Gimei Tsuba...

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

Here are scans of a tsuba I submitted for NBTHK shinsa in December 2011. It didn't pass (fugokaku) because of a gimei of Yamakichibei (山吉兵). I would love to hear other people's impressions of the tsuba. The workmanship of the Yakite shitate (焼手仕立) & Tsuchime-ji ( 槌目地) of the iron is nice and the rim show many very nice tekkotsu and therefore I was thinking it could be the work of Shodai Norisuke who worked in the late Edo Period in Owari. He was well known for producing good Yamakichibei copies. The tsuba does in my eyes look a bit older possibly as old a the Momoyama Period or early part of the Edo Period which would make it contemporaneity with the Shodai or Nidai Yamakichibei (山吉兵). Some have even questioned the validity of the long held view my the NBTHK and NTHK that there was only three generations of Yamakichibei (山吉兵) artists with the third generation working only in a Yagyu tsuba style. Thanks for taking the time to look and offer a comment or question about this topic and my tsuba. I will be discussing it with Bob Benson my broker who submitted the tsuba for me in December at the Tampa Show this weekend.

 

Size of the tsuba is a follows: 7.1 ✕ 6.5 ✕ 0.30 cm at rim

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Henry Wilson]

Hi David

 

Bad luck!! That tsuba belonged to me once. I am not surprised it did not paper. (Would I have sold it if I had thought it would!!). Here are my thoughts.

 

First of, I don't think it is gimei. Also it is a nice tsuba (much better than the scans) but definitely not what would be expected from a Yamakichibei master. If you ask me there are two kinds of tsuba. They are 工場作 and 自信作. I think the tsuba could be a real Yamakichibei but not a 自信作. In my opinion, with the Owari smiths who signed, Nobuie, Yamachibei etc there are lots of tsuba that are not gimei but not made by the hand of the master and possibly made in a workshop managed by the master. I have been hearing this thoery a lot recently from Japanese collectors and think it has some validity, especially with the tsuba posted, as it has all the characteristics of 1st generation Yamakichibei but lacks that certain special quality. As a hint, a true masterpeice stands out. You can tell it is special from a distance before you even pick it up.

 

I hope this helps.

[Steve Waszak]

Ah, David... I told you this tsuba would not paper when we spoke some time ago. It is most assuredly NOT by either the smith known as the "shodai" Yamakichibei, nor by the smith known as the "nidai" Yamakichibei. It IS, however, a legitimate Yamakichibei workshop piece from the Momoyama period, as Henry considers in his post. It is "gimei" only because the NBTHK are still stuck in their thinking that over the course of the entire Momoyama and early Edo periods, there were only two Yamakichibei tsubako working. What is vastly more likely is just what Henry describes: a Yamakichibei atelier, first in Kiyosu, then in Nagoya, overseen by a master tsubako, and employing a handful of very talented smiths who took direction from the master and who created some very good work. There are, in fact, a number of known pieces by this very same artist, pieces showing identifiable and consistent characteristics, including the particulars of the mei. I can think of at least four other examples off hand... Moreover, there were several other Momoyama period Yamakichibei atelier tsubako at work, pieces that are not mere utsushi of a later time. They exhibit certain characteristics effectively "marking" them as Momoyama, characteristics which do not show up in Edo period sensibilities, even in utsushi.

 

Your tsuba is not by either of the Norisuke, David. The mei alone is enough to know this, as your tsuba exhibits a mei, as I stated, which is observable in a number of other pieces by this tsubako. Additionally, however, the Norisuke tsubako did not "sign" their utsushi of Yamakichibei in this manner. They also tended to copy the work of the tsubako known as the "shodai" and the tsubako known as the "nidai."

 

Finally, just a small quibble with Henry's post, which otherwise I agree with pretty much entirely. Henry notes that your tsuba, David, "has all the characteristics of 1st generation Yamakichibei but lacks that certain special quality." I concur that this tsuba lacks that certain special quality, as Henry states, but I don't agree that it has all the characteristics of (the tsubako known as) 1st generation Yamakichibei. There are, in fact, significant differences in the tsuba made by these two artists. When one sees the works of the two in-hand, these differences become readily apparent, I think. Again, though, this does not make your tsuba, David, "gimei," unless one buys into the flimsy thinking that there were just the two early Yamakichibei tsubako.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Henry Wilson]

Hi Steve

 

yes, sorry "all" is a bit over the top. It was a slip of the finger / brain. Thank you for pointing that out.

[John A Stuart]

Where do you think this fits into the line considering those opinions? John

[Steve Waszak]

John,

 

19th-century utsushi. Quite possibly, if not probably, by one of the Norisuke, though I'd have to see it in-hand to have a better idea. It copies aspects of both "nidai" and "shodai" work, right down to the mei. Could you provide dimensions, John? What is this tsuba's thickness at the nakago-ana and at the mimi? Thanks for posting...

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Soshin]

Hi John,

 

I would agree with Steve on this analysis of your tsuba. Having a look at in hand would be preferred to confirm.

Both Steve and Henry W. have seen my tsuba in hand. I added the size of the tsuba to my original post. Thinness of the plate is remarkable with my tsuba. The thickness at the seppa-dai I remember estimating to be about 2.5 mm. Here is a photo of my tsuba that may look better then the scans. I can't wait to get the tsuba back from Japan as It is nice tsuba and there is always space in my collection for it.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[cabowen]

 

... It is "gimei" only because the NBTHK are still stuck in their thinking that over the course of the entire Momoyama and early Edo periods, there were only two Yamakichibei tsubako working. What is vastly more likely is just what Henry describes: a Yamakichibei atelier, first in Kiyosu, then in Nagoya, overseen by a master tsubako, and employing a handful of very talented smiths who took direction from the master and who created some very good work. ...

 

If this is the opinion of the NBTHK, then there are two possibilities: they have never considered the possibility (seems very unlikely) or they have considered the possibility and dismissed it for some reason (more likely). With the resources at their disposal, one would think they would have their reasons....Would be interesting to know what those might be...

[John A Stuart]

5.9cm x 6.7cm x 0.3cm I bought it as a copy. It has the shitateji, tekkotsu in the mimi, even on the ji. Someone went to a bit of trouble to simulate all the little things. John

 

Oh, there is only a very slight ridge on the mimi showing difference in thickness from the seppadai. So, really rim=seppa

[Marius]

5.9cm x 6.7cm x 0.3cm I bought it as a copy. It has the shitateji, tekkotsu in the mimi, even on the ji. Someone went to a bit of trouble to simulate all the little things. John

 

 

John,

 

as you say, it is a copy. I have seen the tsuba, Steve has not. It is hardly any of the two Norisuke. The difference is in the iron.

[John A Stuart]

Hi Mariusz, Of course, it was yours, and that is the point you bring up I was getting at. The iron is key and what appears to resonate with the tsuba of David. John

[christianmalterre]

this discussion is some abstrusing in mine eyes.

 

The one from David is definitely an fake(and additionally-an bad one-sorry to say this)-so that´s the reason it got refused(in all aspects),the next one is not much better-please do have an look for Tsuba from YKB when the first three who signed were in their´s prime-please do study the literature here.

Lamenting about metallurgical points(which but are not visible here in both)-will certainly not help here-there were plenty of Bishu-Tsubashi(as Steven already wrote) reproducing Tsuba(in "taste""vogue""stylism" from Momoyama/Keicho/Genwa...look at the Yagyu(Kwambun)-group(s)(quite best example here so to spread this impression into an next level)...Norisuke(+group)did equally jump on that vogue(partially with quite very intriguing professionality!)..

What?-to be honest,and asking to yoursself-do you expect?-there´s not much innovation seen in especially those latter Edo-Bishu groups...they did loose more than they gained....other schools did but grow to their´s prime!...

 

Christian

[Marius]

Christian,

 

for the sake of education, would you please give us some details? I mean, an obvious fake has some characteristics. I cannot discern the quality of the iron in David's tsuba, but surely there must be other things which give it away as a fake? BTW, fake, but what period? Revival fake or one of those strange Momoyama fakes Okimoto talks about?

 

:D

[christianmalterre]

??

Obviously it does seem-you do have to do further "objective"(s) into study!

LOL!

Come on Mariusz-you do know yoursself here!(certainly of course, -as me,i will not do that for you!-this...,of course(Laugh!)is up to you,to be an question to answer and evaluate for yoursself....)

(Not?)

 

Hearthly!

 

Christian

[Marius]

Chris,

 

you won't dodge this, sir I am just a beginner, a student. I always want to listen to the more advanced. Besides, if I knew for sure, I would tell it

[christianmalterre]

Shure you would!

(you "stole" me one i´d admire!!!!!!!)

LOL!

Christian

[Steve Waszak]

Gentlemen,

 

A few things...

 

For anyone who has the book Owari To Mikawa no Tanko, and the translation by Markus Sesko, there is the opportunity to read the author's (Okamoto Yasukazu[Kazuo]) rather long chapter on Yamakichibei tsuba. Okamoto was the head of the NBTHK Mikawa branch, and published this book in 1983. In the chapter on Yamakichibei, he offers a number of opinions on the "school," the "generations," and the quality/workmanship of the work of this group. Since Okamoto represents a high-standing member of the NBTHK, we might, naturally enough, suppose that he has access to individual pieces, as well as to information about the Yamakichibei tsubako that few of us do, and that the conclusions he draws (therefore?) are to be accepted without question. And yet, in reading and considering his opinion(s), I can find fault with quite of few of them. For anyone seriously interested in this question, I think it better if we correspond by email, as it would be too cumbersome to get into all the details of Okamoto's ideas/opinions and their weaknesses here. Just to provide a small illustration, however, one of Okamoto's points is that there were other "Yamakichibei" artists working "parallel" with the "real" Yamakichibei tsubako. He notes the extremely high quality of the metal in the work of these "parallel Yamakichibei," the excellent workmanship, the considerable difficulty in distinguishing them from "true" Yamakichibei tsubako work (for this, he relies on differences in the mei), and that these tsuba are contemporary work (made in the same period as those from the "real" Yamakichibei tsubako). Yet he nevertheless concludes that these outstanding iron guards are indeed not authentic works of Yamakichibei. He can't see what this really means: there was a Yamakichibei atelier in Momoyama times with several talented tsubako all making "Yamakichibei" tsuba and affixing their different respective "mei." They are not "fakes" or "forgeries," but legitimate, authentic tsuba produced out of the same atelier. But he is so invested in the old idea of a "shodai" and a "nidai" that he is not seeing what is right there in front of him. He takes for granted that there was a shodai with this mei, a nidai with that mei, and anything that varies from this is perforce a "forgery," "fake," or "copy." Given the existence of the tsuba he has described (excellent quality, exceedingly difficult to tell apart from "genuine," contemporary to the "real" Yamakichibei, etc...) one has to ask which is more likely: that there was only the shodai and nidai across decades of production, or that there was a workshop headed by one or two men over time and which employed a handful of talented artisans? The evidence of the tsuba themselves point emphatically to the latter.

 

Moving on...

 

There is a tendency, especially, perhaps, for many of us in the West, to look upon the word of the NBTHK as "final," as the "deciding voice" in determining the authenticity, authorship, quality, etc... of a given piece. I deliberately note Okamoto's standing as head of the Mikawa branch of the NBTHK in order to show that simple association with the NBTHK does not confer infallibility. In fact, the NBTHK is quite fallible (either that, or is being deliberately deceiving, which is even more disturbing) from time to time. Since we can never know when their fallibility may arise, this makes all of their judgments unreliable, unless we take the time and trouble to educate ourselves sufficiently to know how dependable a particular NBTHK judgment may be. Case in point: below please find a photo of a tsuba which was deemed by the NBTHK to be a "Saotome" work. It indeed was issued a paper specifying as much. Now, we must ask ourselves what is going on here. Either the NBTHK lacks the competence to identify this as a Yamakichibei tsuba (the "bei" ji is still visible on the omote) or at least as a "gimei" Yamakichibei (it is not "gimei," in fact, though; it is again a workshop piece from the Momoyama period), or for some reason is deliberately being deceitful in identifying it as "Saotome." This guard should register to even a casual observer as Yamakichibei in style, motif, and sugata, over and above the remnant "bei" ji to the left of the nakago-ana on the omote. It doesn't take much homework to see this. So how to explain the NBTHK's "decision" here? The fact is, there is no explanation, that is, none that would exculpate the NBTHK in terms of maintaining our confidence in their judgments. In my eyes, this is an unforgivable "error" on their part, and makes any paper they may issue, at least when it comes to tsuba, suspect to say the least. I often hear sentiments expressed in this forum to the effect that "the piece should be sent to shinsa; then we'll have our answer." Well, the "answer" in the above case was "Saotome," which is a patently false answer. The error, if it was an error, rather than deliberate, was egregious, and should be seen as a clear indication that believing the NBTHK will render unassailable judgments is sticking one's head in the sand.

 

Next, as I said, David's tsuba is, in fact, an authentic workshop piece of the Momoyama Yamakichibei atelier. It is not the atelier's, nor this artist's best work, but it is authentic. The most directly visible evidence is in the "bei" ji of the mei. This is rendered in a very distinctive manner by this particular tsubako, and it is consistently encountered in his work. Below I have posted two other examples of his work. Note the way the "bei" ji is rendered in each. The metalwork and aesthetic sensibility are consistent among these, too, but it is the "bei" ji which stands out immediately. I would argue, though, that these other two are of a higher level achievement and are in better condition than David's (sorry, David).

 

Finally, I have also posted a photo of a Norisuke tsuba done as an utsushi of a Nobuiye design. The tsuba is attributed via hakogaki by Dr. Torigoye to Norisuke. Since some on this thread have brought 19th-century utsushi/copies of Momoyama tsuba into the discussion, I thought I'd post this photo for reference.

 

Please excuse the length of this post, but what I present here, I think, needs to be said.

 

Cheers,

 

Steve

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

I have been busy at my day job (public health and other such important things ) so I am only replying now. Keep in mind that the reason for the failure was because of the mei in the eyes of the NBTHK hence the results.

"It didn't pass (fugokaku) because of gimei."

Steve's idea is possible and the most developed in terms of details, logical flow, and he does provide photographic evidence to support is claims. Because the tsuba while not in the best shape does appear to date from the Momoyama Period when viewed in hand. Not sure why Christian M. or Chris B. doesn't like the tsuba. The lack of details is interesting and a notable observation. I consider them both friends and this tsuba is not worth fighting over. My photographic skills are very poor and I am using a 6 year old digital camera. Of the people that that replyed to the thread Henry W. and Steve W. are the only ones who have seen the tsuba in hand and both have positive but balance impressions of the tsuba. Here is some better photos I have taken of it before sending it to Bob Benson for last year's NBTHK shinsa in December 2011. I cannot take more as the tsuba is still in Japan will be able for pick up after Feb. 13, 2012.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[cabowen]

I don't think anyone would claim that any organization is infallible but an error on a kantei sho, for me anyway, would not serve as sufficient grounds to begin to question established taxonomy. One needs to know something about how the shinsa is staffed and operated at the NBTHK before you can draw conclusions about the organization and their research skills.

 

Putting forth new theories and ideas based on the remaining tsuba themselves is a nice mental exercise though the fact that these theories can never be independently verified means they will probably never gain any traction unless there is additional evidence. Scholars and researchers in Japan have access to much more than just the tsuba. Calling into question the accepted theory in light of this fact is, perhaps, a bit naive....

 

Is there a reason why there could not have been an independent group working without the cooperation of the mainline masters making copies?

[Soshin]

Is there a reason why there could not have been an independent group working without the cooperation of the mainline masters making copies?

 

Hi Chris B.,

 

Good point. I have hypothesized in my mind of a small group of copycats operating in the Momoyama and early Edo Period making quality copies or tsuba in the "Yamakichibei style" of the famous Shodai and Nidai Yamakichibei of Owari and not at all being related to them. If this is the case then my tsuba should be fugokaku (no pass) and declared a gimei but of antiquity (i.e. Momoyama Period). These type of things did happen during the middle and late Edo Period Kinko schools. A good example of this off the top off the head is Kyo-Kinko group coping famous designs and styles of mainline Goto school based in Edo.

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Henry Wilson]

This interesting thread has turned into a real bore....... :? as I think we could be thinking about this too much.

 

The alternatives seem to be:

 

1. The　original tsuba posted by David was made by 1st (or 2nd) generation Yamakichibei

2. It was made by a workshop connected to the 1st (or 2nd) Yamakichibei

3. It was made by a group not connected to Yamakichibei who forged the signature of what looks like the 1st Yamakichibei.

 

It could have also been made 20 years ago by a man called Duke when he was living in Lapland I suppose. (No offense intended to anyone)

 

My point is who cares. At the end of the day it is what it is. Dare I say, why not look upon it as Zen art and try not to over analyse it?

 

Finally, many Thanks to Steve for taking the time to post great threads (as usual) with lovely pics as well.

[Steve Waszak]

Chris, David,

 

The problem with the whole idea of the "parallel but independent" group of artisans making copies without connection to the "real" Yamakichibei workshop is that there is no good reason I have ever seen stated and expounded upon that would sustain this viewpoint logically rather than the other. If Okamoto's words have weight, namely, that these "parallel" tsubako created works so exceedingly good that telling them from the work of the "real" Yamakichibei is as difficult as he suggests, why would the go-to conclusion be that it must be "parallel" artisans, rather than artisans of the actual atelier? This frankly makes no sense, unless one has information which none of the rest of us has.

 

As for the idea that such "new theories" as these will not gain traction without additional evidence, I would just ask where, exactly, the evidence is for there having been just the two masters of the Momoyama period? This is, of course, the popular, traditional understanding, but where, precisely, does it come from? Is there actual evidence for it? I have never seen even the slightest hint of an actual, documentable source for this notion... Given all that has been published about Yamakichibei tsuba in various publications (including several I have had translated), it is surprising, to put it mildly, that not a single word would be offered explaining and documenting the "historical truth" of there having been just the two Yamakichibei masters.

 

The point I was illustrating with the egregious error made by the NBTHK on the kanteisho in question had little to do with the "taxonomy" question, really. I presented this example in order to say not so much that the NBTHK are fallible (of course they are, being comprised of humans), but more to emphasize that those who place blind faith in the results of shinsa should not do so. And I will say it again: this was more than a simple "error." This was a harrowing blunder, indefensible, I don't care how the shinsa is staffed and operated. The kanteisho is the kanteisho is the kanteisho. There is no excuse for such a result.

 

Steve

[Steve Waszak]

For the record, incidentally, I would love to be proven wrong on the assertion that there were more than the two Yamakichibei masters working in the Momoyama Period. I don't really care if that is the actual case (I'm not especially invested in either outcome), I would just like to see the documented proof for this. And by documented proof, I mean some contemporary record (i.e. Momoyama Period record) specifying such. Short of this (i.e. some 19th-century dealer's notion of what was going on 400 years earlier), I'm not inclined to be persuaded that the more-than-two-tsubako idea is incorrect. And if there simply is no documented proof, then we're back where we started, working off of unsubstantiated assumptions on the part of traditional understandings.

 

Steve

[Soshin]

Hi Everyone,

 

When I get the tsuba back from Japan I will try to get better photographs of it from different angles. This might require me to get a new camera or ship it to Richard K. G. (don't remember if he uses his whole name on NMB) to photograph it. I really like this photographs and VR images of tsuba and other tosogu. I really like the design, texture and hardness of the iron on my tsuba. The tekkotsu along the rim are also great. The ko-sukashi reminds be of the negative outline of the tops of this bonsai tree's branches. I have the design in my notes as "katsu zu ko sukashi" (松図小透) with Udenuki ana (腕貫穴).

 

 

 

Yours truly,

David Stiles

[Henry Wilson]

松 is read matsu

[Ian]

Hello all

 

Another pair?

To get back on track!

[Marius]

Hello all

 

Another pair?

 

Ian,

 

 

have you got more picture of these?

[Ian]

Mariusz K

 

I can take some if you like, why do you ask?

[Marius]

Mariusz K

 

I can take some if you like, why do you ask?

 

Ian, I am a great YKB fan, I have three pieces from the same workshop that David's tsuba came from. Consequently I am also very interested in any YKB or derivative work. So your tsuba are interesting to me (and other participants in this thread, I presume). Comparison of several tsuba, one (in your case two) of which are only on pics is tricky, but a good picture helps. Of course, if you don't have any at hand, I would not ask you to spend your time taking new ones. Only if you feel like

 

PS: I find it a good exercise to take macro pics of my tsuba. Interesting details become visible...

[Ian]

Then here you go

 

All the best