Tsuba casting molds ?

[GRC]

So who was buying this stuff?

I have to agree with Ford on this one, it almost certainly wasn't the samurai themselves.

 

Henri Joly also made these statements in the introduction to the Hacksaw Collection:

 

"I have given elsewhere some idea of the extensive manufacture of Shiiremono in Japan from 1750 onwards"
Note: "shiiremono" was mentioned much earlier in this thread, but it means "ready-made".

 

and he stated that shiiremono were available "in the back shops of the wholesale dealers,"

 

and were made "by craftsmen making copies, forgeries, shiiremono, cheap and undesirable, to satisfy the craving of the multitude".

 

I found it interesting that he also stated:

"I do not think that the majority of these “forgeries” were made for the European market."

*Caveat for this quote: this was specifically referring to "gimei tsuba" (tuba with fake signatures), but was placed in a passage that was addressing shiiremono more broadly. 

 

In reading Joly's text, it seems clear to me that he is including cast-iron tsuba in with the broader group of "shiiremono".

 

So according to Joly, most of the Edo period productions that were "made for the masses" so to speak, were of lesser quality or were deliberate attempts at deceit, and were mostly being purchased by the Japanese themselves.

[GRC]

Another note of interest about the Hackshaw collection:

 

There was a cast-iron tsuba in the collection (item-255)

However, not all the tsuba had images, and for obvious reasons of being deemed "lesser quality", the cast-iron one wasn't pictured in the book.

 

(...or at least not that I could see. It's a bit tricky to find images in this book because the tsuba are grouped by Joly according to "schools"/makers, but these groupings don't align consistently with their numbered entries in the text.

So in one group of images you might see item-56 grouped with item-2135... not very user friendly, but I looked everywhere for item-255.) 

 

It seems obvious to me that the same could be said for all books on Tosogu, which are attempting to show "the best of the best".

I doubt you'll ever see an Edo period cast-iron tsuba in any tosogu book, not because they didn't exist, but because they weren't good enough to waste the ink to print an image of one. 

I'm sure this one only snuck through with a listing in the text because Joly was presenting the Hackshaw collection in its entirety, and again, he and/or the publisher chose not to include an image.

[GRC]

8 more cast-iron tsuba in the Naunton Collection, published in 1912

 

4 had item numbers and brief descriptions like this one, that is clearly describing an example of one of the many cast-iron Nanban tsuba:

"4585.- Iron, hexagonal with lobed sides (150-140) with a dragon in low relief, cast, thin piece."

 

But, the 4 others were only superficially mentioned with this statement in the text:

"A few cast tsuba : the frog, the three monkeys, signed Masanori; the rat, signed Masakata; the dragon on bell, and the lotus leaves signed Hisatsugu of Hagi Choshū have been eliminated; they and others with Bushū and Choshū names or even signatures of great masters crop up from time to time."

 

Soft metal castings were listed separately in other sections of the text.

 

And once again, I should point out that these cast iron tsuba did not earn the honor of having their images placed in print... which is not surprising.

 

It's interesting that cast-iron Choshu and Bushu tsuba (among others) were deliberately

called out, despite there not being any specific examples in this collection.

It speaks to how common they were, such that the author (Joly) would call attention to the fact. 

 

In a period of relative decadence and opulence of the mid to late Edo period, it shouldn't be surprising that some members of society would opt to purchase the much less expensive cast-iron version of a famous tsuba, or one with a culturally significant or popular motif.

To compare it to a modern day equivalent, it's like people who would buy and wear a fake Rolex. The real ones are widely available, but not everyone can afford one.  

 

Another contextual fact to point out is that Japan only began to have publicly available electric lighting until 1887.

https://www.fepc.or.jp/english/energy_electricity/history/

So, if it is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between a cast iron vs a fully hand-made tsuba using high resolution images (along with digital zoom), it must have been very easy to pass off a cast-iron tsuba for the "real deal" when wearing one in public or when worn/displayed indoors in low light conditions during the Edo period.

I'm sure no one would dare to walk up to someone else and start scrutinizing their tsuba... Seems like that wouldn't end well for the enquirer...

 

[Ford Hallam]

So....if we, just for a moment, accept that somehow the Japanese craftsmen managed this remarkable technological feat of casting small, around 200g, and thin complex forms and managed somehow to cast repeats of these models why then, are really poor quality dodgy tsuba the only such cast artefacts we can examine. Surely such an amazing accomplishment would have been used for more useful and interesting object manufacture also? Why are there no other Edo period cast iron artefacts of similar scale and detail/complexity around for us to examine?

 

I was also amused to see M. Joly being wheeled out as 'evidence'. He never visited Japan, had no direct experience with Japanese craftsmen and gleaned all of his understanding of tosogu from his Japanese dealer suppliers. Hardly a verifiable source for any technological clams I'd suggest, not that M. Joly provides any sources for his comments with regard to these spurious castings, he simply asserts.

 

Also, suggesting that there are numerous cast tsuba in Western museums, with verifiable provenance, hardly advances the case either because in every case of these verifiable donations to these museums, for the most part,  post date the end of the Edo period, 1867. So, specifically, which tsuba were donated to these museums prior to this date?

And let's remember that Western museums themselves were still in their infancy at that time too, so hardly the reliable and properly documented archives we expect our present institutions to be today.

 

It's probably worth considering that at that time the Japanese dealers and collectors themselves were only really beginning to look at tosugu in a more unified way and trying to put together a history of sorts.  It was at this time some many of the labels we take for granted were invented.

 

Kamakura tsuba, we don't know where they were made really, the name is just a loose association with the carved lacquer work, no more. We cant say for sure where or precisely when even Owari guards were made. Can it be shown that Owari was even a term used for those guards in the Edo period? Onin tsuba, absolutely no evidence that the brass inlay was done in the Onin period. Just a fanciful invention! 

 

Musashi's remarkable output of tosogu, can anyone show how any of these now papered pieces have been authenticated....I don't think so. Nobuie tsuba, two makers....one signs fat one thin, one first generation one second generation. How do we decide....flip a coin! we don't know their real names, were they lived or even when they lived. Shingen tsuba, the hilarious suggestion that Takeda Shingen used to weave them while waiting to go into battle, like an old lady knitting while waiting for a bus! and yet this drivel is repeated ad nausium every time one of them is up for sale. Is there even one shred of evidence to link the things to Takeda Shingen....I dont think so, but the fairytale will persist.

 

I could go on and on....and such is the dogma we accept without challenge. So I suppose if someone wants to invent a 'hidden' Edo period casting technology to validate crap fake tsuba what's the harm? It's no wonder serious art historians avoid the whole subject entirely. It's hard enough to tease out the truth from history, it's made impossible if we keep dumping more mud into the water though.

 

 

 

[Brian]

Love it when Ford really gets into a topic. Ford, trust me, your thoughts on this don't get lost. Most of us, including those with differing opinions, love to hear these facts and theories. Please by all means never stop. Fwiw, I'm with you on your statements.
One thing I would like to know though, is if these are all considered fairly modern fakes or products, from what time do we accept that they DID start casting tsuba? Is this an 1800's thing, or a 1900's thing?
And yes, 100% agree that a lot of what we assume to be correct is just neat little boxes things were put into to make things convenient.

[Spartancrest]

Well I have to agree with some of Fords statements - too much of what we accept is unsupported dogma. Such as the made up stories of pounding Iron tsuba in a pestle to see if they are strong enough to survive use, bullshit no matter where the source came from,  Shingen were also meant to be lighter in weight - bullshit. But please don't fall in the trap of believing that 19th century museums could not keep proper notes of their acquisitions. I would love anyone to tell the Metropolitan mueum that their donations were accepted on the wrong date. Or that Bashford Dean did not talk to living Samurai experts. [even if he did have a predilection for Kaneie copies] If we could thin out and leave only the facts from most books - Japanese as well as western, we would have considerably less reading to do than now. It is a little like taking out all the dross and falsehoods in the bible - we would be left with a slim pamphlet. [But who would dare tamper with dogma!]

[GRC]

15 hours ago, Brian said:

One thing I would like to know though, is if these are all considered fairly modern fakes or products, from what time do we accept that they DID start casting tsuba? Is this an 1800's thing, or a 1900's thing?

 

Brian, if you’re asking this of Ford, you’re going to be waiting forever…

He cannot provide you with any verifiable date in that time period, other than his own opinion.

I defy him or anyone to provide a single published statement that says what he is claiming to be true. Once again, throwing the challenge back to the post-Edo beleivers.

 

On 11/9/2022 at 7:29 AM, Ford Hallam said:

“it'd be refreshing to see some references to proper history and technical books rather than the usual unverified internet fluff that is the usual fodder.”

 

That would be great! When will Ford provide some?

 

Now where might such a document come from?

Surely in the push for modernism during the Meiji period, there would be some sort of documentation or publication to exhibit and celebrate this “newfound modern technology” to attest to the “sudden” large scale production of cast-iron tsuba…

 

That’s a far more likely piece of writing to expect to find (if it even exists), rather than the absurd expectation that we should find some Edo period writing that outlines the technical aspects of the making of the lowliest of the low, cast-iron tsuba. 

There is notoriously little, period-produced documentation about anything to do with tosogu, so of course there won’t be a “how to manual” on making cast-iron tsuba.

 

[GRC]

I have noticed a disturbing trend where quite a number of posts show deliberate attempts to diminish a person's status by belittling them or outright mocking them or their ideas... primarily directed towards "beginners" and the two dead guys: Lissenden and Joly.

 

Selectively targeting a misstep does not nullify every idea or concept associated with the person who made the claim.

 

For example, to be "amused" at the mere mention of Joly, just because he is known to have made some errors in his writings about tosogu (which were based on the information he had available to him at the time), is quite shocking and ignorant from a historical perspective.

From a scientific perspective, it would be equivalent to laughing at an earlier scientist simply because they didn't know what we know now.

But if anyone feels that is justifiable, at least they can rest assured that the same will happen to them one day...  

 

The fact that Joly never went to Japan or studied under a Japanese craftsman, by no means prevents him from discerning a cast-iron tsuba from a forged iron tsuba that he was holding in his hands.

Someone with that much experience and who had handled so many tsuba prior to that moment, has to be given a little more credit than a dismissive wave of the hand.

That dismissive statement comes across as a blatant attempt to cast doubt on the validity of what that experienced person witnessed and reported, simply because their findings contradict someone's beliefs.

 

It's also interesting to note that neither Haynes' nor Sesko's researched statements have even been addressed, let alone countered...

Both of these gentlemen are still alive and their research on the subject far outranks anyone on this message board.

Why no ridicule for them I wonder... 

 

[GRC]

On a similar note,

I have to say I was also shocked (but not amused) that “science” was being wheeled out in defence of the post-Edo belief.

 

On 11/9/2022 at 7:27 AM, Ford Hallam said:

“I try to consider such possibilities as cast iron tsuba in as scientific way as possible.”

 

Ford, although I value your insights on other topics and respect your technical skills and accomplishments with working with soft metals, on this particular subject you are merely hypothesizing, philosophizing, and pontificating, using nothing but your own opinions.

 

Claiming that you are approaching this particular topic “in a scientific way”, is unquestionably a false statement, and demonstrates that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is.

 

16 hours ago, Ford Hallam said:

“…not that M. Joly provides any sources for his comments with regard to these spurious castings, he simply asserts.”

 

If that comment is true, then it seems these two gentlemen have a lot in common. 

[Brian]

Glen,
Not having much knowledge of how and what Ford is studied, I would be cautious about disregarding his opinion.
Not sure how much you know about Ford. But his work involves not only studying these items, but actually MAKING them, reproducing the metal, trying out all the techniques and getting hands on with all the various metals and styles.
Having been at his house, and seeing his library of studies and ancient scripts etc, I am the last person to disregard his theories.
I don't think it would be incorrect to regard him as one of (if not THE) world's most knowledgeable person in the material/crafting of Japanese metals.
We have guys who have been here for 15+ years who battle to tell what is cast and what isn't. Myself included. So saying that some of these early pioneers weren't experts is not out of line. Did they have fancy laboratory equipment to examine metals?
We have writings going back hundreds of years from tsuba schools talking about how they were making tsuba. Goto, Akasaka, Mito etc etc etc. Where are these writings about the schools who were casting tsuba and where are their pattern books?
I'm not saying I have made up my mind confidently either way, but I also haven't seen any real proof of mass scale cast production of tsuba.
The above is said very respectfully. Through questioning we are learning all the time, and I don't have anything against your opinions or statements above. So just giving mine, and am glad to hear more of your views, as well as Ford's.

[Spartancrest]

Brian one thing I will pick up on is that cast tsuba makers already had hand made pieces as their pattern book - they are still doing it even today. In fact they just need an image from a book or museum site. They got their schooling from what sells.

The example on the right is cast [not in iron I will grant] copied from an existing published piece. I have a large number of these "published copies" this just happens to be one of the latest. 

[Brian]

We are speaking about different things though. You are talking about cast copies of known designs. I'm talking about 1700's books published by schools, where they would have had their designs and techniques published. And if casting was "new technology" they would likely have mentioned it there, or even had schools of casting producers.
Think of Natsuo's books, or the Akasaka design books. Where are these schools of cast tsuba makers? Where are the cast decorations made in iron for armour or cast yajiri and yari? Much easier to cast cheap arrowheads and they don't have to be tempered or hardened all the time. Surely the bottom fittings (ishizuke?) on the bottom of yari would have been cast? Have they been analyzed yet?

[Spartancrest]

I am not sure a book published by forgery makers is going to be found - it is a little incriminating even if it wasn't against the laws of Japan at the time. Just a thought but are there books of kettle makers patterns? They are not directly related subjects but it is a similar idea - except they were well within the law and not trying to fool anyone.

 

[ Is this thread the longest on record yet?  ]

[Brian]

I don't think the casting of tsuba more than 200 years ago would have been done for deceit. I wouldn't imagine it would have been done to save time or money. Just a different way to manufacture. So no reason to hide them back then.
 

[roger dundas]

I'm the one giving a every posting a tick of approval for continuing to offer opinions

Roger j

[GRC]

I imagine 2100 years ago was a typo?

 

Regardless,

Brian, can you point out a book that was published in the 1700s that details the techniques of any "tsuba school". A pattern book is not a technical manual...

Show me a period book that names the Kaneiye smiths and details any one of their techniques.

We still don't have any information about the exact date that the first Kaneiye began!

Or how about the Yamakichibei smiths... I'd love to see a detailed pattern book of their school's work... it sure would make it a lot easier to push aside the seemingly infinite number of copies. Even better, I'd love to see a single passage of period text that even remotely begins to outline their methods and techniques.

Everything we have on tosogu has been cobbled together slowly over time, with vast amounts of assumptions made about craftsmen who had been long dead.

Those ideas change (sometimes) when new information arises... hence all the conflicts and contradictions in the assertions we have about these smiths and their products.

 

You ask for detailed books listing all the cast-iron tsuba makers.

Why would such a thing even exist?

And again, this would be the lowest form of tsuba production, so why would anyone attempt to document it at the time?

From the quotes from Haynes and Sesko, it was clearly being done by kettle makers who were doing it as a sideline. We're lucky to have Sesko's reference which shows at least one genealogical connection between a known kettle maker and his apprentice who both made tsuba. And we likely have that reference, solely because the apprentice later transitioned to becoming a full time tsubako, so someone took note of that because it was deemed worthy of noting.

[GRC]

Using one of Ford's favorite philosophical techniques of reductio ad absurdum,

expecting a genealogy of Edo period cast-iron tsuba makers would be like expecting one for Edo period broom makers.

 

This however is not a tool of science...

[Brian]

Corrected to 200 years.
And no..not a genealogy. Just a simple reference talking about a group of guys who were casting tsuba regularly would help.
That kettle guy is the exception that proves the rule to me. Bottom of the barrel tsuba makers? TBH, Japanese swords are not something I associate with guys looking to save money or buy the cheapest. Cast tsuba would have been found on all of the Satsuma Rebellion swords or swords with no menuki, to save money. I don't think cheap, saving money, low quality was something fittings makers  were focused on.
But hey, it's all opinion of course.

[b.hennick]

I too am enjoying this thread. Keep it going. 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all, (don’t mean to interrupt this fantastic thread – so perhaps read this and carry on!).

 

Brian, I didn't understand what you were referring to in your last post about “Satsuma Rebellion” tsuba?  Did you mean that the tsuba found on those swords would be cast or not cast?  But since the "Satsuma Rebellion" was mentioned I thought that the following information may be of interest.

 

Now, I thought this would be interesting (although kind of “off topic”).

About 4 years ago, I purchased a tsuba from one of my “trusted sellers” in Japan.  This was the only tsuba that I purchased from him that included a “story”.

 

I quote what he stated in his story (remembering that this is an unverifiable piece of provenance).

 

“This tsuba is made of iron.  The story behind this tsuba is that it came from an imperial soldier, taken as spoils of war during the Satsuma Rebellion of 1877. There were two swords and other things among the items that came out of a kura, or old store house.  The former owner came from the same lineage as the imperial soldier.  I was only able to get this tsuba.

 

Now, while the previous owner believed the story, his father might have made it up, or his father before him.  There is no guarantee that this tsuba came from a fallen samurai after the clashes during the satsuma rebellion, but it is an interesting story.

 

The tsuba has been ‘sleeping’ for a long time and it had a lot of active rust.  I have cleaned it with a deer antler, but the damage from being stored for so long is still visible in the lack of details”.

 

Then, as luck would have it, a year or two after buying the so called “Satsuma Rebellion” tsuba I came upon a tsuba with the exact same motif.  The seller states it was signed “Shigemasa”.  Could cast iron tsuba have been signed (or could that only be done on hand forged iron?).   Anyway, I have included pictures of both tsuba (and have tried to highlight the Mei on the one tsuba with chalk).

 

When placed one on top of the other, they are exactly the same, except for the filler (sakigane) in the bottom of the nakago-ana of the less rusted tsuba (pictures also attached of both tsuba placed one on top of the other).  So, could these have been “sand cast iron and hand cut pieces (or hand enhanced)”?  Now without metallurgical analysis it will never be known for sure, but still interesting!

 

The tsuba (less rusted one) is thick at about 5.16mm and it is about 66mm x 68mm in size and the weight is 106 grams (less rusted tsuba) and 96 grams (rusted tsuba).

 

Yes, the Satsuma Rebellion was in 1877 (10 years after the Edo period) but still interesting stuff to consider!

 

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

The inherent problem there is that you are talking about samurai again, not the target market for cast fittings... refocus your attention on the general populous who would have had a far more varied buying potential.

It is well documented that during the peaceful Edo period, some merchants had exceeded the wealth of many samurai, while the masses were still much less affluent.

Yet the samurai were still the "cultural elite", and the general masses were not as "cultivated" or as educated as the samurai themselves.

 

So, it doesn't take much of a leap to envision the general populous admiring the cast tsuba copies that have a lot more "obvious" designs with 3D depth to them, like "the frog" and "the rat", or any of the heavily carved "Choshu and Bushu" tsuba, as noted by Joly.

Now throw into the mix, many of the lower quality nanban tsuba that were so popular among the masses during the mid to late Edo period, as well as the multitude of cast copies of the Kinai dragon tsuba, or the myriad of examples in the Shachi tsuba thread.       

These surely would have appealed to those who were NOT the exalted aesthetes that Ford seems to think were the only people who were purchasing tsuba during the Edo period. 

 

People also need to stop viewing these things as defensive tools during the Edo period.

The idea is absolute folly and is completely irrelevant in terms of determining whether or not cast-iron tsuba were produced in the Edo period. Yet it remains one of cornerstones of the "post-Edo believers".

What war, what battle was anyone getting into?

And that goes for both the samurai and the general populous.

The defensive potential or function of the tsuba, during the Edo period, is completely irrelevant to this whole topic.

  

This was a period of peace and prosperity where people were using tsuba more like jewelry, and adornments. Granted in the late Edo period, there was an aesthetic movement that shifted back toward the more austere iron guards, with the tsubako drawing inspiration from the tsuba of old (from the likes of Kaneiye, Nobuiye, Ymakichibei etc...).

 

But, there was still an enormous variety of aesthetic styles being produced in that period, ranging from serene and austere, to heavily carved machi-bori, or the extreme opulence of some of the kinko tsuba, or some highly visible reference to various cultural motifs (like some type of 3D dragon, frog, phoenix, or horse-riding gear ...etc).

The cast-iron tsuba were more likely used as simple "adornments" to "accessorize" an outfit for a night out on the town.  

 

The found examples listed by Haynes and Joly seem to favour tsuba with 3D carved motifs.

For a 3D-carved tsuba, there would be an enormous savings of time, energy and resources if it was first formed from a casting.

You wouldn't have to try forging out your own plate, or do any of the rough chiseling... you could very quickly get to the "finishing" of an already mostly formed object: clean up most of the webs, or address some possible faults, or add an inlayed eye on a dragon, or scratch in some crosshatching to add some nunome etc.

 

People who can't see how much time and effort this would save, have clearly never tried to cut out even a basic straight-walled iron sukashi tsuba by hand... otherwise they would know how much time and effort that takes.

Then imagine having to do all the chiseling to produce a true 3D effect like the curving body of a dragon with all of its scales...another monumental task.

Again, go have a look at some of the shachi tsuba in the shachi tsuba thread, then imagine trying to produce that by hand, from start to finish... 

[Ford Hallam]

Glen

 

I will direct this post to you directly

 

It seems to me that your defence of your theory is becoming somewhat desperate, not to mention distasteful.

 

You have tried to insert a sneaky sleight of hand by suggesting that any criticism or non-acceptance of your theory represents an opposing theory. This is, of course, quite absurd.

YOU have proposed a theory, that ferrous tsuba were cast in the Edo period. Therefore the onus is entirely on you to provide convincing evidence and rationale to support your assertion.

 

To my mind you have singularly failed to do so, I have merely offered a few (there are many more objections I could cite) criticisms and pointed out what I regard as very tenuous suppositions. 

 

There is no opposing camp of 'non "believers' in Edo ferrous tsuba casting'. Your attempt to frame this 'exploration' in this way is disingenuous and divisive. One can't effectively 'prove' a negative proposition, but the proposer of a positive assertion; ie; YOU, must provide coherent and verifiable evidence if you expect your proposition to be treated as reasonable. Here-say, assumptions, and suppositions do not a valid argument make. And ad hominem attacks against myself only serve to undermine your credibility.

 

You accuse me of attempting to demean the reputations of dead men. That's a disgusting low to stoop to in the defence of your argument! I made perfectly respectful criticisms of specific points, perfectly reasonable and usual in the reading and analysis of any work, by a living or deceased person. 

 

But I waste my time here wading through your Gish Gallop. I have no further interest in engaging in such an ugly and poorly informed discussion.

 

My regards to all and thank you for bearing with me.

 

Ford

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Nothing to add to the argument itself either way, but I too have been eating popcorn and watching from the sidelines.
 

A good argument or three, facts and opinions galore, what’s not to like? A giant learning process for all who have bothered to swing by and dip in.
 

Knowing of some of the nefarious activities that go on behind the scenes here today, however, and knowing that softer metals had an ancient tradition of casting, (bronze bell casters were ordered in the late 1500s to make gun barrels for example), and having seen Edo Period menuki molds, I suspect that smiths/artisans could well have been tasked in multiple places and times to try their hand at casting ferrous Tsuba. Culturally taboo I could imagine.
 

Whether they ever succeeded or not I have no idea, lacking any dated example or written sources, but their ideal/ultimate aim (in such a scenario) would surely have been to create a product which was virtually indistinguishable (by the average Yō) from the real McCoy. Even cover it in lacquer for good measure, as wood and leather ones were.

 

In other words, conceptually, in my own mind I cannot yet dismiss the possibility of the existence of pre-Meiji cast tsuba. But I am always ready to be finally persuaded!

[Bugyotsuji]

Pine resin mold examples from an exhibition at the Kurokawa Institute of Ancient Cultures. (No explanation given that I can see, but dated “late Edo to early Meiji”.)

 

 

Detail

 

 

 

[Seth]

On 11/9/2022 at 7:27 AM, Ford Hallam said:

The Samurai, as a class, were dissolved in 1867

The 'printing telegraph', the first fax, was invented in 1843

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865

so

There was a 20 year window in which a Samurai could have faxed Abraham Lincoln.

............ Thank you for this. Great thread! So much to learn.

[Spartancrest]

[roger dundas]

What I am hoping for and looking forward to is someone here eventually summing up all of the evidence and telling us exactly what was what, when it was what and how we will be able to recognize it.

In the meantime some very smart, articulate people have been busy here, jousting away. Impressive.

Roger 2

[Brian]

Piers, I think those have been spoken about, and are merely resin casts to preserve what items looked like. They are not molds, and not intended to assist with any manufacture of anything. Basically just a record of what items looked like.

[Bugyotsuji]

Thanks for the update, Brian.
I just kind of reverse translated the chapter title “脂型” to “resin/rosin mold” without the necessary background understanding, and added ‘pine’ as this expression comes up on the net only as 松脂型. They had over 70 of them on display, of Kozuka, Menuki, Fuchi/Kashira. (Oh, and part Tsuba…) 

[Geraint]

Dear Piers.

 

Some interesting things here on these items.

 

https://tsubakansho.com/2020/06/26/yanigata/

 

All the best.