Seeking knowledgeable opinions on our first Yamakichibei Tsuba

[Durs Egg]

Kodogu-Tsuba-YamaKichiBei-1-02Kodogu-Tsuba-YamaKichiBei-1-03

 

 

 

[Shugyosha]

Hi Philip,

Welcome to the forum.

 

From the paper (the non-standard bits):

 

一井桁小透鐔 – One igeta (well curb from crossed wooden beams) [design] ko sukashi tsuba

銘山吉兵 – Mei Yamakichibei

鉄地丸形小透 – Tetsu ji, maru gata, ko sukashi – Iron ground, round shape, ko sukashi

 

From the photograph, it looks like there is an Amida yasuri design (the rays of the Amida buddha) on the ground and a vine motif (karakusa) on the rim but that's all I know other than it looks like a very nice piece and I think the design is very tasteful.

[Durs Egg]

Many thanks for your kind input John, especially for translating the Sukashi design aspect. I had read on a very old post here (Circa 2007) that Yamakichibei Tsuba were highly faked. The Mei on our one is very faint & I struggle to get a good image of it. The Tokobetsu Kiecho Paper gives me some assurance, but I have read many opinions that seem distrustful of elderly Origami. I was hopeful for any opinions as to the veracity of this Tsuba's Mei.

[Winchester]

Hi Phillip, 

 

You are in luck. There are some serious collectors of Yamakichibei on the forum and I am sure one will provide an expert opinion.

 

I am a student and learning, therefore my opinion is just that: I like your tsuba and look forward to learning more with you on this thread.

[MauroP]

Hi Philip, the good news is that at least another very similar tsuba has been judged authentic by a shinsa in 2004 (and hiashi-yasuri is reported in the paper). See https://www.seiyudo.com/tu-08082.htm

 

[Steve Waszak]

Hello Phillip,

 

An interesting (and appealing) tsuba.    Would love to be able to see it in hand to get a better idea of the workmanship, but your photos are pretty good.  As Mauro notes there is a Nidai Yamakichibei work with the same motif and treatment, except that this other one lacks the scrolling-vine element on the rim.  I'm not so sure that I see it as "good news" in and of itself that this other tsuba has been judged authentic by the NBTHK (though in this case I am in perfect agreement that this other guard is indeed a genuine Nidai Yamakichibei work).  My concern would be that your tsuba is a later (probably 19th-century) utsushi ("homage"), mostly faithfully modeled after this piece that Mauro presents.  There are at least a few points to consider in weighing this question.  

 

One observation I would make is that your tsuba presents as relatively "fresh"/new looking.  It doesn't come across as carrying four hundred years of time.  It doesn't appear to have a deep patina, and there are few if any signs of rust.  

 

Another is that the rim is quite a departure from those usually seen on Nidai work.  The classic Nidai rim presents with two prominent features:  1.  profuse  tekkotsu, presenting like small, black, shiny "blisters" on the surface (these tekkotsu are highly appreciated by connoisseurs);  2.  the edging of the rim presents with an uneven, "raw" or "scalloping" effect, forming a highly pleasing organic liveliness to the interface between the plate and the edge of the rim.  These are sort of like calling cards for the Nidai.  Your tsuba, Phillip, not only lacks these classic features, but also adds one -- the scrolling vine pattern -- that I have never seen on any authentic Yamakichibei guards, Nidai or otherwise.  

 

Finally, the particular rendering and placement of the sukashi elements appears to me to be too "rigid" and perfectly vertical.  Compare this to the rendering of the sukashi in the example that Mauro posted.  Note the skewed posture, the sort of "lean" present in the piece he posted?  This is a very Momoyama thing, reflecting a sensibility of Kabukimono that was ascendant in the first years of the 17th century, a time when the Nidai was certainly active.  In your guard, this openwork, as I say, is sort of stiff, and lacks the same dynamism.

 

Among the above concerns, I have my doubts about your tsuba being a genuine Nidai work.  However, as to the second of them, it is not impossible that the Nidai could have been asked/told by an individual commissioning him to create a tsuba like the one Mauro posted, but with a different rim (no scalloping, no tekkotsu, but with the scrolling vine element).  Is this highly plausible?  It seems somewhat unlikely to me, but it is not out of the question, either.  The fact that I have never seen another Yamakichibei guard with a rim design anything like yours immediately makes me skeptical.  On the other hand, if another (19th-century) craftsman simply set out to do a straightforward utsushi (or copy), why would he depart so significantly with his rendering of the rim?  In other words, perhaps the radically different rim design is a good sign:  on an otherwise so faithfully-rendered utsushi, right down to a pretty convincing mei, is it likely/plausible that this craftsman would create such a dramatic departure with the rim?  Well, perhaps:  if he were commissioned by a patron to make a copy/utsushi of the original work (the one Mauro posted) but with the instructions to do the rim differently (according to the patron's specifications), he may indeed do so.  

 

On the more positive side, the Nidai Yamakichibei is justly famed for his amida-yasuri.  Some hold that his amida-yasuri are the finest of all, including other Yamakichibei smiths, the Nobuiye smiths, Hoan Kanenobu, etc...  His is a most peculiar (and brilliant) form of plate treatment, sort of a "double amida yasuri," one that has particular energy and vitality.  I think if it were easy to reproduce, we'd seen more of it elsewhere, including among those earlier smiths.  Your tsuba, Phillip, has pretty convincingly-rendered amida yasuri.  It is far better than would be seen in standard expressions of the form of plate treatment.  Usually, though, the Nidai would marry his yasuri with expressive tsuchime, yakite treatment, or both, something your example here appears to mostly lack.  

 

Hard to say, then, where this leaves us.  The old "Den-Nidai Yamakichibei" comes to mind.    Ultimately, if were forced to decide, based on only photos, I would conservatively say it was a very well done 19th-century utsushi, due to the reservations I note above.  A more optimistic approach would judge it as an unusually well-preserved example of the Nidai's work, albeit with a rim that departs quite radically from the norm.  

 

I apologize if all of the above hasn't been helpful, Phillip.  I do find your tsuba to be quite appealing, whatever it may be.    Please see the link below for more images of the tsuba Mauro posted.

 

Cheers.

 

https://www.seiyudo....08082.htm#movepoint1

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Curran]

4 hours ago, MauroP said:

Hi Philip, the good news is that at least another very similar tsuba has been judged authentic by a shinsa in 2004 (and hiashi-yasuri is reported in the paper). See https://www.seiyudo.com/tu-08082.htm

 

 

As Mauro posted, -this was a good one waaay before I understood.   Wish I had the knowledge to buy it back then, though I have never found that particular dealer very easy to deal with.

 

Steve W. pretty much nails it to the wall, having communicated far better and more than I could have on the particular tsuba in question.

Yours is a nice tsuba and has a decidedly nidai design to it, but it doesn't feel like a nidai work.

    

I thought it might be a Futagoya(ma) school utsushi tsuba, as I have seen some convincing utsushi (hommage) pieces by the school and own one that is signed "Yamakichibei" but attributed to nidai Norisuke (NBTHK Hozon).

Through good fortune, the NBTHK has the original Norisuke sketchbooks and tsuba rubbings. There are a few excellent Yamakichibei utsushi in there.

The Norisuke works are well regarded and collected. They were employed by the Tokugawa and often tasked with making 19th century hommage pieces or copies of famous or coveted works owned by the Tokugawa.

 

[Spartancrest]

   Steven Waszak posted this back in April 20, 2018  https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/25412-yamakichibei-tsuba/  the same tsuba as  https://www.seiyudo....08082.htm#movepoint1

 

[GRC]

Sorry to say it, but I would say it's definitely a later utsushi, and certainly not a piece made by the Nidai smith.

It could have been made by any smith in the late Edo period and could even be a post Meiji-era copy.

It doesn't look like any of the Futagoyama copies of the late Edo period either... totally different style to theirs. 

 

Sadly, it's yet another example of where the NBTHK is giving out attributions for tsuba categories they know little about.

Yamakichibei papers from the NBTHK are particularly egregious, and it is one of their weakest areas (although they have multiple weak areas... as discussed in this recent thread https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/50714-established-ideas-that-need-to-change-3-pre-edo-period-schools-reliance-on-nbthk-papers/).

 

here are the key points to my conclusion (many of which were already pointed out by Steve @Steve Waszak:

 

It doesn't have any of the surface features one would expect (demand?) of a YKB piece that went through their characteristic "yakite" style of heat treatment.

This piece is a flat plate that has been chiseled to have the yasuri lines, but has none of the surface texture features of the original.

The steel in the copy also has a dull flat grey color rather than the expected variety of dark earthy shades on the real pieces.

 compared to 

The hammered back rim is far too even and uniform, and lacks any of the defining characteristics of the rims of the Nidai Yamakichibei smith... his rims always show some purposeful irregularities like these:

And in the same view you can see the same rough organic-ness of the hot-punched sukashi lines in the real piece vs what looks like clean-cut or sawn sukashi lines in the copy. 

 compared to 

 

There isn't a single other example of engraving on the mimi of a YKB tsuba. It's almost like this was a clear "signal" of being a copy because the maker added on a feature that has clearly never done on any YKB tsuba.

Yours is actually the first example of this that I have ever seen that has anything like this at all. Stylistically, it's also completely out of sorts with any of the aesthetics that are exemplified by YKB work... almost opposite in character actually.

  this is just an instant "no".

 

Another dead give away for me is the linear chisel mark in the "tegane" at the top of the nakago-ana. This is simply not something you see in YKB tsuba. 

  this looks like it was an original feature... therefore also an instant "no"