Informal Tsuba Kantei...

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

A friend of mine and long time collector of Nihonto and Tosogu wanted me to take and post on the NMB some nice photographs and a description of this tsuba that he let me borrow for awhile to study. I will begin with some basic information and some nice detail photographs of the plate and rim. I will then follow with my own kantei of the tsuba. Your own analysis, feedback, and opinions about the tsuba are always welcome. The tsuba has not been papered by any organization. Thank you.

 

Basic Information

tem Name: Wild Geese and Pine Trees

Japanese Title: 雁に松地透 図鍔 (kari ni matsu ji-sukashi zu tsuba)

Material: Iron (tetsu 鉄)

Size: 7.0 X 7.0 cm, 5.5 mm at the rim

Signature: mumei (無銘) 　

Shape: Maru-gata (丸形)

Openings: Ryohitsu ana (両櫃孔)

Surface Finish: Tsuchime-ji (槌目地)

Attachment: None

 

General Observations

Along the rim of the tsuba has many large granular iron bones (tekkotsu). The rim has a rounded square shape (kaku-mimi koniku). Overall the tsuba was a bit over cleaned by the previous owner before my friend specifically along the inside surfaces of the sukashi. It also has a few places where the patina is thin but overall not that bad.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Here is my kantei attempt at the tsuba. To me it looks like a classic Kanayama tsuba from Owari Province of the Azuchi-Momoyama Period (1568 – 1615) (安土桃山時代). The small size, great thickness, many granular iron bones, hammer marked surface, and the rounded square shaped rim when but together all in a single tsuba with a some what abstract ji-sukashi design is characteristic of Kanayama craftsmanship.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[christianmalterre]

David

 

you are a funny guy!

(why "informal" Kantei?-why do you post pictures which already bear an "name" on bottom,and why do you give an "call" immediadely after?

-had ben better to wait till you do give your´s statement...Not?)

You did tell "la Pointe" before beginners had any chance so to make their´s own observation and reflection about it....

 

Can you but tell me why it may not even be an Ko-Shoami?(LOL!)

Christian

[kunitaro]

Sure it is Kanayama tsuba. 

Beautiful jitetsu and tekkotsu.

The design reminds me "a cross". 

We see sometime kind of cross design in old kanayama or ko-shoami tsuba.

I think it is possible before prohivited Christianity in Japan. 

between 1550-1600....

[Soshin]

David

 

you are a funny guy!

(why "informal" Kantei?-why do you post pictures which already bear an "name" on bottom,and why do you give an "call" immediadely after?

Can you but tell me why it may not even be an Ko-Shoami?(LOL!)

Christian

 

Hi Christian,

 

I call it a informal kantei as the tsuba is not papered by a recognized organization and any judgement right or wrong is just my educated opinion as a collector. Yes you might be right about the calling it immediately after posting the tsuba I likely should have waited a bit.

In regards to your second question I have never examine any Ko-Shoami tsuba with this many large granular iron bones. Generally they are much fewer and smaller in size on Ko-Shoami tsuba. Also the thickness in relation to overall size of tsuba isn't often seen in Ko-Shoami tsuba as well.

 

Hi Kunitaro-san,

 

You bring up an important kantei point about the jitetsu which is also characteristic of Kanayama craftsmanship. Typically the jitetsu of Ko-Shoami is more of a dark brownish black in color while the jitetsu of Kanayama tsuba are a dark brownish blue in color.

In terms of the design at the top and bottom it could be a cross or some other design of European influence.

 

Thanks for everyone's interest in the tsuba.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[christianmalterre]

LOL !

such David-i think-it´s getting time to open the "next door" for you....

(Excellent work you did till yet-JBW...)

 

Christian

[Curran]

Lovely tsuba. It would have been exactly my cup of tea a few years ago.

 

David's was almost certainly a "Kaneyama" a bit heavy on the Owari feel, but I think it should be classified as one of the late Momoyama - Very Earliest Edo Kaneyama that enjoyed a period of en vogue. The carbon nodules are almost too prominent little heads and have sort of been shaved around or finessed to be highlighted so clearly. Everything else looks right.

Now the funny thing is that the NBTHK, depending on the year such tsuba go to shinsa, will sometimes give these late momoyama - earliest Edo examples calls to Kaneyama, Ono, Owari and Shoami, in basically that order of frequency. I've seen one tsuba that got "Shoami" and the owner said it was an idiot call, then waited a few years and sent it back. Second time it got "Kaneyama". I've seen both sets of Hozon papers.

 

With these momoyama-earliest Edo ones, don't be too overconfident that it will paper Kaneyama. NBTHK seems to like to give the sharp stick to the eye on people papering these about 30-40% of the time.

[Steve Waszak]

For the life of me, I cannot understand why reasonably seasoned collectors want to bother with NBTHK papers for such tsuba. Look at the tsuba. Look at it. You can see what it is. Curran's comments about the same guard receiving two different sets of papers with different judgments/attributions echo what I've heard several times now, and only underscores how questionable it is (to put it mildly) to bother submitting such pieces for papers. I am genuinely curious to know why, given that it is undeniable that the NBTHK is unreliable when it comes to "identifying" mumei tsuba (and in some cases, non-mumei tsuba), collectors still A. send such pieces in for papers, and B. have any faith in whatever judgment is rendered.

 

Let me be clear: I am not criticizing the NBTHK here, exactly. They are human, and can make mistakes, or, simply, can be unsure of what a given piece may be. This is understandable. What I AM criticizing is what seems to be an unshakable faith many seem to have in the not-to-be-doubted "last word" of the NBTHK, even when it is known that the NBTHK either makes mistakes when it comes to making attributions on these mumei guards or shows that it doesn't really know what the piece is when it issues two sets of papers with differing attributions for the same tsuba.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no point to submitting mumei tsuba for shinsa. I can sort of see why a collector might submit a signed piece, especially if the authenticity of the tsuba and/or the mei is in question. Even then, I'd have doubts (as I've seen serious errors here, too), but for mumei works? No.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[kunitaro]

it is very sad that we are busy with Papers.

when all of us can recognize the quality of the object, we don't need the papers however, 

when we trading through internet, we are judging with digital photos....without examing objects in our hands.

I can not blame the market value depending on papers, especially in internet.

and for beginners, it(an expert's opinion) is good guidline for studying.

also it is good for investers maybe....

[Soshin]

Hi Kunitaro,

 

Thanks for the reply. Even with good photos they are no substitute for having the tsuba in hand to examine for a few days. In regards to papers I consider them very educated opinions of a human organization that enchance the resale value of the Tosogu or Nihonto.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles