Meito Kansho: Appreciation of Important Swords
Juyo Bunkazai
Type: Katana
Orikaeshi mei: Bishu Osafune Kagemitsu
Accompanied by an origami by Honami Ko-on
from Shoo 2 nen (1653)
Length: 2 shaku 5 sun 3 bu 8 rin (76.9 cm)
Sori: 8 bu 4 rin (2.55 cm)
Motohaba: 9 bu 2 rin (2.8 cm)
Sakihaba: 6 bu 9 rin (2. 1 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu 3 rin (0.7 cm)
Sakikasane: 1bu 6 rin (0.5 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 7 rin (3.25 cm)
Nakago length: 6 sun 4 bu (19.4 cm)
Nakago sori: 5 rin (0.15 cm)
Commentary
This is a shinogi tsukuri sword with an ihorimune. The difference in the widths at the moto and saki almost do not stand out. The blade is thick and there is a koshizori in spite of it being suriage. The tip has sori and there is a chu-kissaki. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada, and the entire jigane is well forged. On the ura, the hada is mixed with some itame hada. There are ji-nie, fine chikei and dark jifu style clear midare utsuri. The entire hamon is wide. The omote is based on suguha with a slight notare style. At the koshimoto, there are ko-choji elements, and there are square shaped gunome, gunome, and ko-gunome. There is a suguha style mixed with ko-notare and ko-gunome on the ura, and around the monouchi the hamon is suguha. Other elements seen are ko-choji mixed with ko-gunome, and square shaped features and gunome. There are ashi, yo, and a bright and clear tight nioiguchi. The boshi is straight, the omote has a komaru, and the ura point is round with a return. The horimono on the omote and ura are bo-hi with maru-dome. The nakago is suriage and the tip is kiri. The old and new yasurime are katte sagari. There are three mekugi ana and an orikaeshi Mei, and two ana are close. On the omote, slightly under the second (original) mekugi ana, and along the mune side there is a long signature.
Kagemitsu was the third generation Osafune main stream smith. His father Nagamitsu established the school’s foundation, and Kagemitsu is known as a master smith. He has many existing works made following Nagamitsu, and there are three Kokuho, fifteen Juyo Bunkazai, eighteen Juyo Bijutsuhin, ten Tokubetsu Juyo swords, and there are more than eighty Juyo Token signed works, and his high level of skill is demonstrated from the large number of his swords. His confirmed dated works are from Kagen 4 (1306) to Kenmu 3 (1336, a Mitsunaga daimei) and cover thirty years. After the Showa (1312-16) period, the number of his dated works increases, and among them there are not only Chikakage daimei, but also daisaku work. His signed works started with tachi, and some ken and naginata. With changes in fighting styles, there was a growing demand for tanto which were very rare among his father Nagamitsu’s work, and as a tanto master smith, he is very highly evaluated, and listed along with smiths such as Awataguchi Yoshimitsu, Rai Kunitoshi, and Shintogo Kunimitsu. His styles reflect the end of the Kamakura period, his tachi shapes mostly have a standard width, or are slightly narrow, and sometimes are thick. His tanto range from small to large sizes. Also, as is traditionally pointed out, his refined and precise ko-itame hada forging is a major characteristic point. His refined jigane have a high reputation, almost surpassing Nagamitsu’s, and his utsuri are midare utsuri and straight utsuri. He made kataochi gunome hamon on tanto, ahead of Nagamitsu and Hatakeyama Moriie, and he is noted for his kataochi gunome hamon and strongly influenced following smiths. His kataochi gunome style hamon are mainly on tanto. Many of his masterpiece tachi are ko-gunome mixed with kaku-gunome, kataochi gunome, and ko-choji, and someplace, the midare hamon is a saka-ashi hamon, and the vertical variations in the hamon’s width are suppressed, and sometimes a suguha style. Compared with Nagamitsu, his style is more gentle, and less active, but shows a rich variety. His boshi are straight up to the tip, and called a “sansaku boshi”, and this is supposed to be one of his important characteristic points. However, we can say that the kataochi gunome and kaku gunome styles are evidence of the fact that smiths started to control their hamon style more than before. It is an innovative idea that a smith can express individuality, and we can say it opened up many possibilities in Japanese sword making techniques.
Although this blade is suriage, it is over 2 shaku 5 sun long, and the original length is thought to have been over 3 shaku with a majestic appearance. This reflects the appearance of swords made in the past. Looking at the sword today, it is wide, and the difference in widths at the moto and saki almost does not stand out. There is a koshi sori, it is thick, and in some place, the hamon’s width covers over half of the ji’s area. It is remarkable healthy, and from the tip of the bo-hi which touches the ko-shinogi, you can imagine that originally the boshi yakiba was wider. The jigane clearly displays his characteristic work, there is a very tight ko-itame hada with no rough areas, and clear midare utsuri. This work demonstrates very clearly Kagemitsu’s place among the Osafune mainstream smiths. Because of the healthy hamon, the entire nioiguchi is tight, bright and clear. It is based on suguha, and besides the saka-ashi style in one area, saka-ashi are not seen more than usual. The midare hamon and suguha areas have pale stripe-like nijuba, similar in style to what is seen on the “Kohama Kagemitsu” which is Juyo Bunkazai, and this shows the elegance and details present in this masterpiece.
Usually Kagemitsu’s tachi signatures are “Bishu (or sometimes Bizen) koku, Osafune ju Kagemitsu.” Signatures without the ju kanji, like we see on this katana, are only seen on three swords besides this one, so there is a small number of examples.
This was classified as Juyo Bunkazai in Showa 39 (1964). Before this period, in Showa 17 (1942) it was classified as Juyo Bijutsuhin, and the owner’s name was Mr. Mori Eiichi. In Showa 23 (1948), when the NBTHK was being established, Mr. Mori worked with the examination of swords, and he become the first Kamakura NBTHK branch manager, and later also became the Kanagawa prefecture cultural assets director, and in Showa 33 (1958) he directed the Amihiro mansion excavation and study.
In addition, from the prewar to the postwar period, at the Kamakura Kokuho Museum (opened in Showa 3 or 1928), he become main organizer of the “Meito Exhibit”. After the war, when there was a confusing period about the status of Japanese swords, he was known in the sword world as a key person who protected Japanese swords as artworks.
This katana will be exhibited at the NBTHK Museum in an exhibit titled “The Japanese sword, an Expression of Beauty and the Satsuma Goldsmiths’ Art” from May 24 -July 21, 2025.
Explanation and oshigata by Ishi Akira.
Shijo Kantei To No. 820
The deadline to submit answers for the issue No. 820 Shijo Kantei To is June 5, 2025. Each person may submit one vote. Submissions should contain your name and address and be sent to the NBTHK Shijo Kantei. You can use the Shijo Kantei card which is attached in this magazine. Votes postmarked on or before June 5, 2025 will be accepted. If there are sword smiths with the same name in different schools, please write the school or prefecture, and if the sword smith was active for more than one generation, please indicate a specific generation.
You can also submit votes online to: https//www.touken.or.jp/shijokanteinyusatsu.html
We will accept votes every month from the 10th at 10:00 am to the 5th of the following month at 23:59 pm. If there are sword smiths with the same name in different schools, please write the school or prefecture, and if the sword smith was active for more than one generation, please indicate a specific generation.
Information
Type: Katana
Length: slightly over 2 shaku 3 sun (69.8 cm)
Sori: slightly over 5 bu (1.55 cm)
Motohaba: slightly less than 1 sun 1 bu (3.25 cm)
Sakihaba: slightly over 9 bu (2.8 cm)
Motokasane: slightly over 2 bu (0.65 cm)
Sakikasane: slightly less 2 bu (0.5 cm)
Kissaki length: slightly over 2 sun 1 bu (6.4 cm)
Nakago length: 6 sun 4.5 bu (19.5 cm)
Nakago sori: slight
This is a shinogi tsukuri katana with a mitsumune. It is wide, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out. There is a standard thickness, and a shallow sori with a large kissaki. The jigane has itame hada slightly mixed with mokume hada. The hada is visible and is a unique hada. There are ji-nie, and chikei. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the oshigata. There are prominent wide and narrow, and dark and pale variations in the nioiguchi. It is nie deki, and there are some areas with strong nie which form mura nie (clumps of nie). There are yubashiri, sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi. The horimono on the omote and ura are futasuji-hi carved through the nakago. The nakago is almost ubu, the nakago mune is round, the tip is a narrow ha-agari-kurijiri, the yasurime are a large suji-chigai. There is one mekugi ana. On the omote, under the mekugi ana along the mune side there is a large size two kanji signature.
Usually, many of this smith’s work have a worn down nioiguchi.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Take Tora Zu (bamboo and tiger design)
soroi (complete) kanagu
Tsuba Mei: Oda Naotaka hori kore
Kozuka and kogai are mumei: maker is Naotaka
The Oda school is one of the two big Satsuma gold smith schools, along with the Shishiki school. The founder was Oda Naotaka, and the school produced a great number of master smiths such as Naotaka, Naomasu, and Naokata. This artist Naotaka, is the school’s second generation, and while he inherited his father’s strong and dynamic styles, his characteristic styles are more elaborate and finely detailed.
The subject, Take-Tora or bamboo and tiger, was a favorite of the Satsuma samurai and their favorite designs used clouds with dragons, dragons and tigers, and nata beans. In talking about Satsuma tsuba, mainstream work used an iron ground, but this work has a jet black shakudo ground with nanako which is rare for Satsuma work. Moreover, in contrast with the black ground, the subject is in bright gold iroe, appearing to float up in a mysterious bamboo forest. The tiger is hiding, and he is trying to bite off pieces of bamboo, and his strength is expressed beautifully. The early modern art world representative Satsuma artist, Kimura Tangen left us the famous expression “Migot tangen” (a great work) which praised any kind of excellent art work, and this word expresses the lively feeling seen in animal images made by Kimura Tangen. We feel that this tsuba is a meticulous work which fully demonstrates Naotaka’s high level of skill.
In the exhibit “The Japanese sword, an Expression of Beauty and the Satsuma Goldsmith’s Art” from May 24 to July 21, 2025, we will exhibit many Satsuma gold smith masterpieces including this one, along with Kimura Tangen kakejiku (scrolls). Please examine and enjoy Kimura Tangen’s world and “Migot Tangen”.
Explanation by Arakawa Fumito
April Teirei Kansho Kai
Date: April 11 (Second Saturday of April)
Place: Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Arakawa Fumito
Kantei To No. 1: Tachi
Mumei: Unji
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 4 sun 5 bu
Sori: 9.5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume and nagare hada; the hada is visible; there are frequent fine ji-nie, chikei, and jifu utsuri.
Hamon: based on a wide suguha; some parts are mixed with a gunome-choji style hamon; there are angular shaped features, and in the suguha hamon, there are some in-no-togariba. There are ashi, saka-ashi, yo, ko-nie deki, kinsuji, sunagashi, and a slightly worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: straight; the tip is round and there is a short return.
There is a standard width, and at the habaki moto, the funbari is gone, and you can recognize that the blade is suriage. There is a large wa-sori with a chu-kissaki, and from this, you can judge this as work from around the latter half of the Kamakura period. In this period, candidate smiths who especially often used a wa-zori sori are possibly from the Yamashiro Rai school and the Bizen Unrui.
Looking at the jigane, which is itame mixed with mokume and nagare hada, the hada is visible, and around the shinogi line, dark areas stand out, and there are jifu utsuri. In the hamon, some places are mixed with gunome, choji, and angular shaped features, and some parts are suguha, and there are elements called “in-no- togariba”. These are places in the midare hamon that have what looks like a wedge or spike going into the hamon, and are called “in-no-togariba”. There are prominent saka-ashi and yo, and the upper half has a gentle look compared to the bottom half.
In voting, considering these elements, many people voted for Unji, Unjo, and Unju. To point out the three smith’s differences, Unjo is from a slightly older period compared with Unji, his work has a narrow shape, slightly gentle hataraki, and a relatively low width hamon. On the other hand, Unju’s active period was around Bunwa, Joji, Oan (1352-74) and later than Unji, and his shapes are wide with a long kissaki, and are a Nanbokucho period shape.
Besides the correct answer, some people voted for Rai school smiths such as Rai Kunitoshi, Rai Kunimitsu, Aoe, and Motoshige. As I explained above, the shape is understandable if you are looking at the Rai school. But if it were Rai work, the utsuri would be nie utsuri, there would be muneyaki, the boshi would be komaru and have a return, and these are characteristic points. If it were Aoe work, the jigane would show dark sumihada, the utsuri would be suji utsuri and there would be dan utsuri. If it were Motoshige’s work, many of his hamon are mixed with more extended angular features, and the jigane is mixed with masame hada.
Kantei To No. 2: Wakizashi
Mei: Chikushu Fukuoka ju Koretsugu
Kanbun 3 nen (1663) 8 gatsu hi
length: slightly over 1 shaku 5 sun
Sori: 4 bu
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; at the koshimoto there is nagare and masame hada; there are frequent ji-nie, chikei, and clear midare utsuri.
Hamon: choji mixed with ko-choji, ko-gunome, and angular shaped features. There are frequent ashi, and some yo. There is a nioiguchi with ko-nie, and some tobiyaki.
Boshi: midarekomi; on the omote the point is round; on the ura, the point is sharp; both sides have a short return.
There is a choji midare hamon, the jigane has clear midare utsuri, and at first glance, this reminds one of an Ichimonji school jiba (jigane and hamon). But at the habaki moto there is funbari and a tight nioiguchi, and from details we wish to think about this as being later Shinshinto work instead Ichimonji work. Smiths who were good at this kind of work were from the Ishido school.
Moreover, looking at the details, notably, the bottom half’s jigane has prominent masame hada, and from this, for candidate smiths, we can think about Ishido school smiths and Musashi Daijo Korekazu and his students Fukuoka Ishido Koretsugu and Moritsugu. Also, the hamon has slightly small ko-choji and some saka ashi; there is a section where the hamon is so wide, it almost reaches the shinogi; and the so-called “squid head” tops of the choji become sharp. All of these details form a unique hamon. In addition, the boshi is midarekomi, and from these details you can judge this as being Fukuoka Ishido school work. Also, Koretsugu and Moritsugu’s work similar, and both names are treated as correct answers.
The other Ishido school smiths which many people voted for were Edo Ishido’s Mitsuhira and Tsunemitsu, and Osaka Ishido’s Tatara Nagayuki. In the case of Mitsuhira, his choji hamon are mixed with large choji, and wide and narrow hamon areas which stand out compared to this sword, and he has many midare hamon. In the case of Tsunemitsu, he has small hamon just like this one, but in both smith’s work, the masame hada does not stand out. In the case of Tatara Nagayuki, his work is different from this one, and the entire hamon is high, and the inside of the midare hamon is mixed with Sue-Bizen style double gunome and open bottom hamon valleys. Also, there is a trend to have a more dense nioiguchi, and the boshi has a more pronounced midarekomi pattern than this sword’s. There is also a sharp tip in the boshi and a long return.
Kantei To 3: Tachi
Mei: Bishu Osafune ju Chikakage
Length: 2 shaku 4 sun
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame with some mokume and nagare hada; some parts of the hada are visible; there are frequent ji-nie, and clear midare utsuri.
Hamon: based on chu-suguha; mixed with gunome, ko-gunome, angular shapes, and some saka-ashi; there are frequent ashi and saka-ashi, a slightly dense nioiguchi, ko-nie, and fine kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: on the omote, the boshi is straight; the ura is a shallow notarekomi. Both sides have a komaru and return.
This tachi’s widths at the moto and saki are different, it is slightly thick, the funbari is gone, and there is a shallow sori with a koshizori. From the shape, we wish to judge this as a suriage tachi from the latter half to the end of the Kamakura period. The forging is itame mixed with mokume, some parts of the hada are visible, and there is clear midare utsuri, and from this, you can judge this as Bizen work. In addition, the hamon is based on suguha mixed with gunome and angular shaped features. There is a slightly wide nioguchi with frequent ko-nie, ashi, saka-ashi, and the jiba shows characteristics from the latter half to the end of the Kamakura period. In voting, people should have recognized these characteristic points, and many of them voted for Kagemitsu and Chikakage.
According to common thoughts, Chikakage was supposed to be Nagamitsu’s student, and from his work he shows characteristics from the end of the Kamakura period in Showa (1312-16) to the early Nanbokucho period in Joji (1362-67), and is almost the same generation as Kagemitsu.
His styles are similar to Kagemitsu’s work, but his workmanship is supposed to be one step behind Kagemitsu. Notably, compared to Kagemitsu’s very tight refined jigane, many his jigane have a visible hada, and the tachi’s jigane contains mokume and nagare hada, and in some places, we can see visible hada. Also, his hamon are the same as Kagemitsu’s and mixed with saka-ashi. Furthermore, there is more nie than in Kagemitsu’s work, and you can see these characteristic points in this tachi.
Besides the proper answer, a relatively large number of people voted for Motoshige. Motoshige’s forging sometimes has unrefined visible hada, the same as Chikakage, and his hamon are mainly gunome with some saka-ashi. Many of his jigane have masame hada, his hamon are slightly wide, there are prominent wide top iregular elements, and many of his boshi have a sharp tip.
This tachi is listed in the “Tokugawa Jikki” (diary) on Kyoho 10 (1725), on the 28th day, and says that when Makino Sado-no-kami Hidenari was assigned as a resident official in Kyoto, he was gifted this tachi from Tokugawa Yoshimune. From then on it was handed down in the Makino family.
The nakago is shown in the oshigata at 97% of the actual size.
Kantei To No. 4: Katana
Mei: Inoue Shinkai
Enpo 3 nen (1675) 8 gatsu hi with Kiku mon
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun 5 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are abundant dense ji-nie, fine chikei, and a bright and clear surface color.
Hamon: wide suguha; some places are mixed with notare, ko-notare, and gunome; the entire hamon has a dense nioiguchi; there are strong nie, frequent kinsuji, nie-suji, and sunagashi; there are slight muneyaki, and a bright and clear nioiguchi.
Boshi: wide yakiba: on the omote it is straight; on the ura it is notare-komi with hakikae; the tip is komaru and there is a long return.
On this katana the widths at the moto and saki are different, there is a shallow sori, a short chu-kissaki, and a Kanbun Shinto shape. The tight ko-itame hada has abundant ji-nie and fine chikei. The hamon is wide, the entire nioiguchi is dense and based on suguha mixed with notare, ko-notare, and gunome. There are abundant ha-nie, the inside of the hamon has kinsuji, nie-suji, and sunagashi. The jiba (jigane and hamon) is bright and clear, and shows Shinkai’s characteristic points very well. On the other hand, from the wide and narrow nioiguchi variations and prominent thick nioiguchi, in the first vote, votes for Shinkai were few, and many people voted for Satsuma Shinto period smiths such as Ippei Yasuyo and Mondo-no-sho Masakiyo.
But if it were Ippei Yasuyo’s work, the shinogi ji would be thick, there would be a rich hiraniku, the forging is slightly rough and there is a dark steel color. If it were Masakiyo’s work, his midare hamon has more prominent vertical variations, single and double imozuru shaped niesuji are present, and the boshi has stronger hakikake and forms a flame-like shape. In the case of a Satsuma blade, there are prominent rough nie particles and many of their jigane have a “sticky" feeling and a unique hada.
Besides these, some people voted for the Osaka Shinto smith Sukehiro. If it were Sukehiro’s work, the jiba nie, and hataraki inside of the hamon would be relatively gentle. If it were a notare and suguha hamon, there would be hataraki, just like tears in old Japanese paper.
The Kantei To No. 5: katana
Mei: Kanemoto
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 3 bu
Sori: 7 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with some nagare hada and mokume hada. The hada is visible; there are ji-nie, and a whitish color.
Hamon: the entire hamon width is low; there are sharp gunome mixed with togariba and ko-gunome; there are small ashi, ko-nie deki, and some fine sunagashi.
Boshi: midarekomi; the tip is sharp and there is a slightly long return.
This katana is slightly wide, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is not prominent. The tip has sori and there is a long chu-kissaki, and at first glance, this is similar to work after the Eisho to Kyoroku and Tenmon periods. But compared with those, differences are that there is a slightly short length, and a short nakago, so this is supposed to be a shape from around the Eisho, Kyoroku, and Tenmon (1504-54) periods.
Also, the blade is thin in the shinogi-ji area, there is a high shinogi, poor hiraniku, and these are the period’s Seki characteristics. Also, the itame in places is mixed with a strong nagare hada, there is a whitish jigane and prominent sharp shapes in the hamon, and these are Seki’s characteristic points. Furthermore, this is different from their later work, which has regular repeat hamon elements with a tight nioiguchi and sanbonsugi. People recognised that this blade has a more gentle appearance, and in places has a classic sanbonsugi style midare, and many people voted for Magoroku Kanemoto, the correct answer.
Among other Sue Seki smiths, some people voted for Kanesada. In his case, among the Sue Seki smiths, his characteristic point is a refined jigane, and many of his hamon are notare mixed with round gunome and a slightly large midare hamon.
Beside these smiths, a few people voted for Kaneuji and Naoe Shizu, which is Nanbokucho period Mino den work. Surely, the wide blade, no prominent difference in the widths at the moto and saki, the thin blade, and a long kissaki shape are the Nanbokucho period’s common elements. But if the katana was longer, it should be suriage, and any funbari would be gone.
Shijo Kantei To No.818 in the
March, 2025 issue
The answer for the Shijo Kantei To is a katana by Ikkanshi Tadatsuna dated Genroku 3 (1690).
Ikkanshi Tadatsuna was good at making detailed toshin (work on the body of the sword) horimono and is famous for this. This example shows his skill in making toran midare hamon with a dragon horimono, and a majority of people voted for the correct answer.
This smith is the second generation Omi no kami Tadatsuna, and it is thought that the shodai was 60 years old around Kansei 9 (1669), and the nidal is supposed to have become the head of the family business or to have been influential from that time. The nidai’s work during the early half of his career has relatively few blades with a date. We do not have dated material from Jokyo 4 (1687) to Genroku 2 (1689) which was his transition period, and it is not completely clear, but at least after Genroku 3 (1690), he has many signed works with the Ikkanshi title and an increase in the number of dated swords. Also, until then, on the “tsuna” kanji, a deformity right side in the shape of the kanji was corrected, and we can imagine that this time was an important period for the Nidai Tadatsuna.
This blade is wide and has a standard thickness, the widths at the moto and saki are slightly different and there is a chu-kissaki. This kind of shape was seen after the Kanbun Shinto trend began to change or fade, and is seen from around the Jokyo to Genroku periods, and we can say that it is similar to a Hizento characteristic shape. Among these works, sometimes there is no notable difference in the widths at the moto and saki, and the blade is thick and long. During the Shinto period, a large sori is a Kanei Shinto characteristic. That shape has different widths at the moto and saki, and that feature is more prominent in work from that time. There is fumbari, the kissaki is short, and those details are different from what we see on this sword.
The jigane is tightly forged, there are abundant dense ji-nie, fine chikei, a light steel color, and Osaka Shinto’s characteristic beautiful refined forging which is seen often in Ikkanshi’s work.
There is a yakidashi at the moto which widens slightly and forms a toran midare hamon with a dense, bright wide nioiguchi and which has frequent nie. The boshi begins around the yokote and there is a kaeri, and this is often seen in Shinto period in Osaka Shinto swords. Inside of Ikkashi’s large toran style hamon, there are often long ashi with a wide nioiguchi, and from this, often choji and gunome-choji appear like they are standing in a line.
Also, there are long ashi in the monouchi area, and we can often see sunagashi and long kinsuji in that area. This is seen in Shodai Tadatsuna’s work, and was a characteristic of his work, so we can say that this is evidence that the nidai learned sword making from his father.
The nakago tip is a sharply angled ha-agari kurijiri, and the yasurime are sujichigai with kesho. On the omote, under the mekugi ana, and centered on the shinogi line, there is a large size long signature made with a thick chisel. In addition, in the case when horimono are present, he signed a “hori do-saku” soe-mei, and this was his usual custom.
At this time, many people decided on the smith’s identity from the horimono. This is a typical characteristic Ikkashi dragon horimono. His horimono are detailed, and there are various elaborations on the design, but in his choji-midare hamon, these variations are rare. There are many horimono with toranba hamon, and they are sometimes seen on suguha blades.
Tadatsuna’s horimono includes many dragons, such as kurikara-ryu, jyoge-ryu, tamaoi-ryu, ama-ryu and bai-kurikara. They are large compositions, the scales have a rough appearance, and compared with horimono specialist’s work. They cannot help being rough, but we can say that this sword smith’s strong carving work is an attractive point. His horimono locations are mostly at the koshimoto, and centered on the shinogi line. The dragon face’s characteristic points are thick and drooping eyebrows which take a large amount of space in his face, prominent large eyes, and a charming playful face, and this katana has these characteristics.
Besides the correct answer, some people voted for Suishinshi Masahide. Certainly, Masahide has a few toran style midare hamon with dragon horimono, which are copies or utsushi of Tadatsuna’s work, and parts of his nakago are same style. But if it were his work, many of Mashide’s jigane are tighter or finer, and are a muji style. His hamon can have several large gunome, and the gunome line up, and there are round topped clear large gunome, and they can appear as a toran midare hamon. Also, dark mura-nie on the ji, appear as hadaka-nie, there are fewer hataraki such as sunagashi, the yakidashi is almost all the same width and are Edo yakidashi. In addition, most of his dragon horimono are modeled after Ikkanshi’s kurikara-ryu work.
Some people voted for Shinshinto smiths. Generally, if it were their work, they would have a narrow shinogi ji width, no prominent hiraniku, many of kissaki are long, there is a muji style forging, long ashi almost reach the edge of the hamon, and these are characteristic points of the period.
Explanation by Ooi Gaku