MEITO KANSHO
APPRECIATION OF IMPORTANT SWORDS
Mei: Tsuda Echizen no kami Sukehiro
Enpo 7 nen (1679) 2 gatsu hi
Owner: NBTHK
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu 3 rin (70.7 cm)
Sori: 4 bu 5 rin (1.35 cm)
Motohaba: 1 bu 2 rin (3.1 cm)
Sakihaba: 6 bu 8 rin (2.05 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu 3 rin (0.7 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu 7 rin (0.5 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 2 bu 2 rin (3.7 cm)
Nakago length: 7 sun 2 bu 8 rin (22.05 cm)
Nakago sori: none
Commentary
This is a shinogi tsukuri katana with an ihorimune. It is wide, and the widths at the moto and saki are different. It is somewhat thick, there is a shallow sori, and a chu-kissaki. The entire ji is a tight ko-itame hada, and some areas are mixed with a visible mokume hada. There are abundant dense ji-nie. The hamon is a slightly narrow suguha with some notare. Below the yokote, the blade is wide, there is a dense nioiguchi, abundant even fine nie, and the ji is bright and clear. The boshi is straight with a komaru. The nakago is ubu, the yasurime are a strong suji chigai with kesho kouzutsumi yasuri. There is one mekugi ana, and the tip is iriyamagata. On the omote, under the mekugi ana, along the mune side there is a large size seven kanji signature. On the ura, starting at a one kanji space above the mekugi ana there is a date.
During the Edo period, the Osaka Shinto tradition established its foundation and style in the first generation with smiths such as Shin Kunisada, the Shodai Sukehiro, and the Shodai Kunihiro, and the next generation of the nidai smiths enjoyed a golden age. Especially notable was Echizen no kami Sukehiro who became a famous smith along with Inoue Shinkai.
Echizen no kami Sukehiro was born in Kansei 14 (1637), in Settsu’s Uchide village (today’s Ashiya Uchide Machi), and his common name was Jinnojo. According to the Shodai Soboro Sukehiro family’s temple Myotokuji (inside of Osaka City’s Minami ku) their records show that this parent-child relationship is clear. The adopted child theory is not seen in Edo period sword books, and it is supposed to have arisen in modern times, and so today, the father-son theory is prominent. About the time of receiving his “Echizen no Kami” title, besides the “Kokon Kaji Biko” record, his “kami” kanji style was different from earlier in the Manji period (1658-60). In the Meireki period (1655-57) his mei or signature included the “Minamoto” kanji which was never seen before this time, and from these details, he is supposed to have received his title in Manji 1 (1658) when he was 22 years old. This history is currently supported in many token books. From this, there is an opinion that after the Meireki period, the mei with the title was supposed to be by the Nidai Sukehiro (among the same school’s smiths), and there was a daimei on the Shodai’s work. In Kanbun 7 (1667), he was employed by the Osaka castle lord Aoyama Inba no kami Munetoshi when he was 31 years old, and in the same year in February he used the “Tsuda” title. At the same time, his writing style for dates changed to a sosho style, and his yasurime changed from kesho yasuri to fukushiki kesho yasuri to kouzutsumi yasuri, and this year can be considered an epochal year for Sukehiro. Also, seven years later in Enpo 2 (1674), February, the omote side signature becomes a sosho style which was a change from his “square tsuda” style to a “round tsuda” shape (but that year we do see some square tsuda style mei) and this change continued until his last work.
His early works have an Ishido style choji midare hamon, and then a slightly large gunome midare hamon. Moreover, around Enpo 4 (1676) he created the toran midare hamon, and it was very popular. Also, his suguha works are of a very high quality, and one of their characteristic points is a shallow notare hamon with five notare waves. He has a habit, that just under the yokote, the hamon width becomes wider just like this example. The size of the nie are finer when compared with Shinkai’s work, the edge of the hamon looks “like a tear in high quality Japanese paper”. Highlights are fine hataraki extending into the jigane, his boshi have a slightly wide yakiba, and are either a straight style suguha, or a shallow notare with a round point and return. We would describe his nioiguchi as appearing soft, but bright and clear, and we could say it is the among best appearing nioiguchi in sword history, and is a hallmark of Sukehiro’s work, and other smiths could not follow his style.
The toran midare hamon which Sukehiro created with his remarkable aesthetic sense influenced the same period’s smiths, and after this period, influenced smiths up to the Gendaito period. His last work was in the new year of Tenna 2 (1682), and in March he passed way at the young age of 46 years.
This katana has slight differences in the widths at the moto and saki and there is a chu-kissaki. It has a typical Kanbun Shinto shape and suguha style hamon. The jigane is tight ko-itame hada, there are abundant dense ji-nie, and the jiba (jigane and hamon) is bright, which illustrates the Nidai Sukehiro’s character. The well forged jigane is just like fine silk with a delicate texture, the hamon complements the jigane, and the wide clear nioiguchi clearly shows Sukehiro’s work, and this was made when he was 43 years old. He passed away when he was 46 years old.
This is from Mr. Suzuki Shoichi’s collection. He felt individuals should not store or hide away such a collection which included a Juyo Bunkazai tachi signed by Kuniyuki, a Juyo Bunkazai ken with the mei Mitsutada, other Juyo Bijutsuhin, Tokubetsu Juyo Token (three from the Kyoho Meibutsu Cho), and 13 Juyo Token. In addition, he had three Juyo Tosogu, and one complete tosogu set. Following his wishes that these items be widely seen and appreciated, there is a memorial exhibition “Japanese Swords from the Suzuki Shoichi Collection” being exhibited from October 25 to December 21 2025.
Explanation and oshigata by Ishii Akira.
Shijo Kantei To No. 827
Information
Katana
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 8 bu (69.1 cm)
Sori: slightly less than 6 bu (1.75 cm)
Motohaba: slightly over 1 sun (3.1 cm)
Sakihaba: 7 bu (2.1 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu (0.65 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 1.5 bu (3.55 cm)
Nakago length: 7 sun 6 bu (23.0 cm)
Nakago sori: slight
This is a shinogi tsukuri katana with an ihorimune. There is a standard width, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is not prominent, there is a standard thickness, a slightly large sori, and a long chu-kissaki. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada, there are abundant ji-nie and midare utsuri. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the oshigata. The choji midare hamon has prominent togariba and sharp tipped hamon features. There are ashi, yo, a tight nioiguchi, and a slightly hard appearance. There is a nioiguchi with ko-nie, some sunagashi, and the jiba (jigane and hamon) is bright and clear. The horimono on the omote and ura are bo-hi finished in marudome. The nakago is ubu, the tip is a slightly narrow kurijiri, and there is a long nakago. The yasurime are katte sagari, and there are two mekugi ana. On the omote along the mune side, there is a long kanji signature. In this smith’s work when there are no hi, the shinogi ji has a masame hada.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Tako ni fugu zu (octopus and blowfish design) menuki
Warikita mei: Shiryudo Mitsuoki with kao
The Otsuki school is a prestigious Kyoto gold smith school. Mitsuoki is the third generation Mitsuyoshi’s son, born in Meiwa 3 (1766) in Kyoto, and he passed away in Tenpo 5 (1835) at the age of 69. He studied art under Kishi Ganku, and is supposed to have had a friendship with Nagasawa Rosetsu, and he was good at painter-like styles judging from his sketching ability. He used a diversity of colored metals, and he carved sea life carefully, and demonstrated a high level of skill.
Among his subjects, octopus (tako) has been consumed for a long period, and octopus jars have been excavated from Yayoi sites (around 200 BC to around 300 AD) and from Kofun period sies (late 3rd century to the early 7th century). Also, the ”Engishiki” (Heian period laws established in 927 AD) said that from the Sanuki and Higo areas, dried octopus was presented to the imperial court. The Chuji Ruiki” which is supposed to be the oldest Japanese cookbook (written from the end of the Heian period to the end of the Kamakura period, and which described the imperial family’s meals) described a cooking method for baked octopus. In the Edo period additional octopus cooking methods spread, and among cook books, we can find names of cooking methods for octopus such as “tako sakura ni”, “su tako”, and “imo dako”. From this, we can see that octopus has been widely consumed in everyday life.
Concerning another subject, blow fish (fugu), we have found their horns excavated from shell heaps (middens), and they are supposed to have been eaten since very early times. In the early half of the Edo period, an established cook book titled ”Cooking Stories” listed blowfish cooking methods. Naturally cures for blowfish poisoning were not good enough, and likely many people were poisoned. In that period, a book pointed out danger of the poison. Because there were people who took the risk of eating poisonous blowfish, in the latter half of the Edo period, an essay “Chiritsuka dan” was written, and the price for blowfish increased from before, so even more people were eating blowfish, regardless of its dangers.
However, even today octopus and blowfish are popular foods since people used a similarly pronounced kanji for tako (octopus) for good luck, and a kanji for good luck and good fortune for fugu (blowfish). I wish everyone good luck and good fortune for the coming year.
Explanation by Arakawa Fumito
Teirei Kansho Kai
Date: November 8 (the second Saturday of the month)
Place: Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Koiwai Daiki
Kantei To No. 1: Tachi
Mei: Bizen Kuni Kageyasu
Length: 2 shaku 6 sun 6 bu
Sori: 7.5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume and nagare hada, and the entire hada is visible. There are frequent ji-nie, chikei, and pale jifu utsuri.
Hamon: narrow suguha mixed with ko-midare, ko-gunome, and ko-choji. The lower half of the hamon is mixed with angular shaped features, there are frequent ko-ashi, yo, and ko-nie; some places have strong nie, hotsure, uchinoke, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: straight, with a round tip, and a short return.
Horimono: on the omote and the ura there are bo-hi carved into the nakago.
Kageyasu is listed in historical sword books as belonging to the Fukuoka Ichimonji, Yoshioka Ichimonji, and Osafune schools. From the shape and style, this sword is from no later than the early Kamakura period and is Ko-Bizen work. This tachi is long, there is a large koshizori, at the tip, the sori is gentle, and this is a typical tachi shape from the end of the Heian Period to the early Kamakura Period. The ubu nakago seems to be shaved on the hamon side to match with the tachi shape, and the nakago has a kijimata shape. It is notable that the entire tachi has been preserved with its classical elegant shape.
The jigane is based on itame and has chikei. There is a visible hada, strong forging, some areas of the ji are dark, and pale jifu utsuri extend up to the shinogi area. This blade has characteristic points seen in old work, such as Ko-Bizen work. The hamon is based on suguha, some places are mixed with ko-midare, ko-gunome, and ko-choji. There is a tight nioiguchi with frequent ko-nie, ashi, yo, fine kinsuji and sunagashi, and a variable hamon composition. There is a nioiguchi with nie, and a suguha style hamon mixed with ko-midare, which shows well a typical Ko-Bizen style. Also, on the bottom half of the ko-midare hamon, places have angular shaped hamon elements, and among Ko-Bizen work, this is recognizable as a Kageyasu trait. In voting, if you narrowed your choices down to individual Ko-Bizen smiths, please pay attention to this.
In addition, in voting, beside Ko-Bizen smiths, some people voted for Rai Kunitoshi, Enju Kunimura and Unrui. If it were work by Rai Kunitoshi, Rai school work, from the moto to the tip, has a uniform sori which is a wa-sori, and there are gentle small nie, kyo-ashi, and muneyaki. From the long length with a suguha hamon some people voted for Enju Kunimura. If it were his work, the utsuri style is different, the work is based on a suguha hamon, and nie and hataraki are more gentle appearing. There are common points with Unrui work, mainly the nie, it is based on a suguha hamon, and there are jifu utsuri. Unrui work can have a wazori shape, the same as Rai work, and their hamon are mixed with with in-no-togariba everwhere, and there is a saka-ashi midare hamon, and saka-ashi.
Kantei To No. 2: Katana
Mumei: Aoe
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun
Sori: 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed well with mokume; there is a fine visible hada and chirimen-hada; there are fine ji-nie and chikei. Along the hamon edge, there are suji utsuri, and the mune side has midare utsuri and dan-utsuri.
Hamon: chu-suguha style hamon mixed with ko-gunome, ko-notare, and some saka-ashi midare. There are frequent ashi, yo, some saka-ashi, a tight nioiguchi, fine kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bright and clear nioiguchi.
Boshi: shallow notarekomi; the tip angles upwards sharply and there is a short return.
Horimono: on the omote and ura, there are bo-hi with soe-hi carved into the nakago.
Although this blade is largely suriage, it is very wide, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out, it is thin, there is a shallow sori, and a large kissaki. This is a mid-Nanbokucho period Enbun-Joji style work with a dynamic shape. It is comfortable in the hand, the haniku is not polished away, and it is a robust, very healthy katana. The jigane is itame mixed well with mokume hada, and there is a fine visible hada, call ed a chirimen hada. On the ura there are sumihada, which is a unique dark color jigane. Also, along the hamon side there are fine line-like utsuri. The mune side has doubled or twin midare usturi, and these are Aoe characteristic points that you cannot miss. Moreover, the hamon has a tight nioiguchi, and the nioiguchi style suguha is bright and clear. Some places have ko-gunome and saka-ashi, and these are typical Nanbokucho period Aoe characteristic points, and inside of the hamon, hataraki such a frequent ashi, yo, and fine kinsuji and sunagashi are clear in the well defined suguha hamon. In addition, the boshi is a shallow notarekomi, the tip is pushed up and sharp, and there is a return, which is a typical Aoe boshi
style. The shape, jigane, hamon, and all of the elements we see are Aoe characteristic points, and this is a beautiful blade. From these details, a majority of people voted for the correct answer.
The nakago is shown at 96% of the actual size.
Kantei To No. 3: Naginata Naoshi Wakizashi
Mei: ichi (Yoshioka Ichimonji)
Length: slightly over 1 shaku 7 sun
Sori: slightly over 2 bu
Style: naginata naoshi tsukuru
Mune: mitsumune
Jigane: itame mixed with nagare hada; there is a slightly visible hada, there are abundant ji-nie, fine chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: at the koshimoto, there is an active choji midare; the upper half is a suguha style hamon mixed with ko-choji, ko-gunome, and angular shaped features. There are some saka-ashi midare areas; there are frequent ashi and yo, some places have saka-ashi; there are frequent ko-nie, fine kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: fine midarekomi with hakikake; the tip is a yakizume style.
Horimono: on the ura there are naginata hi with soe hi; on the omote, the naginata hi is finished with kakudome, the other hi are carved into the nakago.
This is a Yoshioka Ichimonji school naginata naoshi wakizashi. Other than being a naginata naoshi, it is very healthy and thick. The jigane has strong midare utsuri, and the choji hamon has strong vertical variations. From these details, at first glance, it is possible judge this as Bizen work. Because of the naginata naoshi wakizashi shape, it is somewhat difficult to judge the period from the shape. The upper half is a suguha style hamon mixed with ko-choji and ko-gunome, and this is mainly a small size hamon, with somewhat less amplified vertical variations, but at the koshimoto, there is a gorgeous choji midare hamon. The hamon pattern in some places is mixed with a saka-ashi style midare and saka-ashi which is seen widely in Bizen work after the latter half of the Kamakura Period, and from this, among Ichimonji school work, you can confirm that this is from the slightly later period Yoshioka Ichimonji work. In the school’s midare hamon, sometimes the entire hamon is a smaller size, and among the Ichimonji school’s work, the hamon contain prominent gunome, and there is supposed to be a somewhat gentle pattern. Among these works, sometimes the hamon contains some characteristic Fukuoka Ichimonji large choji, and gorgeous midare work, just like this one, and you have to be careful in voting.
In voting, some people voted for mainly Bizen work, such as Hatakeda Moriie, Motoshige, Chikakage, and Katayama Ichimonji. If it were Moriie’s work, his hamon have no saka-ashi, and are mixed with more vertical variations and large kawazuko choji which have a pronounced narrow waist. If this were Bizen work from after the latter half of the Kamakura Period, such as Motoshige and Chikakage, the upper half of their hamon has some similarities to this, but at the koshimoto, vertical variations in choji do not stand out, and if it were Motoshige’s hamon, there would be more vertical long square gunome. Votes for Katayama Ichimonji work from before and after this period were disappointing votes. The differing points in their hamon are that there are not many prominent gunome when compared with Yoshioka Ichimonji, the entire hamon has saka-ashi, and there are fine ashi and yo.
Kantei To No. 4: Katana
Mei: Bizen kuni-ju Osafune Yosozaemon Sukesada
Tenmon 3 nen (1534) 2 gatsu kichijitsu
Length: slightly over 2 shaku 1 sun 2 bu
Sori: slighly over 7 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: slightly tight itame hada; there are frequent fine ji-nie, chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: the entire hamon is wide; there are open bottom gunome mixed with choji, togariba, ko-gunome, and fukushiki gunome. There are frequent ashi, yo, and ko-nie, some tobiyaki, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: wide yakiba and midarekomi. The tip is sharp and there is a long return.
Horimono: on the omote and ura above the koshimoto, there is one bonji.
This katana is wide and slightly short. There is no koshisori, a strong sakisori, and a long chu-kissaki, and from this you can judge this as work from around the Kyotoku-Tenmon (1528-54) period. The jigane is a slightly tight itame with midare utsuri. The hamon is mainly an open bottom gunome, mixed with choji, togariba, and ko-gunome, and is a fukushiki gunome style. The boshi has a wide yakiba and a long return, and overall, this shows remarkable Sue-Bizen characteristic points. For Sue-Bizen work, the katana’s jiba (jigane and hamon) workmanship is well organized, and in this school, looking for a smith who has produced many masterpieces, narrowing down your choice to Yosozaemon is relatively easy.
In voting, many people voted for Oei Bizen smiths such as Morimitsu and Yasumitsu, and for Sue Bizen smiths such as Kiyomitsu and Katsumitsu. If it were Oei Bizen Morimitsu and Yasumitsu’s work, a blade with this length would likely be a tachi with a koshisori, and no strong sakizori. The Oei Bizen open bottom gunome are large with heights extending from the shinogi-ji to the hamon edge, and has a larger an amplitude than Sue Bizen work. If it were Kiyomitsu’s work, his hada are more visible, and mixed with mokume hada, and somewhat disordered. His hamon are more likely to be suguha, there are strong nie, sometimes crumbled nie (nie kuzure), and long yo which appear like they are drooping from a suguha hamon, and are called “Kiyomitsu’s drool”, and these are his characteristic points. If it were Katsumitsu’s work, his active period is before Sukesada’s. On his blades, the length, width, and kissaki have a smaller katate-uchi shape, and his hamon contain more choji.
Kantei To No. 5: Wakizashi
Mei: Shume no kami Ippei Yasuyo with Ichiyo Aoe mon
Kyoho 13 nen (1728)
oite Sashu Kyuryo Gun saku kore
Length: 1 shaku 5 sun 9 bu
Sori: 3. 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itme hada; there are abundant ji-nie.
Hamon: wide suguha with a shallow notare, mixed with gunome and togari. There is a dense nioiguchi, abundant ara-nie, and abundant kinsuji.
Boshi: wide yakiba, a suguha style, and the tip has hakikake. There is a komaru shape and a return.
This wakizashi is wide, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out. There is a long chu-kissaki, and a rich hiraniku. The entire hamon nioiguchi has abundant ara-nie, and the inside of the central hamon area there are thick kinsuji called “Satsuma imo-tsuru”. From these details, it is not hard to judge this as Satsuma work. Also, the wide shinogi ji, the high shinogi, and Yamato style are strong characteristic points leading one to judge this as work by the Shinto Naminohira school’s Yasuyo. In addition, the hamon structure, the dense nioiguchi, the suguha style hamon’s shallow notare, the well spaced gunome and togariba, show that this is known as Yasuyo’s issaku style, and we can say this is a very typical Yasuyo work. In Yasuyo’s work, he made this type of style and another style that has a gentle style hamon from the moto to the saki, and is a suguha with a shallow notare, and looks like it was modelled after Inoue Shinkai’s work. Among Satsuma work, Yasuyo has notably many gentle appearing works.
In voting, some people voted for Inoue Shinkai and Osaka Shinto smiths such as Nanki Shigekuni. If it were Shinkai’s work, the hamon is somewhat similar,
but his shapes are less wide, there is a high shinogi, and less hiraniku compared with Satsuma swords. His hamon have no ara-nie or abundant nie, a more delicate nioiguchi, and many of the kinsuji and sunagashi are not thick like Satsuma’s.
Some people voted for Nanki Shigekuni from the Yamato style with a wide shinogi ji and high shinogi, and the nioiguchi with strong nie. Shigekuni’s jigane are mixed with large mokume and masame hada, his hamon border has prominent hataraki such as nijuba, his boshi have prominent hakikake, the entire blade has a strong Yamato style, and his nioiguchi are clearer.
In addition, Yasuyo was famous, and in Kyoho 6 (1721), following an order from Shogun Yoshimune, he had a forging demonstration at Hama-goten (the Shogun’s mansion) with Mondo no kami Masakiyo, and received permission to use the Ichiyo Aoe mon. In Kyoho 12 (1728), the year he made this wakizashi, he passed away at the age of 49 years, and as his last work, this blade’s documentary value is high.
Shijo Kantei To No. 825 in the October 2025 issue
The Answer for the October Shijo Kantei To is a wakizashi by Ozaki Suketaka
Ozaki Suketaka was born in Horeki 3 nen (1753), his common name was Minamoto Goemon, and he moved from his home area in Harima to Settsu. He was very successful in efforts to revive the wave shaped toran midare hamon which was created by Echizen no kami Sukehiro and Sakakura Gonno Terukane (the nidai Echigo no kami Kanesada). The precise time is not definite, but he became a student of Kuroda Takanobu, when he was about 30 years old around the mid-Tenmei period (1781-88). His signed work is seen from that time. When he was 46 years old in Kasei 10 (1798) he received the Nagato title.
According to the “Kokon Kaji Bikou” published in Bunsei 13 (1830), he passed away around Bunka kinoto ushi (2 nen, 1805) at the age of 53 years, and this seems to be the correct date.
However, in the case of this book, usually many of the dates given for when a smith passed away clearly use the “botsu” (passed away) kanji. Some of the smiths are listed as passing away at a specific date, such as “Hoki no Kami Masayuki Bunsei 1 (1818) botsu” and “Kyowa mizunoe inu (2 nen 1802) at the age of 70 years”. He was active in the same period as Suketaka. The book says “Suishinshi Masahide Bunsei 8 nen (1825) botsu”, and an entry for another smith is “Bunka kinoto mi (6 nen 1809) 61 years old”). From this, there is a possibility that the date of Suketaka’s passing away is not accurate. Another possibility is that the writer just didn’t use the “botsu” kanji, which could be an editing mistake.
However, Suketaka has many signed works up to Bunka 1 (1804), but from the following year there are almost none, and no evidence of any activity. From this, it seems that around this period, he either retired or passed away.
This wakizashi is slightly wide, there is a narrow shinogi ji, a shallow sori, a long chu-kissaki, and not much hiraniku. The forging is a somewhat muji style, and from these details, you can judge this as Shinshinto period work.
Suketaka was especially good at making shinogi tsukuri wakizashi. The ratio of the number of his katana to wakizashi is either 2:8 or 3:7. He produced few tanto and hiratsukuri wakizashi, and we could say he was very biased towards making wakizashi. My inference is that from the Osaka location, his main customers were likely merchants rather than samurai. Suketaka’s jiba (jigane and hamon) is bright and clear and his toran midare hamon are flashy and good looking. In addition, Osaka is the birthplace of the toran hamon, and there was likely a bias to work in the style of Sukehiro. In this situation, his customers were likely merchants. Moreover, the very wide hamon with nie may have produced a bit of anxiety concerning the strength of the sword, and we can imagine that samurai who needed a katana possibly tried to avoid that style of blade. In the same period, in Edo, Tegarayama Masashige who is good at making toran style large gunome hamon, produced katana and wakizashi in nearly equal numbers, or a 1:1 ratio, so the high ratio of wakizashi in Suketaka’s production is notable.
Suketaka’s shapes are characteristic, and in many of his swords, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out. Because of this, his kissaki look wide, there is a slightly short length, and it appears that there is no funbari. The shapes look like a katana shape, and are a unique shape, and this wakizashi shows these features.
The hamon Suketaka was good at producing was toran midare with a dense and wide nioiguchi. The hints about characteristic valley shapes means that when looking at the hamon, a midare wave breaks in the opposite direction from an adjacent wave, and the valleys are framed by these wave crests rising from the opposite sides of the valley. The wave crests extend slightly over the top of the valley, the length of the bottom of the valleys (or the valley floor) varies and can be long, and the valley appears to be a rectangle with straight vertical walls. The valleys form an almost square shape, and the bottom of the valleys are a straight line parallel to the edge of the blade. The interior of the large waves have thick ashi, and there is a gunome style hamon. Sometimes the hamon peaks looks like they are composed of three peaks, and this wakizashi shows these features.
The nakago tip is a narrow and a pronounced iriyamagata. The yasurime are a large sujichigai with kesho. On the omote under the mekugi ana along the mune side there is a long kanji signature. On the ura, starting at a one kanji space above the mekugi ana there is a date, and this pattern was present before he received the title. After he received the title, his kanji style changed from a unique sosho style kanji which looks like it was modelled after Sukehiro’s style, to a kaisho style. Also, his signature changed. Usually on the omote it started two kanji spaces above the mekugi ana, and in a higher location than the date.
In voting, besides the correct answer, people voted for smiths who were good at producing toran midare hamon work.
If it were Echizen no kami Sukehiro’s work there would be a muji style jigane, and no hiraniku which in not a characteristic Shinshinto feature. Many of his toran midare hamon interiors are mixed in some places with hakoba style hamon features and angular shaped features. His nakago tips are iriyamagata, and the angle at the tip is not very sharp. In the period when he made toran midare hamon, his kesho-yasuri were kouzutsumi yasuri (a pattern which he originated). Also, he has work with a narrow shinogi-ji, and these are seen mainly in narrow shaped suguha blades.
Many of Omi no kami Sukenao’s hamon are a large gunome midare with a long yakidashi, and the valleys have prominent sunagashi. His early yasurime do not include kesho yasuri, and most of the period’s work by Sukenao has kouzutsumi yasuri.
Itakura Gonno Terukane’s work, in his Kanesada period, has a narrow shinogi ji, but sometimes Terukane’s work had less hiraniku and a flat shape. His hamon below the yokote has three continuous gunome, and there are some common points. But his characteristic point is a high ihorimune, and because in many of his works, the hada is mixed with nagare hada, there are sunagashi on the top of the hamon, going into the hamon valleys, and the sunagashi are wide. Many of his works, below the yokote, have groups of three gunome, and this extends from the nakago to the yokote, and the hamon gradually becomes narrower, and these details are different from this work.
Kato Tsunahide’s hamon shapes have some similarities, but his nioiguchi are tight, with a strong tendency to look hard (i.e. they are light colored). His midare hamon valleys are wide at the top and narrow at the bottom, which forms a bucket-like shaped space, and this is supposed to be one of his strong characteristics.
Looking at Tegarayama Masashige, Suishinshi Masahide, and Ichige Tokurin, their midare hamon have a large gunome midare style. Some places at the top of Masashige’s hamon and valleys have a sharp shape, the tip of the nakago is iriyama gata and shallow, and his kesho yasuri are just like a kimono collar, and have a very characteristic kesho style.
Masahide’s hamon yakidashi width is even, ha-nie become mura nie, sometimes we see drop-like black nie, and his nakago tips are ha-agari kurijiri.
Many of Tokurin’s hamon have a one, two, three gunome pattern and a characteristic shape, there is an even nioiguchi, and his nakago tips are ha-agari kurjiri.
Commentary by Ooi Gaku
Attention: Once you vote for an answer and submit it, you cannot change it. Also, some people submit several answers, and in this case, even if one answer is the correct answer, all of their entries will become invalid. So please be careful and submit only one smith’s name.