Onin or Heianjo?

[zanilu]

Dear All

I have recently acquired this tsuba on Yahoo Japan.

Dimensions 76.3 mm x 73.1 mm, thickness at seppa dai 3.9 mm and at mimi 4.4 mm.

 

It was advertised as Onin and an NTB paper, with such an attribution dated back to 1998 if my translation is correct, was shown among the auction pictures.

 

 

Surprisingly it arrived also with a 1990 NBTHK Hozon paper attribution to Heianjo Zogan.

 

I have to admit that having it in hand with the its small size and "high" thickness I am leaning for the NBTHK attribution to Heianjo Zogan. The design of the inlay even though Onin in appearance it does not look right. The shape of the "flower's like" things,  the flowers proper, the spiral and the cross are strange for Onin. Also the ten zogan dots are rather large for Onin, I think and the sen zogan surrounding the seppa dai and enclosing the hira shows, if looked with a magnifier traces of rope inlay (nawame zogan). Also the iron looks like the easily corroded one typically associated with Heianjo Zogan tsuba. 

 

I would like to have your opinion about the attribution, which one is the most fitting?

And if Heianjo Zogan where would you put it, early or late Edo?

 

Regards
Luca  
 

[Peter Bleed]

Luca,

You present a very interesting challenge. Indeed, I have an opinion (and a personal judgement about the guard), but not nearly enough expertise to express it....

Peter

[Bugyotsuji]

I agree with your thinking so far. Interestingly the younger (white) paperwork suggests Momoyama.

[DirkO]

Looking at the quality of the plate, the design and the inlay, I would assume early Heianjyo, but not Onin. Nice transitional piece though. I totally follow your reasoning.

[Peter Bleed]

OK, I'll say it -- could this be a tricked out plane "old" disc with a variety of "coarse" elements? The Momoyama date is certainly a challenge,  Apprentice exercise???

P

[Curran]

Even with the exact same tsuba published in 2 or 3 different author's books, you will get different attributions between some of the later Onin and Heianjo.

Personally I lean towards Momoyama Heianjo for yours, but it does fall into that overlap zone.

 

As you said, the deciding factors are usually the feel of the iron, the thinness of the plate, and whatever you can observe of the way the inlay was done or cut.

[Spartancrest]

I found [what looks to me] as a similar 'style' guard from Haysashi Tadamasa's collection  [circa 1902] He describes his as Fushimi/Yoshiro inlay

"— Iron pierced, chiseled and inlaid with flowers and coats of arms. 14th c."

[Maybe it was just the way the hitsu is outlined that caught my eye? ]

[roger dundas]

Not a criticism but just for my edification, is 7.63 x 7.31 considered small for a tsuba?

Maybe borderline between katana and wakizashi size ?

Just for clarification.

Roger j

[zanilu]

Dear All.

 

Thanks for your comments. 

 

Curran I will look into your inlay suggestion as soon as possible, I am about to leave for a business trip and I will be back next week.

 

Roger. My "small" comment was referred to the fact that most Onin with that design are usually larger that this tsuba. That's all. Nothing more implied.

 

Dale, interesting example indeed. 

 

Regards

Luca

[GRC]

Stylistically, the arrangement of inlays looks more like Onin to me...

 

Here are some known Momoyama period Onin examples for comparison:

Note 1: the first four have a similar hitsu outline treatment as Luca's

Note2: Onin often used a brass outline around the seppa-dai, whereas Heianjo did that a lot less frequently. Also note that most of the ones below have traces of "rope" patterning, rather than being perfectly smooth (closeup view in the last pic).

Note3: same surface texture of the plate between Luca's and the ones below

Note4: the flower treatments in Luca's tsuba look more like the Onin flowers below (the leftmost tsuba in the 1st and 2nd row))

[GRC]

10 hours ago, roger dundas said:

Not a criticism but just for my edification, is 7.63 x 7.31 considered small for a tsuba?

Maybe borderline between katana and wakizashi size ?

Just for clarification.

Roger j

Roger, here's my 2 cents on this question:

 

I was just reading in one of Haynes' catalogues, that the size of the tsuba on a blade had no consistent dimensions (or at least throughout the Momoyama and early Edo periods...I assume it became more regimented when the Daisho became mandatory in the early Edo period).

Otherwise, tsuba size changed widely over different periods and localities, and different samurai favored different sizes to suit their needs.

Haynes also pointed out that the size of tsuba had no consistent relation to the size of the blade, so to get a better sense of what was fitted to what, just look at the size of the nakago-ana.

 

In general, I think 7.6cm would fall in that cross-over area you mentioned (smaller-katana sized tsuba, or larger-wakizashi sized tsuba), but this of course gets further complicated by the average sizes of tsuba produced by different schools at different times.

I don't know the average sizes of Onin and Heianjo tsuba off the top of my head.

 

Personally, I don't really care how big the tsuba is.

A great tsuba is a great tsuba, no matter how small...

 

[zanilu]

Glen

 

Nice examples! 

I have similar ones in my database and those were the reason of the doubt I have between Onin and Heianjo. 

The Onin pieces look to me more busy in the arrangement of the inlay with very small free space while on my tsuba the inlays are more spaced and less crowded. 

The thickness of the plate have to be considered. 

Maybe we are really dealing with a transitional piece falling into an overlap zone between Onin and Heianjo...

 

More considerations are needed...

 

Regards

Luca

[zanilu]

Dear All

 

Back home finally.

I took some closeup picture of the tsuba in question (FT-0133) and some others in my collection with a cheap usb microscope. The magnification is about 50x. 

The first, FT-0078, is a Onin tsuba dimensions 84.0 mm x 8seatseatseat5.0 mm, thk 2.2 mm at seppa-dai.

The second one, FT-0086, is a Heianjo Zogan tsuba (NBTHK Hozon) dimensions 85.9 mm x 85.3 mm, thk 3.7 mm at seppa dai.

The third one is FT-0133, i.e. the tsuba with two papers we discussed so far.

I have to admit that I do no see many differences between the inlay of the Onin (FT-0078) and the Heinajo (FT-0086). Maybe the Onin shows a deeper groove on the boundary of the large suemon inlays (see the closeup of the missing inlay seat) compared to the Heianjo. This difference could be also due to the amount of lacquer filling the groove. The presence of the groove is barely discernible on FT-0133 compared to the other two.

Also the Onin seems to show a sort of saw-teeth around the sides of the arabesque vines but maybe it was just my imagination.

 

@Curranwhat does your more keen eye can see?

 

Regards

Luca

[zanilu]

FT-0078

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zanilu]

FT-0086

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[zanilu]

FT-0133

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Curran]

I tried to form my opinions before looking at what you wrote:

 

[1]  The first one, I would have said "Onin"  partially because the mon (circle with 2 or 3 lines). Also the iron looks slightly better to me. The "brass" looks extensively hammered in and carved from there. In my head, "Onin"

 

[2]The second one, honestly... I wasn't sure. It has some of the Onin worked feel to the inlay, but some pieces look pre-cut. That would have been a tough one for me, and I suspect a papering organization would just go to the more cautious Heinajo attribution?

 

[3]  I can see what I believe to be pre-cut to the "brass", pieced together and done up not too different from the way you do a stained glass window.

Yet it has a large amount of inlay. In some ways, it looks like more work than the Onin tsuba. Still, I'd go Heianjo on it.  I admit to thinking it a very pretty example.

 

While the price difference between Onin and Heianjo can be fairly large, sometimes the Heianjo ones are just as pretty or prettier. I semi-admitted I had one that was published in three books. Two books said Onin, but one by a very respected authority said Heianjo.

[Geraint]

Dear Curran.

 

Could you please expand on what you mean by pre-cut?  I know that some have suggested that some inlay is pre-cast and some cut from sheet but  as a metalworker I have a hard time getting my head around how one might tell the differrence.  Is there anything that might be detectable or describable here?

 

Great photographs, Luca, thank you for posting these.

 

All the best.

[Curran]

1 hour ago, Geraint said:

Could you please expand on what you mean by pre-cut?  I know that some have suggested that some inlay is pre-cast and some cut from sheet but  as a metalworker I have a hard time getting my head around how one might tell the differrence.  Is there anything that might be detectable or describable here?

 

 

I've never much worked metal in any fashion. This is really more of a question for Ford or Markus Chambers.

What little I know is from my mother's years as a bench jeweler with a small lab in the house. That doesn't hold a candle to their many many years of experience.

 

This is to say that I think my own opinions are largely derived from that which I have read in various books + just the basics of bench jeweler knowledge.

I see in #1 that which I interpret as being constructed one way. In #3, I see it differently in a way which I interpret as how I have read Heianjo to be constructed.

To my eyes, it has to do with the edges of the inlay and the way the iron around it is worked.

 

   If I go any deeper than that, I'm going to get tripped up in terminology that I will probably use incorrectly. Then Ford will tell me I am all wrong.

Just in recent years have I gotten good at saying what is "Onin" vs "Heianjo" before I see the NBTHK papers. It is still an area where I take my own opinion with a pinch of salt (phrase I used recently in the Saotome thread).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In terms of metal movement, I don't have the terminology. I only can

[Geraint]

Dear Curran.

 

Thank you for your thoughts, I'll keep studying.  And thank you Luca for posting your tsuba and those photographs.

 

 

 

 

All the best.

[zanilu]

Dear Curran

 

Thank you for your considerations. I started this post to learn something new about Onin and Heianjo, and so it is.

 

I will ponder on your considerations.

 

Regards

Luca

 

 

 

 

[Peter Bleed]

Friends, this has been a very useful thread. Thank you. MNB at its best. I think I know much more about brass inlay than I could have suspected. The quality of the work is clearer to me. I thinking my assessment of early brass inlay is not higher than it was (I still find it challenging) but as a result of this thread I feel we/I understand it better.

Like I said, Thanks.

Peter

[kissakai]

Yes a very interesting post

 

So many times I've stated katana or wakizashi size tsuba just by looking at the dimensions but unless the nakago ana was over or undersize I never really took this into consideration

 

Sometimes I have a DOH moment like this one from GRC

Haynes also pointed out that the size of tsuba had no consistent relation to the size of the blade, so to get a better sense of what was fitted to what, just look at the size of the nakago-ana.

 

Makes me feel a bit silly. 

[GRC]

Grev, this is the potential of: many minds, many sets of eyes, with varying sources of information. We're all more likely to benefit 

Especially when it comes to the vastness of the world of tsuba... so much to study an learn about, and so many "cloudy" areas where there's no satisfactory simple answer.  

By the way, I think I had literally read that Haynes statement a day or two before seeing Roger's question, so it was very good timing...  

 

But speaking of feeling silly,

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Heianjo-ness of the tsuba in question, but admittedly, so far I have just been sorting Onin vs Heianjo based on style. 

Clearly, I need to weigh the inlay method more heavily...

 

Regarding the close ups (thanks for those Luca!):

tsuba #1: I see how the iron was repeatedly punched in towards the brass to pinch and hold the inlays in place.

 

tsuba #2: In comparison, the inlays look like they've just been "dropped" in, and not pinched by punching the iron, like the first one. I'm assuming it's using the technique where the inlays are slightly domed, then compressed down into the cutout areas in the iron, so that the brass spreads and "sets" into some type of undercutting in the iron plate.

 

tsuba #3: I'm not too sure what I'm looking at... Is it pinched by the iron, but using a much smaller punch, or maybe there was some post-inlay smoothing and scraping of the iron that is pinching the inlays? It just seems so "clean" around the inlays but there seems to be a "dip" in the iron surrounding most of the inlays.

Can someone help me out with this one? Or is this exactly why the third one is so tough to classify?

Maybe repost some of the images with some added arrows to point out some helpful details?

 

Many thanks 

[Curran]

Last comment:

 

For Onin vs Heianjo,  I relied heavily upon the Torigoye + Haynes Translation that is a brilliant bargain buy from the Northern California Sword Society. Google it and publications they have available.

Peter Bleeds comment reminded me that I believe Torigoye or another scholar talked significantly about the "brass" (there being more than one type, so I am using a catch all word).  My eye can see a shift in some of the stuff that is generally attributed around 1550 Late Muromachi, but for me it is something I personally find unreliable.  I look more at other aspects.

 

 

[zanilu]

Dear All

 

This one came at hand for the weekly rotation of the tsuba on display. Could be considered controversial? Maybe...

 

FT-0097  papered NBTHK Hozon but I am not telling you straight away to which school to foster some discussion. Dimensions 89.4 mm x 89.3 mm, thk 2.3 mm at seppa-dai, 4.5 mm at mimi.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

Luca

[GRC]

Well, no one seems to want to bite on this one yet, but I'll give it a shot for fun.

Feel free to correct any of these aspects of my rationale, so I can start shifting my thinking as I muddle through the differences between Heianjo and Onin.

 

1- My first thought was Heianjo, simply by virtue of the large sukashi element.

2- I see that a lot of the larger inlays have that "dropped in" look, especially with the ring of corrosion around some of them, so I'm leaning towards Heianjo again.

3- There are some losses to the inlays, so I think Heianjo again. In the examples I have seen to date, Heianjo inlays typically show more losses than Onin. Onin tsuba seem to have very few inlay losses (at least in what I have been exposed to so far).

 

This part wasn't what I expected:

4- The seppa-dai has that inlay outline around the perimeter... so that usually makes me think Onin, but otherwise, I was leaning towards Heianjo.

So maybe this example, and the other one that Luca posted that was separately papered to both schools, show that this aesthetic was used by both schools?

If so, I'll hypothesize that maybe it just fell out of favor in the many years after the Momoyama period when Heianjo kept producing tsuba, which is why it appears as though most Heianjo tsuba don't have the outline around the seppa-dai, simply because most of their tsuba were produced after this trend "fell out of fashion"?

 

Also, this feature is just weird to me (maybe I just haven't seen enough examples so I don't know how common it is):

I'm not sure why the tsubako was putting in these punch lines perpendicular to the inlay... All I can think of is maybe some added visual decoration of the seppa-dai outline?

I have no idea is this was favored by either school so it doesn't help me pick a side. 

 

Again, I'm hoping to get some feedback on these thoughts, so feel free to comment 

[Soshin]

Really can’t add anything substance to the discussion, other than that I have enjoyed reading this topic. I don't have many examples of Onin or Heianjo groups work in my collection and really haven't conducted a more structured study of these groups work. I did have one tsuba pass NTHK shinsa at the San Francisco show that was attributed Heianjo on the worksheet this year. Here is a photo of tsuba attributed to Heianjo.     

[rkg]

On 8/20/2022 at 5:57 AM, GRC said:

 

Also, this feature is just weird to me (maybe I just haven't seen enough examples so I don't know how common it is):

I'm not sure why the tsubako was putting in these punch lines perpendicular to the inlay... All I can think of is maybe some added visual decoration of the seppa-dai outline?

I have no idea is this was favored by either school so it doesn't help me pick a side. 

 

Again, I'm hoping to get some feedback on these thoughts, so feel free to comment 

Glen,

Its one of the ways they staked the inlay in.  You see it on some Ounin and Heianjou tsuba. here's a piece I have (out on consignment) that was done this way.  I believe these were originally lacquered so they would not have been visible on the finished product.

 

 

It would probably be an interesting research topic to try and study ones done like this versus the more "typical" inlay methods...

 

Best,

rkg

(Richard George)

[zanilu]

The attribution of FT-0097 goes to Heinajo.

 

Glen you were right! 

 

Regards

Luca