Another iron wasp tsuba . Choshu Hagi ju Tomo??michi??

[Matsunoki]

Hello from a very rainy UK, hope all of you out there are well and not as soggy as we are.

Hope everyone in the US is safe from the terrible storms and tornadoes.

Summoning the  courage I ventured onto eBay again a couple of weeks ago and came back with this one simply because I really liked the subject and it looked decent quality. The design is crisply rendered and the iron has a very fine dry ishime or crystalline texture. Doesn’t look like it’s ever been mounted so I wonder about it’s age? Late Edo?

Can you help with the last character of the Mei……”Michi”???

All opinions and comments re age, school etc etc are always enjoyed greatly. Thanks for looking.

All the best. Colin

D7.4cm T5.5mm

 

 

 

[rematron]

Hi Colin, 

 

We’re relatively soggy today in my part of the states (Seattle area) but it’s typical for this time of year. 
 

I’m gonna test my tiny knowledge here and take a guess but we’ll see what some more trained eyes say.  I’m guessing late Edo or Meiji because it seems to me to be cast. There is a standardized texture to the whole thing and even the mei is large and deep enough to see the same graininess inside of it. So I think the mei (which I can’t translate) is part of the mold. The nakago-ana looks modern and clean and the tsuba appears to never have been mounted. All that points to an export piece. 
 

Now we’ll see if I should have kept my mouth shut. Haha. 
 

Cheers. 

[Matsunoki]

I also thought cast is a possibility. So well finished though and can’t see any mould seams etc.

Lets see……..

[Spartancrest]

16 hours ago, Matsunoki said:

So well finished though and can’t see any mould seams etc.

I vote for cast as well, the mei looks thick and rounded. I would have expected the wing veins on the wasp to have been sharper. There are no obvious cast seams so it was likely re-worked and not just a token amount either. The ten-zogan gold eyes and fruits testify to finishing touches done very well. The more you look the more difficult to be sure! I would go 60/40 for cast. I would be happy to be wrong.

[Matsunoki]

5 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

The more you look the more difficult to be sure! I would go 60/40 for cast. I would be happy to be wrong.

Thanks Dale. It isn’t clear cut I agree…..even with the benefit of handling it but the balance of probabilities says “cast” with a hell of a lot of very careful refinishing.

Having said that, am I right in thinking that cast tsuba usually appear in multiples? ie they turn up often? Because I can’t find another even vaguely like it (there’s a challenge for you!). Are Choshu tsuba often cast?

I find it difficult to believe that such tsuba were cast during Meiji……there were more than enough redundant tsuba kicking around to satisfy all demands without expending time and money making cast iron jobbies? 
Maybe modern?….but again hardly worth all the effort?
….just some random thoughts. 

Greatly appreciate  your opinions.

All the best. Colin

 

[Spartancrest]

Never doubt there is another one lurking about - this took me 35 seconds to find! It is in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

IMO yours is better!  Looks like an identical mei.  "Tsuba with design of wasps and fruiting branches"

[Spartancrest]

Also from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston Tsuba with design of biwa fruit. Japanese. Edo period. mid-19th century. Tanaka Akiyoshi. School Haruaki School. So at least we know what the wasp is hanging on. For some reason I am unable to open the museum's site tonight to give you the reference numbers - perhaps they might be accessible from your end?

[Matsunoki]

25 minutes ago, Spartancrest said:

Never doubt there is another one lurking about - this took me 35 seconds to find!

That’s another beer I owe you.

I spent over an hour and found zip.

Now I’m even more confused……the MFA one has obviously been mounted which would suggest it’s old….or at least from the Samurai era and it has the same “micro-frosted” or ishime type surface texture. Mine has a fine high pitched ring when “pinged” and I would usually (wrongly?) associate that with traditional carved. There are very minor variations between the two but they could easily occur during the tidying-up  of a cast tsuba so I vote high quality old casting….maybe🙂

[Dan tsuba]

Hello Colin,

 

I agree with you that your tsuba is probably cast.  On the first set of pictures you posted, in picture #3 (close up), you can see the "grainy" texture of what I believe to be "sand casting".

 

But like something I stated in a previous thread.  Only 2 ways to tell.  Take a hammer to it and see if it shatters (then it is cast), or subject it to metallurgical non-invasive testing"!

 

Then again, I personally don't care if it was cast or not!  It is a fine looking piece, and I wish I had one!

 

With respect,

Dan

 

[Spartancrest]

9 hours ago, Matsunoki said:

There are very minor variations between the two but they could easily occur during the tidying-up

Yes there are small variations, I like the perfection of your wasp's eyes and the gold ten-zogan in the fruit which the MFAB doesn't have [I still can't access the site to have a better look] I can't be sure if the sizes are the same either? Could they be a pair?

[Spartancrest]

On 4/2/2023 at 1:32 AM, Matsunoki said:

Can you help with the last character of the Mei…

SIGNED:  Choshu Hagi no ju Tomotsune saku
長州萩住友恒作 

 

10 hours ago, Dan tsuba said:

I personally don't care if it was cast or not! 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/11358

Dan an interesting FACT - this likely cast tsuba was deposited in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston in 1890 - donated later in 1911 - The Bigelow collection was amassed between 1882 and 1889. So there is no EVIDENCE this is a modern made piece. Not quite the evidence that it was Edo period but getting there! 

[Brian]

I'd love @Ford Hallam's take on all these "cast tsuba" that seem to be under every rock.
 

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Brian

 

I think I've been pretty clear on the issue of Edo period cast ferrous tsuba . There is to date absolutely no evidence that cast iron tsuba were produced in the Edo period. All the theorising in the world hasn't changed that fact. And the theorising isn't helped by the fact that the various implausible explanations for possible methodologies of casting tsuba in iron etc. demonstrate a very clear lack of understanding of the actual technical challenges this hypothetical production poses. 

 

I would add also that I really don't think any of this fantasy Edo period cast iron tsuba is well supported by mediocre images of unknown provenance off the internet. We have available over 100 years of remarkable publications illustrating literally thousands of genuine tsuba yet on-line theorising is focussed for the most part on irrelevant absolute bottom of the barrel dross to try and 'prove' various vague points.. If the tsuba you're buying are cheaper than the typical reference book then perhaps your data set is less than reliable or even relevant.

 

For anyone who'd like to take a closer look at Edo period iron these two films we produced earlier this year might be of interest.

 

 

 

As for Colin's tsuba in the OP, I see absolutely nothing to suggest it isn't a perfectly genuine hand wrought and carved late Edo period tsuba. The surface texture is completely normal and is not in anyway reminiscent of a cast iron surface.

 

As I describe in the films above, pre-industrial iron and steel in Japan was never fully molten or liquid during its manufacture. This results in a very characteristic internal structure and one that can quite easily be revealed on the surface of the metal by fairly simple processes. It does in fact have a grainy appearance, so if that's your criteria for judging a piece as cast you're barking up the wrong tree I'm afraid. Also, tsuba-ko were absolute masters of applying an almost infinite array of surface textures, many of the best being very difficult to identify as being actually applied, they are so natural looking. 

[Ford Hallam]

and yet another one, with the same mei. also perfectly genuine piece imo.

 

https://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/m1063930591/

[Ford Hallam]

and to simply say that this is a likely cast piece and somehow suggesting it adds to the growing non-evidence of Edo cast tsuba is just nonsense.

This is a perfectly regular and genuine hand made Choshu piece. 

https://collections.mfa.org/objects/11358

 

 

[Ford Hallam]

I think the real problem I have had with this whole speculation about Edo period cast iron tsuba is perfectly demonstrated in this thread.

 

What was initially presented as some harmless speculative open minded 'research' is now, apparently, taken as a given by some advocates of this idea.

A handful of comments here opine quite confidently that the original tsuba in the thread is a cast Edo piece. 

This despite the fact that the very notion of Edo period tsuba being cast is just a fantasy exercise without any substantive evidence to support it. 

The irony and insult here is made even worse by the glaring fact that Colin's tsuba is perfectly legitimate and not cast at all!

 

 

 

 

[Matsunoki]

1 hour ago, Ford Hallam said:

The irony and insult here is made even worse by the glaring fact that Colin's tsuba is perfectly legitimate and not cast at all!

Thanks Ford.

All the best. Colin

[Brian]

Thank you Ford, exactly what i was hoping you would say, and for the same reasons.
I'm not even going to address the whole cast Edo tsuba thing, I've been with your opinion the whole time. What I wanted to clarify is the fact that I see nothing suggesting the tsuba presented were cast, and to me they are also perfectly legit period examples. It's a dangerous road when we start making claims about legit tsuba and start seeing things that just aren't there. Mei that are nicely cut and clear, with no casting bubbles or sprue marks. Some relatively ok application of decoration. None of those soft vertical molded looking cast looking seppa-dai with the obvious cast signatures. Why are we seeing cast everywhere? We need to take a step back.
 

[Spartancrest]

2 hours ago, Ford Hallam said:

and yet another one, with the same mei. also perfectly genuine piece imo.

I think you missed this part of the description [Current condition product!]. That is:  made recently. Never been near a sword blade.

Directly comparing the signatures the position of every character is in the same spot - Now I know the Japanese can be very precise but this is not within the realm of belief.

[Dan tsuba]

O.K. members hang in there with me on this one!  It is long, but I am trying to make a point!

 

The below are from some posts on that “Tsuba casting molds?” thread

Posted Dec 1, 2022-

 

“Hello all-

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

 

“APPENDIX.— DESIDERATA.

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

 

“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.  Which is only 22 years after the end of the Edo period!

So, it seems that some of the same questions about tsuba have been asked for about 134 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.”

 

Also posted Dec. 1, 2022-

“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 17th 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 19th 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 17th, 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.”

 

 

I keep reiterating in some threads to this forum that the only way to tell if an Edo period tsuba is made from cast iron is to take a hammer to it or have it metallurgically non-invasive tested.  Everything else is just an individual’s “best guess”!

 

It would be nice to get opinions of University educated and degreed metallurgists that would be willing to conduct tests (invasive or non-invasive) on Edo period tsuba that could have been made from cast iron.  Their findings would then be presented in a research paper (with references).

 

I mean this is the 21^st century!  The technology is there to answer a question that has been asked for about 134 years!

 

Personally, I have had enough of the “pseudo-scientists” that state their opinions without stating their references!

 

That may finally settle a debate that has been going on in this forum for at least 13 years -I refer you to the below link-

 

https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/5697-what-do-you-make-of-this/

 

Onward!

With respect,

Dan

 

[Matsunoki]

Dan, I admit to not having read all the previous research notes and posts and even if I had half of “who said what and when” would have left my memory before I even got to the end but can I just ask a couple of questions or rather make a couple of observations

26 minutes ago, Dan tsuba said:

Working in hard wrought iron was first of all shirked, and similar effects were endeavoured to be produced by castings

The word “endeavoured” suggests that they tried. It does not say they succeeded. Nor does it state that these endeavours were even conducted in IRON.

 

28 minutes ago, Dan tsuba said:

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.” 

This does not actually say that it relates to IRON tsuba. Certainly in the Bakumatsu and Meiji period tsuba production veered heavily towards luxurious “showpiece” works of art rather than truly functional items. Much of the decoration was way “over the top” often encroaching onto seppadai etc but the vast majority of it was done in “soft metals” ie shakudo etc  or soft metal inlay on relatively simple iron plates.

Could the above statement simply be referring to kinko tsuba of the period and not referring to iron tsuba at all?
 

It these two observations are covered/answered clearly in your previous research and posts I do apologise.

Also, with respect.

Colin

[Dan tsuba]

Hello Colin!

 

Thanks for reading my post and your great comments!  Yes, you could be correct in your interpretation of the researched material.

 

And if I went back and had to read all 10 pages of my “Tsuba casting molds?” thread to see if stuff had already been answered, I would get lost!

 

But I don’t think there can be any doubt about the question asked by Mr. Huish in 1889.  I state that here from my previous post-

 

“APPENDIX.— DESIDERATA.

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

 

Anyway, some interesting stuff.  This tsuba hobby is the total learning experience!

 

With respect,

Dan

[rematron]

2 hours ago, Spartancrest said:

I think you missed this part of the description [Current condition product!]. That is:  made recently. Never been near a sword blade.

Directly comparing the signatures the position of every character is in the same spot - Now I know the Japanese can be very precise but this is not within the realm of belief.

 

@Ford Hallam , I'm trying to learn and this debate is dizzying.  Thank you for your expert opnion.  I would please like this above to be addressed.  These are exactly the same and the skill required to do that is INSANE.  Right?  If there were hand carved, basically exact replicas being produced, I feel like they would be very very expensive and sought after for the skill required to do that. 

 

I'm also missing where it was claimed that these particular tsuba were cast in the Edo period.  Why not after, as souvenir pieces?

 

I have no chips in the whole "Edo period tsuba casting" debate.  I just want clear understanding of what is what and why.  So, what is the explanation for identical tsuba being produced if not cast, regardless of time peiod?

 

 

 

[Matsunoki]

5 minutes ago, rematron said:

These are exactly the same

Hi Jeremy

I think the Mei are at first glance identical but when look they appear to me to be cut differently with many minor variations. One cut thickly, the other less so etc

…..or maybe it’s my old eyes

[rematron]

1 hour ago, Matsunoki said:

Certainly in the Bakumatsu and Meiji period tsuba production veered heavily towards luxurious “showpiece” works of art rather than truly functional items. Much of the decoration was way “over the top” often encroaching onto seppadai etc but the vast majority of it was done in “soft metals” ie shakudo etc  or soft metal inlay on relatively simple iron plates.

 

Hi Colin.  As I am still learning, I don't know if your statement is fact or an assumption but I feel like it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a large amount of souvenir pieces were being made post-Edo to replicate old iron battle tsuba as people might want something that looked more like the "real thing" rather than an over-the-top, delicate kinko item.

 

[rematron]

8 minutes ago, Matsunoki said:

Hi Jeremy

I think the Mei are at first glance identical but when look they appear to me to be cut differently with many minor variations. One cut thickly, the other less so etc

…..or maybe it’s my old eyes

 

It's not just the mei.  It's the positioning of every item on the whole piece. Every contour of the berries.  Every vein on the leaves.

[rematron]

I just noticed that, while these objects occupy identical spaces and have identical curves, one is convex while the other is concave. 

 

 

[Matsunoki]

25 minutes ago, rematron said:

I don't know if your statement is fact or an assumption but I feel like it's perfectly reasonable to believe that a large amount of souvenir pieces were being made post-Edo to replicate old iron battle tsuba

Following the banning of Samurai wearing swords, in fact the total dismantling of the Samurai society can you imagine the vast, truly vast number of tsuba that were suddenly redundant and with the average Samurai totally impoverished the market would have been flooded with the “real thing”. Why expend effort making something that copies millions of items already on the market? Instead, Post Edo metalworkers concentrated in making objects that appealed to the Western customers……koro, vases, boxes etc etc. 

As we were not there we cannot state it as a fact…. but the circumstances that prevailed at the time coupled with simple economic rules would strongly suggest nobody was bothering to make copies when huge quantities were available already. The London salerooms years ago used to sell old tsuba collections that included iron tsuba sold in large bundles on bits of string for pennies.

[rematron]

@Matsunoki Thanks Colin.  That is very sound logic.

[Ford Hallam]

I suppose it might be worth considering what Colin's tsuba actually depicts too.

 

The biwa, or loquat, was symbolic of wealth due to the golden colour of the ripe fruit. We find it in Chinese symbolism too, as one of the elements in the auspicious motif themes. A bird or insect eating the fruit hints at the vulnerability of accumulated wealth to the uncertainties of life and nature.

As the warrior class were expected to be utterly unconcerned with 'filthy lucre' this piece was probably never intended for the warrior elite but rather the merchant class.