Sakura Yamakishibei

[Ludolf Richter]

Hi,there is an interesting Tsuba at a German auction to come.If not Gimei,it might be a rare piece made by "Sakura" Kichibei.The catalogue said "Ôshû Yamayoshibe".Someone had wrongly translated from a Japanes magazine!I have already told them the correct Mei.From my database and the literature I own there are very few pieces by that artist existing.Because of the sakura-stamp he is called Sakura Yamakichi resp.Yamakichibei by Wakayama and Haynes.It will be sold for Euro 1.000 minimum:too much for a Tsuba without a paper for me.Ludolf

[kaigunair]

Thanks for the photo. Very interesting. Other than the "signature", the iron doesn't seem that interesting to me...

 

Looking forward to hearing what the experts have to say.

[Steve Waszak]

The mei looks fine to me. The thing to remember about "Sakura Yamakichibei" is that he worked long after the Momoyama Yamakichibei artisans---several decades later. His actual association with the original Yamakichibei atelier, then, is tenuous to say the least. He is a typical Edo Period tsubako in that he made pieces in many styles, including utsushi of (especially "nidai" Yamakichibei) work. Mariusz has such a piece up on the sales page now, I believe. The tsuba in question here is not, of course, of the classic Yamakichibei sensibility. It's a fine enough piece, I suppose, but is rather generic, in my view.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Thierry BERNARD]

one with a similar design on yahoo jp!

 

http://page18.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/w97158337

[christianmalterre]

as Steven already pointed....

 

me personally would let "fingers" from that one Ludolf...

Mariusz´s one is pretty well much better and much more typical YKB stylism...

That typical Edo "stuff"-"design" is to ben tittulated maybe "somehow cruel"... difficult in fact(for those owning the real Tradition at least).

(just mine opinion of course)

matter of taste...

Looks good anyways

Edit:

(Streiche "good"-Setze In Ordnung)(don´t know how you guys write this in english)

 

 

Christian

[Soshin]

Hi Ludolf,

 

The title of the topic should read "Sakura Yamakichibei". He is generally acknowledged as the third generation Yamakichibei and worked in Owari. I have read more than a few places that he often made copies of other tsuba styles while signing his own name. His Yagyu tsuba copies are among the best if I remember correctly. According to Okamoto in Owari to Mikawa no Tanko the fourth generation Yamakichibei also made copies of different styles of tsuba while signing his own signature. I have an example on my website of what Okamoto would call a fourth generation Yamakichibei work: http://www.tsubaotaku.com/#!Ko-Katchushi-Utsushi-Tsuba-/zoom/c5om/i0jr1. This work is a Ko-Katchushi tsuba utsushi. Other then that I can't really add much more to what Steve has already wrote in his reply. I do agree Mariusz's Sakura Yamakichibei example is much better than the tsuba up for auction in Germany in my opinion. Thanks for posting it for discussion.

[Ford Hallam]

Just a few observations I want to make...

 

firstly the 'interest' in the iron. An analogy I frequently use is glass, today we quite literally don't see glass because from a technological point of view we've made an almost perfect product. I now live in a house that has 120 year old glass...pretty decent stuff but not by any means crystal clear. Today we even go further in our appreciation of 'unclear' glass by paying a premium for the pieces that in the past would have been sold as rejects. I think it's only respectful and educated to judge the steel/iron products of the past in the same sort of light. As an example Akasaka tsuba are denigrated because their steel is featureless, factory plate even ( despite the fact this is a completely erroneous appellation without any evidence to back it up) , when the truth is they are made from finely forged tamahagane and are very lively in terms of surface features to eyes not dimmed by dogma. And just for the record, to my knowledge there's no such thing as featureless factory plate in Edo period Japan. All steel was made the hard/old way. If you can't see the difference then it's your lack of insight not their lack of sophistication.

 

The second point I must make concerns the actual workmanship. From my perspective this is a very skillful bit of craftsmanship. To be blunt what does the mei really give us? If you can't see any quality in the work itself and need to rely on the attribution for confirmation of value then pontificating on the mei is merely an exercise in intellectual masturbation. Sure, you may feel great for a brief moment but there's nothing substantive left once the noise dies down....

 

Hah! It's good to be back :D

 

Namaste all

 

Ford

[Toryu2020]

Why isn't there a "LIKE" button on this forum?

-t

[kaigunair]

:lol: I'm still not appreciating either the design nor find much interest in the iron texture of this particular piece, but then again, my reference points for design are late edo machibori. I'd really like to see more early ko-akasaka works up close and personal, which I'm hoping will be sooner than later . Is it possible the later akasaka generation works are put down more for the lack of interesting execution of designs than for their iron, though it does seem the comments on lower akasaka iron quality is echoed in more than one of the old stand-by english tsuba books.

 

At the same time, I can see why certain "tsuba activity", such as large tekkotsu or globby yakite, might be valued in the same way that the activity in nihonto hada and hamon is valued against those with less or without. Just like a very tight ji and suguha, while a mark of good craftsmanship and not necessarily a gunto steel blade, might not command the same interest and $$$ as an equally well executed mokume and choji....

 

Any who, this "3rd gen" yamakichibei work is definitely different from the more typical "lumpy" yamakichibei works that make that school famous, and which I am learning to appreciate. Would love to hear WHY this particular piece is better executed than other examples of the same theme, what kantei points are present that place this above others. Now a post like that would be very helpful and interesting indeed.

 

ps: Makes me think I should post up a tsuba I been carrying around in my pocket for a few weeks....something along the lines of proto-akasaka (vs ko-akasaka), an idea which is really expanded upon in Haynes' most recent book...

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Junichi

 

you're quite correct, there are a number of texts that make the criticism that Akasaka work post 3rd generation is of characterless iron. However I would counter by saying this is an unfair judgement, and the point I was making. When assessing any artwork or craft artefact it's essential to first ask what the intention of the maker was. That 'featureless' iron that is so despised is in fact quite an achievement and one most likely much appreciated by the people who admired and bought Akasaka works. We take for granted today mass produced 'featureless steel but 200 years ago that was evidently quite a desirable result. The infatuation with gnarly lumpy iron is merely a subjective value judgement, there's nothing absolute about it at all. And inasmuch as this appreciation is a matter of personal taste and therefore not in need of any defence similarly it is wrong, I maintain, to dismiss out of hand those works and aesthetics one isn't drawn to or don't fully understand.

 

The present example, this uncharacteristic 'Yamakichibei', makes a good example. It self evidently is not supposed to look anything like the more typical lumpy tsuba we associate with that mei. So making qualitative comparisons with the typical Yamakichibei works makes no sense at all. It needs to be considered in light of it's own distinct features. This is what true connoisseurship means.

 

What we have is a very well forged piece of steel that tells us a great deal of skill and care went into it's creation, an interesting design that was well considered and composed(personal preference being irrelevant) and some pretty expert craftsmanship. Consider how the subtle shaping was carved and finished. It's easy to overlook but that's some fine work.

[Thierry BERNARD]

Hi Junichi

 

you're quite correct, there are a number of texts that make the criticism that Akasaka work post 3rd generation is of characterless iron. However I would counter by saying this is an unfair judgement, and the point I was making. When assessing any artwork or craft artefact it's essential to first ask what the intention of the maker was. That 'featureless' iron that is so despised is in fact quite an achievement and one most likely much appreciated by the people who admired and bought Akasaka works. We take for granted today mass produced 'featureless steel but 200 years ago that was evidently quite a desirable result. The infatuation with gnarly lumpy iron is merely a subjective value judgement, there's nothing absolute about it at all. And inasmuch as this appreciation is a matter of personal taste and therefore not in need of any defence similarly it is wrong, I maintain, to dismiss out of hand those works and aesthetics one isn't drawn to or don't fully understand.

 

The present example, this uncharacteristic 'Yamakichibei', makes a good example. It self evidently is not supposed to look anything like the more typical lumpy tsuba we associate with that mei. So making qualitative comparisons with the typical Yamakichibei works makes no sense at all. It needs to be considered in light of it's own distinct features. This is what true connoisseurship means.

 

What we have is a very well forged piece of steel that tells us a great deal of skill and care went into it's creation, an interesting design that was well considered and composed(personal preference being irrelevant) and some pretty expert craftsmanship. Consider how the subtle shaping was carved and finished. It's easy to overlook but that's some fine work.

 

yes Brian a 'like' button please

[Brian]

Already on the cards for the next upgrade. Might be a few months though, but it will happen. Also a "thanks" button.

 

Brian

[Thierry BERNARD]

"thanks"

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

While this discussion of early versus late Akasaka work is interesting and should be its own topic but in this context is off topic. Discuss Sakura Yamakichibei example provide or other Yamakichibei works for comparison and contrast.

Ford, please elaborate more for the understanding and knowledge of all why workmanship is very skillful in the provide example. I personally like all of the generations of Yamakichibei tsuba. From my observations the third and fourth generation Yamakichibei were very skillfully done even when producing utsushi of different tsuba styles.

[Ford Hallam]

David

 

the example of the Akasaka group's work was merely used to illustrate the flawed logic of using the wrong yardsticks when assessing various works. As such I felt it was a worthwhile point to make and feel that sometimes in a discussion such as this broadening the subject is helpful in explicating ideas.

 

Ford, please elaborate more for the understanding and knowledge of all why workmanship is very skillful in the provide example.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean but I would have thought that a careful consideration of the actual piece would reveal that in terms of the workmanship it's hard to find fault. You may not personally enjoy the look of the workmanship, the personal style of the maker in this instance, but that doesn't detract from what it is in objective terms. The work is neat, accurate and completely under control. No evidence of slips, irregularity where there ought to be none and the finished forms appear to be as they were intended. Repeat forms and shapes are consistent, demonstrating the hand of a practiced professional. Nothing is an accident or without consideration.

[Soshin]

Hi Ford,

 

I completely agree trying to measure the Sandai and Yondai Yamakichibei works some of which are clearly utsushi of different styles to works of the early generations of the school from a different era is futile. Thanks for the providing more detail and clarification it was helpful to me.

[kaigunair]

The present example, this uncharacteristic 'Yamakichibei', makes a good example. It self evidently is not supposed to look anything like the more typical lumpy tsuba we associate with that mei. So making qualitative comparisons with the typical Yamakichibei works makes no sense at all. It needs to be considered in light of it's own distinct features. This is what true connoisseurship means.

 

What we have is a very well forged piece of steel that tells us a great deal of skill and care went into it's creation, an interesting design that was well considered and composed(personal preference being irrelevant) and some pretty expert craftsmanship. Consider how the subtle shaping was carved and finished. It's easy to overlook but that's some fine work.

 

Ah, much more informative.

 

However, in light of the above comments, what would happen if the mei were gone? What about this piece would distinguish it as a sakura yamakichibei then? While the execution would be nice and tight, what about the design is inspired? ...that a true connoisseur would latch onto and say, "Wow, now that's a different and exciting way of executing this particular design. This must have been made by really skilled tsubako with a true artist's eye".

 

As you yourself have pointed out in other posts, unsigned machibori works are sometimes very hard to attribute to a school, since the work could have been done by any number of skilled artisans. The works themselves are executed well, but there isn't anything unique about them. I posit that the exact comment could be made about this tsuba design if the signature was removed. Nice execution, uninspired. No characteristics that are directly attributable to the yamakichibei line, either in the texture of the iron or the execution of the design. Yet, it is that signature and attribution which will drive up the value of this example, yes?

 

So, I'm still left wondering, what makes this a yamakichibei design? If not the signature, then what would a "true" connoisseur be paying $$$ for? I'm thinking it would be much less than what this piece will end up fetching because of the signature.

 

Now if the point I'm missing is that this design itself is inspired and shows traits and workmanship characteristic of the yamakichibei 3rd gen or yamakichibei school in general, I would pay to know that info!

 

(For contrast, I find that I can often spot Natsuo pieces in auction catalogues from a mile away. he has that particular way of executing rain and water, not to mention placement of designs and use of space that is really lovely. too bad they are way outta my price range. at the same time, his pieces commissioned to replace or repair older fittings, while nice, don't hold much appeal for me. but if I ran into one of his original work (and I had the funds), I would gladly pay for one without a signature based only on the strength of his design.)

[Soshin]

Hi Junichi,

 

The question you ask can be raised about the both the third and fourth generation Yamakichibei tsubako and their true relation to the early O-Shodai, Shodai, and Nidai (Okamoto numbering of Yamakichibei generations) as both generations made utsushi of different styles. My Ko-Katchushi utsushi is one example that if it was mumei it would likely be worth more as it might get the "Muromachi Period, Ko-Katchushi" classification being at the large size of 8.8 cm round and having a thin plate less then 3 mm. The present example I agree would be worth less if it had no signature attributing it to the third generation Yamakichibei but the general workmanship would still be judged excellent. In Sasano first English book on page 185 he gives an example of third generation's utsushi of an Owari Sukashi tsuba. It should be noted that by the time of third generation Yamakichibei the Owari sukashi style was just about extinct.

[kaigunair]

Ford?

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Junichi

 

not sure how best to address the various points you raise so I'll just offer some further thoughts.

 

I think in this case, this untypical Sakura Yamakichibei, the mei is irrelevant in terms of evaluating the work itself. In a sense this should always be the case though. However, some collectors do collect primarily names and well know names are frequently enough reason for a premium price regardless of quality where we see mediocre pieces being highly regarded only on the basis of an illustrious mei or even (more strangely) attribution. If the mei is judged to be correct the piece does serve as an example of a style this man worked in, albeit perhaps rarely. And this is the point I was making, as it is so different from typical Yamakichibei works it must be judged on it's own merits. It's not a masterpiece but a decent example of a professional tsuba-shi's work. Without a mei it might well remain unidentified.

 

Yet, it is that signature and attribution which will drive up the value of this example, yes?

Probably.

what would a "true" connoisseur be paying $$$ for?

perhaps a true connoisseur wouldn't

 

I want to also point out that artistic style and expression are not always the same as a persons style of workmanship. You mention Natsuo's work but in that case it seems to me you're referring specifically to design and composition. His actual workmanship, the way he uses his chisels etc. varies depending on the style he was working in. Certainly some aspects of his workmanship, his craft, are very distinct but he was adept at many styles and emulated more than a couple of the older masters on occasion. Not forgetting his debt to the Otsuki school, there are a few artists there who rival Natsuo.

 

but if I ran into one of his original work (and I had the funds), I would gladly pay for one without a signature based only on the strength of his design.)

Worth remembering that originality wasn't always as highly prized as it is today. I don't have the article to hand but I remember reading a piece from the turn of the 19th/20th century that made the point that Japanese connoisseurs of the time were not all that interested in design originality per se but would focus rather on the expressiveness of the chisel and punch work, the manner in which the metal was carved, shaped and finished, not so much the form it described. Natsuo was quite prolific when it came to painting his own compositions but he was a product of the art scene of his time, his designs reflect that. I agree with you though, he did have an exquisite artistic sensibility.

[kaigunair]

Thanks ford. :D

[kaigunair]

Just a follow up. Got to see and handle this tsuba in person. Was definitely a nice design and well executed.

 

I overheard a conversation regarding how another advanced collector really wanted this piece. While nice, was well beyond my price point, but I do wish I could see what others were seeing it in....