Tsuba casting molds ?

[Brian]

Glen,
I think you may be vastly exaggerating how easy it was for the Japanese to just sling together a tatara and make case iron.
To my knowledge, tatara (even a small one) are a huge undertaking, using much manpower, time and effort. So much so, that it was done on a very small basis and likely was a very expensive undertaking. Since the premise here is that cast tsuba were done for cost saving and they were low class...I seriously doubt the Japanese went to the trouble to make an entire tatara just to melt cast iron ingots so that they could pour them into molds. And do you suppose these molds were on site with the tatara so they could be immediately poured?
It's not like a tatara was a little table top thing that they could just melt iron in and pour it.
I see no link between tatara and cast tsuba, and the idea that a cheap tsuba school would have a tatara built (which were generally destroyed every time they were used) just to pour iron into theoretic molds just doesn't gel with me. Just my opinion, I enjoy reading all theories here.

[1kinko]

Glen- As I posted, Ford probably used the past tense when he should have used the present tense regarding the use of saws. They simply didn’t exist when the first sukashi tsuba were being made. Point 2, was you idea that inlaying and carving cast iron would be simple. As you just reported cast iron has a carbon content from about 2% up to 4%. I’m still waiting for Dantsuba to try filing or chiseling his cast iron bottle opener. There’s a reason you don’t find horimono on the hamon. The tatara was broken down and the melt separated into hard steel for the sword edge and softer steel for the main body. This would then have to be remelted in something to produce metal that could be poured into many small molds. To me at least, this tatara steel would be for better used making swords than cheap tsuba. Why not cast iron swords ?

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all-

 

So, some excellent information can be found in the “Transactions and proceedings of the Japan Society, ... v.13 (1914-15).”  From the section “Metal and Metal-Working in Old Japan” (which starts on page 20 of the text), By William Gowland. 

 

Again, here is the link to a pdf of that year’s journal-

 

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101064994922&view=1up&seq=100

 

Mr. Gowland’s work and credentials have already been discussed in one of my previous posts.  Suffice it to say that Mr. Gowland was in Japan from 1872 (4 years after the Edo period) until 1888.

 

In the article on pages 45 and 46 he talks about iron smelting and furnaces.  On pages 52 to 54 he talks about cast iron and its decorations and how the cast iron was prepared prior to adding decorations.

 

I think this is an interesting read and may answer many questions in recent posts to this thread.

 

The adventure continues!

With respect,

Dan

[GRC]

Brian, my point about the tatara, was that even the simplest version of these was able to reach the required temperature to melt cast iron.

 

I wasn't at all trying to infer that someone would go to the trouble of building, then tearing down a field tatara to produce some cast iron products. That wouldn't make any sense at all.

I was simply pointing out that if a small tatara can reach the 1200 C, then a larger, dedicated foundry furnace for casting (as described by Shinya Isogawa) would easily reach the necessary temperature for casting. So, getting up to temperature was not even remotely an issue.

 

The longer Shinya Isogawa article points to a necessarily cooperative nature in the running of a larger furnace to produce many small items or single large item, and in this section of text, he's stating that this type of production dates as far back as the "ancient", pre-Edo times:

 

"Since a large furnace with a treadle sheath can melt a large amount of metal, it is certain that this is premised on the mass production of small castings or the production of large castings. In addition, in both the mass production of small products and the production of large castings, cooperation is necessary in the production and casting of molds."

 

This trend continued and became more structured and organized in the "early modern period" (early Edo period):

"In many cases, it is said that management and technology and labor were separated from each other in the early modern period, and the character of the handicraft elder became clearer. However, some local foundries did not take this path and retained the medieval form of production and management."

 

So it seems clear that the Japanese were already casting small cast iron items "in mass quantity" since before the Edo period.

 

Now that obviously doesn't necessitate the inclusion of tsuba at such an early date.

It makes more sense (to me) that cast iron tsuba production would have kicked in when shiiremono were being consumed by the masses.

 

But the important point here is, that according to the Japanese archeology summarized by Isogawa, the production of many small cast iron products in mass quantity was just a matter of fact.

[GRC]

Darrel,

 

Point #1: I am fully aware that the majority of sukashi tsuba were cut with chisels.

I'm only pointing out that the technological advance of gaining the tools to saw a sukashi cut, was omitted in the posted statement.

My point in bringing it up, was that in both cases (sukahsi cuts & casting iron), certain significant technological advances were being omitted. 

Hence the idea of being "stuck" with a certain mindset: like the idea that cast iron products would have been made in small field tatara throughout the Edo period. This would have severely limited their potential for producing items in quantity.

 

Point 2: I never suggested it would be easy to work regular cast iron. I simply asked if it was possible to do nunome crosscutting with a file on regular cast iron. Ford kindly responded that it would not work.

 

I did explore the idea of malleable cast iron at various points in this thread, but the use of that type of cast iron during the Edo period is still not confirmed.

Nailing down that date of usage, could be important in sorting certain "types"/"styles" of cast iron tsuba into relative production dates.

eg. "Type "X" could only have been produced after the use of malleable cast iron, therefore must have been produced after date "Y". 

 

Also, tatara can produce both sword steel and cast iron. This was all discussed much earlier in this thread. It was pretty clear from the Akita university paper that they produced grey cast iron right off the bat in their tatara.

Sorry, I don't see where you're going with the soft vs hard steel comment.   

 

As for the need for breaking the tatara... that's definitely necessary for the small field tatara.

As far as I can tell, that does not appear to be necessary for the larger tatara furnaces with fixed structures that were operated by many workers.

These fixed structure furnaces would have facilitated in scaling up the production of many cast items from a single melt.

[OceanoNox]

8 hours ago, 1kinko said:

There’s a reason you don’t find horimono on the hamon.

Maybe because it would damage the edge and weaken the sword (regardless of possibility).

[1kinko]

Some hamons go pretty far from the edge but are still high carbon steel. The actual hamon line is composed of martensite with a carbon content of around 2.5%- similar to some cast irons.

[OceanoNox]

This is getting outside the scope of this topic, but from the papers I have read, the max. carbon content in Japanese swords is about 0.8 mass% (but could start around 1 mass%) and more likely close to 0.6 mass%. The hamon itself is martensite, the border martensite/pearlite, and the slowly cooled rest of the blade is a mixture of pearlite and ferrite, with more or less pearlite depending on the area.

References:

Inoue, Materials Science Research International, 3 (1997) 193-203

Sasaki et al., Tetsu-to-Hagane, 86 (2000) 45-50

Sasaki and Momono, Tetsu-to-Hagane, 93 (2007) 78-84

 

On a more personal note, I have been able to conduct destructive testing of a Japanese sword (age unknown, destined to destruction anyway) and the carbon content was 0.55 mass% at the edge and 0.06 mass% at the mune.

[ROKUJURO]

5 hours ago, 1kinko said:

Some HAMON go pretty far from the edge but are still high carbon steel. The actual hamon line is composed of martensite with a carbon content of around 2.5%- similar to some cast irons.

Darrel,
 

It is impossible to have a carbon content of the martensite in the YAKIBA that exceeds the max. carbon content of the basic steel (TAMAHAGANE) which is roughly 1% or sometimes slightly above.

From sciencedirect.com:

Stephen A. Rackley, in Carbon Capture and Storage, 2010

 

Martensite
Martensite is a metastable crystallization phase of iron formed by the rapid cooling, or quenching, of austenite (q.v.). Rapid cooling prevents carbon atoms from diffusing out of the iron crystal lattice, resulting in a body-centered tetragonal structure. Martensitic steels contain 12–18% chromium, up to 1% carbon, making the steel hard but brittle, and may also include small quantities (0.2–2%) of nickel, molybdenum, vanadium, or tungsten.....

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, here are pages 53 and 54 (with “plate XVI attached) from the “Transactions and proceedings of the Japan Society, ... v.13 (1914-15)”  from the section "Metals and Metal Working in Old Japan" that were mentioned in my previous post, and I finally figured out how to download it (man, that took a while to learn how to do it!).

 

I think this is very interesting information on cast iron and how it was further prepared for adding decorations.

 

( 53 )

Two standard lanterns (toro) at Nikkō are the only large

art objects of cast-iron known to me. They were presented to

the shrine in 1641 by Date Masamune, lord of Sendai.

The metal has been chiefly employed by the art craftsman

in small castings, such as kettles and other vessels for heating

water or wine, and many of these are masterpieces of modelling

and decoration. They are cast by the method of cera perduta, a

process which will be described when dealing with the casting of

bronze. When these castings are taken from the moulds in

which they have been cast, although they may be perfect so far

as the ornamental designs, which had been modelled in wax, are

concerned, yet they are quite unfit for further decoration by

either chasing, inlaying, or similar processes. Their surfaces

are hard and brittle ; they are hence subjected to the following

softening and decarburizing process:

The furnace used in the process consists of a cast-iron pan,

from which the bottom has been broken away, with a lining

of refractory clay. This is placed on a fireclay slab, which is

perforated with numerous holes. The whole is set upon three

or four bricks on the floor of the workshop. The cast-iron

object is placed inside the furnace so that it rests directly on

the perforated slab, and the space between it and the sides is

filled with charcoal in carefully broken lumps. The charcoal

is ignited and allowed to burn for an hour or more ; and when

nearly all is consumed the object is reversed, and the operation

repeated. The surface of the casting is then found to be soft

and malleable, the finest lines and channels can be chiselled

in it with unbroken edges, and any mode of surface decoration

can be conducted without difficulty.

After the object has been decorated, the fine brown oxidized

surface to which these castings owe so much of their beauty,

and by which the effect of their ornamental designs is so much

heightened, has yet to be produced. For costly objects, the

whole surface is carefully gone over with a pointed punch to

( 54 )

give it the irregularly rough texture which is so much esteemed

by the Japanese. The casting is then heated over a small

charcoal fire, and as soon as a portion of it has reached the

proper temperature it is rubbed with a liquid consisting of

plum vinegar containing iron in solution and ferric oxide in

suspension. Another part is similarly heated and rubbed until

the entire surface has been treated, and the desired amount of

rusting has been produced. After being well rubbed with a

dry cloth, it is covered with a thin coat of lacquer and heated

cautiously over a brazier, a fine spray of water being splashed

on it with a brush during the operation.

A typical specimen of one of these cast-iron kettles, with

a punched surface and gold and silver inlays and azziminia

work, is shown in Plate XVI.

 

Onward!

With respect,

Dan

[ROKUJURO]

I would like to suggest to open up a new thread about casting iron TETSUBIN and KAMA. Perhaps in a casting forum?

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, Jean in his last post stated “I would like to suggest to open up a new thread about casting iron TETSUBIN and KAMA. Perhaps in a casting forum?”

 

Now, that post seems to be in response to a post above his dealing with the very interesting subject of cast iron kettles and how the designs were applied during casting and after casting.

 

Although starting a new thread on kettle casting (tetsubin) may be of interest, I think that it would detract from their importance on this cast iron tusba discussion.  I feel that how the cast-iron kettles were made and decorated is extremely relevant (and gives valuable insights) into the production of cast iron tsuba in the Edo period.

 

I include a quote from a part of Glen's post (posted on Nov 11, 2022)-

 

“The most important points coming from Sesko and Haynes, who are both two of the leading Western tsuba scholars.

Both of them independently researched and published statements that cast iron tsuba were being produced by kettle makers during the Edo period.

And, in Sesko's example, he referred to a documented case of a tsubako who had apprenticed under a kettle maker who also made tsuba.

So, the idea that cast iron kettle makers were also producing cast iron tsuba in the Edo period is a statement of fact corroborated by two tsuba scholars.”

 

So, again, I feel that how cast-iron kettles were made and decorated is extremely relevant (and gives valuable insights) into the production of cast iron tsuba in the Edo period.

 

Anyway, just my opinion on the subject!

 

With respect,

Dan

[Spartancrest]

  http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/tsuba.htm   CAST TSUBA COPIES, REPRODUCTION AND FAKE TSUBA

During the late Edo, Meiji and Showa periods there were many cast copies of early tsuba made for the export market. These should not be confused with earlier originals. Cast copies will generally have casting flanges on the inner edges of the hitsu-ana and/or sukashi regions and bubble pits visible on the flat surfaces. There are antique cast iron (kettle caster) tsuba, although it is debated if such ever existed, and antique cast copper/bronze (kagamishi) tsuba; however good, authentic examples are rare.

There are also numerous modern made fake tsuba and copies of old tsuba on the market today, many coming from China / Hong Kong / Shanghai and sold on various online auctions. The collector must be aware of these modern copies and fakes. Do not confuse them with the real Japanese tsuba. 

 

I would draw your attention to the first four words.

 

As for kettle makers making tsuba - we certainly have kettle tsuba don't we. 

 

 

Not to be confused by this crap - as the man says above.

 

 

See the post for Posted December 15, 2018

 

[1kinko]

I’ve yet to find an analysis of a cast iron tsuba but I have found analyses of tatara iron/steel, helmet steel, and sword and hamon steel. These can be obtained online but usually only in part. Remember when the internet was going to provide access to scientific articles that would spread information freely? That never happened. However:

Matsumoto et al. 2013 reported tatara steel with 0.6 to 2.0 mass%C “in sharp end” of a katana but also noted the C was not uniform and used electron microbe for their measurements. EPMA only penetrates about 1um. Some other studies have suggested that the charcoal/clay used to produce the hamon pattern could contribute to the C concentration.

Fedrigo et al. Reported the composition of a 17th C helmet from the Heruta School, and reported only ferrite and slag and 0.3%C. The same authors (2015) reported on 7 helmets from the 16 and 17th Cs and found from 0.3 to 0.8%C using neutron diffraction analysis.

Grazzi et al. (2009) reported on 4 tsuba from the Tokugawa era. The 3 iron tsuba we’re about 98% ferrite.

Yano et al. (2013) reported that the hamon steel on 1 modern and 1 koto sword was composed of lath martensite with 0.5-0.7 mass%C.

Das et al. (2009) reported the surface hardness of hamon was 866 Hv (Vickers hardness) at 0.5 mass%C.

Inoue (2002) reported white hard martensite from tatara steel with 1.0-1.4%C.

While none of this information directly addresses the question of whether cast iron tsuba were made in pre-Meiji Japan (or imported from China or Korea or Portugal) it does show that some higher C steels were produced at tatara temperatures. The definitions of cast iron and steel need to be refined and, I guess, invasive methods will be needed.

 

 

[GRC]

Brian,

I completely agree with you that it makes no sense to make an individual tatara to produce a singular cast iron product, unless it was a very special item with a very large price tag for the effort.

My point is that cast iron foundries were on a much larger scale than that during the Edo period, and they were clearly producing items in quantity.

 

Here's an image from the archives of the Okamoto corporation that has been making cast iron products in Japan for 460 years. It's Edo period, but the exact date of the image is unknown:

 

 

 

More quotes from Isogawa, specifically referring to the evolution of foundries in time period preceding the Edo period:

 

"in the Eastern Japan, pot C was the main form of boiling throughout the Middle Ages, and in the Western Japan, Buddhist utensils made of bronze were sometimes made of cast iron, such as iron Buddhas and iron bowls."

 

I'd like to point out that bowls, Buddhas and "Buddhist utensils" are not kettles... and I would suggest that it alludes to at least some smaller objects for a more utilitarian household usage, or with some decorative motifs to serve as "Buddhist utensils" (what those are specifically is not clear unfortunately). And again, this goes back to pre-Edo times. So, it seems there's a much longer history to the production of smaller or more common objects.

 

continuing from Isogawa:

 

"These cast iron castings were produced by workers who were called "foundrymen" in the Middle Ages. From the results of the survey of the casting ruins, it can be assumed that many of them adopted the production form of copper and iron side by side. 

In ancient times, production workshops parasitized ironworks, but in the Middle Ages they were often located around casting sand production areas. In the late Middle Ages, some were located on the periphery of cities."

 

So, casting foundries were first set up next to the ironworks that were producing steel and cast iron in "ancient times", but were moved away from the sources of "sand iron" in order to be closer to the necessary "casting sand" for making molds. Then lastly, moved to the outskirts of cities.

I would assume the only logical explanation for the move would be to get closer to the growing consumer demand from the people living in cities.

 

So it seems obvious that the only way casting foundries could be moved away from the source of the cast iron itself (sand iron), was if they were being supplied with cast iron ingots from the steel production sites. There's no way they were moving unprocessed sand iron to the foundry locations. The cast iron would have to have been sent in an already prepared, ingot form for it to make economic sense.

 

[ROKUJURO]

14 hours ago, 1kinko said:

.....Some other studies have suggested that the charcoal/clay used to produce the hamon pattern could contribute to the C concentration.....

....The definitions of cast iron and steel need to be refined and, I guess, invasive methods will be needed.

Darrel,

I am afraid I was not completely clear concerning the carbon content of TAMAHAGANE. The refined steel (made from TAMAHAGANE) used in sword-making has a max. content of about 1% C.

The raw TAMAHAGANE coming directly from the TATARA can vary widely in its carbon content. Besides usable steel and low-carbon iron, a part of the production is cast iron which cannot be used by the swordsmith. 

Cast iron happens to occur near the vent tubes where the temperature in the TATARA is highest. In these places, the iron becomes almost liquified and takes up the carbon.

This cast iron is not useless, but it has to be re-processed in OROSHIGANE furnaces. It is a good material source to introduce carbon into softer iron scrap (often pre-industrial iron like nails or anchor chains) and so 'upgrade' the iron to become good steel.

It has been published (don't have a source at hand, I read it somewhere) that modern TATARA are run at a slightly higher temperature than in earlier times, thus producing more high carbon steel and cast iron. Nevertheless, we know from analyses that even the CELTS (more than 2.000 years ago) often had cast iron accidentally in their bloomery furnaces which they discarded as it was of no use for them. 

Later generations of iron-makers sifted through these waste piles of the CELTS and re-used this material. 

Nothing gets lost in the iron trade!

Concerning the possibility of an augmented carbon content in sword-blades by the TSUCHI-OKI (clay-cladding of the blades prior to YAKIIRE), I doubt very much that the small percentage of carbon would make a perceptible difference. Instead the carbon is mixed in the clay in an attempt to reduce the decarbonization in the hardening process.

It should be noted that not all swordsmiths use this carbon addition in their clay. 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, I was on the internet looking to purchase a Japanese cast iron kettle.  I thought it may be neat to add it to my collection along with the Japanese sand-cast cast iron bottle opener I have (and maybe some possible Edo period cast iron tsuba that I have “hanging around” on the walls!).  But the one I wanted was $383.00 U.S. dollars, so too much for me!

 

Anyway, I found some good information on one of the “cast iron kettle” sites.  I thought it would be interesting to add to the thread:

 

“The origins of Yamagata cast iron go back to the Heian period (794-1185), when a warlord came to the Yamagata region in a military campaign, and metal casters in his army found that the sand in the Mamigasaki River as well as the soil quality of the surrounding area was ideal for making casting molds. Some of the men settled in the region and became the founders of Yamagata cast iron.

 

In the late Edo period (1603-1868), the cast iron industry in the area developed greatly when the town was reorganized and a new adjacent town called Do-machi was established as a home for casting artisans. At the time, artisans mainly produced everyday items and Buddhist statues, but many pilgrims visiting Dewa Sanzan (the Three Sacred Mountains of Dewa) bought the items as souvenirs, which led to Yamagata cast iron becoming known all over Japan.”

 

From the below website-

https://en.jtakumi.com/categorysub.php?catsno=5040

 

The adventure continues!

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

2 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

.....Anyway, I found some good information on one of the “tea kettle” sites. ....

Dan, 

perhaps look for water kettles. You cannot make tea in an iron kettle.  

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all-

 

Upon doing further research about cast iron tusba I “stumbled” across “The Japan Weekly Mail”.

 

“The Japan Weekly Mail: a review of Japanese Commerce, Politics, Literature, and Art, Yokohama”.  The below article was found in the July 6^th, 1889, issue on page 14, under “Japanese Sword Blades and Furniture”.

 

Which was found at the below website:

 

https://archive.org/details/jwm-bound-1889/page/13/mode/2up?view=theater

 

The article is very interesting, but I just attached what I thought were the important points below.  It was written from an editor of an art journal in London to the editor of the Japan Weekly Mail in Yokohama on May 17^th, 1889.

 

So, it seems that some of the same questions about tsuba have been asked for about 133 years!  He asks several questions that are listed in the article under his "Appendix Desiderata", but I only included the question about cast iron tsuba.

 

Also, this is the earliest date on research that I could find (so far!).  It predates the other research I found and posted that was found in the “Transactions and Proceedings of the Japan Society, London” (1914-1915) by 25 years!

The quote from the article follows below;

 

“It is in the hope that an interest does exist of which we are unaware, or that the matter may be ventilated, that I take the liberty of asking you to give publicity to my letter. It would be an immense benefit to collectors here if they could get into touch with collectors in Japan. ‘There are many points as to which we get hopelessly entangled here but which might easily be unraveled on the spot. I append only a few on which we seek information. Then again there are Japanese textbooks we would willingly contribute to the translation of. The interchange of photographs, which perhaps the Asiatic Society might kindly assist in, would be a real benefit.

I will not trouble you further but, apologizing for the length of my letter, beg to subscribe myself

Yours obediently, MARCUS B. HUISH, Editor of The Art Journal. London, May 17th, 1889.

 

APPENDIX.— DESIDERATA.

 

Old iron tsuba; whether often cast and decarbonized for chasing or damascening ;...…".

 

 

Now , as stated above, there were many more questions asked under the above heading, but I only included the question about cast iron tsuba. If you wish to see the complete article and all the other questions asked, I have provided the link above for your reference.

 

The adventure continues onward!

With respect,

Dan

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So, some may consider this a “minor point” but I nonetheless find it very interesting.

 

Here is a quote from Mr. Huish (referred to in my previous post) from his book published in 1889-

 

“The decoration of the sword furniture showed symptoms of decline early in the present century. Working in hard wrought iron was first of all shirked, and similar effects were endeavoured to be produced by castings ; then the decoration ran riot and transgressed all limits, so that many of the pieces made between 1840 — 1870 could never have been used for the purposes for which they were professedly intended ; such pro- ducts are remarkable in a way, as showing the lengths to which elaboration may be carried, but they can never stand for a day beside the dignified workmanship of an earlier date.”  P.182

 

The longer quote was previously posted on this thread by Spartancrest (Dale) on February 17^th 2022 and came from this reference-

 

“JAPAN AND ITS ART” MARCUS B. HUISH, LL.B., EDITOR. OF "THE ART JOURNAL" LONDON THE FINE ART SOCIETY

Limited, 148, NEW BOND STREET

1889”

 

(So, when Mr.Huish is referring to the “present century” above, he is referring to the 19^th century or the 1800’s, since the book was printed in 1889).

 

Below is a weblink to his book-

 

https://archive.org/details/cu31924072968286/page/n199/mode/2up?view=theater

 

Now, an interesting point to consider.  In my previous post, I included part of a letter that Mr. Huish wrote to the “Japan Weekly Mail” in Yokohama Japan.  He asked a specific question about cast iron tsuba in that letter (please refer to that specific post).  He sent that letter on May 17^th, 1889.

 

Mr. Huish wrote the preface to his book in November of 1888.  So, I would think that his book was completed by that date, and then sent out for publishing.  It was then published in 1889.

 

So, it appears that Mr. Huish had completed his book (and the above quote taken from his book) before sending his question about cast iron tsuba to the “Japan Weekly Mail”.  Evidently, he still wanted further research done on the production of cast iron tsuba.

 

Whether he ever received a response from the “Japan Weekly Mail” is unknown to me.

 

Onward!

With respect,

Dan

[Spartancrest]

Harking back to the letter sent by Huish to the Japanese Weekly Mail  - and being way off subject - see what a difference ten years can make.

 

 

So is this an aspiration still held by collectors today? To have as close to a thousand examples tucked away in drawers? - - I  have a long way yet to go it seems. 

[ROKUJURO]

Did Mr. Huish have some competence in metallurgy? When he reports about "hard wrought iron", I have my doubts.

[Dan tsuba]

Jean,

 

My friend, your thoughts, opinions, and valuable knowledge are always appreciated by me.  Although, it seems to me (my personal opinion) that sometimes you miss the entire point of the subject being presented in the post.

 

As an example, in your recent post you stated “Did Mr. Huish have some competence in metallurgy? When he reports about "hard wrought iron", I have my doubts.” Now, after the entire post, that is all what you derived from it?

 

Well, the only way to find out the answer about his knowledge of metallurgy is to ask him.  But oh wait, he is dead!!  Unless you can do research to ascertain his knowledge on the subject, you really don’t know for sure. 

 

So, what is your point in presenting your opinion about his knowledge?  What are you trying to say?  I just wish to understand your point of view.

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[1kinko]

Hard is a relative term- someone who could call wrought iron hard might not know cast iron from wrought iron, or vice versa.

[Spartancrest]

Of course Huish was writing for people who didn't necessarily care about the differences in iron and likely not metallurgists. As has been stated "hard" is a relative thing - I defy anyone hit over the head with a cast iron rod, as opposed to a wrought iron one, to be "conscious" of the difference. 

[ROKUJURO]

Dale,

I just tried your recommended experimental arrangement and I found out that you are correct. 

My comment was not aimed at Mr. Huish to discredit his findings, but I generally think that we cannot take any writings of amateurs as technical facts to be relied on. Especially, we cannot use these texts as evidence to base a line of reasoning on it.

But if someone is on a mission (or should I say 'crusade'?) to "prove" that cast TSUBA must have been made in EDO JIDAI in large quantity 'for the masses' (who were they? who would have bought inferior TSUBA, and for which purpose?) only because the technical possibility was given, then there is the danger to use any related information (be it correct or not) as a saving straw. 

[OceanoNox]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

but I generally think that we cannot take any writings of amateurs as technical facts to be relied on. Especially, we cannot use these texts as evidence to base a line of reasoning on it.

This is a very good point. I would add that even some craftsmen have misconceptions about the technical facts. Obviously they would know what happens, but the reasons/mechanisms are sometimes not clear even for professionals.

I would argue that a really informed text (especially for such a field as antiques) would have input from art specialists, craftsmen, historians, and scientists, as we all have a piece of the puzzle that the others miss.

 

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

who were they? who would have bought inferior TSUBA, and for which purpose?

The only answer I would have to that would be tourists.

 

[Dan tsuba]

Hello all!

 

So (as Jean referred to it below) the “crusade” continues!  Hurrah!

 

Jean asked a question in his latest post about "for the masses".  I quote it below-

 

“But if someone is on a mission (or should I say 'crusade'?) to "prove" that cast TSUBA must have been made in EDO JIDAI in large quantity 'for the masses' (who were they? who would have bought inferior TSUBA, and for which purpose?) only because the technical possibility was given, then there is the danger to use any related information (be it correct or not) as a saving straw.”

 

Now, this is a very long thread.  I have often noticed that questions that are asked in current posts have already been answered in a previous post.

 

I have noticed that GRC (Glen) has addressed the above issue in more than one of his posts.  I include quotes from part of those posts.  If the reader is interested, they can read the entire post for themselves.

 

(part of a post from GRC 11/13/22)-

“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.”

 

(part of a post from GRC 11/14/22)

“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. “

 

(part of a post from GRC 11/17/22)

“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.”

 

The “crusade” continues (and remember that in one of my previous posts this “crusade” question about cast iron tsuba was initially undertaken 133 years ago by Mr. Huish!).

 

With respect,

Dan

 

 

 

 

[ROKUJURO]

22 hours ago, OceanoNox said:

The only answer I would have to that would be tourists

In principle yes, but there were none in EDO JIDAI.

So again: Who were the masses to buy large quantities of cast iron TSUBA? 

[OceanoNox]

1 hour ago, ROKUJURO said:

In principle yes, but there were none in EDO JIDAI.

The smiley was meant to show a tongue-in-cheek comment. But at any rate, the Japanese in general were actually traveling a lot at the time (besides the lords and their retinues having to visit Edo).