Tsuba casting molds ?

[Dan tsuba]

Hi all!

 

So up for your viewing pleasure today we have a set of daisho tsuba.  Yes, two tsuba to view.  Too much fun!

 

The tsuba appear to have been hand worked to varying degrees.  But the tsuba plates (particularly the one on the left) appear as if they could have been cast.  What is interesting is the mimi of the tsuba.  The one on the left in the pictures appears to have more of a straight (casting?) line on the mimi.  And the motif appears that it could have been cast along with the plate.  I believe that it is actually the older of the two tsuba.  The tsuba displayed on the right could also be cast iron (or maybe the wavy type of line on the mimi was engraved?), but I am pretty sure the small depressions on the plate were hand crafted, and not a result of a casting process.  The motif also appears to be hand worked.

 

My opinions and thoughts are that the tsuba on the left has the appearance of being cast iron.  The tsuba on the right probably not cast.

 

I checked out information on the school, and etching was involved.  So, maybe that contributes to a “cast iron look”?

 

“The founder, Jakushi I (Kizayemon), of Nagasaki in Hizen, was originally a painter, chiefly of Chinese scenery in the manner of the later Ch’in Dynasty, who later translated his graphic work into metal. The miniature landscapes characteristic of his style are produced by an initial etching of the iron ground, which is then finished with chisel-work and enlivened with figures and other details in minute incrustation of the soft metals or in nunome overlay of gold graduated in thickness so as to resemble washes of the precious metal. Another favourite subject is the dragon amid clouds, boldly conceived in the Chinese manner.”

 

Anyway, an interesting pair!!  And another possible example of a papered cast iron tsuba.

 

The daisho set is from this website:

https://www.samuraimuseum.jp/shop/product/antique-tsuba-daisho-set-for-samurai-sword-with-nthk-kanteisho-certificate-t-416/

“Signature: 若芝 (Jakushi)

Age: middle of the Edo period (T-416-A), late Edo period (T-416-B)

Material: Iron

Title: Hizen Nagasaki Jakushi-style, Unryu Zu

This item is a set of 2 antique Tsubas.

Description

 According to the certificate, this Daisho Tsubas (大小鐔, set of large and small size Tsubas) were appraised as the Hizen Nagasaki Jakushi (肥前長崎若芝) school’s Tsuba.”

Authentication Paper：NTHK Kanteisho Certificate

 NTHK, also known as NPO Nihon Touken Hozon Kai, is the oldest organization for sword authentication of Japanese swords in modern times. It was established in 1889 during the post-Samurai era. They authenticated the Tsuba on Nov 14th in the third year of Reiwa (2021).”

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

RESEARCHING THE “COMMERCIALIZATION” OF THE Japanese STEEL-PRODUCING PROCESS USING TATARA DURING THE EDO PERIOD:

 

sourced from:

1-    History of Steel in Japan, by Eiho Nishida. 1973

2-    An Iron Workers Community in Japan- A Study in the Sociology of Industrial Groups, by Kunio Odaka. 1950. 

 

The Japanese Tatara had gone through several stages of evolution to reach its “final stage” of development by the year 1691, that utilized a much improved, multi-person “see-saw” / “balance-type” bellows, with a hearth designed to retain heat. (1)

These were staffed by a great number of both skilled workers, artisans, and less-skilled labour workers, who lived in dedicated communities of 50 to 200 people (including their families). (2)

 

This final stage of development moved it from an outdoor small scale production output, to an indoor “industrial-scale” steel production with a complex of dedicated buildings that included:

   “The iron-cut, where iron sand was extracted; the charcoal yard; the smelter (see-saw Tatara); and the forge.” (2)

   “The forge consisted of a shop where the pig iron (cast-iron) was decarbonized and a finishing shop.” (2)

   “Commonly, work at the furnace continued for three or four nights at a time, during which workmen were not allowed to return to their homes.” (2)

 

Using one of three different processes with this setup, three types of smelted metals could be produced (1):

1-    “Kera” for swords

2-    “Zuku” for casting (same as the “pig-iron” quoted above)

3-    “Wrought iron” by decarburizing the Zuku or lower grade Kera

 

These advanced indoor Tatara could produce steel blocks that weighed 4000-5000 pounds, which could then be broken up by a large hammer called a “DO” that was powered by a water wheel. (2)

In 1853, the Japanese ban on building large ships was lifted, and in order to keep up with the increased demand for steel, the first Western style “blast-furnace” was built in 1857.

 

So, in summary, the Japanese were able to make large scale quantities of cast-iron, as well as decarburize it to make it softer, since roughly the year 1700! (…rounded up from 1691)

 

The introduction of the Western blast-furnace was only necessary to scale up production to even greater quantities, NOT in order to start the production.

 

So, now we can add “OPPORTUNITY” on top of the already discussed “MOTIVE” for the production of cast-iron tsuba in the Edo period, as well as several EXAMPLES of cast tsuba that have been papered by NTHK or NBTHK.

 

And just to add another MOTIVE for “mass-production” of tsuba, at least from the 1850s onwards (1):

 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Glen,

 

in your zeal to find proofs of cast iron TSUBA making in EDO period, you wrote:

....So, in summary, the Japanese were able to make large scale quantities of cast-iron, as well as decarburize it to make it softer, since roughly the year 1700! (…rounded up from 1691)...

 

You missed an important point: There is no word of TSUBA, and their production would have been the other way round: They were made from wrought iron in a forge, and the cast iron was processed (read decarburized) in bulk quantities, not in form of TSUBA.

 

This is what I believe, unless other evidence turns up.

[GRC]

Sorry Jean, but you have misinterpreted where my “zeal” has been directed…

 

The whole way along, I have merely been entertaining the question:

                         “Why not in the Edo period?”

…and I have been looking for answers ever since, ready to accept whatever the outcome may be.

 

If you look back, I was ready to “end the search” at the date of construction of the first Western style blast furnace in 1857, assuming that would be the only consistent source of the cast-iron.

 

But, new quotes came up, that pointed to earlier dates of cast-iron tsuba production (1840s-1860s).

So, I even raised some questions that I felt would have to be answered in order to help corroborate those dates:

 

a)     Where did that cast-iron come from, especially if it was malleable cast iron?

This is what I equate to “OPPORTUNITY”…

ie. COULD THEY HAVE DONE THAT, and HOW?

 

b)     What was the reason for their production, and who was the target market?

This is what I equate to “MOTIVE”

(Especially given that these dates were earlier than the Meiji period when Japan opened up to foreign buyers)  

 

After reading the sources listed in my last post, we now know FOR CERTAIN, that the Japanese had been producing and decarburizing their own cast-iron since 1691.

 

Prior to that post, the belief presented here on the NMB was that it was not possible for Japan to produce cast-iron, let alone malleable cast-iron which requires further processing. This was used to advance the idea that cast-iron tsuba COULD NOT have been produced in Japan during the EDO period.   These are clearly FALSE.

 

 

As stated in one of my previous posts, part of my quest for finding answers, is to advance an idea from POSSIBLE to PLAUSIBLE, and ideally to CERTAIN.

I can see now, a more realistic outcome may be: from broadly POSSIBLE (“don’t know, but maybe?”), to PLAUSIBLE (“ya, it could be”), to PROBABLE (“yes, probably”).

 

So Jean, I’d also like to point out, that it was completely irrelevant for my last post to have the word TSUBA in the quotes provided, because I was merely advancing that new information to establish that: During the Edo-period (1691 onward), the Japanese had the OPPORTUNITY to make cast-iron tsuba that wouldn’t be so brittle as to be unusable.

 This information, just on its own, turns the dial from merely POSSIBLE, to PLAUSIBLE.

 

My other summary statements were made because of the combination of

·       all the scholarly quotes provided throughout this NMB thread that support the idea (both directly and indirectly)

·       the papered cast tsuba examples

·       the accessibility to malleable cast iron from 1691 onward

·       two motives to justify why they may have been produced earlier than the Meiji period

 

Taken as a whole, that seems to push the idea of cast-iron tsuba in the Edo period towards PROBABLE.

 

Of course though, everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

My goal is not to change your mind, but rather to ask questions, find answers, and follow the weight of the evidence.

[roger dundas]

Can I buy back in here. I have tried with my aging feeble mind to come to some sort of comprehension about these damnable cast tsuba. And I joke not !

Waiting I suppose for you sharp witted scholars to finally sum up.

But the one big issue still remains for me- how easily can we tell a cast tsuba from a forged tsuba . Some are obvious even to the likes of me but it appears others are more difficult ? Especially when a cast tsuba is finished off with hand tooling.

Have I got this right or should I just remain an onlooker.

Roger j

[Baba Yaga]

Keep grinding on this Glen. I always thought cast Nanban Tsuba were made in the 1700's as Christen symbols were present. I've been following this tread with great interest. 

[ROKUJURO]

Glen,

 

at the beginning of this thread, I have explained that cast iron was a part of the normal output of a TATARA process. So this material was always available, even in pre-EDO times.

 

I also explained how difficult and complex the iron casting process was, and how ineffective it would have been in the production of large item numbers. I questioned the possibility of decarburizing cast iron TSUBA after their production because of the high effort, time and cost involved. 

 

So, unless there is evidence of papered EDO period cast iron (papered as 'cast') TSUBA, and not 'looking like cast' on a photo, I have my doubts and ask you, why should they have made cast iron TSUBA when it was more work for lesser quality?

 

I do not doubt that it was possible (and perhaps even done) for single (decorative) items, and I had always found that many NANBAN TSUBA looked cast, but I did not find evidence for a large-scale cast iron TSUBA production in Japan that you and Dan seem to be suspecting.

 

This changed of course in later years, when Western technology came to Japan, and SAMURAI items were in favour with Western tourists.  But these later mass produced TSUBA copies (be that in 1840 or after 1870) were not meant for use.

[Baba Yaga]

Maybe they did it because they could emplace of practicality? 

[GRC]

Roger, you're spot on.

Hand working after casting makes it more difficult since you'll see evidence of both. By the way, this was something that was pointed out by Lissenden, in his analysis of casting in Nanban tsuba. He found that there was quite a varying degree of hand working of the cast tsuba he analyzed.

 

Lissenden also made the assertion that if the tsuba has some hallmarks of being cast, then one must assume that it was initially cast.

It would be extremely difficult to explain the presence of some of those features if it was exclusively hand forged. 

However some features, taken on their own could potentially be explained by other factors, which is why it really helps to have either: multiple signs of casting, or at least one casting feature that wouldn't make any sense being there if it was hand forged. 

 

An additional issue is relying on digital images alone.

These will vary in picture quality, the angles presented, as well as light and colour saturation of the image.

Playing around with these can really hide some of the cast-features. So on a side note... watch out for sellers with really dark images. Download/save the images, then change the brightness and contrast of the image so you can get a better look. 

It's always helpful to have angled views where you can see inside the hitsu and sukashi, as well as get a good look at the outer face of the mimi.

 

Another issue is the degree of pitting and rusting on the tsuba... that can make things so muddy that you can't be certain of anything. In those cases, the only way I've been comfortable calling it cast, is when I have another example of an identically patterned tsuba that is less corroded.

[GRC]

Hi Jean, I’d like to respond to your recent post addressed to me.

But first, I’d like to say thanks for engaging in the discussion. Without that back and forth, and inputs from everyone else, I might never have read all these different articles or gathered that information. I have learned a ton and am very grateful for it. I hope everyone else has enjoyed this thread as well. 

 

20 hours ago, ROKUJURO said: “at the beginning of this thread, I have explained that cast iron was a part of the normal output of a TATARA process. So this material was always available, even in pre-EDO times.”

That is true, but this is the brittle type of cast iron, so I think all of us would agree that this would not be suited for making tsuba.

It’s the use of the softer, less brittle, decarburized cast-iron that would make more sense for the production of tsuba. And again, that was only produced in Japan, as of 1691.

And to be fair Jean, you actually started off by presenting this view:

On 1/27/2022 at 9:49 AM, ROKUJURO said: “it was not possible to produce cast iron in Japan. But it may have been possible elsewhere, perhaps in China.”

The details about the Tatara producing some cast-iron were added in one of your later posts.

 

 

With regards to this statement:

20 hours ago, ROKUJURO said: “I also explained how difficult and complex the iron casting process was, and how ineffective it would have been in the production of large item numbers.”

 

This one still comes across as a matter of opinion:

 

Lissenden had the opposite point of view and suggested it would be quite reasonable to make many wax forms from an original, carved wooden master. 

Lissenden also justified the use of this technique when trying to create tsuba with elaborate piercings or sukashi like many of the Nanban tsuba (which would be very similar to the NTHK papered "birds tsuba" posted earlier).

The time saved in not having to chisel or drill repeatedly through a steel plate by hand, would outweigh the labour needed to make one wood mold, many wax forms and their surrounding matrixes (the hard casing that goes around the wax form).

 

I could see your statement making sense for producing a tsuba with a solid plate because the solid plate would probably be faster to make using hand forging techniques.

But for repeated production of something more elaborate, like Lissenden explained, casting would seem to make the most sense.

 

With regards to this statement:

20 hours ago, ROKUJURO said: “…papered EDO period cast iron (papered as 'cast') TSUBA”

 

Unfortunately, I suspect you might always be left wanting for that… but I’d love to see one too.

Here’s a question to consider:

What reason would any group that papers tsuba, need to use the words “cast-iron”, when “iron” would be perfectly sufficient to describe what the tsuba is made of?

Between cast and forged iron, we’re really only talking about a few percentage points difference in the Carbon content mixed in with the iron, so both of them are simply varying mixes of roughly 95-99% Iron, with the remainder being mostly Carbon and a few other elements.

 

A question for anyone reading this post:

Is there a particular way that the NBTHK or NTHK distinguishes between different types of steel that may have been used in the making of swords (other than Nanban steel)? And do they even call it “steel”, or just simply “iron”?

Hopefully some "sword people" might know that.

 

In any case Jean, it seems perfectly reasonable for you to hold out for more examples, and I respect your choice.

 

And lastly, to address the “mass-production” aspect:

I suppose I look at it as: anything that is “reproducible” in quantity, whether that is 5 at a time or 100 at a time, doesn’t really matter at all I suppose, as long as you can repeat it. That's where Lissenden's "carved wood form" 

Jean, I suspect you’re probably right in thinking that one-off pieces (and probably small batch productions) may have been the norm, rather than cranking them out like an assembly line.

I think there’s no doubt that the real “mass” production hit its stride in the Meiji period.

 

In any case, the only real pursuit for me was whether or not the Japanese were making cast-iron tsuba during the Edo period. And now that seems to be likely.

 

 

I’d like to end off by bringing back a quote from the first page of this thread. At the time, I found it to be an amazing quote from Markus Sesko, but I didn’t know enough to be able to put it in proper context. I really wasn’t ready to wrap my head around such an early date for cast-iron tsuba:

 

On 1/26/2022 at 5:08 AM, JohnTo said: “Markus Sesko has a small reference to cast iron tsuba in his book the Japanese toso-kinko Schools (p 129) which states that the kinko artist Daininchi Fucho (active around Horeki, 1751-1764) learned his skills ‘from Ugai Gorozaemon who belonged to an Osaka-based family of kettle casters who produced cast-iron tsuba as a sideline.’

 

Now that mid-1700 timeframe makes so much more sense…

 

[Baba Yaga]

If you introduce one piece of substantial contrary data ( you have ) the thesis statement / hypothesis is considered invalid and a  new one must be created.  With respect, 10 then 20 then 30 is not  needed. That's just moving the goal post for the purpose of academic fallacy. 

 

Great research and question everything

[Dan tsuba]

Hi all!

 

So, it seems that this thread is winding down.  My personal opinion from reading this thread and doing my own research is that - cast iron tsuba were made during the Edo period. 

 

Now, the one item missing from all the research conducted is that there are no extant writings of how cast iron tsuba were made or who made them.  Then again, there are no extant writings of how the pyramids were made or who actually made them!

 

I have added a humorous spoof on the subject -

 

“No way!  No way!  It’s impossible!  There is no way that thousands of years ago the pyramids could be built.  There is no way that many thousands of men could move stone blocks (that weigh an average of 2.5 tons each) across miles of desert from a quarry to the building site.

There is no way that those blocks of stone could be placed one on top of the other and so close together that even a piece of paper can’t be placed between the stones!  And then to build a structure in this way that is several hundreds of feet in height is totally impossible.”

 

Yet, there the pyramids stand in the sands of Egypt (the proof exists – or I believe something like this can be called “Res ipsa loquitur”- or “the thing -or object-speaks for itself”).

 

I believe the same scenario could be applied to Edo period cast iron tsuba.  “Res ipsa loquitur”, the papered obviously cast iron Edo period tsuba shown in this thread speaks for themselves.

 

I never underestimate the innate quality of man’s ingenuity.  To do so would be a mistake.

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Ok two great quotes to follow in two separate posts:

 

This first one was spotted by Dale Raisbeck (Spartancrest),the seemingly infinite source of old writings about Japanese artistry and craftsmanship, and endless source of tsuba comparisons from just about every museum collection on the planet

 

The quote comes from the 1895 Kyoto Industrial Exhibition.

Although this is POST-Edo and NOT directly connected to tsuba, it does show that the Japanese were specialists in modifying cast-iron products into softer workable wrought-iron that could be elaborately chiseled and worked by hand after they were cast.

This strongly implies that the technique was well known to the Japanese and that they must have been using it for quite some time, in order for them to have achieved this level of proficiency by 1895.

This now elevates this idea from a mere "possibility" or even a "probability", to a statement of fact. 

 

Here is the full quote about one of the metal workers whose works were selected for the exhibit. with the most pertinent section in bold:

 

QUOTE 1 from F. Brinkley:

"JOMI YEISUKE.

This artist stands easily at the head of the bronze manufacturers of Kyoto, and indeed has few peers anywhere in Japan. His pieces, having designs in relief formed of silver, gold, shakudo, shibuichi & so forth on a glowing golden ground, show the perfection of work in bronzes. There is hardly any colour that he cannot produce with certainty, though some, of course, present greater difficulties than others. The celebrated lobster-red, unattainable in Europe and declared by foreign writers to be an accidental result in Japan, is no accident in Jomi's factory. Most remarkable, perhaps, is the process that this artist has developed of manufacturing bronze so as to be entirely proof against climatic influences. As an example, the visitor need only look at the balcony of Jomi's show-room which, though it has been exposed for years to sunshine, rain, and frost, retains its lustrous, rich- coloured surface as perfect as when it was first placed in position.

In his factory one may also see a tour de force peculiar to Japanese workers in metal, namely, the conversion of the surface of cast iron into wrought iron, by which means it becomes possible to chisel elaborate designs at comparatively small cost upon common household utensils.

Jomi has 95 medals of gold or silver and certificates of merit obtained at various exhibitions, domestic and foreign."    

 

Incidentally, there is also a great little intro to the "metal workers" section that discusses how the sword fittings artisans were busy reinventing themselves and figuring out what they would produce in the post-Edo Meiji era.

 

[GRC]

On 1/26/2022 at 5:08 AM, JohnTo said:

Markus Sesko has a small reference to cast iron tsuba in his book the Japanese toso-kinko Schools (p 129) which states that the kinko artist Daininchi Fucho (active around Horeki, 1751-1764) learned his skills ‘from Ugai Gorozaemon who belonged to an Osaka-based family of kettle casters who produced cast-iron tsuba as a sideline.’

 

I just wanted to add a second quote to help validate the above quote from Markus Sesko:

specifically, that Japanese kettle makers were producing cast iron tsuba as far back as pre-1750.

 

This time it's from Haynes catalogue #4, item #1148:

 

I have seen multiple examples of this tsuba, sometimes in iron, sometimes in bronze, with varying degrees of detail in the dragon's relief and the surface texturing of the plate.

Some of them are signed with a mei, some with a kao, but most are mumei.

 

I even saw a Japanese seller openly describe one example as "cast-iron, but then carefully worked by hand".

 

I also saw another one posted for sale with this statement (later translated to english):

 

So both Sesko and Haynes, have research that supports cast iron tsuba production to at least the early 1700s.

 

Given all the information that was dug up and researched in this thread, It seems like we need to start looking at some of the cast iron tsuba (and other fittings) in a new light, and recognize that many examples that most of us were previously dismissing as modern era (post-Edo) productions, were actually produced in Japan at a much earlier date.

 

The hardest part will be trying to sort out which were Edo period and which were Meiji or later... nightmare... maybe close to impossible in many cases. 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all (again!), 

 

So, I thought this was interesting. And should be added to this thread. I was doing (my almost daily!) online tsuba looking (and of course looking at pieces I could never afford!). And I “stumbled” on this tsuba. 

 

What first caught my eye was how delicate looking it is. Also, that the motif did not appear as if it was “hand carved”. The tsuba was listed as Edo period and is papered (with two different papers?). 

 

When I looked at the close-up pictures of the tsuba, I saw what appeared to be casting marks along the sides of the motif. 

 

I have included pictures and the web site where I found it posted. 

 

http://world.seiyudo.com/product/tu-030517/ 

 

Any thoughts or opinions would be greatly appreciated. 

 

With respect, 

Dan 

[MauroP]

No, I'm unable to see signs of casting. All can be explained with layering during hand forging, IMO.

[zanilu]

I agree with Mauro, looks like forgin layers that maybe due to corrosion show some signs of delamination. 

 

My two cents...

 

Luca

[ROKUJURO]

Dan,

you have a theory and are looking for indications to support them, but it should be the other way round!

This KAMIYOSHI TSUBA does not show any signs of casting, and I think you should look at features found in modern cast TSUBA to learn how they appear. Quite often, you will find that they have been reworked (filed even) so that an evaluation can be really difficult. Fissures and cracks are rarely found in castings, but sometimes you see open bubbles, a 'sandy' looking surface, and softened contours in the design. In many cases, you will not see fine chisel work, but even that can be misleading in those TSUBA that have been worked on after the casting for a better finish.

[vajo]

Thats a very nice higo kamiyoshi.

What is wrong with that tsuba? 

[Dan tsuba]

Thanks for the posts and opinions!! Much appreciated! 

 

I thought I noticed possible casting marks on the side of the “large leaves” in pictures number 2, 3, 4 and 5.  

 

When I enlarged the pictures, in the middle of the “large leaves” motif, there appears to be a “line” (casting mold line?) in the center. 

 

But, maybe like Mauro stated, “All can be explained with layering during hand forging, IMO.” 

 

So, maybe that is what I was seeing?? 

 

Oh well, Onward!! 

 

With respect, 

Dan 

 

[roger dundas]

Hasn't this been a great discussion.

A few issues still for the less experienced such as me to fathom but really,  the NMB at its best.

With members showing a mutual respect that is so often lacking in parts of our western world's day to day behavior.

All is not yet lost.

Roger j

[Dan tsuba]

Thank you, Roger, for your kind words. Yes, the NMB at its best! 

 

So: Onward! 

 

Looking very carefully at the pictures of the latest tsuba I posted. I noticed that on the omote and ura sides there are several tiny “pin type” marks and tiny depressions. 

 

Now, the possibility of cast iron kettle makers that also possibly could have made tsuba has been discussed previously on this thread. Also, the possibility of “annealing” cast iron to make it less brittle has also been discussed. 

 

Kettle makers use a technique to make cast iron kettles called “sand casting” (the molds used are either clay or sand). Perhaps the tsuba that was pictured could have been “sand cast.  

 

So, one thing led to another and I noticed that the Japanese artisans also make items called “trivets”. These are sand cast metal pieces to place a hot tea kettle upon, and some look very intricate. At a size of 8 to 13 inches (about 20 to 33 cm) in diameter, they look very much like tsuba (except much larger). 

 

But that is a discussion for later. 

 

Right now, I would like to point out another item about the tsuba that is “off topic” to the thread. 

 

If you look at picture number 1 (attached) you will see that the motif extends onto the seppa-dai. Now, when the seppa are placed on the seppa-dai it appears that part of the motif would be covered up. 

 

I looked at all my 100 + tsuba to see if this occurs on any of them, it does not!! 

 

So, was this tsuba made to be used or was it just for display?? 

 

Anyway, the adventure continues! 

 

With respect, 

Dan 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

Dan,

the 'trivet' you mention is likely a tripod to support the TETSUBIN or KAMA (water-kettle, not tea-kettle) in a big HIBACHI.
There is nothing spectacular in the manufacture, just a cast iron item made in a sand mold.

Concerning the chiselled motive of the nice TSUBA: It is not unusual to see the decoration go into the SEPPA-DAI as long as it is level. 

[Spartancrest]

 The Japanese also make true trivets, this one with several elements including a tsuba , bridle and stirrup.

 

 

https://m.facebook.com/NambuIronwareOitomi/photos/basw.AbpwlJTHSdywk70AxN501IvEAHe3J3F9epuOs4Ac3tZaERC-XaixrB_HJDCdulhnL9BAk39KeqaXfVKtUW1kU2VPLpx7eW_g4UNCvlF_zZAn6qtVmKimW-Q2Gf3SOyAL8r-jK9TCu5QxQ30wTfIplEXB.165471436131953.183949027476902.184646630791241.502231861910583.135406702377779.1644913685844439/135406702377779/?type=1&opaqueCursor=AbqAn7b1dBuzO0m3fKUMw7wCZEAQv8fIKGFLsJttoV4Z2XI30jSDMRutgcOKfv-sxVQo5LFFOoMLw9GzcZA2CqiIvhh5S5cIT7je5cXkf6uQmIJIgcmfQVfiaiyQYvfCVjoHhtZI8iHUi5qxeuo6hlQpN85ZRI1gl6cH_fhlXuAQfSA70JjTfAW5bWZfJRgXJ4ZNMPAZ2B3MB0qQyPBFOID-KPizn9ITmz1RBd2bs9jJgPXxMXNlq9p0HUYm3XPRsGmj0R0uhIrtfUvmJ8xv5vX_4eFSednDaj5Sq7u3Zpw50SWeMdNUrHi_Ju8a2U6YjXk9qhwGPN4OvNXJ3FxU2QnZZKm4v5wzUyuwMHBTwggPDx56yVVMyicikjgSvVEhC59BlI5AMBHZOS3gdX8FGc3pZTdi8ocoEwg0-Cp7tm-oYEUS8v1kymWFF_KlTfa_GRPqiRoMXcQTp0bAq5U4eGeiM3XslqZ3dVQawjZHYxkXlAVQpgrUQdcONEX6KQQ5Ectln4VvvPtgoVyj-2Pykttsk9s-hor9LZr2vQiyd6Eb6SI9KVFF3v4pUC1cFdPvorkQSTTwe8x49lj54CTcFaQAi-jQrCS0d6u1VeSXevoNEwnZoUKcYGKAVnVxmKp3g3Hg0CMDkM5h7YxZobSZqKuCrcZLQi2p0xRgjZPklnX5l3rbpF__1QOmEhN50C_g2DXjjqdE1lD0mKen78ca-t_xxvSmEzeipVqPkrFe4DITUE6lUIkaxzGlf5NDAaFilx5qRbc6qPOA-oDrM9_11vq8O4r8biuOLDJ2iISor872COu1JdBYs770eNSB9-FPDxGLpfyouM5tYhNTu5NPgqMJ2iqtTCg_hh2X-0gM5d_SASCt2fve7H8GsL4pe0cjqKkf1Zp7ZB3Q7IN1w0ovFdRVf0xsg3RDPEe9-GxLG6_-JcRrkR4kXJImR96QA8X4h1D31NxiJ5xrrwomkdxzfS_0zR2rLCDpbPwA05TfoqMC3xWhr2X8vTAy1BPj194Oiolwa3jnm7sqjCNA8LzebNKhEeh6YJ1VqSsHay15z8b9qYjqyy3eGJKOSeo8T9Jendd_5ZIeBEksUxV_6v7kUmtjGqHwuGmb9J40R1_ELfxyIg

Sorry for the excessive link size it won't open otherwise. 

 

https://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/w1050681298/

 

Also for the heavy drinker you can still get a tsuba bottle opener - in an age of screw caps! 

They are rough and ready but the old skills are still used.

[Curran]

9 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

 

So, was this tsuba made to be used or was it just for display?? 

 

 

 

Don't mistake one thing for another.

Both sets of papers are to the (Higo) Kamiyoshi school, so this is an 1800s example.

 

Some Kamiyoshi, especially those of the 3rd gen, have a significant amount of micro-tecturing.

Like an OCD Salvador Dali painting- insane amount of work when you look at it up close or under magnification.

 

Attached is a slightly magnified image of another Kamiyoshi.

Using a very fine chisel, there are how many thousand strikes? in the space of one large tsuba. As if flocks of small birds ran

across the sand of a wet beach.

 

 

[Spartancrest]

Great shot Curran, its hard to get good images that close.

Rust must be like when the tide comes in? 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all, it’s me (I know what most of you are thinking – “oh no, not him again”!!)

 

Later in this post I will bring up the subject of “cast tsuba” again, but I would like to preface this subject with Curran’s helpful post.

 

Thank you, Curran, for your post and insights into the “micro texturing” of tsuba.  Although really the only way to know anything for sure has already been discussed on this thread.  I refer you to my quote from a previous post- (I know- kind of long, but hang in there this post gets better, I think it does!!).  And remember, this is just my opinion!

 

“Now, if this subject of Edo period cast iron tsuba is to be resolved, may I suggest the following (and I would like to inform the reader that I have no vested interest in the outcome one way or the other – I just find it a fascinating subject for exploration)-

I suggest gathering at least 20 tsuba from different "reputable" dealers (I consider that number of tusba a relatively fair sampling - although others may think that fewer or more would be better).  In the dealers listings of these tsuba they would be listed as Edo period and would appear that they could be made from cast iron (perhaps including a few Nanban types).  Then have a metallurgist cut (or maybe it can be done by chemical or other less invasive means?) and analyze each tsuba.  If a "cast iron" tsuba is found, then the examination can stop at that point.  The conclusion that can be drawn is that if there is one cast iron tsuba, there are probably many others "out there".  If no cast iron tsuba are found in the sampling of those 20 tsuba (or more or less), then there is an extremely high probability that Edo period and earlier tsuba were not made from cast iron

Unfortunately, there is really no solid definitive historical written proof (that I can find) that states that cast iron tsuba were “not” being made in the Edo period (I refer the reader to my earlier post that includes reference to the Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society, London 1893-5, and to the reference of the Professor A.H. Church collection).  I believe that the above-mentioned scientific way of discerning the metal used in Edo (and possibly earlier) tsuba would be the only way to finally “bring to a close” the “cast iron” tsuba debate.”

 

Also, a quote from a post from Darrel-

 

“There are a number of closely related non-destructive methods of elemental analysis of metals and alloys, but the basic method is XRF or EDX. So, if you have a large enough sample size you could describe the elemental components of different tsuba. Some years ago I did this for Marcus Chambers and someone did this for Ford at V and A. Normally this is quite expensive although the analysis takes little time and the calculations are done with internal software. But you might find someone who has access to an instrument that shares your interest. The steel industry does this routinely. The data could be separated into like groups statistically. Perhaps a good chemistry/metallurgy BS thesis subject.”

 

Anyway, just some more stuff to “ponder” follows!!!----

 

“Trivets”, as explained in my previous post, are “sand cast” (or “clay cast”) cast iron pieces to place a teapot upon.  Some of these pieces are very intricate in design, and if cast in a smaller size they could easily be made into tsuba.

 

 I have included some pictures of these intricately designed trivets that appear somewhat like very large tsuba (the size of these trivets is anywhere from 8 to 13 inches or 20 to 33 cm).

 

Also, “Cast iron tea kettles are particularly common tea vessels in Japanese and other Asian cultures. In Japan, cast iron kettles are known as tetsubin. They originated during the late 17th century and early 18th century and became integral to the Japanese tea ceremony".  This information was found at this link-

 

 https://senchateabar.com/blogs/blog/cast-iron-teapot#:~:text=In%20Japan%2C%20cast%20iron%20kettles,with%20any%20loose%20leaf%20teas.

 

And another great link that explains the history of a “kettle casting” family in Japan.

 

https://www.sunday.de/en/nanbu-tekki-suzuki-morihisa-square-trivet.html

 

So, my opinion is that Japanese cast iron kettle makers could have made tsuba.  And since the kettle makers originated in the 17^th century, maybe there are “sand cast” or “clay cast” tsuba that could have been produced as early as the 1600’s!!!

 

If that is the case, how many “sand cast” or “clay cast” tsuba have been purchased as “hand forged” and “hand cut” pieces (myself included!)???  When in actuality they could have been “sand cast” (or “clay cast”) and “hand worked”!!

 

Also, I still am of the belief that the pictures I posted on my latest previous thread is a “sand cast” (or “clay cast”) tsuba, that was filed or abraded to show a smoother appearance.

 

Which brings up another interesting point.  As shown in one of my posts, that particular tsuba has been papered (twice!). Now (also in my previous post) if that tsuba was made for “display” only (due to the fact that the motif is a big part of the seppa-dia and the seppa would “cover up” part of the motif) then did the “authenticators” of the tsuba miss this point and authenticated a “display” piece (twice!)???

 

Anyway, just “food for thought”!   And thanks for reading the entire post!!

 

Onward!!

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[ROKUJURO]

“Oh no, not you again”!! 

[Spartancrest]

Cast iron wind chime sail - turned into a super size tsuba - I call him "Ringo" for obvious reasons. 

Oh no, not you again”!! 

 

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all! 

 

Thank you, Dale, for the great music video! Very funny and well done!  

 

It had me dancing with a “sand cast” cast iron tsuba held in each hand!! 

 

But now back to research!

I found this description on one of the “trivets” pictured in my last post- 

“Handmade cast iron rest made by a 13th generation iron casting family in Iwate, Japan using traditional techniques to create amazing shapes and beautiful weathering effects. Each piece will deepen in color with use and develop a one of a kind patina. Perfect for placing your hot kettle or even in your kitchen for hot pans or pots!  

Origin: 

Made in Iwate, Japan 

Size: 

13 x 13 x 2cm (LWH)” 

 

The above quote was found on the following website (which also shows a picture of the “very tsuba looking” cast iron “trivet”)- 

 

https://www.teadealers.com/products/circles-cast-iron-trivet?variant=32265054257217&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIxIirptyQ-wIVUg6tBh0G_wsHEAQYASABEgLCzfD_BwE 

 

So, “13th generation iron casting family”. So, considering a “generation” is 20 to 30 years that would mean that this family has been casting ironware for 260 to 390 years! Which would be from about 1632 or 1762 to the present (depending on the number of years you define a “generation” as- and if my calculations are correct!). 

 

Just another interesting fact for consideration! 

 

The adventure continues! 

With respect, 

Dan