runagmc Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 I think the distinction is a bit deeper than your conceptualization. It is a tsuba-like object when it was MADE solely as an art work, and not INTENDED to be used as a tsuba. It is a reproduction. So... if Ford makes a tsuba for me, which I tell him will be used as a paper weight :D , and he makes it using the same traditional materials and techniques used since antiquity... no different in any physical way from an antique tsuba... I then take that tsuba, that was made traditionally, but as a display piece... and, without making a single change to it, I mount it on a sword, where it performs as a tsuba. Was it not a tsuba all along? Chris, just so you know... I can do this indefinitely Ford, nice Musashi style tsuba (or should I say reproduction). Anyone should be proud to own it...
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 Why not, Simple, because tsuba are not swords. You are comparing two different things. One can now be made without any concern for functionality, but simply as art while the other is still made with functionality as a core requirement. You can divorce functionality from a tsuba but not from a sword....therefore, to me at least, they are different. Again, many argue that the last real samurai swords (and thus tsuba) were made in the Bakumatsu era. Others argue that the last real swords were made during WWII. Still others argue that modern swords continue to evidence life in the craft and point to the current shape of iai-to and blades meant for tamashigiri as another step in the evolutionary process. I have heard it all, and all the arguments for and against all of these viewpoints. Obviously there are many and differing opinions. It is a matter of opinion, not fact. I can't argue with the view that modern made swords, as well as tsuba, are reproductions based on the fact that they are no longer used by samurai. It is a valid argument. But ultimately you fall back on this; "Also, I wouldn't say it is up to the smith or artist to decide what it is they make as they can call it anything they want. The market decides." Which is nonsense and just a cop out. Since when did the market decide what was legitimate classical music, ballet or even literature? Money doesn't answer every question of culture. In this context money buys you choices...not intellectual property rights. "Market" meaning customers, the public. You can stand on the highest mountain and scream all you wish that modern made tsuba are not reproductions (though they may be art), but if the vast majority of people in the world see them as reproductions, then what does it matter what you call them? By the way, beautifully done work in the Musashi style....
cabowen Posted March 14, 2012 Report Posted March 14, 2012 So... if Ford makes a tsuba for me, which I tell him will be used as a paper weight :D , and he makes it using the same traditional materials and techniques used since antiquity... no different in any physical way from an antique tsuba... I then take that tsuba, that was made traditionally, but as a display piece... and, without making a single change to it, I mount it on a sword, where it performs as a tsuba. Was it not a tsuba all along? Let me ask you, if I make a 1861 Colt Navy pistol using the same techniques and materials as were used in 1861, no different in any physical way from an original 1861 Colt Navy pistol, and sell it to you as a reproduction for display, and you happen to use it, is it still a reproduction or is it now a real 1861 Colt Navy? Not art you say? Ok... Let me ask you, if you tell me you collect French Impressionist paintings, and I paint you a painting using the same materials and techniques used traditionally in 19th century France, in the exact same style, is it a French Impressionist painting or a reproduction done in the style of a French Impressionist?
Ford Hallam Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Posted March 14, 2012 One can now be made without any concern for functionality, but simply as art while the other is still made with functionality as a core requirement. You can divorce functionality from a tsuba but not from a sword.... But as I pointed out....I decided not to divorce functionality from that tsuba made in 'Musashi style' similarly it's perfectly possible for a smith to make a blade that doesn't take functionality as it primary concern. You admitted as much earlier when you said some swords were obviously not good swords. Just because something can be made in a 'less then ideal' way does not automatically imply it was. Your reference to style also seems to miss an important point. Apart from the obvious utsushi type pieces which of my tsuba are in a previously defined style? 'Tsuba' is not a style, it's a type of object....like a painting. You make a fundamental category error here. I have defined a personal style that didn't exist before so in that respect 'reproduction' is nonsense. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.Arthur Schopenhauer German philosopher (1788 - 1860)
Ford Hallam Posted March 14, 2012 Author Report Posted March 14, 2012 Let me ask you, if you tell me you collect French Impressionist paintings, and I paint you a painting using the same materials and techniques used traditionally in 19th century France, in the exact same style, is it a French Impressionist painting or a reproduction done in the style of a French Impressionist? It would be a reproduction if a copy of a pre-existing original or 'done in the style of' if a new composition. What you're asking here is like asking me what I would call a tsuba that I'd made if were to make a exact a copy of a Kinai tsuba (for example). I'd call it a reproduction...or an utsushi. It's a very different thing when an artist uses the same materials as an impressionist painter of the 19th cent and creates their own style of painting. In that case it's simply a painting. Your analogy is not relevant.
Jussi Ekholm Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Novices like myself learn a great deal from arguments like these, so thank you to both sides. I have only questions to add to this thread. How about tachi tsuba? As this was only slightly touched in page 2, sorry to bring this up again but tachi koshirae are my favorite and I would like to know more about them. Or are these usually bit too rare to draw any good conclusions (I fear it may be so)? Some of them seem to be very plain to novice eye, unfortunately I cannot say for sure the material in most cases. As the one example from 1200 is just listed to have copper fittings, to my understanding this means all metal parts of koshirae are of copper?
cabowen Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 But as I pointed out....I decided not to divorce functionality from that tsuba made in 'Musashi style' similarly it's perfectly possible for a smith to make a blade that doesn't take functionality as it primary concern. You admitted as much earlier when you said some swords were obviously not good swords. You can't divorce yourself from the period you work in...and the fact that tsuba are irrelevant as functional items today....Swords are on the bubble at best in many minds... All the smiths that I have spoken to have always placed functionality first. They may not have created a sword that is a good sword from a functional standpoint, but not for lack of trying...unless they were making a copy of a flashy Sukehiro in which case their primary objective was to make a copy....in which case it is a reproduction same as your utsushi. Your reference to style also seems to miss an important point. Apart from the obvious utsushi type pieces which of my tsuba are in a previously defined style? 'Tsuba' is not a style, it's a type of object....like a painting. You make a fundamental category error here. I have defined a personal style that didn't exist before so in that respect 'reproduction' is nonsense. It may be original art, but it is still a reproduction tsuba. Tsuba are an anachronism today. They are no longer needed. If you don't like the painting analogy, then how about the engraved 1861 Colt analogy? They are being made and people spend long hours creating original engraving on them. People still call them reproductions. People make all sorts of firearms in the old manner-Kentucky rifles, various matchlocks, flintlocks, etc. They can be fantastic, functioning works of art with all sorts of original adornment, but they are still called reproductions. In any case Ford, it is a matter of opinion. I respect your talents and craft, and your right to think differently than I do. Undoubtedly there are people on both sides of this fence. I do not mean to belittle your efforts in any way and can only hope that you continue. And I should mention that I do indeed own several "reproduction" tsuba....no soft metal though... I think I have said all there is to say from my side, perhaps three times over, so take the last word but count me done....
sanjuro Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Jussi. As the one example from 1200 is just listed to have copper fittings, to my understanding this means all metal parts of koshirae are of copper? I'm assuming you are referring to the kitsunegasaki sword........ The tsuba of this sword is nerigawa (Laquered leather) . The fittings are indeed copper but 'fittings' refers only to the kanagu.
kusunokimasahige Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 There is, if I read it correctly, a distinction made by Chris which is a historical one. Everything made after the Samurai era is a reproduction. This would mean that a soft metal tsuba made in the 1600's is a real tsuba, and a tsuba made in 1871, after the han became prefectures and the Daimyo of old became governors, is a reproduction. That is not even regarding functionality. Secondly, there seems to be a negative connotation to the word "reproduction" ie that people read it with the meaning of "fake" Now to be clear, in historic reconstruction as well as re-enactment (in my case Roman) we use reconstructed armor and weapons of the Roman era. Compared to the real armor and weapons still in existence from that era, our "stuff" is better, less flimsy and a Roman probably would have loved the protection it gives. It looks the same, is made of the same alloys and forged metal as the ancient alloys and forged metal but thicker in places. What we use are regarded 'Museum quality replica's' Let me show you an example. Left we have the original. A Roman type Weisenau helmet of the end of the first century AD. This helmet dates to the same period as the Imperial Gallic H, and is essentially the same design, but is made in the cupric alloy "orichalcum" (brass) instead of iron. on the right we have the modern made version, slightly thicker but made of the original alloy. The cheek pieces are iron, just like on the original : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... nau_01.jpg So this is a reproduction. It is not a fake, because apart from the thickness, it is the same type of helmet as the one which was found. So reproduction as a word is not always, or in my opinion definetely not, a word which carries a negative connotation. Would one hit both helmets with a sword or a club, the same damage would occur. KM
sanjuro Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 HJ. This calls to mind the story about grandfather's axe........ It's had four new hafts and three new heads but its still exactly the same axe that grandfather used, way back when........ :D
Brian Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Sure, they are guns, they function. Care to place your hand under a modern soft metal tsuba not meant for use and let someone have a whack at it? Does it function? Was it made to function? What is a modern made black powder Colt Navy or Remington Army called? A reproduction. What is a highly engraved modern Colt Navy called? A highly engraved reproduction. What are modern made, non-functioning copies of historical firearms called? Non-guns. Why should a modern, not made to function "tsuba" be any different? Call it a tsuba if you wish but I would never consider it anything but a modern reproduction. Chris, With all due respect, this is not the same thing. You are bringing the make into the argument here, not the item. Sure..a modern Colt 1851 is a copy. Of a Colt. However we are discussing the item here. Tsuba. Same as firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a firearm. It is a firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a tsuba. It is a tsuba. Something may be a reproduction of a Musashi tsuba, but that is bringing the name into it. I am of the opinion that kinko tsuba fullfill the purpose adequately. If protection was the only goal, then why are early tsuba so thin, and not 5mm thick? With a moving item like a sword, a soft metal tsuba would provide adequate protection from a glancing blow, and that is the primary purpose where the protective abilities of a tsuba are debated. They are not designed to take a full force blow while static. Otherwise tsuba would have evolved to trap and break an opponents blade. Anyways, hopefully everyone takes this as a debate around opinions and nothing too serious. We are all entitled to differing views. But I think it is almost time to wrap this one up now. Last call... Brian
Baka Gaijin Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Morning all Just an observation. If the swordsman relies upon defence or the thought of defence however slight, he will not attack fully..... Great thread BTW. Cheers
sanjuro Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Yeah..... and all that katchu hardware was made just for appearances, pigs fly and the cheque is in the mail. This is a quote out of context. It refers to the mental attitude of the warrior in a specific situation. ie, when he faces an enemy, not the presence or otherwise of defensive measures or the awareness that he may have to defend himself.
Ford Hallam Posted March 15, 2012 Author Report Posted March 15, 2012 Malcolm's observation is a valid one, imo. And puts in mind a discussion Bob (Morrisson) and I had recently. Bob suggested that by displaying a tsuba that indicated one was not concerned with defence or protection it could signal to your opponent one's superior attitude and confidence.... very important traits when entering into a fight. In that sort of scenario a lace-like Kyo-sukashi tsuba would serve it function perfectly well...that being NOT to be obviously defensive. As many a warrior 'guide book' advises, warriors should have no thought for preserving their lives. Ashigaru were obviously the bravest though...they went into battle with no trousers on! I've enjoyed this discussion and am relieved we've pretty much exhausted it...for now :lol: without any loss of blood or mud slinging. Thanks to Chris for providing a robust counter to my own ideas, this has helped me tremendously in terms of my own grasp of the issues. Thanks also to everyone else for your observations and contributions. Now I'd better get back to work...those 'tsuba-like' objects don's reproduce themselves you know :lol:
Baka Gaijin Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Good morning Keith, Please excuse the obliqueness of my post, my "quote" wasn't a quote, just me making an observation, hence the . I agree wholeheartedly with your comments regarding the purpose of katchu and particularly cheques in the post etc. However, some of the Ryuha including Jigen Ryu did adopt a one strike one kill approach to combat (at least in their Training ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigen-ry%C5%AB And here's a fun bit of spirited renshu extolling the nobility of failure: Cheers
sanjuro Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 It is unwise and bad manners to comment on the practices of either ones own Ryu or other Ryu. However, it seems to me that if the pole doesnt surrender after being hit 13000 times, as wikipedia suggests, one might be better advised to go find a less masochistic pole to pick on.
Eric H Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Well, I can only shed may head about all the spreaded rubbish in this thread. The primary question of this tread...with a few words and using common sense and with the insights of recognized experts (Japanese), a couple of words were enough to answer the question. It has been done...obviously without a visible effect. Wild theories, unproven facts and assumptions, partly contradictory by the same commentator, and hairsplitting statements were expressed. Please stay on the ground and accept what a Tsuba is...nothing else but a piece of metal designed since olden times as a protection for the sword wearers hand...and that the owner of the sword had free choice about the type of Tsuba he prefered to be mounted on his sword...surely based on his combat experience. Any discussion on „real“ and „unreal“ Tsuba as well as on „real“ and „unreal“ swords... and so on... are incomprehensible, nebulous and show a tube-kind of view. However, who wants to further exhaust the theme is free to do it. Just my opinion Eric
runagmc Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Chris,With all due respect, this is not the same thing. You are bringing the make into the argument here, not the item. Sure..a modern Colt 1851 is a copy. Of a Colt. However we are discussing the item here. Tsuba. Same as firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a firearm. It is a firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a tsuba. It is a tsuba. Something may be a reproduction of a Musashi tsuba, but that is bringing the name into it. Brian, this is exactly right, in my opinion. Thanks for saving me the time of having to make the counter-point myself. In the end, neither side budges... Oh well... :D
cabowen Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Same as firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a firearm. It is a firearm. It isn't a reproduction of a tsuba. It is a tsuba. Something may be a reproduction of a Musashi tsuba, but that is bringing the name into it. Check out this link: http://www.simpsonltd.com/index.php?cPath=156_183 The title of the category is "Modern Reproduction" which seems to include completely authentic and exact copies, as well as those made in the spirit of the original (stainless instead of non-stainless, modern style engraving, etc.).... Collectors make categories. Already we have iron tsuba, soft metal tsuba, sukashi tsuba, kinko tsuba, tosho tsuba, etc., etc. How about "Modern reproduction" then as another category of tsuba?
sanjuro Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Eric H I salute you . You must be the last of a dying breed. Those who believe in the simple maxim "A tsuba is just a tsuba, but a sword is a SWORD". Just kidding......... :lol:
Jean Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Chris abd Brian, You can equally be wrong both of you. 35 years ago, Colt Company decided to manufacture again the Navy 1851, using the 19th Century machines they had kept, these are not repro. The reasoning is biased as we are talking about machine made objects and not hand made. A tsuba is a tsuba, a painting is a painting, they may be "in the style of" but they are still what they are, whenever made .... An Utsushi of Musashi tsuba by Ford, is a tsuba (I have one) :D .
Brian Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Jean, that was my point exactly. A repro Colt is a copy of a Colt....it isn't a reproduction firearm. When made by Colt, it is a Colt model 1851. Btw...Colt uses/used mainly Uberti Italy sourced parts, but that is another story. How about "Modern reproduction" then as another category of tsuba? Nope. They are modern made tsuba. Why is that so hard to accept? Bayonets nowdays are only used for displays/parades. But the military still issues them, and they are bayonets. You don't do a bayonet charge anymore. A field knife could replace the modern bayonet in all cases. A tsuba that can be mounted is a tsuba. Even Chinese fake tsuba are actually fakes of Japanese tsuba. Not fakes of tsuba themselves since they can perform that task. Closing in 10....9.....8.....7..... Brian
Pete Klein Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 "Boil the water Make the tea Drink the tea": Sen no Rikyu Watch this: Contemplate
kusunokimasahige Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 In the Netherlands, the weapons law states. You can buy and own a matchlock or a musket if it was made before 1873. If you buy a newly made musket or matchlock rifle, you need a full gun permit. The difference is that the new weapon has a new barrel. You can fire both by the way, but the risk of the artifact of blowing itself up is significant. That is the difference between original and replica in my country. Swords you can freely own, as long as you do not walk the streets with them in plain sight (so ready for use), use them in anger or a threatening way. Tsuba you also can own without a problem, though if I would buy a magazine or stock of a firearm it is a part of a gun and I cant own it. What this has to do with the discussion ? Not that much, only that replica/reproduction/newly made and original in Law can mean two different things.... KM
Jean Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 In the Netherlands, the weapons law states. You can buy and own a matchlock or a musket if it was made before 1873. H-J, Do you know why?
kusunokimasahige Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 Jean, There are many vague statements in our weapons law concerning firearms as well as swords..... Apparently with guns it has to do with the difference in powder to propel the bullet, the caliber and the muzzle velocity. Blackpowder is not a problem. You can have 1kg of blackpowder in your house. You even can use an old bullet tang to cast your own lead bullets. The .22 calibre is forbidden, though a hunting gun with shotgun shells you need a special hunting license for. So it partly has to do with munitions which are current. Smokeless powder (Nitro) you can have in small quantities. Funny enough that is stated in the environmental laws. penfire, rimfire as well as percussion cap guns, ammo and cartridges can be freely owned. So basically if the gun is from either before 1870/73 or before the 1st of January 1945, you can own it. The ammunition has to be not currently available, so for instance 7.62 NATO is not allowed, nor 9mm parabellum. 7.92 Kürz, for the Stg-44 you can have. However, since the Stg-44 is an automatic gun, and those as well as machine guns are forbidden to own without a permit/full stop, that would be useless. So basically what are exempt are guns which shoot single bullets as long as they are before 1870/3 or jan.1945 But with the later rifles like the German Kar98 or even the British Lee enfield you are not allowed to have them since the muzzle velocity is too high. Same goes for pistols and revolvers. Arrowheads (two sided cutting variant as well as hunting arrows) are forbidden [but yanone you can own as long as they are not mounted on an arrow] The reason is that "ancient" arrowheads are in a different class. So if the weapon has the character of an antique (whatever that means), you can own it freely, but not use it freely. (for instance in your garden). Swords you can own in all shapes and forms. Antique Nihonto, Gendaito and shinken can also be freely owned. as long as you dont carry them in the street openly....... However, the law also states that knives which have two cutting edges from a certain length are illegal, as are butterfly knives and stiletto's. Star shaped shuriken are also not allowed. Also, nunchakus are not allowed unless they are made of soft rubber. But you can own a pair of Sai as well as bokken, Jutte, chinese tai chi swords, halberds and what have you in the martial arts corner.... Kusarigama I dont know about. For re-enactment there are other laws as well..... It is a maze really. Re-enactors with a gun license can own blank-firing historic weapons and even inert grenades etcetera. The guns can be owned with a permit as long as they are unable to fire bullets. (they need to have a pin welded inside the barrel). However, if you get a firing gun you need a different license since then you need to be a member of a shooting club. Also these guns are not allowed on re-enactment displays. There have happened some accidents with muzzle loaders in Napoleonic re-enactment because some people forgot to remove their ramrod.... Ah yes, smooth bore is better than rifled barrels..... And dont get me started on importing weapons......... that is even stranger. KM And what me off even more is that most of the law enforcement staff like cops and detectives do not even know at all what the rules are in our weapons law... So often it is up to the whim of the officer whether or not they impound things or not, fine you or not or even search your premises for weapons. (which you regularly get handed back after the judges rule that the police were wrong)
cabowen Posted March 15, 2012 Report Posted March 15, 2012 I know about the Colt 3rd generation black power series- I own a half dozen or so of them... Looking at any modern made archaic weaponry, be it firearms, armor, swords, etc., no matter how faithful to the original, or how original the craftsmanship, no matter the artistry, it is always called a reproduction. People here routinely call all the "Japanese swords" coming out of China and elsewhere reproductions. Why? We have already heard the opinion that you needn't be Japanese to make Japanese swords. Quality isn't a consideration as there have been plenty of awful Japanese swords made in Japan. Having artistic merit or not can not be a factor as this is opinion. Again, the fact that we are even debating this issue is enough to prove that modern made items are not looked at as the same as those made when they were of practical use and part of the everyday life. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Recommended Posts