MEITO KANSHO
APPRECIATION OF IMPORTANT SWORDS
Tokubetsu Juyo Token
Wakizashi
Owner: NBTHK
Mei: Sagami Koku junin Hiromitsu
Koan 2 nen (1362) 10 gatsu hi
Length: 1 shaku (30.3 cm)
Sori: 1 bu (0.3 cm)
Motohaba: 9 bu 1 rin (2.75 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu (0.6 cm)
Nakago length: 3 sun 1 bu 2 rin (9.45 cm)
Nakago sori: slight
Commentary
This is hirazukuri mitsumune wakizashi. It is wide and long, slightly thick, and there is a shallow sori. The hada is itame mixed with mokume, in some places the hada is visible, and there are abundant ji-nie, and chikei. The hamon is gunome mixed with choji and konotare. There are ashi, yo, abundant nie, frequent yubashiri, and muneyaki which form hitatsura. There are frequent kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bright and clear nioiguchi. The boshi is midarekomi, the tip is a small round shape, there is a long return, and below that there are intermittent mune yaki. The horimono on the omote and ura are katana-hi carved through the nakago. The nakago is ubu, the tip is kurijiri, and the yasurime are katte sagari. There is one mekugi-ana on the omote’s center, and under the mekugi-ana there is a long signature made with a fine chisel, and the ura has date.
At the end of the Kamakura period, the Soshu Den school reached its peak under Masamune, and the school continued to be active under Sadamune. In the Nanbokucho period, the school was led by Hiromitsu and Akihiro. Hiromitsu’s dated work is confirmed from around Kano (1350-51) to Joji 3 (1364). Akihiro’s dated work is confirmed from Enbun 2 (1357) to Shitoku 4 (1387). From this, Hiromitsu is thought to be slightly senior to Akihiro. Their hamon styles, instead of being mainly notare hamon until then, are hitatsura hamon mixed with so-called “dango choji” in which the tops of the hamon features are wide and round, and this is a unique hamon. In addition, there are supposed to be intentionally placed tobiyaki, yubashiri and muneyaki. In other words, this is an inheritance from the Soshu den smiths, and Hiromitsu established a hitatsura hamon style. This hamon style influenced not only Sue Soshu smiths in the Muromachi period, but also other country smiths, and we could say that it is an innovative hamon style in Japanese sword history. Hataraki such as tobiyaki and yubashiri could degrade the hamon’s dignity, but Hiromitsu and Akihiro’s hitatsura hamon appear natural looking without any theatricality, and the dignity in their work has not been compromised. From this, we can recognize their high level of skill.
Also, Akimitsu has work less than 1 shaku in length and these are short, and it is notable that most of Hiromitsu’s work is over 1 shaku in length and is large. Hiromitsu has a tachi dated Bunwa 2 (1353), which is signed “Sagami koku ju-nin Sae” (the nakago is suriage below this). However, the full mei is ”Saemon jo Hiromitsu”, and this was the No.18 Tokubetsu Juyo Token. In both smiths’ work, there are few without horimono, and most of them have simple horimono such as katana-hi, gomabashi, and suken. Their workmanship in the jiba (jigane and hamon) is not very different, but prominent “dango choji” hamon are seen more often in Hiromitsu’s work. The signatures were “Hiromitsu” and “Sagami koku ju-nin Hiromitsu” signed on the omote, and the ura are dated “X nen X gatsu hi”. Akimitsu signed only before Enbun 2 (1357) and signed in the same way as Hiromitsu. Other blades are usually signed “Soshu ju Akihiro”. In addition, in his Oan 2, and Oan 3 (1369 and 1370) work, he has two styles, one signed with “nen” and “gatsu hi” kanji, and another style omits the date, and after Oan 5 (1372) he omitted the “nen”, “gatsu”, and “hi” kanji, and signed dates such as “Eiwa 2” (1376).
Hiromitsu also has two kanji signatures which have a slightly angular shape and this style is usually seen in long signatures. On one blade which is Juyo Bijutsuhin, the upper half has a hitatsura style hamon, and the other half is a suguha style, and there are some opinions that this supposed to be an earlier period work. There is no conclusion yet about whether these are Hiromitsu’s early work or a previous generation’s work.
This wakizashi has a short length for Hiromitsu’s work, but the large width reflects the period’s trend to produce large shapes, and with the hamon’s emphasis on tobiyaki, yubashiri, and muneyaki, it is good example of a hitatsura hamon. It has abundant activity and movement, abundant even nie, a lot of variation in the hataraki such as kinsuji, niesuji, and sunagashi, and under the fukura, the hamon width becomes wider, and we see remarkable Soshu den elements. In addition, features such as large bunches of dango choji confirm that this work is not by other smiths.
According to the saya-gaki by Honami Choshiki, it confirms that this used to have a Honami Kochu origami which listed the value at 700 kan in Hoei 3 (1706). On the other hand, in Meiji 5 (1872) after the abolition of the han, the Yamato koku Koriyama Yanagisawa family’s revised “oshimono dai-cho” (sword list) listed a “Soshu Hiromitsu wakizashi with a signature, 1 shaku length, omote and ura have katana-hi, accompanied by a 700 kan origami dated Genroku 9 nen (1696) 5 gatsu (May), and this was a list of Hiromitsu’s work. These two published dates are different, and of course they could be different blades, but today the length, horimono, and value of 700 kan match, and these references likely refer to this wakizashi, however, a final confirmation about this is still in the future.
This is the famous American sword collector Dr. Walter Compton’s wakizashi, and in June of Reiwa 7 (2025) it was donated to the NBTHK by a sword lover. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to this donor.
Explanation and picture by Ishii Akira.
Shijo Kantei To No. 829
Information: Katana
Length: 2 shaku 5 sun 1.5 bu (76.3 cm)
Sori: slightly less than 5 bu (1.4 cm)
Motohaba: 1 sun (3.0 cm)
Sakihaba: 6.5 bu (1.95 cm)
Motokasane: slightly over 2 bu (0.7 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: slightly over 9 bu (2.8 cm)
Nakago length: 7 sun 2 bu (21.85 cm)
Nakago sori: very slight
This is a shinogi tsukuri katana with an ihori mune. There is a standard width, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is prominent. There is a standard thickness, a low shinogi, and a slight funbari. There is a relatively large sori and a short chu-kissaki. The jigane has a tight ko-itame hada, there are frequent ji-nie and fine chikei. The shinogi ji has a masame hada, the hada is slightly visible and prominent. The hamon and the boshi are as seen in the oshigata. The hamon is a wide suguha, and in places, there is a shallow gentle notare, mixed with gunome, and there are thick ashi. There is a dense nioiguchi, and ko-nie extend from the edge or border of the hamon to the inside of the hamon which appears like smoke, and there is a bright and clear nioiguchi. The nakago is ubu, the mune is square, the tip is narrow, and there is a ha-agari kurijiri nakago tip. The nakago tip on the mune surface forms a straight line, and only the hamon side of the nakago tip has niku. The yasurime are a large sujichigai with weak kesho yasuri. There are two mekugi ana, and on the omote under the mekugi ana along the mune side a title from the government is inscribed.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Gunbai san zu (General’s baton design) tsuba
Mei: Sendai ju Kiyosada
The powerful domain in Mutsu ruled by the Date family supported a diverse number of gold smiths, and among them, a smith who stood out for both, his skill and popularity, was supposed to be Kusakari Kiyosada. Kiyosada’s common name was Hachisaburo, and he was born as a son of Hachibyoe who was making a living as a metal engraver. He studied metal engraving tecniques under Masamura Shichiuemon in Sendai. Kiyosada then went to Edo to improve his skills, and returned to Sendai to become the domain’s okakae smith. He was good at making a shakudo gound with simple designs such as dragons and geometric patterns. He used gold lines and colored hirazogan, and he produced many tsuba and fuchi-kashira.
This example exhibits Sendai Kiyosada’s style in a tsuba. On the ishime shakudo ground, on the omote and the ura he carved ten gunbai. Usually, a shakudo ground with gold inlay on a tsuba is either nanako or polished, but Kiyosada’s tsuba ground is fine ishime work. Kiyosada’s ishime work is good and was his unique domain. Using the same technique and design, if the ground is nanako, the nanako pattern would be too strong, and looking at this, it would give an impression of being “gunbai and nanako” design work. The ishime ground is uneven and more shallow than nanako, and it reduces light reflection. Because of this, the ishime pattern becomes simply a background, and the main subject, gunbai, becomes more emphasized.
Of course, the main subject, or gunbai, shows elaborate details and craftmanship. The fan’s surfaces show all types of patterns such as saya, shippo-mon, and amishiro-moyo, and are carved using hira-zogan, and appear three dimensional. This technique, changing the inlay technique, skillfully expresses differences in textures and this makes the tsuba more lively or notable.
This kind of subject was popular in gunbai designs since historical times. From the elegant and graceful appearance, instead of being a military gunnbai, more likely it was used to a nobleman’s hide a face. This is a graceful work, from the strong black colored shakudo ground and gold fan with waving
tassels.
Explanation Takeda Kotaro
Teirei Kansho kai
Date: January 10, 2026 (second Saturday of the month)
Place: Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Ooi Gaku
Kantei To No. 1: Juyo Bijitsuhin Tachi
Mei: Kunimura
Length: 2 shaku 7 sun 2 bu
Sori: 9 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: mitsumune
Jigane: ko-itame hada mixed with itame and nagare hada; the hada is slightly visible. There are dense ji-nie, some jifu, a whitish jigane, some bo-utsuri, and jifu utsuri.
Hamon: chu-suguha style. There are some Kyo-saka-ashi, a tight nioiguchi, ko-nie, nijuba, some muneyaki, small sunagashi, and a worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: straight; the tip is round and there is a small return.
Enju Kunimura’s father Hiromura was born in Yamato, and is supposed to be Rai Kuniyuki’s father-in-law. Kunimura was Kuniyuki’s grandson and much of the school’s work is somewhat similar to the Rai school’s work in the latter half of the Kamakura period.
This blade has a large koshisori, the tip has sori, and there is a wasori style shape. The jigane is based on ko-itame hada with dense ji-nie, but there are weak jigane (Rai hada style) areas mixed with jifu. Some places have bo-utsuri. The hamon is chu-suguha with frequent ko-nie, Kyo-saka-ashi, and muneyaki. The boshi is straight, round, and we can see that there are many common points with Rai school work.
On the other hand, the jitetsu is mixed with many nagare-hada areas, there are prominent nijuba, the boshi return is small, and we can recognize, these details as being from his father Hiromura’s Yamato Den influence.
Moreover, the forging and the utsuri are not uniform, and slightly less refined. There is a whitish jigane, and a worn down nioiguchi which is different from the Rai school’s bright delicate and smooth texture, and we can recognize this as expected from Enju work.
Among the Enju school smiths, Kunimura has many long tachi, and the widths at the moto and saki show prominent differences. The tachi is 1 sun machi okuri, but the original length is 2 shaku 7 sun. In addition, the suguha hamon and fewer hataraki are his characteristic points.
In voting, some people voted for Ryokai and Unrui. If it were Ryokai work, there is a prominent soft nioiguchi, and many boshi tips are komaru. If it were Unrui work, the hamon would contain angular shaped features, saka-ashi, in-no-togariba, and prominent yo.
The nakago is shown at 87% of its actual size.
Kantei To No. 2: Tanto
Mei: Hoki kuni ju Mita Goro Zaemonjo Hiroyoshi
Eiroku 10 nen (1567) 2 gatsu kichijitsu
Length: 8 sun 5.5 bu
Sori: slight
Style: moroha zukuri
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are dense ji-nie, and a slightly whitish ji.
Hamon: wide, with angular shaped features, and gunome midare. There are some yo, a tight nioiguchi, ko-nie, and some pale nie-suji. The mune side has the same kind of yakiba, and there is a worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: midarekomi with a sharp tip and return, and it continues to form muneyaki.
Horimono: on the omote at the koshimoto there is a bonji and rendai; on the ura there is a fine gomabashi carved into the nakago.
Hiroyoshi’s common name was Hiroga. His hamon, besides a Sue Soshu style and Sue Bizen style midare, often are a wide hamon just like this one. There are angular shaped gunome, and some slight open bottom valley repeats, and these repeat with a constant spacing. Other hamon features are mixed with these hamon features.
His forging work is tight, and we see few of his teacher’s Soshu Den like prominent chikei. His characteristic hamon are similar to Seki work, and do not have prominent ashi and yo, there are ha-nie, and a slightly worn down nioiguchi. His does not have many horimono, but does have some detailed work, and these are his characteristic points.
On his usual hiratsukuri tanto, with this kind of repeated angular shaped gunome hamon, the return is a gentle notare or suguha style, and is a long return. This is a rare moroha tsukuri for Hiroyoshi, and the mune side hamon is the same as the edge side hamon. It is easy to overlook this type of tanto when examining his usual work. At this time, at the first vote, we gave a low score for Sue Bizen and Sue Seki answers.
Also, moroha tsukuri blades start to be seen mainly around the Bunmei (1469-86) period, and most of them are seen in the Sue Bizen period. In the beginning, lengths are 5-6 sun which is a small size, and many of them have a long nakago, the shinogi-suji tip does not turn much towards the mune side, and many of them are similar to a ken-like shape. However, after the Tenmon (1532-54) period, armor designs were intended to provide more protection from guns, and maybe until then, moroha tsukuri tanto were not useful, and the shape changed. The tip and shinogi-suji has a strong sori, so instead of stabbing, the shape was good to use for slashing, and the size became bigger, however, the nakago length became standard when compared to the blade length.
Kantei To No. 3: Katana
Mei: Hizen Kuni Kawachi Daijo Fujiwara Masahiro
Kanbun 3 nen (1663) 2 gatsu kichijitsu
Length: slightly over 2 shaku 3 sun 4 bu
Sori: slightly over 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: ko-itame hada, and the hada is slightly visible; there are abundant ji-nie, chikei, and a slightly dark jigane.
Hamon: at the moto there is a straight short yakidashi; there are gunome mixed with gunome-choji, yahazu style features, mushroom shaped choji, and some areas between the notare peaks are connected with a ko-notare pattern. There are ashi, yo, frequent nie, and in the valleys of the midare hamon there are clumps of nie, and frequent kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: straight style, with a slight midare influence; there are hakikake; the tip is a komaru style.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi and soe-ho carved into the nakago.
Although this is dated during the Kanbun period, the shape is not a Kanbun Shinto shape. It is wide, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is not prominent, there is a slightly large sori and a chu-kissaki, and this is a well- proportioned Hizento-like shape. Also, ryo-chiri (flat areas on the shinogi ji on both sides of the hi) are seen often in Hizento. The jigane is ko-itame hada with abundant ji-nie but is not like the mainstream Tadayoshi family’s refined jigane. The jihada is slightly visible and dark, which is seen as a branch Hizen characteristic point. However, the Nidai Masahiro’s work is seen sometimes with a tight jigane just like mainstream Hizen work.
The hamon overall has a dense nioiguchi, frequent nie, and especially groups of nie in the valleys of the midare hamon. There is a prominent dense nioiguchi, and the nioiguchi, not only on the edge of the jigane side, but also the hamon side has a clear border, and this characteristic point is often seen in most Hizento work. The midare hamon has a strong midare pattern, mainly gunome and gunome choji, and often the tops of the choji are stretched horizontally into a mushroom-like shape and yahazu-style features. Some places between the groups of the midare hamon are connected with a ko-notare hamon, and these are expected Bo-Hizen characteristic points.
There are frequent sunagashi and kinsuji, the boshi is a slight midare with hakikake, and these are pointed out often as being some of Tadakuni’s characteristics. From this, at this time, his name is treated as a correct answer. However, many of Tadakuni’s midare hamon have prominent choji, and if there is a gap between groups of choji, it is bordered by the ends of the midare groups and the hamon width becomes slightly lower between the choji groups, and this creates a difference in the height of the hamon going along the hamon.
Kantei To No. 4: Juyo Bijutsuhin Tanto
Mei: Norishige
Length: 7 sun 6.5 bu
Sori: uchizori
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume hada. There are some sections with a large itame and large mokume hada. The hada is slightly visible. There are ji-nie, frequent prominent thick chikei, and a dark jigane.
Hamon: based on a shallow notare, mixed with a flowing midare which enters the ji, and some ko-gunome; there are ashi, a very dense nioiguchi, strong nie, frequent hotsure, uchinoke, yubashiri, niesuji, kinsuji, sunagashi, and a worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: midarekomi with hakikake, and niesjuji. The point is a komaru style and there is a return.
Although this tanto is a slightly small size, there is a standard width and thickness. It is well balanced with an uchizori, and there is a hiratsukuri tanto shape. From these details, you can judge this as being work from the latter half of the Kamakura period.
Also, because there is a high ihorimune, the uchizori shape looks strong. There is a poor fukura, and just as expected, there is a Norishige takenoko-sori shape. Usually, Norishige produced more mitsumune style tanto, and some of the ihorimune examples such as Eisei Bunko tanto are Kokuho.
The jigane has the Northern country’s darker color and visible hada, and just like the old book “Kiame” says, the hada is not uniform, but has hard and soft iron forged together, making a large pattern hada. There are thick chikei, and the clear hada pattern called Matsukawa hada is present.
The hamon is entangled with the forged hada pattern, and is a flowing midare, and the hamon edge has rich hataraki which blend in together, and in many places, the boundary in the jiba (between the jigane and hamon) is unclear. There is a strong nioiguchi, strong nie, and some pale yubashiri, and these, along with the jigane pattern have a hitatsura-like effect. There is a worn down nioiguchi and a boshi with strong hakikake. The jiba shows Norishige’s characteristic points very well.
At this time, people made a careful assessment these characteristic points, and the majority voted for the correct answer. The results of their studies were clearly demonstrated.
Kantei To No. 5: Katana
Mei: oite Tobu Koyama Sobei Munetsugu saku kore
Tenbun 9 nen (1838) 2 gatsu 1 nichi
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 6.5 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada which is muji. There are abundant ji-nie and a bright jigane.
Hamon: choji midare mixed with some gunome and ko-gunome elements. There are frequent thick long ashi, a dense nioiguchi, some mura-nie, some kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: there is a slightly wide yakiba. The boshi is midarekomi with a komaru and return.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi finished with marudome.
There is a standard width, but the blade is thick all the way to the tip, and even with hi, it is still very heavy. The shinogi ji is narrow for the width of the blade. There is a muji hada style jigane, and from these details, you can judge this as being Shinshinto work.
Koyama Munetsugu’s work around Tenpo 8 to 10 (1837-39) was often thought to be Ichimonji utsushi work. They have either a standard width or a slightly narrow width, a strong sori, a long chu-kissaki, and a tachi shape. It is pointed out that generally, many of his jigane have a visible hada, but this is not always obvious.
However, the hamon’s characteristic points include the observation that there are more vertical variations than usual, there are large choji bunches, and a dense nioiguchi. In addition, the shapes and sizes of the choji show slight variations. From this, at first glance, it is a little hard to find his usual embossed hamon pattern which has repeated hamon shapes at regular intervals (at about 3 sun 2 bu intervals). But, when carefully looking at the details, we can see the vertical midare hamon variations, and that the hamon elements show a repeat with a constant spacing.
For another proper answer, some people voted for Chounsai Tsunatoshi. If it were his hamon, there would be a tight nioiguchi, small choji bunches, and a complex midare pattern, similar to Munetsugu’s usual work, and he had yaki-dashi too.
Some people emphasized the dense nioiguchi and voted for Unju Korekazu. His early period hamon show some elements of Tsunatoshi’s style, but if this were his dense nioiguchi hamon, it would be nie deki, and we would not see such regular hamon repeat units.
Shijo Kantei To No. 827 in the December, 2025 issue
The answer to the December Shijo Kanteito is a katana by Tatara Nagayuki.
This katana’s length is slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun, which is a standard length. There is a standard width, and 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-kassaki. These characteristics lack enough distinctive features to judge the period, and just from the shape, it is difficult to decide the period.
If the katana’s funbari is gone, you have to consider it to be suriage tachi or a short tachi, but the hints said “katana” and nakago is “ubu”. Also, there are no Muromachi period characteristic features such as a saki-sori and short nakago, and no Shinshinto characteristics such as a thick blade, or a muji style jigane. From these details, you can start to think about Shinto work.
Among Shinto swords, from the relatively deep sori, you can think about swords such as Kanei Shinto, Genroku Shinto, Hizento, and copies of old swords or utsushimono. Among these, from the nioiguchi and Bizen Den choji midare hamon with midare utsuri, as the first candidate, the Ishido school comes to mind.
The Ishido smiths made works which look like Ichimonji with midare utsuri. But the difference compared with the old work, as the Ishido smiths often pointed out, was that their shinogi ji had a masame hada. For people thinking about koto Bizen work, please remember this. Among the Ishido school’s work, if they have a different period’s characteristic shapes, you don’t need worry too much, but actually, their blades can have a strong sori, and so, this becomes a large factor in distinguishing between new and old work.
Nagayuki’s common name was Chokou, and he was supposed to be a student of the Osaka Ishido school’s Kawachi no kami Yasunaga. Among the Ishido school smiths, he was a later period smith. He has work with a shallow sori, and judging from this, he could have started making swords in the Kanbun period. He has dated Tenna and Jokyo (1681-87) work, so from this, his active period was slightly later than the Kanbun (1661-72) period which was the Ishido school’s peak. It is supposed to be around the transitional period to the Genroku Shinto period when blades with a strong sori appeared.
Nagayuki often made blades which appeared to be copies of older work, especially during his early period Sue Bizen utsushi work (Sukehiro utsushi), which has a fukushiki gunome style hamon, the shape is slightly short, there is a sakizori, and a katateuchi style short nakago. Also, he has work modelled after Ichimonji work which is relatively long with a long nakago, and has a tachi style, and we can imagine he was careful making utsushinomo. This work has a strong sori, and a standard length for the nakago which is 7 sun 6 bu and conspicuously large, and there are prominent vertical variations in the midare hamon. This conforms with the Ichimonji utsushi range.
The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada and there are abundant ji-nie, an Osaka Shinto style beautiful bright ji, and midare utsuri.
Nagayuki’s hamon are Sue Bizen and Oei Bizen utsushi, and are patterns such as prominent bottom open fukushiki gunome hamon and Ichimonji utsushi, with prominent vertical variations like this one. Others works have a wide midare hamon, where the tops of the choji are close each other, and there is not much prominent vertical variation in the top of the hamon. Many of the hamon are mixed with fukushiki gunome, and this is supposed to be a major characteristic point.
Also, his hamon have prominent pointed features, his characteristic feature is a tight nioiguchi, and it is supposed to be tightest among the Ishido school smiths. Often his refined forging produces a bright and clear jiba, and his work is considered to be among the school’s best, and this katana shows these characteristic points.
His boshi are gentle, usually a midare, and a sharp tip is a characteristic point, and we often see a long return.
His nakago tips are a slightly narrow kurijiri, there are some ha-agari kurijiri, a relatively long length, and the yasurime are katte-sagari. His long kanji signatures are carved on the omote along the mune edge and this katana shows that nakago style.
For another proper answer Yasunaga, people didn’t vote for Kawachi no kami Yasunaga. He is from Kishu, and his style is same as Kishu Ishido which is explained below. His nakago tips are iriyamagata.
The Kishu Ishido school hamon have many yakidashi, the wide hamon often extends up to near the shinogi, their choji bunches are small, and because of the small size, only the top of the hamon shows frequent midare, and the distance from the top of the hamon waves to the valleys is large, and this supposed to be their characteristic hamon. Their boshi have a long return, and we often see muneyaki. Among these smiths, if it were Yasuhiro’s work, his nakago tips are iriyamagata or kengyo.
Mitsuhira’s hamon contain large choji and small choji, and there are prominent vertical variations which is same as on this katana. Sometimes his hamon have prominent togariba, and even this kind of hamon is mixed often with his characteristic round choji and fukuro choji. Also, his hamon do not contain much fukushiki gunome, and most of his boshi are either straight or a shallow notare, and the nakago tips are komaru or round, and there is a gentle appearance.
Tsunemitsu has prominent pointed features with vertical variations when compared to Mitsuhira. Many of his hamon are a rather small size, and we do not often see fukushiki gunome. He has some midare boshi and a slightly sharp tip, almost no long returns, and the sharpness of his tips cannot match the sharp shapes we see in Nagayuki’s boshi. Also, many of his signatures are under the mekugi ana, either on the center, or from the center to slightly towards the mune side, and his characteristic nakago jiri is a shallow kurijiri tip.
Korekazu’s characteristic points are the prominent masame hada, the entire hamon is a small size with saka-ashi, and his boshi are the same as Mitsuhira’s.
The Fukuoka Ishido school’s work is the same as Korekazu’s school, and also has prominent masame hada, there is a wide hamon which is wider than Korekazu’s and is mixed with large features which almost reach the shinogi. Their saka-ashi style is also very prominent. Also, sometimes we see choji described as being “just like a squid’s head”, sharp pointed large saka-choji, and small ball shaped features which look like they came off of the yakiba from inside of the hamon.
Commentary by Ooi Gaku
NOTE: 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 is the correct answer, all of their entries will become invalid. So please be careful and submit only one smith’s name.