Saga Kaneiye or Saotome tsuba

Dear All,

I have recently acquired a nice tsuba. Made of iron, tsuchime-ji with kin-zogan details. Motif of cherry or plum tree, with dragonflies on the back side.

A friend and collector has suggested it might be in the style of Saga Kaneiye, but on second thought Saotome. I had the same impression with Saga Kaneiye, but I guess it might be Mito, as well. I wonder what your opinion is?

Size 88x82 mm

thickness: 3 mm

Attached are some pictures.

Thanks for looking

Maurisz, I do not think they are dragonflies on the rear of your tsuba but sasa (bamboo grass).

Ian Bottomley

Would think also Saga Kaneiye or one of the other later Kaneieye schools. The work just doesn't quite look Saotome IMHO. Nice tsuba whoever did it.

Rich S

Maurisz, I do not think they are dragonflies on the rear of your tsuba but sasa (bamboo grass).

Ian Bottomley

Ian,

thank you very much for this important point. It does look indeed like sasa, perhaps the golden drps are representing dew? It would be illogical to have dragonfly on this side. With the bamboo grass the design is coherent.

Would think also Saga Kaneiye or one of the other later Kaneieye schools. The work just doesn't quite look Saotome IMHO. Nice tsuba whoever did it.

Rich S

Richard,

thank you. I am happy that you like it. With your opinion I would consider this thread closed, unless someone else has good arguments in favour of a different arttribution.

Thank you and Ian for a opportunity to advance my modest knowledge.

Please pardon my spelling above of Kaneie - it's quite early here, need coffee. Also don't consider the thread closed - I'm FAR from any sort of expert on tsuba. See what others have to say.

Rich S

I would agree with Rich here: Saga Kaneiye or maybe later. There are a number of design elements that speak to this (sorry, I'm not seeing Saotome here), not the least of which is the Kaneiye-esque tsuchime in the plate. The shape of the tsuba, too, is suggestive of the Kaneiye aesthetic, I think. I'm always curious about tsuba which seem to be fairly clear "references" to a specific past (or even contemporary) master, but then which don't carry a mei, too. To "speak the aesthetic language" of a particular artist and then not "finish" the reference by including a mei is intriguing. I've heard various reasons offered for why this might be, but somehow, they don't quite satisfy my curiosity on this matter...

Cheers,

Steve Waszak

Great looking tsuba Mariuszk! I like everything but the big random hammer marks.

Steve, I have always wondered that mei thing myself. I know it has been talked about at length, but my guess is that this could be a student piece.

It has a little bit of everything in some ways. The nice, but simple carving, the tsuchime, and the basic inlay. I love that moon!

All the things that a student would be learning in most schools of the period. And that may be why it isn't signed. Or some experience tsubashi, didn't think it was good enough to put his name on. But that was a fair amount of time spent on something very nice (IMHO), to not put your name on it.

You do see a bunch with no mei though?????

Thanks for the post Mariuszk.

Mark G

Hi Mark,

Good conjecture on this being a student piece (and this being why it's not signed...). Maybe you're right, but I've seen a lot less accomplished pieces that this featuring a mei... Then, too, I've seen tsuba either ostensibly made by a shodai or nidai of some school/workshop, or even attributed to the shodai/nidai (in other words, accomplished enough to be thought to have been made by a real master), which nevertheless lack mei. One of the reasons I've heard most often for this occurrence is that, if the tsuba in question were commissioned by a high-ranking person, it would be presumptuous for the tsubako to sign the work. This makes some sense to me, though I'm not fully convinced that this is the reason for the lack of a mei in these cases. An intriguing sub-topic here, though... Thanks for responding, Mark... )

Cheers,

Steve Waszak