common practice. I once saw a Meiji period wooden drawer being sold on Jauce that featured an authentic, signed menuki on it (I can't remember whether it was Ishiguro or Ichinomiya). The practice was more common with pouches like yours.

Nice tsuba Mike, I'm usually not the biggest fan of open works and personally gravitate toward the solid stuff but this one has a nice design. Bridges were a major feature in mid to late Edo period art such as in Hokusai's famous ukiyo-e collection of bridges across Japan. The added fukurin is indicative not of additional structural protection or support, but of an additional aesthetic quality added to the piece. Think of it as the frame or border around an iron painting.

Interesting theme I have not encountered before. Thanks Colin, for spreading your cultural knowledge!

Looks like a boat in the reeds by the shore to me... Not sure what the overall theme might be though.

I had seen this listing before it ended and hard passed on it, not because I thought the tsuba was fake but mainly because I didn't like the style or quality enough to bid on it. As has been said already the nanako look quite good which indicates it is likely authentic. The copper in the sekigane is an interesting observation but not enough of a reason to conclude the tsuba is a modern fake. At least, not in my view.

Hi Justin, As you get deeper into the hobby you will find rats/mice are actually a fairly common design. I think the deep symbolism in this one has already been deciphered and I'm a bit late to the thread. What I will say is this is a decent pickup for a rookie collector! A nice cultural design, authentic piece from the Edo Period, the rat sticks out from the base which makes it "pop" which is a quality many collectors like. Hard to tell the school as others have said but if I was to hazard a guess, maybe Aizu-Shoami? Don't quote me on that though! I'm guessing mostly based on the 3 dimensional carving of the rat, the iron base and the contrast of metals in the carvings. Interested to see what Piers and Dale think, if they have any schools in mind.

Hi Giordy, There are a couple giveaways about this tsuba. Firstly as others have pointed out this is a commonly replicated design. Secondly, the nakago ana in the middle has been cut with an unusually square-ish shape. Finally, the space where the seppa would normally go seems unevenly shaped and does not appear to form a proper oval. These are the key points that stick out to me just at a glance.

Some fantastic examples Viktor! I agree that the differences in the kao are minimal and that your set is authentic. I never raised this earlier but the level of detail in the hands on your kashira are not the type of thing lesser artists could have pulled off. These new examples you've linked are also fantastic pieces that seem to exhibit similar features and I'm wondering if this might be an identifying point for Unno school (certainly for Unno Yoshimori) works!

Those are some incredible investigative powers as usual Dale! Collection and catalogue numbers are an important tool in tracing the provenance of antiques!

Thanks Viktor for the solid examples and the extra information! I did find another source that aligns with what you have said here, namely that this artist resided in Echigo province but a lot of this information is new to me including the connection to the Hamano school and the Matsudaira family! I do think the Shoki tsuba above shares some features with the Hamano style so in hindsight the connection makes sense. I think the mei in your examples are also a pretty close match which is also reassuring. The very minor differences as you've said can likely be attributed to the work having been produced at an earlier or later stage in the artisans career. The tsuba and fuchigashira you've posted here are both beautiful pieces! I'm not as keen on the kozuka, mostly I think because of the material but the craftmanship is still great. It seems Seisendo was big on the wave motif! Here is one more example I had found earlier when researching but forgot to post: Thanks again for the information!

So I recently acquired a pretty high quality wave fuchigashira that I wanted to get the forums opinions on. This one is papered and signed Seisendo Kashino Naonobu (Kao). I am interested in anything you can tell me about the artist or any other mei and kao examples you might be able to provide for this artisan to help me ascertain the authenticity of the signature. Whilst I believe the mei is likely authentic, I only have one other example at present to compare it to. The fact that it is certified certainly helps also. I've only just won this piece in auction and it is still over in Japan so I can't take any new photographs at the moment. Picture from the original auction listing below: Picture of a tsuba by the same artist in the Walters Art Museum: https://art.thewalters.org/object/51.292/ Anything you could tell me about the artist, or any opinions about how this new piece in my collection compares in quality to other Mito and Omori wave fuchigashira would be greatly appreciated.

The hitsu shape is the type you see in the Muromachi period, however other aspects of the tsuba lead me to think it is a more recent throwback to older styles. I agree with Jean Collin, the material and open design lead me to a late Edo attribution.

I like the dragon and phoenix theme, directional/constellation guardians. As far as the tsuba themselves though, the Buddhist lightning and karmic wheel openwork has got to be the best!

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...