Yamakichibei/Norisuke

[Akitombo]

I wonder if I could ask a couple of questions for those on the board with knowledge of the two above schools.

 

Robert Haynes in "Tsuba, An aesthetic study" writes that there were three generations of Yamakichibei to begin with. Then the later workers were classified into four generations, although Kazuyoshi divided these into seven later generations, Bob Haynes did not think there was sufficient evidence to justify this.

A few years have now moved on, what are the thoughts today about those later generations and how does one go about trying to distinguish, if possible, between them?

Is there yet, a proper, later family tree?

 

My second question is regarding those tsuba with Yamakichibei signatures that have been attributed to Norisuke. Are there now grounds to revisit some of them as real Yamakichibei?

 

David

[Surfson]

Steve Waszak wrote a nice review of this whole question.  You might ask him to send it.  It is big and might require dropbox. 

[Rich S]

I would be very interested in Steve's article also. I have two Yamakichibei, one old and one Norisuke (I think?).

Maybe Brian could post it as a download? Would love to know more about these two (attributions are mine).

Rich

 

[Brian]

I have this link saved from a long time ago. Perhaps it will be of interest? Needs to be preserved as a .pdf: http://varshavskycollection.com/yamakichibei-tsuba/

[Rich S]

Brian

Thanks, great link. Saved link.    Rich

 

Edit:  read over the article. Maybe correct on first tsuba, but only mention of second is as a late Edo imitation of Yamakichibei .

Oh well, I still like it; well made. Attribution corrected. Sometimes the dragon wins

[Steve Waszak]

Below is a link to a thread on this topic.  As Bob notes, I did a long article on the Yamakichibei group of artists for the JSSUS a couple of years ago, which I could add to the articles section here, if it is not too long, and if I can (figure out how to) load such a big article (with quite a few images).  Not sure if that would be okay...  Brian? 

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

 

 

[Akitombo]

Thank you Steve.

David

[Akitombo]

Brian,

Any chance of putting Steve's article on here to download please?

David

[Brian]

@Steve Waszak
Would love to add it to the new articles section. I think that section has huge possibilities and I have lots to add to it myself.
If you have a .pdf of it, you can email it to japaneseswords at gmail dot com
I'll add it to the section. Thanks, looking forward to it.

[Rich S]

Steve

Those are great, very informative articles. Thanks.    Rich

[Jean]

Thanks Steve😀

[Steve Waszak]

Okay, I've sent Brian the PDF.  Fingers crossed that the formatting holds together. 

 

Cheers, all

 

Steve

[Brian]

Steve, nothing received at that email?
You sent to japaneseswords@gmail.com ?
Please resend..thanks.

 

[Brian]

Thanks to Steve for an excellent article. It is uploaded to the downloads section.
Thanks again.

[Akitombo]

Thank you, Steve for a great article and Brian for sorting the download, I feel a few weeks of intense reading coming on.

David

[b.hennick]

I worked with Steve to get the series done for the JSSUS Newsletter. Several members here have contributed to the Newsletter. Feel free to look at our website and use the research materials there. You are also welcome to join.      www.jssus.org 

 

[Steve Waszak]

First, a thank you to Barry for all the assistance (and for the encouragement) in getting the article put together.  Much appreciated, Barry!

 

Happy to help anyone with an interest in this particular area of tsuba appreciation and scholarship, to the degree that I can.  I just want to emphasize, too, that the theory I put forth in the article was (and remains) the best understanding I have of the Yamakichibei group, but that my views could change as new information comes to light.   

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Jean]

A big thank to Steve who was kind enough to provide some information on my Kichibei tsuba.👍 

 

if he gives me the authorization, I ‘ll share his information 😃

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Jean,

 

No problem to share what we discussed, if you like.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Jean]

Here are in two posts an analysis made by Steve on my two Yamakichibei tsuba:

 

the first one, an old one that I really like:

 

« Did you by any chance download and read the article Brian just added to the Downloads section?   I talk quite a bit in the article about the smith who made your tsuba (I believe him to be the fifth of five early Yamakichibei smiths -- Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei).  I have him working in late-Momoyama to early-Edo; however, I also believe he established a "Yamakichibei factory" employing several "students" doing dasaku/daimei work.  So, in my view, your tsuba here could have been made by the master himself or by one of these "students."  It certainly carries the mei of the master, but then, daisaku work would be signed by him, even though he didn't make it, and daimei work wouldn't have been signed or made by him, but may exhibit a signature meant to emulate that of the master. 

 

In the article, the second alternative theory is mine, and I lay out my ideas pretty specifically.     But it is only a theory; I could be wrong.     However, I am pretty confident in it, as in my view, the evidence best leads to the conclusions I reach, and there are significant problems for other theories and beliefs about Yamakichibei works. »

 

« on the four-lobed mokko guard, the paper seems to attribute the work only to "Yamakichi."  I'm not quite sure why, though, since the "Bei" character is clearly present, though it is quite abraded (as is typical).  Further, the "Yamakichi" smiths are really those 19-century workers who signed only "Yamakichi" (no "Bei"), and always made tsuba like those we see in the recent thread, and in the thread I linked to (Sergei's initial post):  five small holes around the nakago-ana and the same look to the sugata and surface of the plate.  As I say, these are 19th-century works, and have nothing to do with the real Yamakichibei smiths.  So, seeing the kanteisho to your piece refer only to "Yamakichi" is odd for this reason, too.  Once you've had the chance to read through the article, you will see, I think, why yours is clearly a work made by Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei, as I call him (due to the very narrow gap between the horizontal strokes in the "Kichi" character).  Again, I might qualify this attribution only by noting that your tsuba could be a daisaku work made by a student/worker of the Yamakichibei "factory" that Low-Crossbar-mei Yamakichibei (the "godai," if you prefer) established early in the 17th century. »

[Jean]

The second one:

 

 

« Your other tsuba here is a classic and genuine "Sakura" Yamakichibei.  The classical understanding of Yamakichibei is that he is the sandai, though he is known as "Sakura Yamakichibei" because he always adds a cherry blossom stamp in the lower right corner of the omote seppa-dai.  Again, he is recognized as the sandai according to the classical understanding (though if the viewpoint that there were an O-Shodai [Yamasaka Kichibei], a Meijin-Shodai, and a Nidai is correct, then Sakura Yamakichibei should be better referred to as the yondai).   However, I do not recognize Sakura Yamakichibei as the sandai (or the yondai), not only because I recognize two other smiths as the yondai and godai, as you will see, but also because Sakura Yamakichibei is working too late to be a part of the actual Yamakichibei atelier.  The various sources put him in the latter part of the 17th century, which I think is accurate, based on the style of his work and in particular, his frequent use of goishi and fine amida-yasuri, which his contemporaries in Owari, Toda and Fukui, often employed as well.  If this dating for Sakura is accurate, there would be too wide a gap from the end of the working period of the Nidai (whose work Sakura often emulates) and/or the Godai (Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei) to the start of Sakura Yamakichibei's working career.  There would have to be a gap of something like 30-50 years here, which means that Sakura couldn't have been part of the original Yamakichibei atelier as a student of the Nidai or the Godai, unless he was apprenticed at an extremely young age right at the very end of the original atelier's existence (which is, of course, very unlikely).  

 

I think Sakura was probably a talented metal worker in Owari who was inspired by his province's heritage of superb tsubako -- Yamakichibei in particular -- and either received permission to use the name or simply adopted it as a professional name/brand to trade off of.  His work is often of high quality, but it does not match the levels of the early, genuine Yamakichibei smiths. »