Iron and brass Tsuba

[Rodenbacher]

Here is another Tsuba I have questions about. It comes from a german collection and shows traces of the collectors number on the backside.

 

Is this Heianyo style? I always thought Heianyo to be more elegant and better done. The carving on the brass seems to be poorly done here. Is it from the Edo period or earlier? What is your opinion?

 

It is a very thick and massive Tsuba with a well forged iron plate. The measurements: 67 x 66 x 5 mm

[Rodenbacher]

More details

[John A Stuart]

Heianjo, maybe Onin. The hitsuana seem to date it to Momoyama, early Edo. It does seem crude, but, somehow strong because of it. John

[Marius]

I would say the large nakago-ana indicates that this tsuba was mounted on a longer blade. And this would indicate the Momoyama period, too.

 

Nice tsuba.

[Toryu2020]

Rustic yes but beautiful,

hang on to this one - with some love and attention i'll bet the patina will come back nicely...

-t

[DirkO]

  John A Stuart said:

Heianjo, maybe Onin. The hitsuana seem to date it to Momoyama, early Edo. It does seem crude, but, somehow strong because of it. John

 

Would not go with Onin because the hitsuana aren't fully lined?

[Marius]

I wold strongly suggest to leave the tsuba as it is. The patina is good and unless there is active rust, nothing needs to be done, except for proper storage.

 

I like it a lot, if you want to sell it, contact me, please :-)

[Grey Doffin]

Somethings about this tsuba I like and others not so much, and that brings me to a question.

Why would the carving on the brass be so crudely executed? It doesn't look charming because of its rusticity; just looks poorly done.

Grey

[John A Stuart]

I think, long ago, Grey, someone added his own carving and punch marks. Why? Something to do on a boring watch? Who knows? John

[lotus]

I would add the soft gold color of the brass inlay is another point that this is an older piece. Very nice, despite what looks to be some later poorly done carving. Interesting piece.

[Marius]

Grey,

 

with all respect, I disagree. It is crudely done, granted. It was done by a simple artisan, not a refined artist and there is nothing wrong with that. Not everything has to be perfect, especially in Japanese objects. Otherwise, how could we (or shall I say some of us?) possibly appreciate Yamakichibei, "kagamishi" or other tsuba where the decoration is quite "crude"? You could even dismiss Jingo, as their inlays are "crude" too.

 

[sarcasm mode ON] My, the Jingo monkey grabbed by an eagle is evidently amateurish - it does not remind a monkey at all! And look at the carving! How crude and primitive! [sarcasm mode OFF]

 

I won't go into concepts of wabi or shibui, as these were possibly unknown (at least in a conscious way) to the maker. But this does not lessen the charm of this little tsuba.

 

Not every tsuba is Goto or Hamano or any of those schools where perfection and attention to detail reigned supreme. And let me tell you - I am glad that these humble, functional pieces of kodogu like this tsuba have been manufactured and cared for.

 

PS: why do you think the carving is later?

[John A Stuart]

That's me Mariusz, I was envisioning it as made without it originally and added later, not much later. No proof, just a thought. John

[Grey Doffin]

Take a look at the last picture posted, the extreme closeup. This isn't the work of anyone who carved brass as part of his job; this is sloppy work and nothing else. I guess I can buy this as being done by some owner who wanted to gussy up his tsuba but didn't want to pay to have it done properly (although this seems like grasping at straws and not very likely to be true). I can't buy this as done by any tsuba shi who ever got paid to work.

This, as I see it, is nothing at all similar to the Jingo monkey and eagle tsuba. The work on the Jingo is exquisite, perfect, and the tsuba would be no where near as interesting if the animals were more realistically or finely rendered. On the tsuba in question, and let me point out that I'm talking about the small carved petals with punch marks, not the larger petals containing them, the carving that delineates these small petals is choppy and crude, not the same work as the carved lines of the larger petals. This I can't understand.

Grey

[Marius]

Grey,

 

I see the difference. And I am not convinced. Take a look at the picture. The leaves are great work, the nanako is very very sloppy. Such juxtapositions are pretty common in these older tsuba. Of course you may be right and I wrong. Neither of us has the means to prove it.