Tsuba kantei & Nobuiye Theories

[Brian]

Good discussion, and glad we can see differences of opinion without conflict. I am keen to learn more on Nobuiye from this thread, not something I claim too much knowledge of.

I am wondering what Pete and Steve's take on the tsuba are from the workmanship alone, without taking any mei into account?

I know you cannot judge properly from pics, and Pete mentioned hesitation about the intersects..but I think the workmanship does look good to my novice eyes, and you can see why it got the call it did.

I think this one would be one to have in hand. If the shinsa saw the work matched, but the signature was a little off...they might have decided that the workmanship confirms the mei in this case.

 

Brian

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

I think Brian makes a very important point. Kantei isn't done and will never be done by photos on a computer screen. If Henry wants to get a second opinion I would go to the NBTHK. Keep in mind I have a policy that once something has a paper or hakogaki I don't resubmit it. I collect tosogu not papers or boxes with Japanese written no them. Henry if I was you I would be very happy with this fine tsuba be sure to let me know if you ever get tired of it. I would sell more then a few tsuba on NMB to pay for it.

[Henry Wilson]

Hi David

 

Yes, I am very happy with it and thank you to all the people who have contacted me privately with their opinions.

 

All sword organisations are very reluctant to paper big names so I am sure the shinsa team did not take the decision lightly. For what it is worth and honestly, no disrespect is intended, I think the opinion of the NTHK (NPO), who examined the tsuba in hand, is of more value than the opinions of experienced collectors who are members here. This is not shooting the messenger or anything like that, just an opinion other readers probably have too.

 

Some interesting points that have been raised.

 

I am wondering what Pete and Steve's take on the tsuba are from the workmanship alone, without taking any mei into account?

To me, it seems that variations in a mei is over riding what the workmanship says. What ever happened to the workmanship should verify the mei?

 

I wonder what their (Pete and Steve's) opinion is on this composition.

(see post at the end of page 2)

 

 

I would be very interested to hear opinions on the issues raised.

[Pete Klein]

Henry, no more comments from me, thank you kindly.

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Yes it took me about 10 mintues to find these two example in my small library.... Needless to say this variation in the mei isn't all that uncommon as some people might think. :lol:

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Henry,

 

Well, just to respond to a couple of the strands of thought here... First, I would certainly agree that attempting to arrive at any definitive assessment (if there can be such a thing) would have to be done via in-hand examination. This is, I think, especially the case when the question concerns the workmanship, as you're asking about, Henry (and Brian). The finer points concerning the metal finish, forging, hammering, patina, texture, and so on are almost useless to conjecture about too much from photos alone. We can get initial ideas, perhaps, but again, to arrive at any sort of confident conclusion requires hand-held inspection.

 

The mei, though, is a slightly different story. While similar caveats must apply in the assessment of the mei, a signature is less stubborn about revealing certain key traits than is the surface texture, patina, metal grain, etc... of the plate. If a stroke is rendered in a questionable way, or if there are missing strokes, or extra strokes, it is a bit harder to discredit such observations based on having only photos to go by. Again, Henry, I would love to be wrong about this. I sincerely hope I am. But I have never seen another futoji-mei which presents with such a pronounced overlap of that "sideways 'V'" as this one does. This feature is one of the dominant kantei points, in fact, for distinguishing between futoji-mei and hanare-mei signature, as well as for determining authentic hanare-mei works versus those which would pretend to be. You'll note, too, that the usual rendering of the "sideways 'V'" is more sedate and linear in authentic hanare mei; on your tsuba, this "V" is incised with a flamboyance, for lack of a better word, that I wouldn't expect to see. Finally, this structure is frequently cut using two separated strokes (see example images). On your tsuba, it is rendered in a way whereby it appears to be all connected and done with a certain panache.

 

Equally disconcerting would be the "missing strokes" at the far left of the "iye" ji. These strokes usually appear as three quasi-horizontal lines/strokes one on top of the other (see example images). Of course I am speaking of hanare-mei works in this case, but I am doing so because of that pronounced overlapping of the "sideways 'V'" onto the long downward stroke of the "iye" ji.

 

Another point to note in the mei here is exactly where the "T" of the "nobu" ji is met by the top horizontal stroke (the fourth stroke, I believe) of this ji. In the hanare-mei, this top horizontal stroke (on the right side of the ji) meets at the junction of the first and second strokes (the vertical and the diagonal "swoop" of the "T" on the left side of the "nobu" ji). In the futoji-mei, this is not the case: here, the top horizontal stroke of the right side of the "nobu" ji abuts the upper right edge of the quasi-diagonal "swoop" stroke of the "T." (Man, I hope I'm making sense...). As Pete observed (rightly, I believe), the mei on your tsuba seems to be an amalgam of the two different kinds of mei. Again, photos are no substitute for in-hand inspection in judging tsuba overall; but the relative two-dimensionality of the mei can yield more positive and definitive evidence than the tsuba as a whole can from photos alone.

 

So, back to the workmanship question. In truth, the workmanship of this guard is not up to the standards of the high-level Nobuiye guards I've seen. However, it does seem to be (judging from photos) on a par with some of the smaller, judged-to-be-authentic pieces I've seen in the past. I would certainly love a chance to examine this one in hand in order to have a better sense of things...

 

A final thought on papers: the mistakes I have seen the various organizations make in the attributions of tosogu have, on occasion, been harrowing. I'm talking about severe, indefensible errors. Errors that are demonstrable as errors. There is far too much of a tendency for Western collectors to kowtow to these organizations as the ultimate, unquestionable, final word on the authenticity of a given work. I do not fault the organizations themselves. They are comprised of humans, and therefore, are prone to error. The fault lies in those who unreservedly trust in the judgment of these organizations as infallible. Better to take what these organizations say as a starting point, and study as much as one can to confirm (or reject) what the papers say...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

 

P.S. in the first image here, of the mei examples, images 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are of the hanare mei; the others are of the futoji mei. The bottom two photos are of futoji-mei Nobuiye.

[Steve Waszak]

David,

 

Your example is of a hanare-mei Nobuiye; Henry's is ostensibly a futoji-mei piece.

 

Steve

[Henry Wilson]

Thank you very much Steve

 

Sorry to keep pushing, but what about this?

 

The sample I am using is an oshigata, however the quality seems to be quite good. There seems to be a few strokes missing from the 信 part of the mei, there is a < shape that is larger than in other Nobuie mei in the 家　kanji, overall the mei seems to be quite long and the 家　kanji of both tsuba have a striking resemblance.

 

 

It could be me but it seems that because the NBTHK probably would not paper this tsuba, then the issue is closed.

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Henry,

 

Just too little information in the oshigata image for me to be able to say what I think about it. I will say this about your tsuba's mei: to me, it seems to be closer to a hanare-mei than a futoji-mei, having more features of the former than of the latter. Here are images of hanare-mei Nobuiye work, just for more visual reference...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Henry Wilson]

Steve

 

Thank you very much again. What you say is very interesting.

 

Best regards, and taking the time to explain your thoughts is very much appreciated.

 

PS. You really should get that lovely water-wheel Nobuie fitted in a costumized box

[Soshin]

David,

 

Your example is of a hanare-mei Nobuiye; Henry's is ostensibly a futoji-mei piece.

 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

So in a nutshell it's clear to you that Henry's tsuba has a mixture of different mei styles used by the Shodai and Nidai. My posted examples are marked in the book as belonging to the Shodai.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Ford Hallam]

I've followed this discussing with interest and rising amusement. :D

 

What strikes me as glaringly obvious is the following.

 

Examining the mei as provided by Steven and selected by Haynes it is self evident that Nobuie I is actually 7 different people and Nobuie II, in this instance, at least 3 different men.

 

It seems somewhat arbitrary to be nitpicking variations on Henry's tsuba when this sample group doesn't contain 2 mei that could be regarded as the same either.

 

And who decided which mei, hanare or futoji, indicated shodai and which nidai ? There are no dates nor other literary data that would allow anyone to make that call. This is simply an accepted convention without any real evidence to back it up. Is there even enough reason in the tsuba themselves to support the idea that there were essentially only 2 'real' Nobuie ( I and II ) tsuba-shi...or has the vague split of mei type (hanare and futoji) provided a false impression of the numbers of actual makers we're looking at? To be clear, I don't think there were only 2 BIG name Nobuie at the start. I think there were more likely a group of them working under that name. I think, further, that once we look afresh at the only evidence we have, the tsuba themselves, we may begin to discern far more distinct traits that may point to a larger group of individuals all working at the same time.

 

And while I'm here I'd like to point out that the mei 'Nobuie' ( sincerity/fidelity house/studio) isn't even a real art name. It, like 'Kaneie' (metal house/studio) , appears to me to be a studio or 'brand' name. And these are the first tsuba to bear any makers mark so no precedent had yet been set in this respect.

The kanji Ie means house, as in Iebori - house carvers. The Goto, for example to the Tokugawa. As Kanzan Sato suggests this "signature probably represents a group of individuals working in several provinces rather than a single individual". I'd suggest the wide variation in the 2 rough groupings of mei style would support that notion.

 

As far as production I'd posit that the processes used were actually not as refined as many like to imagine. I think these tsuba were actually made fairly efficiently and quickly. They were all clearly skilled workers but variations in quality is always to be expected in a studio set up, or co-operative village even, that's geared to a degree of mass-production. I would further suggest that these tsuba were initially quite humble artefacts and were only later 'recognised' as expressing the much admired and revered tea ceremony aesthetic in much the same way as many anonymous tea bowls were.

 

Returning to the issue of the mei, I think it a mistake to focus on this aspect because I doubt very much the makers back then were all that concerned with individuality nor did they consider that in centuries to come the authenticity of their work would rest on such an irrelevant mark. It may also be worth considering that many of these men may well have been illiterate, we know many swordsmiths were at the time, and merely copied blindly a sample mark. If these tsuba have any significant aesthetic value then it lies in the workmanship and not in the minutia of mei construction.

 

Anyway, just a few 'alternative' thoughts to challenge a growing orthodoxy I personally find a bit tenuous.

 

It might be worth remembering the words of Shoji Hamada, the first National Living Treasure potter, when asked why he never signed his work; "in the future my poor work will be ascribed to my students and followers while their good, also unsigned work, may be credited to me" . We don't know how serious he was either

[kaigunair]

It might be worth remembering the words of Shoji Hamada, the first National Living Treasure potter, when asked why he never signed his work; "in the future my poor work will be ascribed to my students and followers while their good, also unsigned work, may be credited to me" .

Wow, what perspective and insight by Mr. Hamada!

 

Henry, While I have yet caught the bug for older iron tsubas, your example does seem very quaint with a sort of subdued reverence. I'm glad you point out that you appreciate it for what it is, regardless of papers. Since this is such a big name, I do hope that should you go after NBTHK papers in the future, it gets them. The thread was amazing regarding the explanation of known variations and kantei points. So lucky that the forum has so many knowledgable tosogu students! I also didn't know about the NPO NTHK vs NTHK issue. All in all, a very informative thread so just wantedto say thank you for posting up your very interesting tsuba for discussion.

 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Ford,

 

Have to rush off to work here, but I will post more on this a little later. For now, though, it seems logically inconsistent for you to claim, on the one hand, that the representative mei as seen in the photo indicate at least seven different "shodai" and three different "nidai" Nobuiye, and then later, to claim that the likely illiteracy of these craftsmen would mean that it's unreasonable to expect consistency in inscribing a mei. I don't see how both statements can coexist. Beyond this, I have no difficulty in seeing consistency in some of the sample mei here. This doesn't mean I see every would-be shodai mei to be exactly the same as the others (ditto as regards the nidai), but to say that these examples point to a different individual in each case is, I think, really stretching things. Especially when we consider that these tsubako may have been working across decades of time (is your signature, Ford, precisely the same every time? Is it the same now as it was when you were in your twenties? Mine isn't.), to expect utter uniformity from mei to mei to mei is questionable at best. Having said this, there are, I think, tendencies that will appear across a wide sample set of a given mei. These are present in the examples here (mostly), and are those that Pete and I have been discussing. Further, it is a non-sequitur to reify the existence of two "rough groupings of mei style" if one is also positing at least ten different men (living in different provinces!) creating and signing these tsuba: why would the mei of such a large number of individual workers, living many miles apart, sift into two recognizable groups this way. It makes no sense to me.

 

On your doubting of the assigning of "shodai" and "nidai" status to these artists, I would agree with you there. I have long wondered how it was "determined" which of the two (if you'll indulge my reference to only two tsubako here) was Nobuiye I and which was Nobuiye II. I have yet to see a convincing reason/explanation offered up in response to this question.

 

Gotta run. I will want to respond, though, too, to your thoughts on a Nobuiye brand, as this is something that I have been discussing with others for some years now, not just in regard to Nobuiye, but even more so with Yamakichibei work.

 

Final comment: Your statement that "If these tsuba have any significant aesthetic value then it lies in the workmanship and not in the minutia of mei construction" seems so obvious to me that I'm a little surprised you felt you needed to make it. I mean, what form of art or craft would this not apply to? It's a given, isn't it? The whole reason the discussion of the mei is even occurring is that the work(manship) itself is implicitly worthy enough to accept (at least for the moment) as authentic or deserving of appraisal (the inadequacy of electronic photos as the medium by which we're all accessing these pieces notwithstanding).

 

Anyway, more later...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Steve

 

logically inconsistent? me....never. Maybe, but that's 'cos I'm an artist and can entertain conflicting ideas at the same time.

 

And I was only half serious about the variations in the mei but serious enough to make my point I trust. Yes mei change over time, no doubt, so then lets try and establish a timeline and explain these gradual changes. Unless, of course, they are too random to suggest a real demonstrative connection or 'familial traits'

 

I made reference to Sato's notion of makers being all over the place, yes, but this doesn't exclude the possibility (one I lean towards) of a core group who may be regarded as the 'real deal' and who work is generally regarded as the better class of 'Nobuie'.

 

Further, it is a non-sequitur to reify the existence of two "rough groupings of mei style" if one is also positing at least ten different men (living in different provinces!) creating and signing these tsuba: why would the mei of such a large number of individual workers, living many miles apart, sift into two recognizable groups this way. It makes no sense to me.

I didn't establish the classification of Nobuie mei into two basic types and my rejection of the notion is completely consistent with my observation regarding the significant variations we find....personal evolution of mei accepted, I still don't see any overwhelming evidence in terms of writing style to suggest the same hand, quite the opposite in many cases, actually. And this convenient sifting into 2 discernible groups (according to criteria I've already implied I regard as fallible) may well sift out finer into even more groups if we look more closely....so where does that leave us?

But that may be a matter of subjective observation and interpretation so I wouldn't be able to suggest a resolution to that matter.

 

Final comment: Your statement that "If these tsuba have any significant aesthetic value then it lies in the workmanship and not in the minutia of mei construction" seems so obvious to me that I'm a little surprised you felt you needed to make it. I mean, what form of art or craft would this not apply to? It's a given, isn't it? The whole reason the discussion of the mei is even occurring is that the work(manship) itself is implicitly worthy enough to accept (at least for the moment) as authentic or deserving of appraisal (the inadequacy of electronic photos as the medium by which we're all accessing these pieces notwithstanding).

 

No. it doesn't seem to be a given...it seems to me the claim of a genuine Nobuie mei is enough to validate it's value in far too many cases, especially when offered for sale.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to build a thesis merely trying to demonstrate that what is often taken as fact is not much more than speculation based on no solid evidence.

 

regards,

 

Ford

[Marius]

Ford, Steve,

 

I am impatiently waiting for this discussion to be continued! Thanks, gentlemen

 

@Ford

 

Your workshop theory is highly interesting and it does sound very convincing. Do you know that some time ago Steve has come up with exactly the same theory to explain the existence of some very good tsuba which could not be attributed to any of the "officially recognized" Yamakichibei? I can't wait to hear more!

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Ford,

 

I see what you're saying about that last bit concerning too much focus on details of mei; I guess I just zeroed in on the term you used in your original statement ("aesthetic value"), rather than other sorts of value...

 

Returning to the issue of the mei, I think it a mistake to focus on this aspect because I doubt very much the makers back then were all that concerned with individuality nor did they consider that in centuries to come the authenticity of their work would rest on such an irrelevant mark.

 

This is an interesting way of looking at things, but I don't quite agree with what you're saying here, only because the conscious intention on the part of an artist to sign his name in a specific way is not a prerequisite for later scholars to make valid observations about consistencies in the way that artist signed his work. We do many things in our lives unconsciously, including, I would say, the rendering of details in our signatures. This does not preclude, however, the analysis of others arriving at stable conclusions concerning tendencies (strong or otherwise) in the way we do things.

 

As far as production I'd posit that the processes used were actually not as refined as many like to imagine. I think these tsuba were actually made fairly efficiently and quickly. They were all clearly skilled workers but variations in quality is always to be expected in a studio set up, or co-operative village even, that's geared to a degree of mass-production. I would further suggest that these tsuba were initially quite humble artefacts and were only later 'recognised' as expressing the much admired and revered tea ceremony aesthetic in much the same way as many anonymous tea bowls were.

 

What you say here is perhaps the most intriguing aspect of our discussion. I suppose a definition of "refined" as you mean it would help a little, but considering the immense amount of fastidious examination of Nobuiye works, it does seem unlikely to me that (the finest of the) Nobuiye guards would have been churned out with the efficient dispatch you describe. What you say about the variation in quality I fully agree with, the reasons for which we can conjecture about all day long. What I will say is that the best Nobuiye tsuba are, in my opinion, the best (or as good as the best) tsuba ever made by anyone. Those I posted photos of above are exemplary of such works, I think.

 

But I wanted to get to what you say in the last sentence of the quote above. I find it difficult to imagine that the glowing magnificence of the best Nobuiye work could have resulted from such unassuming and unconscious origins. In fact, my current thinking is just about the opposite of what you suggest here: Nobuiye (I and/or II) was recognized by at least one great lord/daimyo as a metalsmith of extraordinary ability, and this lord/daimyo moved to retain Nobuiye as a "house artist." What you say about the meaning of the "iye" ji is correct, of course. What I am about to suggest can be shredded as hopelessly apocryphal and romantic, an accusation I would freely admit to understanding. Shrug. That's okay:

 

At this time, Nobuiye (the first, original great smith, if you can entertain the possibility that there was such a first man) seems to be understood as having been an Owari smith. More specifically, he would have lived and worked in Kiyosu, which was the dominant "urban" center of warrior culture in that province during the Momoyama Period. Oda Nobunaga was also an Owari man. His time was late Muromachi and early Momoyama. He is known to have been a passionate man of the arts, which included Tea Culture. He is also known to have expanded, if not initiated, the practice of rewarding retainers, vassals, and the like with objects, rather than weapons, land, horses, or gold (for much more on Oda Nobunaga, I would strongly recommend Jeroen Lamers' book, Japonius Tyrannus: The Japanese Warlord Oda Nobunaga Reconsidered). Nobunaga was also a famous innovator in a number of areas. As you point out, Ford, Nobuiye works are "the first tsuba to bear any maker's mark," so when we consider the confluence of these facts, an intriguing possibility arises: Oda Nobunaga, recognizing the brilliance of the work of this particular tsubako, and being the innovator he is, confers upon the smith a ji from his own name, Nobu. Nobuiye is retained by Nobunaga as a tsubako working for the "house of Nobu(naga)." His tsuba are made either for the Oda family or as gifts to be given by Nobunaga as rewards for services rendered to those worthy of such a fine object. It costs Nobunaga no horses, no land, no gold, no weapons to reward his vassals in this way, it reinforces both his power and his taste, and being that the object in question is a sword guard, with all of its semiotic possibilities (including Tea associations), the bond between Oda and his vassals in the eyes of the public is tightened even more. Apocryphal? Maybe. Romantic? Oh, absolutely. Therefore false? Not necessarily. In any event, I just can't concur that the top-shelf Nobuiye tsuba were either made or received, in their day, as "humble artefacts."

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[John A Stuart]

Some remarks to consider. Myochin Ujiie changed his name to Nobuie after meeting Takeda Nobutora and making some armour for him in Kai. That's one story. Another is it derived from Takeda Shingen, but, the name change seems earlier so likely from his father Nobutora. The origin of the Nobuiie name, maybe? Anyhow the Nobuie of tsuba fame came from either Mino or Kyoto and moved to Kiyosu, Owari province in Eiroku period and started making tsuba. From Bunroku 4 Kiyosu was ruled by Fukushima Masanori and it is thought that after Sekigehara Nobuie went with Masanori as he became lord of the Hiroshima fief. Another thing we must consider is that the name Nobuie was synonymous with excellence and quality and quite faithful and equal copies were made concurrently by other smiths. I am sure that you can not lump Nobuie works attributed to the Kiyosu smith with atelier or house works of these other smiths. John

[cabowen]

As is often the case, all we really have at present are the objects themselves and the sum of the scholarship of mostly Japanese historians and researchers who have devoted their time and effort in this direction over the years. Clearly there is a great deal that is unknown, leaving plenty of opportunity for conjecture, theory, and the spinning of tales. All interesting and entertaining but in the end we are no closer to anything that can be called the truth. Henry's best course of action, should he choose to pursue it, would be to have his tsuba examined in hand by the foremost authorities in the field, with the assumption that these people have had enough direct experience with accepted works to render what is still nothing more than an opinion, albeit a most learned one. Or he can simply enjoy it for what it is and get off the treadmill.

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Steve

 

let me start by saying how nice it is to be able to explore these ideas with you. The whole Nobuie topic has long perplexed and bothered me so it's a relief of sorts to finally be able to expound on some of my own, and your's too it seems, misgivings.

 

To clarify and elaborate on my suggestion of 'efficient production'; what I'm getting at here is the very uncontrived, almost natural expression the finest Nobuie tsuba seem to exhibit. We accept without complaint that this, the most exalted form of aesthetic in tea philosophy, is the result of unconscious and repetitive work by unknown peasant potters. In fact the very attempt to consciously produce this sort of aesthetic is regarded as false. The most highly regarded tea bowl in Japan, the Kizaemon Chawan, was made by an unknown Korean potter and most likely as part of a batch of dozens or more rice bowls.

 

 

It is from this point of view I regard the most appealing Nobuie works and consider their manufacture. Then, thinking about later attempts to emulate the same feeling, and how they reveal their self-consciousness, I am forced to conclude that the way they were made is fundamentally different. I refer to the mind-set of the maker not so much the actual physical processes although they are also, I believe, fairly significant.

 

When I speak of refinement in this respect I don't mean the makers of fine Nobuie were not careful or considered in their work merely that I don't feel they were overly fastidious. They simply made good, honest guards...and occasionally one was bloody brilliant. In the same way that on rare occasions, among hundreds of tea bowl thrown by a potter, almost in a state of 'no-mind', something unique came together to produce a bowl that would later be 'recognised' by a real connoisseur as something very special.

 

Perhaps the mei, Nobuie, gets in the way of us more objectively examining and evaluating this group of work and better 'recognising' the best of the bunch.

 

As for your Nobunaga hypothesis, I absolutely love it :D If I was a less critical or analytical man I'd happily embrace it right now. I actually think, in all seriousness, that the notion may well hold some water. Some actual physical evidence to validate the connection would be delicious.

 

best,

 

Ford

[Henry Wilson]

I would like to say thank you very much Ford for taking the time to share your thoughts. Your insights certainly give us plenty to think about. I believe you have managed to keep a balance and counteract the well intentioned bashing the tsuba received. From your posts I sense you quite like my little tsuba.

 

Hi Steve

let me start by saying how nice it is to be able to explore these ideas with you.

Yes, thanks again to Steve. You, as always, have contributed greatly in your usual friendly manner. I love the Nobunaga theory. Your willingness to share your knowledge and ideas is always very generous.

 

 

Hi Junichi

I am glad you enjoy reading. As for resubmitting the tsuba for papers. I might leave that for another day (or another collector).

 

Henry's best course of action, should he choose to pursue it, would be to have his tsuba examined in hand by the foremost authorities in the field, with the assumption that these people have had enough direct experience with accepted works to render what is still nothing more than an opinion, albeit a most learned one.

Hi Chris. I thought I had. The NTHK (NPO).....

 

Or he can simply enjoy it for what it is ....

Which is a Nobuie that one of the three main sword societies say is "genuine", and feel confident enough to endorse their opinion with documentation. Let's not forget that everyone :D .

 

I was expecting some kind of debate about the signature, but wanted people to see what is going on these days. The papers attribute the tsuba to Nobuie only (no extra notes such as a generation or time period are stated) so I wonder if the shinsa team would champion Ford's theories. I posted this tsuba because I was curious to learn what others thought. One thing that I have learnt is that regardless of what people say, in collector's opinions NBTHK papers rule supreme. If the tsuba was papered by them (which people think would not happen) it seems minds would be less closed on what the tsuba is, which to me is a representive example of the Nobuie group.

 

Well, enough from me. I hope this discussion can continue. I love a nice bit of tea ware.....

[cabowen]

I think that if more people actually sat in on a shinsa, and/or discussed the process (along with its strengths and weaknesses) with a shinsa'in, they would have a much more realistic understanding of not only the process, but the constraints under which it is conducted. To many it is like an audience with the Great Oz. Truth be told, it is far more human.

 

Considering the large number of smiths and kinko, it is unreasonable to assume that any shinsa team can be the foremost authority on every smith and every kinko. The better teams have more experience, but even then, it is simply too broad a field to have mastered the finer points of each and every artist. Most have their blind spots and resort to books in many cases, other times, they play their hunch. They undoubtedly make mistakes. They are highly reliable for the majority of cases, but when things aren't clear cut (which seems to happen more often at the extremes of fame), unless a member has made a life's study of that particular artist, sometimes the foremost authority isn't someone on one of the organized shinsa teams, but someone like Kunitaro san's friend who published the book on Nobuhide. There are many such people in Japan. If I had something at high level, which had some ambiguity to it, I would seek out this kind of person for an opinion, not necessarily a shinsa team.

 

I know the kodogu judges on the NTHK NPO shinsa team very well. They have a demonstrated knowledge that never ceases to impress and amaze me. If they papered it, that would be enough for me, but for some, it clearly isn't. If you are satisfied Henry, good for you. If you weren't, then the above advice is meant to address that possibility.

 

That was the point I failed to make clearly in my earlier post perhaps....

[george trotter]

What a great thread. This is what discussion, sharing experience, knowledge is all about.

It certainly highlights (for me) the two facets of kantei...the quality of the work in relation to the exactness of the mei.

So many possibilities exist to explain this apparent contradiction....and all presented in such thoughtful and respectful ways.

I cannot pass any comment on this tsuba/mei as I am not knowledgeable enough, but I do know quality scholarship, logic and reasoned debate when I see it.

Thank you all...

[Steve Waszak]

Gentlemen,

 

A few things to say in response...

 

First, thanks, Henry, for supplying such a discussion-worthy tsuba. From such inspiration can come thought-provoking and intriguing dialogue... I also want to recognize with proper stress your point that it is the shinsa team that has seen the tsuba in hand; none of us has. So we have not been able properly to examine and assess the metal, the execution, the color, the patina, and so on... I realize this point has been made; I just wanted to (re-)emphasize it.

 

Next, I think Chris is quite right in his observations on shinsa teams. They are experienced, passionate (I would imagine), and dedicated, but they are also human, and can make errors. I have been critical of some of the more hair-raising of these errors in past posts, but really, I have far less problem with shinsa teams and the occasional mistake they may make than I do (as I've also stressed) with those who unquestioningly accept a shinsa result as undeniable fact. I mentioned earlier in this thread that I see shinsa results as a very good place to start to research further into the work in question, rather than an end-point in studying or learning about that piece. Further, I think what Chris says about seeking out an authority/scholar who may not be part of a formal shinsa team is a great piece of advice (this echos what Pete had said in his initial post earlier on). Of course, knowing who such an authority/scholar is may take a little asking around, but it really would be worth it. I wanted to highlight this advice as insightful and valuable.

 

Finally, yes, I agree, Ford, it's great to be able to generate an in-depth discussion of Nobuiye, who can be so frustratingly slippery to attempt to learn about. I understand better now what you mean about "refinement," or the "lack" thereof. Thanks for clarifying. And I understand exactly what you mean about Kizaemon, peasant potters, and the results of their unconscious and repetitive work. That such efforts sometimes bore fruit in the form of a celebrated masterpiece (or "masterpiece") is, I think, hard to argue with... But what I do wonder---and this, I think, would apply to Nobuiye ("shodai" and "nidai" work)---is how unconscious Nobuiye was in the creating of his great works. Much may depend here on exactly which works we're speaking of, and/or on exactly what part of his working life we're looking at. What I'm getting at is that, at a certain point in the Momoyama Period, at least in some circles, there was a conscious appreciation and seeking out of works (ceramics and other genres) that exhibited, expressed, or evoked feelings connected to shibusa, wabi and sabi, yugen, mono-no-aware, and others. We may at first imagine that it would be the patrons of artists who would bring such aesthetic consciousness to their appreciation of the works. But was this consciousness limited to patrons? I really think it's possible (just conjecturing here, of course) that artists of a certain elevated sensibility (a judgment inferred from a certain accomplished level in the work, not just execution, but conception, design, and choices in the finer points of rendering the finished product) would have been aware of the specific aesthetic principles and sensibilities valued in the higher culture of the day, and would have consciously sought to create works speaking to these sensibilities. I believe this to be the case not only with Nobuiye tsuba, but also those made by the Yamakichibei artists, and those made by the first Hoan (all three of these artists/groups were associated with Owari/Kiyosu, intriguingly...).

 

When you say that "n fact the very attempt to consciously produce this sort of [unrefined, simple] aesthetic is regarded as false," I think you're right. In general. But again, I wonder if the finest artists didn't "break this rule" and consciously and convincingly create pieces which captured and expressed in magnificent form the aesthetic substance bowls like Kizaemon exhibited (or were seen to have). Perhaps tsubako as accomplished as Nobuiye (not that there were very many) could get away with creating contrived-but-convincingly-"uncontrived" works, due to their extraordinary sensibilities and skills. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps... Who knows? In thinking about this conundrum, though, I am more inclined to believe that there was conscious effort on the part of these artists, and that the work they produced was not simply the product of repetition and unconsciousness, only to be appreciated for its aesthetic particulars after the fact.

 

As for the lesser example of tsuba with (genuine?) Nobuiye mei, I think your point, Ford, that the effort consciously to create works emulating the qualities of art/craft works like Kizaemon resulted in unconvincing tsuba is well-considered. It may be that, in part, those tsubako recognized by many as "the two big Nobuiye" are as well-regarded as they are because they were better than any of the others at the art of the contrived-uncontrived...

 

Thanks to all for contributing so much good food for thought in this discussion...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Ford Hallam]

Steve, Henry, George etal...

 

Isn't this lovely? We must be getting old...or something. We'll be having group hugs next

 

:D

 

It's all good stuff though.

 

One point I'd love to see some more reliable material on is the whole matter of the first 2 Nobuie being asked to work for Takeda Harunobu in Koshiu. The story (apparently from the Soken Kisho 1781 and reported in Helen Gunsalus' catalogue, after H. Joli ) tells us that Nobuie originally used the name Yasuiye until he was reward for his abilities by Takeda Harunobu and given the 'Nobu' character to use in his mei. He is supposed also to have signed Sakon no Shokan, Osumi no Kami, Iyeyasu, Rakui, Koshu Myochin, Ujiiye and Gakui although what we're to make of all those I can't say

 

Nobuie I had a son named Ujiiye and signing Nobuie from around 1550. He apparently also signed Shichirodayu and Iyeyoshi.

 

A second son, Sadaiye (1513 - 74) is called the 18th Myochin. He lived, allegedly, at Odawara and later in Iga. He was also called Matahachiro and Heiroku.

 

Is there any actual material evidence for any of this or are we looking, again, at fokelore?

 

Masayuki Sasano offers, what to me seems to me, the most sober account;

"He is an elusive figure...(he then goes on to discount the armour maker/Myochin connection) ...and continues; The maker of swordguards Nobuie used seven different ways of writing his signatures and a number of widely differing guard styles as well. There is no reason to wonder that over a long lifetime a man might change the way he writes his name, but seven different ways seems excessive. Possibly, then, among the guards that pass as Nobuie there are designs by his students and by later men with the same name, as well as a certain number of copies and fakes. This would account for the variety of signatures."

 

He then goes on to suggest that we need to establish standards by which to identify the genuine work of the first master. Unfortunately what he offers is not much help, being terribly subjective.

 

" First, works that are true Nobuie will impress the viewer with the dignity and assurance inherent in designs from the hands of a master. Second, they will never give the impression of being imitations by second-generation workmen or students, but will instead have the excellence and sense of historical period found only in true Nobuie guards." In a nutshell, they'll look awesome and just what you'd expect from a real master....whatever you imagine that to be.

[christianmalterre]

Hmmmh ?

 

Sasano´s "conclusion" sounds like an intellectual property(IP)analysis conglomerated/mixed with an certain degree of the theory of argumentation-Not?

 

me personally may do see an somehow crucial sortout here...?

 

LOL!

 

Christian

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Ford,

 

Isn't it the case that much, if not all of the history of Nobuiye and his name and progeny that you reference in your latest post is connected with the assumption that the great tsubako is the same man as the armorer Myochin Nobuiye? It seems to me that it has been fairly well established that the armorer and the tsubako were two different men, with the armorer working a generation or two earlier than the tsubako. I am with you, Ford, in remaining skeptical about the association between Takeda Harunobu and the tsubako Nobuiye, and about the notion that the latter received the Nobu ji in his name from Harunobu. If it is the case that Nobuiye was an Owari man, or even if he moved from Kyoto or Mino to Owari, his contact with Shingen/Harunobu would have to have been limited, no? I am not aware of the Takeda leader spending a lot of time in these areas. So how would Nobuiye have even been in contact with Harunobu?

 

As for all the other names he is supposed to have signed with, has any of us ever seen a single tsuba anywhere with any of these mei (I mean a piece which stylistically and otherwise could be recognized as Nobuiye-esque work)? I don't believe I ever have.

 

One interesting implication, too, about all this historical data is that if your idea, Ford, that Nobuiye guards were initially made and regarded as humble artefacts is correct, it would seem unlikely that such data/records about this tsubako would have been kept. Of course, for the armorer Nobuiye we might expect so (whether the data/records are invented or not), but for a "humble tsubako," not so much. Naturally, to invent such a history much later (Soken Kisho) would not have been a problem, but doing so 200 years after Nobuiye's time would seem to, um, make such a history suspect.

 

Your thinking on Sasano mirrors mine, Ford. While I appreciate his passion and enthusiasm, his advice for identifying the genuine article is not exactly helpful in any concrete way. The quote you chose at the end of your post is a perfect illustration, and represents a frustration I have long had with his writing: an abundance of entirely subjective, unquantifiable, effusive adjectives, with little in the way of objective criteria to balance the subjective. It's too bad, because I sense a deeper, more accessible (via objective criteria) knowledge is there, but he was unable, or unwilling, to express it.

 

Do you ever get the impression that the gods have simply ordained that Nobuiye shall remain a perpetual mystery?

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[John A Stuart]

I think it is pretty well established that they were two different men as Sakon Shogen (Gakui) the armourer who was in Fuchu Kai province starting in the Eisho period who was called Yasuiie (or Ujiie depending on which records one uses) received the use of 'Nobu' from Nobutora in Daiei 1. This smith usually signed Myochin Nobuie and in the Myochin geneology is 17th gen. and in the Masuda Myochin geneology 10th gen. The reason it is believed they are different smiths is the signatures are quite different. It is believed that the tsubako Nobuie came to Kiyosu 清須 from Kyoto or Mino (as mentioned earlier) with the name not attributed as bestowed later by data and I think there must be some connection with the Myochin armourers. After all the plate in Nobuie tsuba is certainly closely related to katchushi plate. In the Myochin geneology and Ki clan we do see Nobu used along with the ubiquitous Mune one of which was both Ki clan and Myochin. Anyway without proof we can not be sure of anything although we can conjecture. John

[raiden]

As often with any large school, there always seem to be many different levels of quality, yet works that are similiar in feeling. I have seen many Nobuie tsuba that have been authenticated of way varying quality. I have been taught that when one sees quite a bit of examples from a large school, most likely there will be dai saku mei works. The Hizen School is a good example, especially during the reign of the 2nd Tadahiro. I believe, no matter what, each piece needs to be judged on its own merits, even when authenticated by any group. For me it is easier to tell a upper grade Nobuie, as I have seen several famous examples, but what seems to amaze me is the amount of works that are available (authenticated ones), especially when compared to those of authenticated Kaneiye. My teacher told me once that Nobuie was a Bushi fashion statement during his time, so they were very popular and thus in great demand. This could be the reason why there are so many examples of varying quality, satisfying all levels of clients. Of course the Dai-Sho set that I saw at the time was top notch , belonging to the Ogasawara Daimyo. My teacher had gotten his information from his teacher Sasano sensei. I was taught that every piece should be judged on its own merits, and by seeing notable great examples, ones eye grows. The theory of Nobuie having students or sons doing work for me is credible just by the shear amount of items that are left that have varying qualty and signatures. All I can say is that one should just learn to recognize the differences between masterpieces and student works and log them in your mind for future references. This will also help you in determining the differences bewtween false signature items and judging unsigned ones. Back to rest as this cold I have is horrible!

[Henry Wilson]

Here is an interesting blog post on inscriptions on Nobuie tsuba:

 

http://markussesko.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... uie-tsuba/