Yamakichbei

[kissakai]

This has often been mentioned before

Possibly the work of what is call "Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei,".

Have any tsuba with this type of mei passed shinsa?

 

[Soshin]

3 hours ago, kissakai said:

This has often been mentioned before

Possibly the work of what is call "Low-crossbar-mei Yamakichibei,".

Have any tsuba with this type of mei passed shinsa?

 

 

Hi Grev UK,

 

I like Yamakichibei work and have an authentic tsuba made by the third generation Yamakichibei that will be in my collection long term it has NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon paper. Are you referring to the works made shortly after the time of (nidai 二代) second generation with fake signatures (gimei 偽銘)? This was way before the time of the third generation Yamakichibei. I know Steve from San Deigo, CA USA who is on NMB did some articles in the JSSUS Newsletter that talked about subclassifying these gimei works as there was some patterns to their signatures and workmanship.    

[kissakai]

Thanks

Maybe Steve will chip in as this term is quite specific

 

[Steve Waszak]

Hi Grev,

 

Your question is a good one, and a bit more complicated than it might appear.  The short answer to your question is yes, Yamakichibei tsuba with a Low-Crossbar mei have indeed passed shinsa; in fact, one of the 11 or 12 Juyo Yamakichibei guards features a Low-Crossbar mei.  I know of several others with this mei that are papered as well.  Here's the catch, though:  tsuba with this mei that have passed shinsa are papered as though they are Shodai work.  The truth, however, is that they are not, as close analytical comparison of Low-Crossbar-signed guards with actual (Meijin-) Shodai guards will clearly show, both in the workmanship of the tsuba themselves, and in the rendering of the respective signatures.  The rationale for papering Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei works as (Meijin-) Shodai works is explained as follows: 

 

"Changes in the way that the Shodai inscribed his signatures are recognized and accepted."  

 

This is nonsense, I'm afraid.  As I say, the actual workmanship of the tsuba made by the Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei differs significantly from that seen in the works produced by the Low-Crossbar smith.  Beyond this, though, the Low-Crossbar signature is radically different from the Meijin-Shodai's.  Every part of the signature, from the "Yama" ji to the "Kichi" ji to the "Bei" ji is not only dramatically different, but the differences are consistent in the works of the two.  Moreover, there are no sword guards that I have seen (and I have been studying this subject for more than twenty years) that could remotely be identified or described as having a "hybrid mei" -- one that has elements in the mei drawn from a typical Meijin-Shodai tsuba and also elements drawn from a standard Low-Crossbar work.   It is abundantly evident that the Shinsa teams are either genuinely erring in their papering of Low-Crossbar works as (Meijin-) Shodai works, or are motivated by some other factor.  

 

For a far more detailed analysis of this subject, see the article I did on the Yamakichibei group of tsubako, available in the Articles section here on NMB.  

 

Hope this helps, Grev. 

 

 

 

 

 

[GRC]

And just a "quick note" to correct some misconceptions:

The "low crossbar" smith is not gimei as David stated.

I believe it was he or perhaps Curran who submitted one of the smaller Yamakichibei low crossbar "atelier works" for shinsa.

These smaller ones are typically signed with a low-crossbar mei, but lack the telltale signs that they were made by the "low crossbar" master smith himself. Hence being "lesser works" that were produced in greater numbers by unknown smiths who signed with a similar loss crossbar mei.

That lesser work that was submitted for shinsa came back as gimei and was posted on this forum at some point.   

 

Proper low crossbar works made by the mainline master smith, show the same method of production, styling and type of steel that are obviously consistent with the other Yakakichibei mainline smiths that predate the so-called "third generation smith" from the early Edo period.

Incidentally, the "third gen" smith is often referred to as "Sakurayama" due to his use of a sakura flower stamp on the right side of the nakago-ana.

 

The inconsistencies in Yamakichibei papers written by the NBTHK, are just another illustration of the utter dogmatic ignorance of that shinsa organization. Very early on in their existence, they arbitrarily adopted a "traditional view" of a mandatory 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation lineage for Yamakichibei tsuba makers based on the three most obviously distinct styles that were signed Yamakichibei. They simply didn't know enough to distinguish between the various mainline smiths that worked in a similar style to the smith they call shodai.

 

So the NBTHK's lack of ability to discern among the various mainline smiths, and dogmatic adherence to their original 1st-3rd generation concept, means they are permanently stuck in a position to blindly lump all the early mainline smiths together under the banner of shodai (1st)... or "gimei" if it has even a slightly different aesthetic from the works they deem to be "shodai"

 

In summary, NBTHK papers for Yamakichibei tsuba are a complete disaster and often unrelaible.

 

But the low crossbar smith is certainly one of the mainline Yamakichibei smiths.

One longtime collector and perhaps the first North American Yamakichibei specialist (Bruce Kirkpatrick) even goes so far as to suggest that the low crossbar smith was the original shodai smith (something that Steve noted in his paper about Yamakichibei mei).

Who the actual shodai smith was, will likely never be known for certain due to lack of hard factual evidence, so we can only theorize and come up with a "most likely?" scenario with some competing alternate theories... each with their own merits and deficiencies.

For me, that's part of the appeal to this group of smiths... a nice mystery to sink my teeth into.

 

[Steve Waszak]

Good post, Glen.  Thanks for this.  

 

Yes, the Low-Crossbar smith was undoubtedly part of the early group of Yamakichibei smiths, well predating the Sakura Yamakichibei smith by as much as half a century.  The daisaku/daimei phenomenon associated with the Low-Crossbar smith, though, clearly (to me) locates him later in the Momoyama Period to earliest-Edo period.  These daisaku/daimei guards carry a definite Low-Crossbar mei, which differs sharply in many ways from that of Yamasaka Kichibei or of the Meijin-Shodai.  This daisaiku/daimei phenomenon is culturally and temporally consistent with social evolutions in craft "factories" that emerged and grew after the dawn of the 17th century.  The huge quantity and relatively low(er) quality of these Low-Crossbar-signed daisaku/daimei works is in keeping with the kind of production we would expect to see out of a higher-volume/output "factory" context.  Since there are FAR more of these Low-Crossbar daisaku/daimei tsuba extant than all other Yamakichibei sword guards combined, we cannot logically locate their production time to the beginning of the Yamakichibei atelier.  The actual Low-Crossbar master's workmanship is much superior to what we see in even the best daisaku/daimei tsuba, but the Low-Crossbar smith's guards are notably distinct from either the Meijin-Shodai's or Yamasaka Kichibei's.  The difference between Low-Crossbar work and that of the Meijin-Shodai, in particular, is rather stark.  Low-Crossbar work is often more overtly dramatic and bold, featuring plate work (tsuchime and finishing) that is significantly more pronounced than the Meijin-Shodai's, whose plates are usually relatively quiet and reserved (for a Yamakichibei work, that is).  See images below.  The large mokko tsuba is a Low-Crossbar piece; the other two (with the long-eared rabbits or dragonflies motif, and then with the suhama motif, respectively) feature plates whose expression is more subdued, but still resonant with strength, of course.  

 

As for the actual Shodai, this would undoubtedly be Yamasaka Kichibei.  There can be no logical dissent here.  It simply would not be done -- and would not even be conceivable, culturally, really -- for a later Yamakichibei smith to be audacious enough to ADD another character to the already-established Yamakichibei art name, when that art name had been decided by a different (would-be founding) smith.  Moreover, the workmanship and design choices seen in Yamasaka works and then in works by the Meijin-Shodai show a clear and strong relationship between them, much more so than in any would-be relationship between Yamasaka and the Low-Crossbar master.  The frequent use of kuruma-sukashi designs, additionally, locates them as contemporaneous with the Nobuiye smiths and with Kawaguchi Hoan, as all four of these smiths -- working in Kiyosu in Owari Province -- would have been in "design dialogue" with one another, as, in keeping with Japanese traditions, craftsmen in the same field often lived in the same neighborhood.  Meanwhile, of the many Low-Crossbar pieces I've seen, there have been no kuruma-sukashi works, even by the daisaku/daimei workers.  Evidently, that vogue had passed by the time of the Low-Crossbar smith.  Even the Nidai Yamakichibei was scarcely making such kuruma-sukashi pieces:  I have seen only one such piece by him in all the time I've been focused on this group.  While none of the above may amount to "hard factual evidence," and may indeed be "only" a theory, I honestly do not see any other theory that does have merit.  The Low-Crossbar-smith-as-Shodai theory does not have any merit, in my view.  The evidence for it is so weak that it does not stand up to even the most casual scrutiny.  This said, it is clear, as I stated to begin with (and echoing you, Glen), that the Low-Crossbar smith is indeed a part of the early Yamakichibei atelier, and that works by him are not "gimei" as the Shinsa results would have it.  I am amused, actually, by the dynamic that explains why Low-Crossbar works may be papered (implicitly) as Shodai:  the work is so good that it simply cannot be fake, yet the signature differs radically from that of the Meijin-Shodai.  Rather than recognizing the obvious (the original understanding of the Yamakichibei group is wrong), they instead contrive the notion that the Meijin-Shodai changed his signature in all these different ways.  Such "understandings" do a great disservice to tsuba scholarship.  

 

Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei.  Mokkogata.  Bird-and-kama motif.

 

Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei.  Nagamarugata.  Long-eared rabbit or dragonfly motif.

Meijin-Shodai Yamakichibei.  Mutsu Mokkogata.  Suhama motif.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kissakai]

I think this is the one referred to earlier as failing shinsa

Any more to add?

 

 

 

 

[Steve Waszak]

Well, this piece is relatively bland, lacking the dynamism and sensitivity in aesthetic expression seen in genuine works.  It presents as rather stiff, and the mei details do not conform to those of any of the true early smiths.  So, this being gimei is a judgment I would agree with, and a determination that is easy to make.  It's not a bad tsuba as tsuba go; it's just not a genuine Yamakichibei work.  

[kissakai]

Good points - thanks

[Soshin]

On 2/25/2025 at 3:03 PM, GRC said:

And just a "quick note" to correct some misconceptions:

The "low crossbar" smith is not gimei as David stated.

I believe it was he or perhaps Curran who submitted one of the smaller Yamakichibei low crossbar "atelier works" for shinsa.

These smaller ones are typically signed with a low-crossbar mei, but lack the telltale signs that they were made by the "low crossbar" master smith himself. Hence being "lesser works" that were produced in greater numbers by unknown smiths who signed with a similar loss crossbar mei.

That lesser work that was submitted for shinsa came back as gimei and was posted on this forum at some point.   

 

 

@GRC I submitted two tsuba that @Steve Waszak sold and they both came back as gimei. I purchased them both from @Steve Waszak circa 2017. I don't think I ever posted them on NMB but they were listed as having failed NBTHK shinsa because of gimei on my website. I sold them in larger group of other tsuba a couple of years ago when I was reducing my collection after closing my Japanese art and antiques business. What you might be referring to be another Yamakichibei tsuba I had that I picked up from Bob Benson.

 

The 

On 2/27/2025 at 3:53 AM, kissakai said:

I think this is the one referred to earlier as failing shinsa

Any more to add?

 

@kissakai Grev UK.,

 

This one was once my tsuba. I remember buying it from Grey Doffin back in the day. Funny how it makes it way to the UK from the USA. I never got around to submitting it to any shinsa when I had it. Here is my photo from when I had it in my collection.

 

 

     

[Steve Waszak]

Hi David,

 

Not surprised that the two Yamakichibei works you acquired from me in 2017 would come back gimei if submitted to shinsa.  That is a predictable result, given the NBTHK's flawed perspective on Yamakichibei, as Glen and I have been referencing here.  These two would have been daisaku/daimei works -- still a part of the late-Yamakichibei atelier in the early Edo Period, but not made by the master Low-Crossbar smith himself.   Essentially, the Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei that have the best chance of passing shinsa will be pieces the master made himself, especially if these are larger works (as in the example I post above [which is unpapered, however, as I don't submit works to shinsa, for various reasons]).  Tsuba with the Low-Crossbar mei that are smaller -- 68-72mm -- and which are more rote in their designs and workmanship, will rarely pass shinsa.  Again, this is predictable (though the second example below, is an exception of sorts.  It is larger than most daisaku/daimei works).  Here is a link to a couple of Low-Crossbar Yamakichibei tsuba that have been papered.  The first is certainly a piece by the master, a very strong, large, expressive form, appearing in the fourth row of tsuba presented in the "Tsuba Sale" section of this website:

 

http://www.jp-sword.com/

 

This second one (see Row 8 of the Tsuba Sale section of the above website) is likely a daisaku/daimei piece.  Note the relative lack of dynamism and vitality in this tsuba when compared with the example above, and when compareed with the large mokko guard I posted an image of in an earlier post.  The difference in expressive power is notable.  This is the rare exception where what (I am confident) is a daisaku/daimei work does pass shinsa and is papered.  *While both of these examples here are described in the captions of the site on which they appear as "shodai" works, this, again, is in error.  Please refer to my earlier posts above on this point.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Soshin]

On 2/28/2025 at 6:15 PM, Steve Waszak said:

Not surprised that the two Yamakichibei works you acquired from me in 2017 would come back gimei if submitted to shinsa.  That is a predictable result, given the NBTHK's flawed perspective on Yamakichibei, as Glen and I have been referencing here.

 

@Steve Waszak I have transitioned from collecting Yamakichibei tsuba to exploring other groups and schools, specifically in the Owari, Yamashiro, and Higo Provinces. My interests have also expanded to include a variety of Japanese arts beyond the sword.