Tsuba casting molds ?

[ROKUJURO]

I really don't know why some insist on the production and existence of early cast iron TSUBA. If you read carefully in the i-net about malleable cast iron, you will see that it needs 60 to 120 hours of heating up a cast iron object to 1.000°C to attain the desired properties (ductility, malleability, resistance to breaking).  I think that is an unreasonable effort for TSUBA, and of course the process would drastically change the surface, requiring a lot of work to give it an attractive finish.

[GRC]

Jean that's a fair point, and does make it seem like a pretty laborious task.

Mind you, wouldn't that be offset by the production of many tsuba in one go, without having to fold and hammer out each individual iron plate, plus the time saved in not having to "rough out" the tsuba's design before putting on the finishing touches? 

If production output is the goal, then casting still seems like the better option, even with the longer heating process.

But again, that's only if bulk production was the goal.

 

And by the way, just from a personal point of view, I really don't care what the answer ends up being. I just want to know, with some degree of certainty, what the answer actually is.

There's still loose ends on both sides of the question so I'd prefer to keep an open mind until all the "doors are closed" so to speak.

[GRC]

And just to add to that thought of mass production of cast tsuba...

Casting then hand finishing certainly worked out just fine for the Nanban-style tsuba.

This style of tsuba was produced in both China and Japan throughout much of the Edo period. 

 

So here's a question the Nanban casting situation brings up for me:

If we suppose that every Edo-period Nanban tsuba that was cast, was produced in China (or at least outside of Japan), then WHY and HOW did so many of them end up in Japan?

Why wouldn't the Japanese just produce them themselves, given that the style was so popular in Japan for so long?

 

And, here's a follow-up question about the economics of mass tsuba production that still needs to be resolved...

Let me start with a few observations:

1-There are so many cast tsuba out there, some with a fair bit of "apparent age", and many have clearly been fitted onto swords (as can be seen by the punched tagane-ato (and I mean real punch marks, not ones that were integrated into the casting moulds).

2-If we assume that there was no casting of iron tsuba in Japan during the Edo period, then ALL of these cast tsuba either had to be produced in Japan during the Meiji era (1867-1912) and 20th century, or were produced earlier in other countries.

3-In the late 1800s/beginning of the twentieth century, genuine tsuba were being purchased by the barrel in Japan at pennies a piece.

4-There was recently a collection of proper Edo period swords and tsuba (including a Nara Joi that was published) that came up for auction from an American collector's estate who had done all of his purchasing in the 1950s and 60s. Some of the original price tags and correspondence with the Japanese dealer were also present in the auction listings. Some of the tsuba were originally purchased for LESS than $1, and this dragon tsuba for $3.25 !

 

So here's the conundrum:

If there were so many genuine tsuba available at such a low cost from the late 1880s to at least the late 1960s, then who was making all these cast tsuba, who were they selling to, and where was the profit to be had? 

So it doesn't seem to make sense that cast iron tsuba production would suddenly spring into action in Japan (or anywhere for that matter) when the genuine tsuba themselves were available for just pennies or at most a few dollars. 

 

Just some questions floating around in my head... hope I'm not boring everyone with these 

[christianmalterre]

Dear Jean,

 

the Text Glen does state John L. is in his publication about " The Namban Group of Tsuba" ( which i did try to find the last days...it but seems it is out of print and since long not more available ??? )

John did also publish some essayes and texts about these thematics in various Journals of the British Sword Societies he was active in and Roald K. did republish some of the more Kenjutsu or "fighting" relevant points in his Kendo issues.....

I do not know if those are still available ?

I do have my copies here.....those are but least 20 - 30 Years old.....

 

Do browse the web....

 

Christian

[GRC]

Here's the Lissenden pdf:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4129/1/4129_1648.pdf

 

He uses about 150 different sources as references

[ROKUJURO]

Glen

let me repeat that TSUBA casting in Japan would have been done one by one with the 'lost wax mould' technique in pre-industrial times. No big and fast output in numbers!

And then there is your presumption: '1-There are so many cast tsuba out there....'.  I have to confess that I am not aware of this as far as the EDO period and earlier is concerned.

I really wished that Ford Hallam would join in this discussion as he is the real expert in this field!

[1kinko]

I’ve been trying to reach Ford for about a week without success, but a colleague tells me he’s OK but having a hard time. It’s not clear whether that is financial or health wise. Given the past discussion concerning apparent molds for tosogu that turned out to be impressions of originals to be used as models or for records, I do wonder about these later apparent molds. 

[Iekatsu]

8 minutes ago, 1kinko said:

Given the past discussion concerning apparent molds for tosogu that turned out to be impressions of originals to be used as models or for records, I do wonder about these later apparent molds.

The examples found at the Nara site are definitely molds, some of the discarded molds still have failed castings inside. Casting sword fittings in bronze and later brass is pretty well established, but again this site has nothing to do with the casting of Iron.
 

1 hour ago, GRC said:

Here's the Lissenden pdf:

http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/4129/1/4129_1648.pdf

I have some concerns with some of the indicators used to determine whether or not a Tsuba is cast in Dr Lissenden's thesis, I think some of them could be explained by other factors, but without being able to see the examples he examined it would be difficult to refute. Dr Lissenden proposes the following indicators:
1. The presence of surface granularity and porosity, with or without 'sand bubbles'.
2. The presence of investment material — a residue of a red, granular nature was discounted.
3. The presence of 'feathering' in the openwork.
4. A lack of crispness in the incised areas.
 

4 hours ago, GRC said:

1-There are so many cast tsuba out there, some with a fair bit of "apparent age",

Perhaps you could post some examples for us to discuss in more detail. 

[GRC]

Jean, Lissenden describes how many wax impressions could easily be produced from an initial mould... so not a one by one process.

 

Photo of tsuba molds from the Nara soft metal casting site (white object at bottom right is plaster poured into the mould fragment at the left):

So again, like Lissenden points out, as long as you have a mould, you can easily press wax into them to produce the desired outcome as many times as you want. 

[roger dundas]

From memory the 'super fine clay slurry, called investment is initially in liquid form and poured around the wax shape that is to be cast. This then sets, I forget how long it takes to harden or if some heat is applied- probably not initially, the whole thing then heated for the wax to drain out and the empty mold is then 'ready and willing'for the molten metal invasion. That is for lost wax casting as I recall when unsuccessfully trying to cast a silver belt buckle about 55 years ago.

Roger j

[GRC]

Thomas, I completely agree that images of each of the specific "evidences for casting" in Lissenden's thesis would have been extremely helpful.

 

I'm generally not in the habit of storing images of cast tsuba, because there are literally tons of them among the ~10,000 listings on YahooJ every week.

Here's a few examples of some that I did keep as reference:

A very convincing cast tsuba, as already discussed in the "Sekibun belly flop" thread... so sorry to bring it back up again Bob, but it really is a great example that you won't see many of at all, suggesting that these were produced long ago:

2010 at Bonham's, described as 19th century                                                            and it's twin discovered in 2022 on YahooJ

 

When you zoom in to the close up images, there's lots of evidence for casting, but you sure wouldn't know unless you started scrutinizing it up close.The eternal question though is 

The eternal question is still, WHEN was this made and how do you know with any degree of certainty?

 

Here's a glaringly obvious cast iron tsuba that someone unfortunately paid way too much money for:

Again though, I have only come across one with this design, so presumably made long ago.

 

And how about this one that looks convincing at first, until you zoom in (it was made somewhere this morning... but still looks "right" at first glance):

 

This one cost someone a lot of money:

We know this one being made now because there are multiple examples and multiple surface finishes.

 

Back to the oldies:

Here's a real Kinai tsuba and then two "shiiremono" castings both of which were mounted on swords at some point:

 

[Iekatsu]

In the case of the Nara site, it is unlikely that wax was used in the casting process, the evidence points to the use of a solid master that would be pressed into a fine clay to create a male and female mold halves. It should also be noted that the molds would be destroyed in the casting process and could not be reused, a new mold having to be created for each cast.

[GRC]

OK, that I did not know, thanks 

Can you then explain what Lissenden is talking about here on pg 140:

 

"Unfortunately the production of a model in beeswax, preparatory to the casting process, is a work-intensive and highly skilled job. Moreover, the wax mode l needs to be remade each time, being necessarily destroyed by the process. This drawback can, however, be readily overcome by the production of a matrix, which may be of a more easily worked material such as wood. Such a matrix can be repeatedly used and requires no special skills for its production. By pressing warm pieces of wax onto this sample image, a negative matrix may be created and, by repeating this process, a positive impression obtained from this. In such a manner, the two faces of a tsuba could then be joined together and used to create a wax replica of the original. Because of the high output and the low production costs of this group of tsuba, it is probable that such a method as this was the one used for the production of many Namban tsuba."

 

[Iekatsu]

Glen,
 
In order to make this a useful study you are going to have to find examples with reasonable provenance, that is examples that are manufactured in Japan and can be reliable dated to the Edo period or earlier. In the case of the "Sekibun belly flop", it was clearly cast after it was mounted as the cast includes Tagane ato.

Dr Lissenden is talking about the process of using a solid master to create multiple wax masters for use in lost wax casting. This is actually a redundant step if you are pressing the master directly into the molding material, which is likely what was done at the Nara site based on the evidence of the molds themselves. It should also be noted that creating molds is skilled labour, its not just pressing things in clay, there are many considerations that have to be taken into account to get good results. There is even evidence that elements were added to the designs after the impressions were made.

[GRC]

Thomas,

"

53 minutes ago, Iekatsu said:

In order to make this a useful study you are going to have to find examples with reasonable provenance, that is examples that are manufactured in Japan and can be reliable dated to the Edo period or earlier.

This is exactly the problem I was alluding to earlier...

Who exactly is to say WHEN the Sekibun was made? There's really no way to know.

That one certainly fooled the Bonham's experts, all the bidders in 2010, and then again, all the bidders on the one that sold in 2022, and it was located in Japan.

Asking for one with the perfect provenance still doesn't help answer the question of WHEN all these cast tsuba were made.

Anyway, I think I may have one papered example on file that I'll dig up right after this.  

 

I think the Kinai dragon is probably a good place to keep looking because it was so popular, so there are many examples to dig up.

By the way Thomas, if you're looking for tagane-ato added after casting, I think both examples of the cast kinai tsuba show that. The first example has enough tegane-ato to have even been mounted more than once..

 

Here's another cast example of the Kinai, complete with inlays in the eye (although one has fallen out):

You can see the little casting artifacts that look like little raised spheres on the close up (red arrows).

Can anyone say with certainty when this one was made?

 

[GRC]

Here's the one that I am pretty sure is cast (but might just be poorly made?), and is papered by the NBTHK.

I posted it in another thread a while back and it's actually the one that first got me wondering if the NBTHK would ever paper a cast iron tsuba.

Initially, I wrongly thought the sekigane was fake and just painted on, but others pointed out that in a different closeup view, you could see that it was proper sekigane 

[GRC]

Anyway, the point is still that there are lots of cast tsuba out there (of varying ages and qualities), and we simply can't pin a date of production on them just by looking at them.

 

Ultimately, for me anyway, the key piece of information I would like to have, is the date that the Japanese started to make malleable cast iron ingots.

And because the Tatara could not have made these ingots, the Meiji period's push for more modern industrialization certainly sounds like the best bet for that date so far.

And 1867+ certainly does give the Japanese enough time to crank out a ton of cast "shiiremono" before the end of the century, which could account for many of these older, well made cast iron tsuba.

[Spartancrest]

There are two extracts from old articles that may help with dates.

They don't specifically indicate cast iron guards but do show that copies and 'reproductions' were well under way well before the 20th century. This also has the effect that these copies are now all 'genuine' antiques as defined by being over 100 years old [at least]

 

Japanese ART INDUSTRIES
BY
ERNEST HART, D.C.L.

Delivered May 20 and 27, 1895. London

- I regret to say that a very large part of the ingenuity of the most accomplished Japanese art workers in metal and in lacquer is devoted to the reproduction of clever forgeries. When I was in Japan I went to the shop of a very distinguished dealer. He showed me many hundreds of objects, and out of these he guaranteed four hundred to be genuine, and gave a written certificate to this effect. After casually looking the things over, I had them sent to the hotel where I was staying for further examination. I had then a good look at them, and found the result so unsatisfactory, that I sent for two of the greatest experts in the town, with the result that we found only five of the pieces were really genuine. While in Japan we had the advantage of the services of the Governor's secretary, so I arranged that this gentleman should come and meet the dealer and hear what explanation he had to offer, which was very long. We then asked him how it was he had certified that some 400 of the objects were authentic of which only five were genuine ; we pointed out that either he had been going on selling forgeries for years, or else he did not know his business. He replied with characteristic Japanese courtesy that he was much obliged for the information we had given him, and finally made the following concise and comprehensive apology :—“Old objects very few, buyers very many, my eyesight very bad." I communicated with the Minister of the Interior and suggested that it should be made an offence to forge well-known names on curios, but it was explained to me that in Japan there was no such thing as forgery, as a man may use what name he likes. It is however an offence to copy a seal, but that is only an offence against the living and not against the dead.

Terry's Japanese Empire,
including Korea and Formosa - 1919 
[COPYRIGHT 1914]
...Terry, T. Philip (Thomas Philip), 1864-1945.

"The latest art objects to attract the attention of the maker of antiquities are sword-fittings. Kozuka handles have been counterfeited for some years past, but it is only recently, we believe, that the forgery of tsuba (sword-guards) has taken place on really commercial lines. Until two or three years ago the only forgeries met with were those tsuba originally unsigned, but on which an enterprising dealer had chiseled the name of a famous chiseler or inlayer, often disregarding the fact that the work on the tsuba was quite foreign to that of the master whose name had been used." 

[christianmalterre]

This whole topic is highly interesting! And I would like to thank first and foremost Glen for picking up and "make sensitive" very much! Because it is finally time to talk seriously about this topic.
A story from my own many years of collecting experience.
I acquired a tsuba in the early 90's directly from the lineage and family collection of a well known sword master from an old established samurai family near Kyoto.
This Tsuba was never in the Japanese trade and was, since its former owner in the 18th century died, always in direct family possession on the part of the wife and widow.
This piece was then presented by a friend through the local German NBTHK (where I was also a collector member at that time) and certified with Hozon papers the following year.
So there are 2 types of authentications.
1. the original papers of the family
2. the collector / trade - certification of a company which is applying for authenticity in collections and trade with antique pieces.
This tsuba is cast!
I will try in the coming days to make some good pictures and present here in detail.
Unfortunately, my photographic skills are not to be considered good.
So please forgive me for that.
I will get back to you......

 

[Ken-Hawaii]

I'm not the least bit interested in dipping my toes into the discussion on whether tsuba are/can be cast. But after nearly 40 years of training in iaido & kenjutsu, I can state what the tsuba's real purpose is.

 

Simply, its function is to keep your hand from sliding onto the blade, no more & no less. They can be ornate or plain, but if it can't stop your hand, it's useless.

 

For grins & giggles, a couple of my students & I have tried to develop a technique where the tsuba intercepted the cutting-edge. We succeeded, but in every case, the attacker would be dead, as he/she would have been wide-open for a fatal reposte. So, speaking practically, any metal should do.

[Spartancrest]

Ken, practical experience always out does speculation - well done!  When in doubt try it out!

There was speculation in an earlier thread on this same subject, about the total failure of a sword if the tsuba was to be broken and falls off in a fight - it sounds reasonable but in fact the tsuka won't come apart from the blade if the tsuba is lost and the weapon remains totally serviceable. It is not hard to try it out just remove the tsuba and remount the tsuka, I have done it and it still works as a sword. If not, the tsuka is not fitted correctly and the mekugi has suddenly gone missing!    

[Dan tsuba]

Glen, thanks for all the pictures and great information !!  I found a site with listings from a very reputable antique dealer in Japan that has sold several thousand 

antiques.  I have included the link to the site.  Now this is said to be from the "Edo" period (everything except the menuki).  To my very untrained eye the tsuba appears to be cast.  I don't know, I may be wrong !!  

 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/353863150744?mkpid=0&emsid=e11010.m1951.l7534&mkcid=7&ch=osgood&euid=575c0926f9994ae0b12e05d3e54f376e&bu=44221577479&ut=RU&osub=-1~1&crd=20220125113405&segname=11010&sojTags=

 

With respect,

Dan

[b.hennick]

Hi Dan 

He is not a reputable dealer. Whenever I see that he is the vendor I just move on. Pm me if you want details. 

[GRC]

Dale, Christian, Ken and Dan, thanks for the quotes, insights and examples 

At the very least, I hope that his thread gets more people to "keep an eye out" for examples to contemplate and discuss.

I sure learned a lot, and got to think through some ideas, and fill in some gaps in my knowledge along the way.

 

Dan, I think you're right that that tsuba is cast. This crane design was certainly very popular and has been mass produced for a long time. And to top it all off, this one sure has the look of "considerable age".

Here's some of the more suspicious areas that are likely indicators of casting: the missing section in one of the raised feathers (large arrow), the bubble-like divot and the spherical blob that rises above the rest of the iron (small arrows):

  

 

[Dan tsuba]

So, it looks like some cast tsuba have been papered by the NBTHK (according to Thomas and Glen – thanks for that information!).  I have very little knowledge of these papers (only what I have learned on the internet – but it is still complicated with al the different “kinds” of rankings and even the “bad” green papers).

Anyway, I was wondering if when the NBTHK issues papers on tsuba do they list the metal used?  And if so, do they keep records of the certifications?  I don’t know, maybe they have already issued papers on cast iron tsuba (as Glen has shown a picture in this thread of a papered tsuba that he is "pretty sure" is cast iron - thanks again Glen).  That would be interesting to check into, but I wouldn’t know how to go about finding this information out or if it even can be done.  I mean if the NBTHK ever had or does or will paper a cast iron tsuba, that would be very relevant to this discussion.

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Well, this one was listed as "Edo period" on Toukenkomachi online (and it sold already...)

No papers though...

 

[Dan tsuba]

Looking at all the great postings to this thread (and specifically after the initial “cast iron” post) I have noticed that there are two schools of thought.  One is that Edo period tsuba could not have been made from cast iron.  The other school of thought is that Edo period tsuba were (or could have been) made from cast iron.

 

It looks like this discussion could go on for a long time, and in reviewing some previous posts on this forum (going back several years) on varying subjects, it seems that it has been a point of interest in the past.

 

So, on the internet Wikipedia under “Japanese Swordsmithing” it states that “In 1993, Jerzy Piaskowski performed an analysis of a katana of the kobuse type by cutting the sword in half and taking a cross section.” 

 

I have also found where Jerzy Piaskowski has written books on different kinds of sword blades and the steels used.

I am fairly certain that there have been others that have cut Japanese swords for further study.

 

So, could it be possible (in a scientific approach to the subject) for a knowledgeable metallurgist to cut tsuba that are known to be from the Edo era (which in itself seems to be a difficult thing to discern)  and possibly suspected of being cast iron and study them?  I don’t know, maybe something like this has already been done, but I couldn’t find anything about it on the internet.  Anyway, it would make for an interesting study and would “shed some light” on an otherwise seemingly difficult subject.

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[ROKUJURO]

Dan,

in the past, TSUBA have been tested for resilience. It is obvious that a brittle TSUBA was not useful. Legend says the following about YAGYU RENYASAI:

....As with many Japanese crafts, the making of tsuba was often a collaborative effort, and Renyasai employed skilled specialists at different stages of the operation. The basic tsuba were forged by a number of different smiths - among whom, it was said, was Kotetsu Gozaemon. The story goes that these rough pieces were placed in a rice mortar and Renyasai pounded them with a heavy mallet to test their durability. Those that survived unharmed progressed to the next stage, which involved working the designs into the metal, through a variety of drilling, cutting and filing processes. The designs themselves are also the subject of some uncertainty, though the best were traditionally all ascribed to the painter Kano Tanyu.....

Copied from  http://ichijoji.blogspot.com/

Kind regards

Jean

[Brian]

Dan,
The problem is not usually deciding what is cast. it is knowing for sure what is Edo period.
Fakery leads to tsuba that cannot for sure be known to be old.

[Spartancrest]

Dan [and others] there is some information on the

The Techniques of the Japanese Tsuba-Maker  

by Elaine I. Savage and Cyril Stanley Smith  [1979]
here - https://art1lib.org/book/27951721/79fc1b  also found here - https://archive.org/details/arsorientalisar111979univ/page/n1/mode/2up?q=tsuba
but you will need to scan through to page 291 
An interesting analysis of tsuba construction carried out on vandalized tsuba - who gave their lives for science!