Meito Kansho: Appreciation of Important Swords
Tokubetsu Juyo Token
Type: Kotachi
Mei: Rai Kunitoshi
Owner: NBTHK
Length: 1 shaku 9 sun 7 bu 6 rin (59.8 cm)
Sori: 5 bu 3 rin (1.6 cm)
Motohaba: 8 bu 7 rin (2.65 cm)
Sakihaba: 5 bu 6 rin (1.7 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu 7 rin (0.6 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu 2 rin (0.35 cm)
Kissaki length: 8 bu 7 rin (2.65 cm)
Nakago length: 5 sun 1 bu 2 rin (15.5 cm)
Nakago sori: none
Commentary
This is a shinogi zukuri kotachi with an ihorimune. It has a slightly narrow width, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki are not prominent. There is a standard thickness, a slightly shallow wa-sori with funbari, and a chu-kissaki. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada. There are abundant ji-nie and utsuri with dark and pale variations. The entire hamon is wide, and shows choji mixed with ko-choji and ko-gunome. There are ashi, yo, and a nioiguchi with some ko-nie. There are some kinsuji, and a bright and clear nioiguchi. The boshi omote is a notare style, while the the ura boshi is almost straight. Both sides have a togari style komaru point and a return. The nakago is ubu, and the the tip is a slightly shallow ha-agari style kurijiri. There are two mekugi-ana, and on the omote above the second mekugiana (the original mekugiana) and along the mune side there is a two kanji signature.
The Rai school’s Kuniyuki is the actual founder of the school, and the school was prosperous from the Kamakura period into the Nanbokucho period. Among the smiths in the latter half of the Kamakura period, Rai Kunitoshi led the school and built up a solid foundation of work. Since historical times, there have been two theories concerning Kunitoshi. One theory is that the two kanji Kunitoshi is the same smith as Rai Kunitoshi. Another theory is that Rai Kunitoshi is a different smith from Kunitoshi, and even today there is no established or accepted theory about there being one or two Kunitoshi smiths. Concerning the two kanji Kunitoshi, there is only one dated work from Koan 1 (1278). However, there is a signed Rai Kunitoshi work dated Showa 4 (1314) stating that his age is 75 years, and this is a Juyo Bunkazai sword owned by the Tokugawa Museum. From this evidence, the two kanji blade was signed when Kunitoshi was 38 years old. So if we assume that these two are one single smith who worked during this period there is not a major inconsistency. Rai Kunitoshi’s blades are wide, and have gorgeous choji midare hamon just like we see here. On the other hand, the two kanji Kunitoshi’s swords have narrow shapes with suguha style hamon, and are more gentle appearing swords. From examining existing swords, it appears that both smiths have both styles of work, and there are not distinct differences in their styles.
Another important consideration is that during Japanese sword history, hamon styles changed. The two kanji Kunitoshi’s active period was in the mid-Kamakura period, while Rai Kunitoshi’s signatures are concentrated in the latter half of the Kamakura period when there were two Mongol invasions (the Bunei to Koan wars in 1274-81), and in this period, even the Bizen Koku smiths’ hamon changed from the Ichimonji school’s high wide hamon with gorgeous choji to the Osafune school’s style which was based on fewer vertical variations and a gentle suguha style hamon. Also, Nagamitsu’s hamon changed in that period and was slightly different from the two Kanji Kunitoshi, but showed the same transitional path. Until medieval times, all old sword books listed Kunitoshi and the two kanji Kunitoshi as being the same person, or a single generation. The two smith theory is seen only after the beginning of the Edo period, and is an early modern period theory. Judging from this, today, the same smith theory is thought to be correct.
This sword is slightly narrow with a wa-sori style, a chu-kissaki, and a kotachi shape, and looks like a small standard tachi with a well balanced shape. Also, the jigane is a very tight ko-itame hada with no irregularities and a refined and exquisite hada, and is deserving of being recognized as a master smith’s work. Notably, the entire hamon is high, and composed mainly of a variety of choji, and for Rai Kunitoshi, the three kanji Kunitoshi, this is an example of one of his gorgeous hamon styles. Notably, at the koshimoto there is a large bunched group of choji which reminds us of the two kanji Kunitoshi’s kotachi works with the meibutsu “Torikai Kunitoshi” which is Juyo Bijutsuhin. If one is considereing the same smith or single Kunitoshi theory, from the signature’s style, this could have been made just after he changed his mei to the Rai Kunitoshi three kanji signature, and during the transition period around the Einin period (1293-98).
The bright, clear, and dense nioiguchi, and the the clarity of the jigane is impressive and produces a dignified appearance. In addition, besides this example, Rai Kunitoshi has only two other kotachi works. One is at Futarasan Shrine and is Kokuho. The other is Juyo Token and among the few kotachi examples, this is a valuable reference material, and a resource for the study of the single smith theory.
Explanation and photo by Ishii Akira
Shijo Kantei To No. 796
The deadline to submit answers for the issue No. 796 Shijo Kantei To is June 5, 2023. 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, 2023 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.
Information
Type: Tachi
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 4 bu (70.9 cm)
Sori: slightly over 4 bu (1.25 cm)
Motohaba: slightly over 1 sun (3.1 cm)
Sakihaba: slightly less 7 bu (2.05 cm)
Motokasane: 2.5 bu (0.75 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: slightly less than 1 sun 2 bu (3.5 cm)
Nakago length: slightly less than 6 sun 9 bu (20.8 cm)
Nakago sori: very slight (0.15 cm)
This is a shinogi zukuri tachi with an ihorimune. It is wide, and the widths at the the moto and saki are different, but the differences are not prominent. There is a shallow sori, and it is koshizori. Although it is suriage, the tip has sori, and there is a chu-kissaki. The jigane has a tight ko-itame hada, there are abundant ji-nie, midare utsuri, and some areas going towards the hamon have pale suji-utsuri. In places, the ji has a unique dark jihada. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the oshigata. The hamon contains saka-ashi, and there is a tight nioiguchi. The nakago is suriage and the tip is kiri. The yasurime are o-sujichigai. There are three mekugi-ana. On the omote, the Nakago’s center has a slightly large and long signature. The ura side along the mune edge has a date.
Tosogu Kansho
Juyo Tosogu
Budo (grapes) mon zogan tsuba
Mei: Umetada Myoju
Umetada Myoju is known as one of the “Momoyama period master tosogu smiths” along with Kaneie and Nobuie in the tosogu world. As a sword smith he is respected as being a founder of the Shinto sword style, and his hamon are excellent. As a tsuba maker he is famous and noted as being an extraordinarily talented tosogu smith. Myoju’s styles differ greatly from the usual styles, and show a great amount of originality. When using brass and shakudo for his jigane, he used iro-gane such as gold, silver, shakudo, and copper, and many of these works have a unique hira-zogan with a small but definite volume. Among his subjects or themes, we often see trees such as grape, orange, oak, and pine and bamboo. The Umetada family had a strong relationship with the Honami family, and his styles show a commonality with the same period’s Rinpa school artist Honami Koetsu.
In this tsuba we can appreciate Myoju’s skill and design. For the jigane he used brass, and used a type of engraving technique on the surface which shows and emphasizes subtle changes and movement. With this technique, the rim or (mimi) shows an exquisite twisting or winding effect. Because it is a Kamon (or mon) implying prosperity or luck, Myoju used grapes, but the work here displays a well executed and intricately designed pattern which uses shakudo and silver for color, and wide and narrow elegant engraving strokes, and extremely skilled hira-zogan (high relief inlay) work. The jigane, the zogan (inlay), and the twisting and winding or moving mimi or rim are executed in a perfect balance in this work. This is Momoyama period art, and demonstrates the Rinpa school’s early graceful and pioneering designs.
Explanation by Kugiya Natsuko
March Token Teirei Kansho kai
Date: April 8 (second Saturday of April)
Location: The Token Hakubutsukan auditorium
Commentary: Ishii Akira
Kantei To No. 1: Katana
Kinzogan mei: Sukezane
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 8 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume; the entire ji has a slightly prominent visible hada; there are abundant dense ji-nie, frequent chikei, and clear midare utsuri.
Hamon: primarily choji mixed with togariba, gunome, and ko-gunome; there are high and low variations in the width, and a gorgeous midare hamon.
Boshi: the omote is almost straight and has a slight return; the ura is a shallow midarekomi and at the tip, a suguha style; the tip is sharp, and has kinsuji.
Horimono: On the omote and ura there are futasuji-hi with a round finish; under the hi, the omote has bonji and gomabashi, and the ura has two bonji, a rendai, kuwagata, and a suken kasane-bori.
This sword has a kinzogan mei and has been judged as being the work of Fukuoka Ichimonji Sukezane.
The difference in widths at the moto and the saki are not prominent, the tip has sori, and there is a chu-kissaki. From the strong shape, it is easy to judge this as mid-Kamakura period work. Furthermore, the clear utsuri and prominent wide and narrow variations in the width of the gorgeous midare hamon, suggest this could be from the Ichimonoji school.
In particular, Yoshifusa, Sukezane, and Norifusa were very skillful smiths in the school, and each smith was distinctive and had an excellent style. However, the three of them have different characteristic points. In Yoshifusa’s gorgeous choji-midare hamon there are prominent shapes which are called fukuro choji. These are choji which have a narrrow waist, a portrait like shape, and the top has an angular shape. Sukezane’s hamon are less gorgeous or active than Yoshifusa’s, but the jiba (jigane and hamon) have strong nie, and there is abundant hataraki and the blade appears to be spirited. Norifusa’s work has clear forging, a strong jigane, and the entire midare hamon is small or narrow, and there are places with saka-ashi.
Therefore, considering these characteristic points and looking at this katana carefully, the first thing to be noted is that from the tip there are dense ha-nie which appear to be entwined with the nioiguchi, and there are prominent kinsuji and sunagashi inside of the hamon and you can see the emphasis on nie hataraki. Also, you should pay attention to the bright midare utsuri, and the chikei crossing the utsuri. These features emphasize each other and produce a strong impression in the jiba (jigane and hamon).
Considering these characteristic points, you can arrive at the Sukezane name, but only a few people voted for this individual's name.
The Kantei To No.2: Wakizashi
Mei: do-saku hori kore Nakasone Okisato Kotetsu Nyudo
Kanbun gan-nen (1661) Shimotsuki (November) 25 nichi
Kinzogan mei: Yamano Kaeuemon 64 sai (64 years old) Nagahisa
with kao.
wakige futatsu-do do-do(often) mitsu-do saidan
Length: slightly less than 1 shaku 6 sun 4 bu
Sori: 3 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; on the ura at the koshimoto it is mixed with a large pattern hada; there are abundant dense ji-nie and fine chikei.
Hamon: at the koshimoto there is a straight yakidashi; above this there is a gunome midare hamon mixed with ko-notare; in some places two gunome are fused together in the midare hamon; there is a dense nioiguchi, frequent nie, and a bright and clear nioiguchi.
Boshi: at the yokote there is a yakikomi; the boshi is straight and the point is komaru.
Horimono: on the omote and the ura there are futasuji-hi with a round finish. Below these, the omote has bonji; on the ura inside of a wide frame there is a daikoku-ten carving.
This katana is wide with a long large kissaki, and has an unusual shape, and from this you tend to think of Shinshinto period work. However, if you examine the jiba closely, at the moto the hamon has a long yakidashi, and above this there are large and small gunome grouped or fused together which are called hyotanba (i.e. gourd since the large and small fused gunome resemble a gourd). In addition, the yokote has a yakikomi. Just from the style, you can narrow this work down to Kotetsu’s early period (hanetora period) work.
Also, on the the ura at the koshimoto, there is a slightly worn appearance with a slightly large pattern hada called “tekogane”. The entire jiba is bright and clear, and you can recognize the smith’s high level of skill. Furthermore, on the ura side’s daikoku-ten relief, the two rice bags are same size. The bottom halves are on the front, and the upper halves are leaning diagonally towards his right side and these illustrate one of Kotetsu’s characteristic features (Note that Horikawa Kunihiro’s daikokuten relief has no frame, and differing rice bag sizes provides a sense of perspective). A majority of people observed these characteristic points and voted for the correct answer.
This type of large wakizashi is sometimes seen in Kotetsu’s early work, mainly from Meireki to the early Kanbun period. It is interesting because it was likely made as a special order, or as an expression of Kotetsu’s creativity. Moreover, these works always have elaborately designed horimono.
Kantei To No. 3: Katana
Mei: Bizen koku ju Osafune Genbeijo Sukesada saku kore
aruji (owner) Ugaki Jinsaemonjo Hideie
Tenmon 24 nen (1555) 2 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are fine ji-nie, and pale midare utsuri.
Hamon: the bottom half consists primarily of open bottom gunome mixed with square shaped elements; in some places there is a nijuba style midare hamon; the upper half is a suguha style hamon mixed with ko-gunome and togari; There are ashi, yo, ko-nie, and fine sunagashi.
Boshi: wide and a shallow notare; the tip is komaru with hakikake; there is a long return.
This katana’s machi has been moved up, there is a saki-zori shape, and refined forging with pale midare utsuri. The boshi is wide, there is a long return, and there are ko-nie around the nioiguchi. From these details, you would be reminded of sue-koto work, especially from the Bizen area.
The hamon’s bottom half consists mainly of open bottom gunome, with some areas having a nijuba style midare hamon. The upper half is a suguha style mixed with ko-gunome and togari, and the upper and bottom halves of the hamon show two largely different styles. This kind of style is sometimes seen in Sue Bizen work. Among these Sue Bizen swords, we can also see a style opposite of this: the center or bottom of the hamon can be a suguha style, and above this, a midare style, and these are irregular hamon styles.
Genbeijo Sukesada is good at producing wide suguha hamon and has many excellent works, but it is interesting that he was making this kind of hamon. His main active period was at the end of the Muromachi period, during the Eirou, Genki, and Tensho periods (1558-91). Because of this, he has many wide blades with long chu-kissaki, and strong shapes. But this work dated Tenmon 24 (1555) is relatively early work and does not yet show his typical characteristic points. Therefore there were very few correct answers for Genbeijo Sukesada, and this is not unreasonable. It is satisfactory if you look at this as Sue Bizen work, but fewer than half of the people voted for this.
The owner, “Ugaki Hideie”, is supposed to be a member of the Bizen Kanegawa Castle lord Matsuda’s Ugaki family.
Kantei To No.4: Wakizashi
Mei: Izumi-no-kami Fujiwara Kunisada
Length: 1 shaku 3 sun 5.5 bu
Sori: slightly less than 5 bu
Style: shobu zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume; the omote has a large hada with jifu; there are ji-nie, and chikei.
Hamon: the moto has a straight yakidashi; above this the hamon is based on notare mixed with gunome, ko-gunome, and togari. There are ashi, and thick slightly uneven ko-nie; in places there are fine sunagashi; the Omote’s central area has mune yaki.
Boshi: the omote is straight and the tip is a small midare; the ura is midarekomi; both sides are komaru with a return; there are hakikake.
This is a Shin Kunisada wakizashi. He was Horikawa Kunihiro’s youngest brother, and was a student with the Shodai Kunisuke. This wakizashi, shows his early period work’s signature and style, and he is supposed to have studied under the senior student Echigo no kami Kunitomo. In other words, the wide and long blade, with a standard thickness, and some degree of saki-sori, shows a style and shape from the end of the Muromachi to the early Edo period. Kunitomo worked in Izumi no kami Kanesada’s (Nosada) three hamon styles, primarily gunome, a large notare, and suguha, but Kunisada worked in the notare style. This wakizashi’s hamon is predominantly a notare hamon mixed with gunome and togari, and the moto has a yakidashi. This style shows almost no differences from Kunitoshi’s or the Shodai Kunisuke’s early work. Therefor both smiths names are considered a correct answer.
However, if you think a bit more about this, Kunisada’s work during the latter half of his career shows mainly round top choji, and especially in the monouchi area there are many muneyaki, like we see here. This provides some help in focusing on the Kunisada name. If you recognize this characteristic point, then among the three smiths, it would be possible to focus on this as being Shin Kunisada’s work. From the signature, this is supposed to have been made around Kanei 3 (1626).
Kantei To No.5: Katana
Mumei: den Yoshikage
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun
Sori: 5 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume; on the bottom half along the hamon the hada is mixed with nagare hada; the entire ji is well forged. There are ji-nie, chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: ko-gunome, ko-choji, and togari with a small midare pattern. There are ashi, yo, and a nioiguchi with ko-nie; in the central area there are small tobiyaki and yubashiri.
Boshi: small midarekomi; there is a round point and a return.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi carved through the nakago.
This is a wide blade and there are no prominent differences in the widths at the moto and saki. There is a large kissaki, and from these details, there are three possible choices for the period: Nanbokucho, Keicho Shinto, and Shinshinto. At a glance, the jiba (jigane and hamon) have an obviously old appearance, and you can recognize Nanbokucho period work. In addition, there are clear midare utsuri, and so you can narrow this down to Bizen work. In this period, Bizen Koku’s mainstream smiths were Kanemitsu, Chogi, Omiya Morikage, and Motoshige. If it were Kanemitsu’s work, his hamon are based mainly on notare or square gunome. Chogi’s hamon are described as “ear shaped hamon”, and are large dynamic hamon close to active Soshu Den styles, and not like Bizen syles. Morikage’s hamon are mainly notare with choji, and Motoshige’s hamon are a suguha style mixed with square gunome, and this katana does not have any of these hamon styles.
This is a Juyo Bijutsuhin katana judged as being Yoshikage’s work. Yoshikage does not have many signed works compared with the above smiths. For a kanteito, he is not a familiar or often seen smith. Sometimes, for a sword judged as a Nanbokucho Bizen work, his name is suggested, and this is one of those swords. In other words, when compared to Osafune mainstream smith hamon, there is a tendency for the entire hamon to contain a mixture of all kinds of shapes, and to be a small or narrow hamon with a complicated midare pattern. There are frequent ko-nie, and prominent hataraki inside of the hamon. If these features are seen, the blade can be judged as Yoshikage's work.
Confirmed and signed Yoshikage swords are seen with a wide range of styles. Yoshikage has a Juyo Bunkazai naginata naoshi with a katana mei “Bizen Koku Osafune ju Yoshikage”, and this has become a standard and reference for judging his work. As might be expected, no correct individual smith name was voted for here. In recent years, from the similarity of his styles and his distinctive signature made with gyaku tagane (reverse) chisel strokes, there is a strong opinion that Yoshikage was one of the Osafune branch school smiths, such as Chikakage or Morikage, and at this time Morikage is also accepted as a correct answer.
Shijo Kantei To No.794 in the March 2023 issue
The answer for the Shijo Kantei To is a katana by Minamoto Masayuki (Kiyomaro)
This sword has the smith’s signature on the ura side (a tachi mei). It is a long blade with a large sori, and some people looked at it as a Koto tachi. But this blade has a narrow shinogi ji for the width, no prominent hiraniku, a long kissaki, a poor fukura shape, and the midare hamon has long ashi which extend down to the hamon edge. From these characteristic points you can judge this as Shinshinto period work.
There were many thick blades made in the Shinshinto period. However, Masayuki (Kiyomaro) and the Yamaura school has many blades with slightly narrow shapes, a standard thickness, a narrow shinogi ji width, very poor hiraniku and poor fukura, a notably sharp appearing shape, and an especially large kissaki, so their work is easy to recognize. On a blade with a long chu-kissaki like this one, from the monouchi area to the tip, the blade is slightly thin and narrow, and this shape continues up to the poorly shaped fukura, and so it still gives an impression of being sharp.
In the Shinshinto period many smiths modelled their work after Soshu Den master smiths’ work. Many of Masayuki’s (Kiyomaro) works have itame hada mixed with nagare hada, and there are abundant ji-nie and frequent chikei. His hamon during his early period have a straight yakidashi at the moto, and above this, a small juka choji midare hamon with a tight nioiguchi. In the Hamabe school’s Bizen Den style, there are simply repeated round top gunome which is a Sue Seki style.
In the Tenpo period, Masayuki (Kiyomaro) produced swords which exhibit his style. The jiba (jihada and hamon) are very clear and full of movement. The midare hamon has rich hataraki, the boshi is a strong midare with hakikake and a sharp tip, and these are striking works.
In his work around the Tenpo and Koka (1830-47) eras, like this sword, the gunome midare hamon contains prominent choji, which are grouped, and there are large and small elements and vertical variations in the hamon. There are tobiyaki, yubashiri, long kinsuji, frequent sunagashi, and a more gorgeous and intense appearance. Kinsuji and nie suji are strong and appear as though they are cutting the hamon vertically, and sometimes the midare hamon looks like a double hamon (nijuba). Also, the entire nioiguchi is dense and wide, and has prominently wide and narrow areas. There are strong nie, and often the ara-nie are uneven.
After August in Koka 3 (1846) Masayuki changed his name to Kiyomaro. After the mid-Kaei period, his hamon have slightly large choji which are not emphasized, and some of the hamon have continuous large gunome with a midare pattern and are described as a horse tooth midare, or are mixed with ko-notare areas. The hamon’s vertical variations become suppressed, and in the interior of the hamon and on the bounddary of the hamon, the hataraki become more gentle appearing.
Also, after the Tenpo period Masayuki’s work sometimes has has pale yaki (weak or diffuse tobiyaki) on the shinogi ji.
The Masayuki period’s nakago tips are his earliest gassaku works with his older brother Sadatoshi, and are iriyamagata. After his early period work the nakago jiri are ha-agari kurijiri, and ha-agari style kurijiri. After Tenpo 12 (1841) and in his later years the nakago tips are kurijiri. His yasurime are sujichigai and o-sujichigai, and until August of Tenpo 11 August, he used kicho-yasuri (diagonal yasurime from slightly below the kesho yasuri). After November of that year, we no longer see kesho yasuri. Notably, in Tenpo 14 and 15 (1843-4) the yasurime tend to be deeper.
His signatures are either tachi mei or katana mei and there are more katana mei. The Kiyomaro signature is seen more often on katana mei. The signature’s location in the case of two kanji signatures and 3 kanji signatures are under the mekugi-ana and towards the mune side. On the ura side many of the dates have two kanji above the mekugi-ana.
At this time, among the correct answers, about 20% of the people did not write Kiyomaro, but instead wrote Minamoto Masao and this was impressive. On the other hand, for Kiyomaro’s “maro” kanji, slightly fewer than 100 people wrote the wrong kanji: instead of the maro ( 麿,）kanji they wrote the migaki（磨） kanji. Even though it was a careless mistake, Kiyomaro would be disappointed in his grave, so please be careful about this in the future.
People also voted for other smiths who were considered to be correct answers. These were Yamaura Masao, Kurihara Nobuhide, and Minamoto Masao.
The work of these smiths is rarely reminiscent of Kiyomaro’s work. Yamaura Masao’s base hamon are similar to the Masayuki period work, but the entire hamon’s variations and hataraki are suppressed, and there is a gentle appearance. The nioiguchi has nie and ko-nie, and are dignified appearing.
In Kurihara Nobuhide’s hamon, in places, the top of the gunome are fukushiki, or they show a double style small ko-gunome, or are mixed with square shape gunome and are midare, and present an angular appearing midare. His shinogi zukuri tachi mei are very rare. However, his Meiji period suguha tachi are notably almost all tachi-mei.
Minamoto Masao’s hamon are low with a simple repeating gunome pattern, and and usually show relatively fewer variations in the hamon. His signatures are along the nakago center, and are a fluently inscribed sosho style with large size kanji and are made with a thick chisel, and almost everything is a katana mei.
Beside these smiths, some people voted for Okachiyama Nagasada and Sa Hideyuki. For both smiths, their hiraniku is not prominent, but is poor, their hamon have a large size, and are closely resemble the Kiyomaro period work, but compared to Kiyomaro, they have a more gentle appearing hamon. Also, Nagasada has many mitsumune blades, but there are few by Kiyomaro. Nagasada’s hamon are a midare mixed with togariba. Sa Hideyuki’s hamon are a large gunome midare with abundant, even ko-nie, and his jiba (jigane and hamon) are more conscientiously (carefully or evenly) made when compared with Kiyomaro.
Explanation by Ooi Gaku