Yamakichibei tsuba

[kissakai]

Hi

This a tsuba I posted about a year ago

As I was able to show this to Bob Haynes whilst in London a few weeks ago I've re-posted it for discussion

His comments are on the image along with one other comment

I forgot to change the date on the record sheet to Circa 1650

 

I've always liked this tsuba but unfortunately if failed shinsa

 

Does this mean as it failed shinsa is it 100% gimei. Would other tsuba collectors keep it in their collection?

I've another tsuba I'll post later with a similar problem

 

258_Dragon Fly.pdf

 

 

Grev

[Soshin]

Hi Grev,

 

I once own that tsuba and sold it back in April 2014. It is a really nice tsuba. The iron is very nice. I have two Yamakichibei tsuba that failed at NBTHK shinsa in 2018 in my collection right now.  I not planning to get rid of them anytime soon. I don't agree with the NBTHK and NTHK their assessments of Yamakichibei tsuba in general.  I think Steve W. knows more about the specific subject of Yamakichibei then the major organizations in Japan.  

[Surfson]

I am almost done reading Steve Wazsak's great article from the JSSUS (it is large with over 60 illustrations and comes in two parts), and recommend you have a look at it if you have the chance.  (If it is ok with Steve, I can send you a copy, though it is around 25 meg, so I would need to use Apple's icloud based system.)  

 

Anyway, my take of this tsuba, from what little I have retained from what I have read, is that it is likely done by one of the later generation of makers that made utsushi, and that the NBTHK will only paper the first three masters (Steve thinks that there are actually five masters and two of them are sadly overlooked by shinsa).  

 

The work of the masters tends to have a considerable amount of the yakite shitate surface that Yamakichibei are famous for and also tend to be katana sized and larger than 7+cm tall.  This one may fall into that category of a later smith that is not recognized due to its smaller size and the relative sparsity of the yakite shitate surface and tekkotsu, along with any issues they may have with the mei.  

 

Remember that a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing though, and I may be way off.

[Surfson]

The theme and feel of the tsuba are definitely Yamakichibei to my limited knowledge though.

[Steve Waszak]

Hi guys,

 

My view is that Robert's thoughts about this piece being a later Yamakichibei-style tsuba are correct.  The mei is not right for any of the early Yamakichibei masters (there are several ways in which it departs from those of the early smiths), and the tsuba's metal appears to differ markedly from that of any of the Momoyama/early-Edo tsubako.  The sugata and general form of the piece is also quite upright and rather stiff, lacking the more "organic fluidity" of actual early works.  Having said this, it isn't a bad tsuba for what it is:  a 19th-century "homage" to the early Yamakichibei artisans, employing one of their classic motifs. 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[kissakai]

Thanks to you all and I'm very happy to accept the results that all make sense