Tsuba Opinions

[Darcy]

What do you think I am looking at (genuine question, I am novice for iron fittings). I thought Heianjo Zogan. Quality seems very nice to me. The blade is a Rai Kuninaga Juyo and has a heavy gold habaki with one of the Tokugawa branch mon on it. Overall koshirae looks kitted out for a high level retainer.

 

Tsuba is not papered so have to ask what you all think...

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Darcy,

this is indeed a very beautiful HEIANJO TSUBA. The brass work is very detailed and mostly still in place, although the iron surface has been attacked in many places by heavy corrosion. The KOGAI HITSU has probably been altered.

The overall impression leads me to believe that this is an earlier work..   

[Pete Klein]

I believe this would be considered to be Yoshiro work, possibly Kaga Yoshiro, Momoyama to early Edo jidai.  These evolved from Heianjo zogan.  The kogai hitsuana has been enlarged which is why it's border is missing.

[Jean]

Kaga Yoshiro, here is a yoshiro tsuba of mine, Edo

[seattle1]

Hello Darcy:

 Following the Haynes/Torigoye leads it seems to fit better with Bizen Yoshiro than Kaga. The kogai-hitsu appears to me to be an entire addition. It is a nice piece and the mon-like devices seem to confirm that by the designs proper being integral with the circle surrounds rather than  being inserted into the circling brass as is often seen.

 Arnold F.

[Toryu2020]

A sweet tsuba!

[Ken-Hawaii]

Yes, Darcy, you have a real keeper. Here's my latest Yoshiro, with very-similar corrosion:

 

 

 

But yours is in better shape.

 

Ken

[Darcy]

Thanks guys, very interesting and good learning experience. I'll reference the thread when I list the sword so you all can have credit. 

 

I can't keep it as it's part of a koshirae for a Juyo sword that seems like it is original gear, so I have to keep it together. Nice bonus though when the tsuba is well over the ignore range as so many Japanese sources will swap out anything interesting and box it to max profit.

[Pete Klein]

I'm looking forward to seeing the koshirae!  (sword too... lol)!

[Ford Hallam]

Thanks guys, very interesting and good learning experience. I'll reference the thread when I list the sword so you all can have credit. 

 

I can't keep it as it's part of a koshirae for a Juyo sword that seems like it is original gear, so I have to keep it together. Nice bonus though when the tsuba is well over the ignore range as so many Japanese sources will swap out anything interesting and box it to max profit.

 

If we're looking at a Rai Kuninaga (first or second generation? )  blade then that would be early to mid 14th century. Yoshiro tsuba at the earliest might be late 16th century but more likely early 17th century. Interesting conundrum though, what constitues original when blade and tsuba are 300 hundred years apart?

[Stephen]

dont try Stephen

[Darcy]

If we're looking at a Rai Kuninaga (first or second generation? )  blade then that would be early to mid 14th century. Yoshiro tsuba at the earliest might be late 16th century but more likely early 17th century. Interesting conundrum though, what constitues original when blade and tusba are 300 hundred years apart?

 

I don't see the conundrum so much.

 

Person A marries person B, if person B is on their first marriage then person A is their original mate.

 

Person A may be on their 10th marriage and person B is not their original mate, though the converse is true. 

 

It depends on what perspective you're taking.

 

I don't think anyone is going to have a logic failure on trying to think a suriage blade is in its original koshirae, it is a contradiction in terms unless you want to believe the blade spent a few centuries and never got put into anything. Koshirae made in the Edo period for older blades are sufficient to be noted on Juyo papers and often photographed and put on the explanation sheet. "To be made for the sword" is original to the sword, that is, original sword from the perspective of the koshirae.

 

Original koshirae from the perspective of the sword are very few and far between for something so old as Nanbokucho, both requiring the blade to be ubu and unaltered, and the koshirae to have survived as well as accompanying the blade through many centuries. In those cases that can happen if it went into a shrine but otherwise, extremely rarely. 

 

I don't think anyone was looking at this tsuba and thought for a moment it was a Nanbokucho tsuba and any use of the word original I would assume would be obvious.

 

Most koshirae that are accompanying swords now are, by my belief, mix and match specials via the hands of sword dealers who cater to a market that demands koshirae to "complete" a sword. At the same time the market has no desire to pay for matching level of quality for koshirae and sword together as a pair. As such dealers often swap koshirae.

 

Original situation: mediocre sword + mediocre koshirae, and high level sword with high level koshirae.

 

Now, to meet the demands of the market, the dealer switches things around so that the mediocre sword has no koshirae, the high level sword obtains the koshirae from the mediocre sword, and the high level koshirae stands on its own. 

 

From two products, the dealer creates three. There is little to no impact to the ultimate sales price of the high level sword and its marketability remains high since it is "complete." 

 

Significantly, the sum of the value of the three products on the market is higher than the two that preceded it and the marketability is much higher on average than before since each item can now go to a specific segment who is willing to pay for it. The mediocre sword is still what it is and finds someone who can at most, afford a mediocre sword. The high level sword is now "complete" which satisfies a buyer who wants a great sword, "complete" but will not pay for say the Goto Ichijo koshirae it may have been in before. The high level koshirae finds a specialist collector who pays top dollar for it, but not a penny more for something he considers to be a tsunagi whether it was important work or not.

 

In this way then many swords lose their original koshirae, and not meaning the first koshirae that the sword ever went in, but the koshirae that was purpose made or assembled for it. 

 

What I refer to is not wanting to introduce such a situation if I suspect that this koshirae was assembled for the sword in the historical period in which we're mostly concerned (Meiji and earlier). 

[Ken-Hawaii]

I was in a Tokyo sword shop a few years ago, & watched as an employee completely stripped one blade of its koshirae, carefully packaged it up, & sold it to a buyer. The employee I was talking to just shrugged when I asked him if that was common practice, & replied that if I wanted to buy something specific in their store, they would be more than happy to sell it to me. So Darcy has obviously nailed the concept. Nothing is sacrosanct except the almighty yen!

 

Ken

 

[Ford Hallam]

Darcy

 

My observation was pretty simple really.

 

I can't keep it as it's part of a koshirae for a Juyo sword that seems like it is original gear, so I have to keep it together.

 

As your illustration perfectly shows the concept of ‘original’ in this context, swords and koshirae, is meaningless. Unless it is clearly defined then the use of the word may merely serve to blur the historical reality for newer collectors and students who may not yet be quite as sophisticated as yourself with respect to what is on offer.

The reality is that the tsuba might have been paired with the blade 300 years ago, or 150 years ago…or even 50 years ago. We just don’t know for certain in this instance.  And having accepted that then it seems to me that there is no imperative to observe some arbitrary convention to keep things like this together. If there was some documentary evidence accompanying the koshirae that demonstrated that the koshirae was assembled for someone at a particular time then I would agree that in that case the package might be called ‘original’ , but with the conditions clearly explained. On the other hand the tsuba might have been popped on the blade 20 years ago . In that case we simply have two old items plonked together for financial advantage and convenience.   
 

It all reminds me of my great great grandfather's axe. It's nearly 200 years old but is still in almost perfect 'original' condition. It's only had the handle replaced three times and the head twice.

[Ron STL]

I've always admire good quality Yoshiro mon sukashi tsuba, especially when they carry the inlay over the edge of the tsuba. While I have eight or so of these, I finally got my first signed Yoshiro two years ago at the Chicago show. It is signed simply: Yoshiro saku. One day I hope to find one with the artist's name included...maybe. I must admit that calling a tsuba simply Yoshiro or Kaga Yoshiro or Bizen Yoshiro work continues to confuse me and I don't feel totally confident in being that specific with my judgement. On the attached signed example, the color is a little off in this shot but you can read the mei. Ron STL

[dominnimod]

Quick newie question, what is the difference between an heianjo-shiki and yoshiro- shiki tsuba? Do yoshiro's always carry crests sukashi?

I have this little one:

This one is a yoshiro with a similar wine, bamboo work:

[Darcy]

A little late coming back to this but this:

 

 

 

As your illustration perfectly shows the concept of ‘original’ in this context, swords and koshirae, is meaningless.

 

I think that is fundamentally incorrect, and what's more, a damaging point of view to take.

 

 

 

Unless it is clearly defined then the use of the word may merely serve to blur the historical reality for newer collectors and students who may not yet be quite as sophisticated as yourself with respect to what is on offer.

 

First, I am talking within the context of this thread on NMB where I am asking for help, not giving help. I am reacting to a thought about "you have a keeper tsuba" and my response is that I can't pull the tsuba and box it because it SEEMS to be original gear. I didn't say it is.

 

The word "seems" I don't think requires footnotes and dictionary references for novices to understand and furthermore if we cannot rely on simple words to have meaning then we can't communicate. 

 

I can tell you, having a math degree, that 2+2 = 4 is not a given though it seems to be self evident but requires a complex proof. However on a casual basis we accept that it is not going to be required to run through that proof every time you want to use basic arithmetic.

 

Anyway to as to why your viewpoint is wrong and furthermore, hazardous, if I were to adopt the default point of view that everything is slapped together unless otherwise proven then this would allow me and you and everyone else to tinker with sets on a carefree basis. The end point of that is a definite assurance that nothing is original anymore. 

 

In this collecting field, everything devolves to an opinion. Right now we're discussing in another thread the merits of a signed piece and there is no open and shut conclusion that can be made even on that. 

 

But we don't just run off and wipe the mei. What you do with your money when you spend it is one form of a conservative viewpoint (i.e. treat it skeptically when buying), but what you do with artifacts handed to you is another form of conservative viewpoint (conserve it when owning).

 

And my viewpoint on this set was simply that I am not going to disassemble it because it seems to me to be original and that was the beginning and end of the thought. No conclusion and not slapping anyone on the head with it and not trying to mislead novices, but simply an explanation for why I won't disassemble a set.

 

 

 

 

The reality is that the tsuba might have been paired with the blade 300 years ago, or 150 years ago…or even 50 years ago. We just don’t know for certain in this instance.  And having accepted that then it seems to me that there is no imperative to observe some arbitrary convention to keep things like this together.

 

That, as I point out above, is simply an incorrect viewpoint. 

 

If you take an aggressive action all you do is guarantee the worst case result. 

 

What you're saying is similar to telling someone to just wipe signatures off willy nilly because we can't ever know for sure that the smith put them on. 

 

And we can't. 

 

In the case where the NBTHK says to mei ga aru they are placing a signature into a "needs more study" category. If we adopt this approach you are suggesting that if you cannot prove that signature was made by the smith then you should feel free to do with it what you wish, then it gets wiped. More of these things get wiped than should be when everyone decides that they have a free hand because nobody can prove it is legitimate. You can ONLY prove a signature is ILLEGITIMATE, and you can't prove ALL illegitimate signatures are illegitimate and you cannot prove a signature to be legitimate. You can only say it most likely is, or is not. 

 

When archaeologists and historians encounter this stuff, they preserve it. If there is any doubt, they preserve it. They don't jump in and start altering Roman artifacts because someone in the Renaissance might have altered it before them. They might try to restore it but that is not even likely. Our hobby is far more aggressive than any other for restoration. 

 

Anyway, any one-way irreversibly destructive actions only guarantee destruction of all potential candidates when taken over the long haul. Some in the grey area might have been OK, some may not have been. But if you tinker with them all by default, you wipe them all out. Those that were OK and those that were not OK.

 

 

 

If there was some documentary evidence accompanying the koshirae that demonstrated that the koshirae was assembled for someone at a particular time then I would agree that in that case the package might be called ‘original’ , but with the conditions clearly explained.

 

I will go over it again:

 

1. I didn't claim it was certainly original as you are taking from it

 

2. My intent here is not describing an item for novices, experts, for sale or education, my intent is only explaining on a casual basis why I won't disassemble a koshirae because the tsuba is nice

 

And I will also repeat, that I think it is irreverent and irresponsible to advocate disassembly of koshirae because it can't be proven what the history is.

 

Please tell me how many koshirae you think are out there that we can prove exist as a whole, intended as this whole, in their completely original state, beyond a shadow of a doubt? Almost none and those that do exist are a handful of items from the mid to late 1800s where every piece is signed, and even then we cannot prove it because we will alter these things in order to examine the underside of the menuki. By altering them they are now no longer in completely original condition.

 

So this ... what you propose, a free for all on all koshirae to rip them, this is just destructive advice. It's what I see happening to my shock and horror in Japan, not on items of this level but on a very high level items. They shrug and say it doesn't matter. But every time it happens it guarantees there is one less potential in the world. 

 

If you want to do it, nobody can stop you, but you can't sit there and tell me it's good advice and offer that to other people as good advice and not get any pushback because it is some of the worst advice I've ever heard and applying that same thinking to all domains with the sword, you get a huge mess.

 

See that horimono? You cannot guarantee that the smith made it. So, if you don't like it, just alter it. After all, the damage (maybe) is already done. 

 

That signature, doesn't matter if some experts accept it or others don't, nobody can prove who put that signature on. You don't like it, just wipe it, it's ok because we don't know for a fact who signed it. 

 

The rust on the nakago? Maybe a polisher added some patina, so don't worry about it. Clean it up and make the nakago nice and shiny and get the rust off. 

 

Polish? Well we know for a fact that that isn't original so feel free to alter it to your heart's content. 

 

Each choice to alter something instead of preserve it may, or may not, change something that was original. If we don't know it's a reason to do nothing not a reason to do something. 

Default pose is sitting on your hands. Not tinkering. We don't tinker with artifacts because someone doesn't have a signed, notarized document telling us not to. We don't tinker by default unless someone gives us a signed, notarized document saying it's OK to do it.

 

 

 

It all reminds me of my great great grandfather's axe. It's nearly 200 years old but is still in almost perfect 'original' condition. It's only had the handle replaced three times and the head twice.

 

And if I found your grandfather's axe and it was 300 years old and it was a collectible antique I would tell someone, don't remove that old handle because it might be original. You would tell them knock yourself out, nobody knows anything about this old thing. Maybe in fact you will encourage them to remove it for a nice new one if you are a vendor of axe handles.

 

But otherwise, it makes very little sense to me to authorize and encourage tinkering with artifacts because they might not be in original state. 

 

The key word here is might.

 

I really don't understand why you would not be coming from the same position, a default position, of preservation since this is something that is advocated on this site.

 

We tell people not to polish their own blades, they might ruin something that might be good. If the tsuba might be good and the patina is bad, we say send it to Ford, don't fix the patina yourself because you might ruin something that might be good.

 

You are one of these people that is in the loop to actually fix this stuff you are saying above is ok to do. We don't want tinkering. We don't want people ruining things. We don't want people taking actions that conclude with "well before, we didn't know if it was messed up, but now we do know for sure it's messed up." 

 

After all that iron tsuba, we have no way of knowing if someone of your skill level made it and injected it into the market. It's been shown on this website that this can be done. So, that means any moderate quality iron tsuba cannot prove itself. As such, knock yourself out and do what you want with it because you can't prove it's not a modern craftsman's work? 

 

Logically, it is just not congruent with preservation to say "everything is allowed unless it is explicitly not". This is not conservative, it doesn't preserve like "nothing is allowed, unless it explicitly is." The latter is how historians and archaeologists and museums and most other collectors of things behave. Conserve first, tinker second (if ever).

[Darcy]

Just one more thought...

 

Treat every gun as if it is loaded.

 

This sums it up better than my wall of text.

[Stephen]

Keep it up Darcy...before you know it you'll be able convey all that in three words....lol

[Darcy]

gun maybe loaded?

[Jean]

In fact "original" for a stranger like me does not mean necessarily it was made at the time the sword was forged (all the more if it is O suriage ...) but that it was made on purpose for the blade, be it 100 years ago or 650 years ago. Koshirae are always made after the sword forging. Tsuba are often manufactured independently of blades as it is shown by sekigane (before or post blade forging) which does not prevent the koshirae being original to the blade.

 

Now, the key word is not "original" but should be "contemporary" to the blade. Nothing like this has been stated.

 

In term of koshirae original to a blade, except if documented, only "might/may be original" can be used.

[benatthelake]

Thanks guys, very interesting and good learning experience. I'll reference the thread when I list the sword so you all can have credit. 

 

I can't keep it as it's part of a koshirae for a Juyo sword that seems like it is original gear, so I have to keep it together. Nice bonus though when the tsuba is well over the ignore range as so many Japanese sources will swap out anything interesting and box it to max profit.

Darcy:  Will we get the chance to view the complete Koshirae along with the sword?  Your website perhaps?  I know others are wondering the same thing. 

 

A good discussion here....made me think more about my own swords/koshiraes and wonder...made for customer/Samurai or "made"/assembled for trade and sales?  If done well....does it make a difference?  I think so....but perhaps that is more of a reflection of appreciation (albeit lesser) of the the history and provenance (possible) as well as the art.   

 

Ben