New to this site Hi

[Captain]

I have a tsuba which looks rather nice but maybe has a few problems with authenticity I was pointed in your direction from british blades forum so here goes what do people think?

Many thanks

Captain

[Lee Bray]

Hi Captain.

 

You know me from the other site and you know my opinion on this tsuba.

You may get more response here if you sign with your real name, as per the rules.

 

Good luck.

[Captain]

Thanks for your coments on both sites

And thank you for correcting me about signatures

Kind regards

David

[Brian]

David,

This doesn't strike me as genuine and old. I am no expert, but this looks case to me, possibly finished off afterwards with the mei added.

Perhaps it is amateur work, or just Chinese, but the shape of the ana are off, and the "stippling" affects are unconvincing.

I would call fake, although would welcome more comments from the tsuba guys.

 

Brian

[drbvac]

I agree with Brian - casting of a mould of the original - the ana are off and it almost looks like they made and impression of the sekigane on the top. These little fillers are added after and made usually of a soft metal like copper and are not normally made as "part" of the tsuba. Also looks a little too smooth - but then again maybe Doc Lis or Ford can really tell us !

[Ludolf Richter]

The Mei reads

Inshu ju Suruga saku

If the Tsuba is genuine,than it may be made by a member of the Haruta school at Tattori in the Inaba Province.According to certain authors the 3rd generation Haruta sometimes used that Mei without his real name (Takatsugu,died in 1788).Others believe that 3rd to 6th gen.may be possible.There are variations in the known "Suruga"-pieces:i.e. they were made by different persons!.It's not known why these Haruta artists either used their name or the above anonymous "Suruga".My personal opinion is those pieces were made by students.Ludolf

[docliss]

It is my impression that, possibly as a result of the excellent threads that have recently been posted on this noticeboard, the ‘pendulum has swung the other way’ and there is a tendency for members too readily to dismissively label posted examples as being cast copies. It is certainly wise, in the current market, to retain an index of suspicion when assessing tsuba, but perhaps the ‘innnocent until proved guilty’ maxim should be more frequently applied?

 

I agree with Brian that the sekigane do look a little suspicious, but would point out that if the ana are ‘off’, as suggested by two members, this is not an indication of casting, but would have been a feature of the original tsuba from which the matrix was taken.

 

This tsuba – is it of sentoku or bronze? – is a depiction of Gama Sennin and his attendant toad. The ura surface shows some evidence of previous mounting, and the kozuka-hitsu appears to be a later modification, impinging as it does upon a very acceptable mei. It is my opinion that this is an original work by one of the later members of the Suruga school. It is certainly later than the third generation master, who died in 1788, and might possibly be considered as evidence of later Suruga generations, for example Takayuki, who died in 1895.

 

John L.

[Brian]

I am still not 100% convinced John. I am probably wrong, and happy to be proved so. But I am still disturbed by a few things on this one.

The mei looks convincing, but there are still many aspects that make it look cast all in one. I wouldn't write it off..but it does need expert examination.

Here are rotated pics that make it easier to view.

 

Brian

[Ford Hallam]

It always very hard to be absolutely certain when judging only photos but there are quite few aspects that would lead me to believe it's a cast copy.

 

The silver and gold touches seem to be plated. There seems to be the trace of a line around the inside of the nakago ana that is most likely evidence of a wax model taken from a rubber 2 part mould. As has already been pointed out, the seki-gane look as though they are part of the plate and the same material. The texture of the ground is also constant with a finely cast brass alloy.

 

Just my take on it,

 

regards,

 

ford

[Soshin]

I would venture to agree with Ford and others that the tsuba in question is a modern cast copy with a fake signature added later after the casting process. Overall the theme and design of the tsuba is nice and I would consider mounting it on a iai-to for Budo training. For what its worth this is just my unofficial opinion as a collector of tosogu.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David S. (Soshin)

[Marius]

  docliss said:

 

I agree with Brian that the sekigane do look a little suspicious, but would point out that if the ana are ‘off’, as suggested by two members, this is not an indication of casting, but would have been a feature of the original tsuba from which the matrix was taken.

.

 

John,

 

the tsuba looks dull. Soft-metal is easy to work, compared to iron and the result is invariably crisp and detailed. This one, however, does look cast. It looks dull, that is why people are suspicious. Shall we make a compromise? It is a late Edo Kagamishi piece, hahahahaha

[docliss]

Thank you, Mariusz, I do seem to be outvoted on this one, but remain unconvinced by the opposing arguments. Most members claim that the quite convincing mei has been 'added later', but I am puzzled by the way the vertical stroke of the 'shu' kanji has been impinged upon by the zozuka hitsu - surely suggesting that this latter was a later modification in the tsuba's timescale?

 

Kind regards, John L.

[Captain]

This tsuba is fitted to a wakasashi which seems to be a chinese fake and shows signs of being modified to fit it this could explain this. As i am new here I have not posted blades here yet as I am a little confused with where to post my stuff I have 2 ww2 signed Katanas, a tanto which has some interest and a short katana or long wakasashi which has atracted interest on British blades Lee bray has been most helpfull.

David

[Ford Hallam]

Hi Dr John,

 

for what it's worth I don't think the mei was added later. I think it was taken from the original when the rubber mould was made.

 

Of course the original may have been gimei anyway so....

 

The fact that this is on a Chinese fake does not auger well

 

regards,

 

Ford

[Soten_Fan]

The first thing that came to my mind when I opened the post and saw the pics was "Poor guy, that's an obvious chinese cast".

 

However after reading everybody's posts, I have some doubts now...

 

But, it does look to me as a chinese fake. I have a few myself of the same type. A good indication is usually the thickness of the tsuba. The chinese ones are usually quite thick. For me, there are many signs that this is a cast, but the most obvious one is the sekigane. Normally an altered sekigane is done in order to fit the tsuba in a different blade. But in this case it looks like this "alteration" is part of the design which is obviously not normal.