Tsuba kantei & Nobuiye Theories

Here is a signed iron tsuba of mine that recently received papers. The dimensions are 6.4 cm x 6.0 cm, 0.4 cm at the rim and 0.25 cm at the nakago ana.

Please feel free to comment on it and have a guess at the maker. I will post my thoughts and a copy of the papers in a week or so. Enjoy!

Congrats!

Trade you for it.

Thanks Curran. Maybe some day!

Henry,

Thats only the second one out of the woodwork I've seen papered by a westerner.

Both were small examples. I'm looking forward to seeing the signature.

And don't take my offer lightly. I'm about to put 10 tsuba into Bonhams at the end of this month.

Several are heavy hitters, with two or three at this level. One above it.

As is usual, I don't care much which way cash flows as long as it is a fair deal.

Pretty little Omodaka. I hope you can share more photos later.

Looks good to me. Need to see the mei to be certain. Mimi bothers me a bit at the mokko intersects but will wait to see the full picture.

Here is a signed iron tsuba of mine that recently received papers. The dimensions are 6.4 cm x 6.0 cm, 0.4 cm at the rim and 0.25 cm at the nakago ana.

Please feel free to comment on it and have a guess at the maker. I will post my thoughts and a copy of the papers in a week or so. Enjoy!

Hi Henry,

Congratulations, I am thinking it says Nobuie (信家)! If so I be willing to trade all the tsuba on my website plus my first born child... well just kidding.

I still like my nanban style katchushi (Hizen Nobuie) tsuba on my website: http://dastiles1.wix.com/reflections-#!Composite-View/zoom/c211q/images6p and could not part ways with it. This is my honest opinion only.

Mimi bothers me a bit at the mokko intersects but will wait to see the full picture.

Please forgive my ignorance, but should it look a certain way? Sharper corners, perhaps? Not trying to be cheeky, just gently curious.

Kevin,

I wouldn't have understood Pete's comment until I read the Nobuiye book.

It is one of the topics in the book I'm still trying to decide how much weight I give it.

Given how extensive the author was in his experience and ownership, I will take it as 'True' for now.

As timing would have it, just packed the book away today for an impending move.

Henry's timing was Chaos Theory at work... pack the book in NYC, have a Nobuiye tsuba pop up for show in Japan that evening.

Anyway, I believe that is what Pete means. There are some diagrams on how it the author feels they should be and how forgeries or wanna-be's often get the curve and angles wrong. Akin to someone building modern pyramids (ex: I.M. Pei's one over the Louvre)... only getting the angles wrong.

And don't take my offer lightly. I'm about to put 10 tsuba into Bonhams at the end of this month.

Several are heavy hitters, with two or three at this level. One above it.

Curran,

I find this statement curious. Are you meaning to say one level above Nobuiye? In my book, this isn't possible, as Nobuiye is as good as it gets in tsuba. And very, very few match him/them (the two early masters). But perhaps this isn't what you meant?

Cheers,

Steve

All diamonds and all Nobuiye of the same desirability?

I did mean on a $ value level. Something highly desirable, highly valuable, and not in an area of interest to me.

Leave it at that.

Hi Everyone,

I have recently seen a few good photos of a Shodai Yamakichibei tsuba with NBTHK Tokubetsu Hozan papers by far it was the best pre Edo Period old iron tsuba I have seen. Herny's is a very fine second place regardless either tsuba is way outside of my league.

Thank you for the comments.

David, if you have time, why not write a brief outline to support your kantei call. I think some members would benefit from this.

Many thanks again for the interest shown so far.

Hi Henry,

Sorry for the rant on my last post. Here are my kantei points that make me think the tsuba is the work of either the Shodai or Nidai Nobuie.

1. The complex arabesque pattern mix with Omodaka done with shallow kebori (毛彫) carving on the plate surface. Very different then what you see on my nanban style katchushi tsuba which is kebori (毛彫) carving but is much deeper and technically superior on a plate that is just as thin. Notice also the light unidirectional filemarks along the leaves of the arabesque pattern. Something you also don't see on Nobuie tsuba but are encountered on some Shodai Yamakichibei tsuba.

2. The nicely turn up rim and the great difference in thickness between the turned up rim (4.0 mm) and the central nakago-ana area (2.5 mm). This is fairly common to many pre Edo Period Tosho and Katchushi tsuba. This is a critical kantei point as you don't see this even on the best Nobuie copies produced during the late Edo Period which have much thicker plate specifically near the nakago-ana.

3. The presence of fine tsuchimei-ji intermixed with ji-mon along the plate surface. I would suspect some iron bones tekkotsu (鐵骨) along the rim as well. I would expect to see them if you showed more photos of the rim at different angles and they would be of a granular type. This is in contrast to what is seen on my katchushi tsuba. Here is Ginza Choshuya photos that is display them nicely: http://www.finesword.co.jp/sale/kodougu/htm/1051_2000/1751_1800/1783/k1783.htm. I am referring to the bottom right photo on the web page.

4. The color of the iron patina is consistent with what I have seen of the Shodai and Nidai Nobuie. The first two photos are over exposed and color flushed out but the third photo is helpful in see the iron's real color.

I hope people find this write up helpful and I could be all wrong on this as I did fall asleep at Pete K. presentation at the Tampa show 2 years ago until he started telling some jokes. :lol:

Compares very well: http://www.shibuiswords.com/nobuie6.htm

I think it's obvious what the signature is going to say..now all that remains is which variation of the mei is going to appear

From Elliott's page:

According to Akiyama there are six different signatures:

1) Same as those Nobuiye signatures found on armor and helmets.

2) Harare mei (wide spaced signature).

3) Nikubuto mei (bold, broad characters).

4) Same as no. 3 with thinner strokes.

5) Same as no. 3 with hesitant chisel strokes to the mei.

6) Same as no. 3 with a dot between hito and kotoba (the two components of the character nobu).

The question is...does the NBTHK go along with this theory of 6 variations or ...?

Brian

well?

in mine eyes-it really gets delicate asking especially such questions

religion starts where science stops-especially in regard of the individual collector who calls "one of these Tsuba" his own...

Question still unanswered and "war politics" between various Japanese authorities in past and present is still:

Nobuie-independant?

Nobuie-influenced by Owari?

Nobuie-influenced by YKB?

Nobuie-influenced by Kaneie?

Nobuie-influenced by Myochin?

next is:

which of the Nobuie?

(as,to the list above-one could easily range one Nobuie Tsuba to)

(equally we shall not forget little charming Norisuke who left us many fascinating Tsuba )

Hmmh....

Christian

I believe that is what Pete means. There are some diagrams on how it the author feels they should be and how forgeries or wanna-be's often get the curve and angles wrong. Akin to someone building modern pyramids (ex: I.M. Pei's one over the Louvre)... only getting the angles wrong.

Cheers Curran, I figured it would be something like that.

Many thanks David for sharing your thoughts.

Compares very well: http://www.shibuiswords.com/nobuie6.htm

I am not sure I can agree with that... If we are thinking the same tsuba. The shape is the only characteristic that is slightly similar

Main tsuba on the page doesn't look like yours but a little further down the page there is one similar (top one in image below)

Regards,

Lance

Yes..that's the one I was refering to...not the top one

Brian

Thanks for the clarification Brian and Lance. I nearly want into shock. :D

It seems the thread has run its course. I will post my thoughts tomorrow.

Many thanks to all who participated, especially David Stiles who was game enough to write-up his ideas and make an educated guess at the maker. Below are my thoughts on the tsuba. I have done my best with the photographs and hope they are of interest and illustrate the points I am trying to make. The write-up is bit long but I feel such a tsuba and smith deserve the effort.

Not surprisingly, this tsuba is signed Nobuie 信家 and has papers from the NTHK (NPO).

Here it is in all its glory with lacquer and mother-of-pearl box, silk case and papers.

It is a small, iron tsuba, with a nade mokko gata 撫木爪形, sukinokoshi mimi 鋤残耳and a cross section described as sukisage no ita　鋤下げの板. There are carvings of various plants front and back, the easiest to identify is omodaka or shogun grass (sagittaria trifolia) with the characteristic three leaf arrowhead shape. On the front and back there is some foliage in the top left which might be seaweed. The motifs and signature are carved using a technique called giri-bori. Apparently giri means kick (I can’t find it in any dictionary thought) and this style of carving technique does not remove metal but displaces it, using a special shaped chisel. It is the kind of technique commonly used for signing blades. There is some tekkotsu on the plate surface and granular type on the rim, and there are some faint fold lines near the rim, too.

The surface of the tsuba is slightly concave on both sides, this effect is known as sukisage no ita 鋤下げの板, and the distribution of the metal from the nakago ana to the mimi is subtle, but very pleasing. The overall finish of the tsuba has a kind of yakite shitate which softens the carving, but the mei is confidently carved, not worn at all, and would appear to have been added after the surface treatment. The rim is quite low when compared to similar ones seen on other “katchushi” style tsuba, and the kozuka ana has a soft, round shape. The kogai ana is plugged with lead which is punched front and back and it has a nade 撫 shape too, just like the outline of the tsuba.

Pete Klein commented that the mokko rim bothered him at the intersection of the mokko lobes. Nobuie’s rims and how he manipulate them in the corners or joins of the mokko lobes is said to be a kantei point. Sources says, in particular Kastuya Toshikazu, that Nobuie was very competent at this tricky task however, he also states that his work was not always perfect because Nobuie was only human after all. Below is a picture composition of three Nobuie tsuba. Look carefully at the intersections of the lobes and how the rims taper around the area connecting the lobes. The left tsuba has perfect lobe-rim work, meaning the rim keeps a consistent and pleasing shape and thickness as it turns from lobe to lobe. My tsuba is in the centre, and the right tsuba has some lobe-rim turns (the top right anyway) that have lost their shape and are slightly flat. I think in comparison, my tsuba in the centre is not so bad and there is nothing really to worry about.

Brain Robinson mentioned signature type. From my research, Akiyama identified several Nobuie signatures and grouped them into two groups: Gamei 雅銘 (elegant), describing the writing style as gentle, slight and tasteful and found on the work of the 1st generation Nobuie. The other group is Chikara-mei 力銘 (powerful or mighty), and described as strong and bold, and are of the work of the 2nd generation. The variation of the signature styles for each generation with in the Gamei or Chikara-mei groups is believed to represent a change in signature style over the years of each tsuba smith’s career. See examples of these groups in the three tsuba picture composition above. By the way, I think that the Nobuie signature that is similar to the one found on kabuto has been discarded as not being “real” Nobuie tsuba smith work.

The signature of my tsuba is very bold and that of the 2nd generation who signed with futoji mei 太字銘 that falls into the Chikara-mei group. This dates it to around the Momoyama period as he is said to have worked the periods Tensho 1573- 1592, Bunroku 1592-1596, Keicho 1596-1615 and most of Genna 1615-1620 in the Kiyosu area of Owari, near present day Nagoya, after which he is said to have moved to Aki Province (modern day Hiroshima Province) around 1619. Compared to accredit mei, the mei on my tsuba looks authentic and verifies the workmanship as being that of the 2nd generation Nobuie.

It is wakizashi sized and when small Nobuie are compared with large ones, generally they appear to consist of completely different metals. In my opinion, small Nobuie seem to have a less refined metal, finished with a totally different patina. I have been able to compare in hand this tsuba with two other large Nobuie, one with a Gamei and the other with a Chikara signature, both papered, and I was surprised how similar they felt even though the size, metals and patina were quite different.

Here is an oshigata of another Nobuie tsuba and a commentary by Wakayama Homatsu that I feel has relevance. The extract is taken from the translation of “Nobuie Tanshu” by Nakamura Kakudayu and the oshigata is taken from “Nobuie Tanshu” by Nakamura Kakudayu. (Sorry about the picture)

“(No. 7) Figures are rarely found as a motif on Nobuie tsuba and most of the kebori depict floral patterns. Therefore such floral designs in combination with the superb iron quality gives an intimate and very warm feeling which gives pleasure to the viewer. The shogun gusa (将軍草 plant of the shogun) shown on this tsuba can be written with the characters 勝軍草 which literally means ‘plant of the winning army’, but anyway both terms refer to the omodaka (沢潟, Alismataceae). The omodaka is a perennial plant growing in watered paddies and swamps, and the name ‘omodaka’ (also written with the characters 面高) comes from the fact that the arrow-shaped leaves of the plant are rising high (高) from the surface (面) of the water. This tsuba measures 7.7 cm in height and 7.8 cm in width.”

The link below has examples of the plant used as a family mon:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Categ ... r_plantain

The tsuba comes in an old lacquer box in excellent condition, which is brown on the outside and red in the inside, and probably dates from the Meiji period or possibly earlier. It is inlaid with mother-of-pearl and has the kanji 壽 (kotobuki) which means happiness and longevity on the lid. It comes in an old silk bag with repeating 壽 embroider on it, that has been recently repaired. It is safe to assume that the box and silk bag are all original to each other and the box was custom made for the tsuba in question. This tsuba apparently came from an “old Bushi family” however the name of which I do not know.

All in all this is an excellent tsuba and a lovely, complete package. I was delighted and very fortunate to be able to acquire it, have it papered and present to you all. It will stay in my collection for many years to come and will be published in the 2013 Kokusai Tosogu Kai catalogue. Many thanks for reading.

Hi Henry W.,

Thank you for the wonderful write up. I found it very helpful and educational. I will look for the 2013 KTK catalogue when it comes out to see better photos of your tsuba.

There are carvings of various plants front and back, the easiest to identify is omodaka or shogun grass (sagittaria trifolia) with the characteristic three leaf arrowhead shape. On the back there is some foliage in the top left which might be seaweed. The motifs and signature are carved using a technique called giri-bori. Apparently giri means kick (I can’t find it in any dictionary thought) and this style of carving technique does not remove metal but displaces it, using a special shaped chisel. It is the kind of technique commonly used for signing blades.

This section I found very helpful specifically. I think I was sleeping at the presentation when Pete K. was trying explain this in Tampa in 2011. While my explanation of technically inferior kebori sounds good it wasn't at all accurate.

Well, I have just spent several hours reviewing my references and my suspicions at first glance of the mei were unaltered. I have a bad feeling and no confidence in the mei. There are several errors and omissions from what I can see. Perhaps a submission to the NBTHK as a back up? I do not claim to know everything about anything but as good as this piece looks the mei has some serious issues. Look closely at the cross comparison you posted and you can see them. The most obvious are the last strokes of Iye which cross over the vertical down stroke and intrude far into the left area where they should not in a Futoji mei example. There is also an issue with the height of the first radical of Nobu being too high and the construction of the box form to the lower right is not correct. In Iye there are also horizontal strokes absent in the left area and the construction of the main down stroke precludes a Hanare mei. (please forgive the description but I do not write Kanji so am unable to speak in the technical jargon). It looks to me like someone combined traits of both generations and then forgot a couple. Sorry.

PS: I would be more than happy to be wrong but it must come from an expert's expert. Mitsuru Ito san would be a good one to ask or Hagihara san. They are both advanced in this study.

The Iye nanori is the one that has the greatest difference in the way it is rendered. It does make you wonder in how many variations exist that are totally kosher. I am too ignorant to say one way or the other, but, am sure paying attention. John

I'm afraid I must concur with Pete. This mei combines elements of the hanare- and futoji-mei, as Pete indicates. In a futoji-mei, the last strokes of the "iye" ji (i.e. the ones that look like the letter "V" turned 90 degrees to the right) should not cross over the long, downward stroke of the ji; if there is any cross-over, it is slight. Further, the manner in which these last strokes (the "turned 'V'") is rendered is done with too much of a flourish, I think. As Pete observes, there are (at least two) missing horizontal strokes which should be present in the left-hand area of the "iye" ji. Their absence cannot be attributed to wear or yakite or such, since the mei is so crisp). I would also say that the size of the mei is too large (especially that of the "iye" ji), and the first two strokes of the "nobu" ji are suspect as well (as Pete states). On the box form of the "nobu" ji, I have seen some variation on this structure in several legit Nobuiye works, so I am less confident in saying it is problematic, but it very well may be...

I hate to have to agree with Pete here; I'd much rather share in the confidence of the NTHK in their attribution. However, I cannot. Really sorry, Henry. And I really hope I'm wrong, too. I would join Pete, too, in suggesting a submission to the NBTHK. Anyone who knows me knows that I have little faith in papers for tosogu in the first place, given the number of egregious errors I've seen made, but if the NBTHK agrees that the piece is authentic, I'll re-examine what (I think) I know... Even better would be Pete's suggestion regarding Ito-san or Hagihara-san. It's worth pursuing, I think...

Don't shoot the messenger(s)...

Steve

Many thanks for the responses. I am glad that the tsuba has been of interest. To be honest, I was expecting the response about the mei but I think the tsuba was worth showing anyway as I believe there is a lot to learn from it, regardless of whether the papers are wrong or not. Having the NBTHK look at it is something I might do in time, however I suspect that Pete and Steve are quite familiar with NBTHK shinsa and from what they say, I feel it might not be worth the bother or the money.

I am not familiar with either Ito or Hagihara San. If some one would be so kind as to contact me with more information concerning them, I would be most appreciative.

Many thanks again.

Going off the tsuba, I'd say authentic.

Going off the signature vs the recognized published ones, I have doubts.

But then over time I've also learned to doubt some of the texts, like Wakayama only showing the Shozui (aka. Masayuki) with the "right handle" stroke as being authentic.

I'm a few links behind Peter and Steve on ability to judge Nobuiye, so going quiet here. Am glad Pete spoke up.

And it is the NPO "NTHK".

Not the NTHK.

Though I've dealt with the NTHK more as a default due to the NYC club being joined at the hip with them, I try to remain Swiss neutral on the fight between them.

My very blunt Personal Feeling is that if the NTHK (not the NPO) papered it to Nobuiye, that would be even better than NBTHK papers- because I don't think the NTHK would stick its neck out and paper anything with a "very big" signature unless it was a knock-down balls on match for the reference books. In years past I have really respected some of the judges they have had, especially including Hagihara-san in 2004 and Igawa-san met in 2006; but think it would need be a dead ringer to pass a stateside NTHK shinsa.

While I respect the member’s opinions who are certain that the signature of my Nobuie is incorrect and that the NTHK (NPO) have got it wrong, I wonder what their opinion is on this composition. I am quite sure that minds will not be changed but I think the comparison is interesting and worth pointing out.

The sample I am using is an oshigata, however the quality seems to be quite good. There seems to be a few strokes missing from the 信 part of the mei, there is a < shape that is larger than in other Nobuie mei in the 家　kanji, overall the mei seems to be quite long and the 家　kanji of both tsuba have a striking resemblance.

I have a first hand experience with shinsa. A fantastic shakudo daisho signed "Soten", typical warrior style, was rejected by NBTHK and papered by NTHK (not NPO).

On which basis? Was it because it was shakudo? Why was it papered by an organization and rejected by the other?