MEITO KANSHO
APPRECIATION OF IMPORTANT SWORDS
Tokubetsu Juyo Token
Naginata Naoshi Katana
Mei: Bishu Osafune ju Morikage
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 8 bu 9 rin (72.4 cm)
Sori: 6 bu 8 rin (2.05 cm)
Motohaba: 1 sun 1 rin (3.05 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu 5 rin (0.8 cm)
Nakago length: 6 sun 4 bu 5 rin (19.55 cm)
Nakago sori: 5 rin (0.15 cm)
Commentary
This is a naginata naoshi tsukuri katana with a mitsumune. It is wide, the tip is not too wide, the blade is thick, there is a slightly large sori, and the tip has a gentle sori. The jigane is itame mixed with mokume, there are abundant ji-nie and frequent chikei. Some areas in the lower half of the blade have jifu. There are pale midare style utsuri. The hamon is ko-notare mixed with ko-gunome, and there are angular shaped features and togari in the hamon. The bottom half of the hamon is a slightly small midare, and the entire hamon has frequent ashi and yo, and there are some ko-nie. The boshi is midarekomi, the tip is a togari style komaru, and there is a long return. The horimono on the omote and ura are naginata-hi with soe-hi and finished in marudome. The nakago is ubu, but is shortened and the tip is kiri. The new yasurime are sujichigai, and the original yasurime are a slightly shallow sujichigai. There is one mekugi ana. On the ura, next to the mekugi ana and along the mune side, there is a small sized long kanji signature.
In Bizen Province, the Omiya school is supposed to have been started by Kunimori who moved from Yamashiro Province’s Inokuma Omiya to Bizen, and for a long time, Osafune Morikage was supposed to be the school’s representative of smith. But in Showa 58 (1983), the former Tokyo National Museum curator for swords, the late Ogasawara Nobuo, published a scholarly paper examining the prevailing view of the lineage of the Bizen Omiya smiths, and he reached the conclusion that Morikage was a Chikakage school smith. To summarize, Morikage’s prominent gyaku-tagane and calligraphic style signature showed a similarity in style and artistic range to Chikakage’s style. In addition, on the last dated Chikakage tachi dated Jowa 3 (1347), the signature is “Bizen koku ju Osafune Chikakage”, and Osafune is under the “ju” kanji, which indicates that Osafune here most likely represented the school’s name, and Morikage has some signed work which uses “Osafune” in the same way as this. Also from the kanji character’s composition, Ogasawara’s theory was reinforced. Nowadays, Morikage is considered as one of Nagamitsu’s students, and associated with Chikakage in a branch Osafune school in which the smiths used the “kage” kanji such as Yoshikage, Morokage and Yukikage.
However, Morikage is famous as a Soden Bizen smith along with Chogi, Kanemitsu and Motoshige. His earliest confirmed dated work is from Enbun 5 (1360), the latest work is around Oei 10 (1413), and he was active from the mid-Nanbokucho to the early Muromachi period. In this period, he is supposed to have made all styles of blades to meet the demand of the turbulent Nanbokucho period. He has works in diverse sizes from large to usual, and we see all types of blades besides tachi, such as small tachi, hirazukuri wakizashi, tanto, katana (shobu-zukuri), and naginata. Among these, and particularly noteworthy, we can confirm that he has five hiratsukuri uchigatana style blades around 2 shaku in length. In this period, in Bizen, until the latter half of the Nanbokucho period, this style was rare and seen in the work of Kanemitsu, Masamitsu, Kosori Shigehiro, and Yoshii Kagenori’s work. Morikage’s jigane have a slightly visible hada, and sometimes there is a large hada pattern and uneven forging, which is not as good as that seen in Kanemitsu’s well forged jigane. Due to this, it is conventionally thought that his ji-utsuri are weak. His hamon styles are extensive, such as mainly notare, choji and gunome, and Chogi style small size midare. Mainly they are kaku-gunome and Aoe style suguha. There are uneven ha-nie, a slightly worn down nioiguchi, and his boshi area tsukiage style has a long return just like on this work. In addition, his horimono are unique, and it was pointed out previously that in his Sankozukaken, the sanko part has a sloped shoulder when compared with mainstream Osafune work and is more round. The middle ko part is shorter than the sides, and the kimoku tsuka (the bulbous part of the tsuka) is compressed vertically.
This katana is wide, the tip is not spread out, there is a slightly large sakizori, and originally this had the shape of a Nanbokucho period naginata. The jigane in the lower half is mixed with large hada and jifu hada, which show his characteristic points, but this is well forged, and there is almost no visible hada which shows more forging more than usual. The hamon is mainly a frequent notare, especially in the upper part, and not like Kanemitsu’s gentle hamon. The notare intervals are short, and also some of the tops or peaks in the hamon’s slightly square elements show Morikage’s characteristic points. There is a wide and thick shape, the boshi return has kept its original form, and there is no machiokuri, and the upper part remains untouched, which almost shows the original Nanbokucho period’s large naginata shape, and it is a valuable and informative source for historical features. This is thick and heavy, has been preserved in a healthy shape, and its condition deserves special mention. With the Soshu-Bizen smith Morikage’s typical hamon, this is one of his outstanding works.
Shijo Kantei To No. 834
Information
Tachi
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun 5 bu (71.15 cm)
Sori: slightly less than 6 bu (1.75 cm)
Motohaba: 1.05 sun (3.15 cm)
Sakihaba: 7.5 bu (2.25 cm)
Motokasane: slightly over 2 bu (0.65 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 5.5 bu (4.65 cm)
Nakago length: 6 sun 2 bu (18.75 cm)
Nakago sori: slight
This is a shinogi tsukuri tachi with an ihorimune. It is wide, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out. It is slightly thin compared with its original condition. At the koshimoto, there is a slight funbari even though the blade is suriage. There is a shallow koshisori, the tip has sori, and there is a large kissaki. The jigane is itame hada, and in some places it is mixed with mokume hada. The entire hada is visible, there are ji-nie, dull chikei, and pale midare utsuri. The hamon and the boshi are as seen in the oshigata. In the hamon, there are ko-nie, some places have a nioiguchi, there are fine kinsuji and sunagashi, and the nioiguchi is bright. The nakago is suriage. The tip is kiri, and the original tip was either kurijiri or ha-agari kurijiri. The yasurime are katte sagari and there are two mekugi ana. On the omote along the mune side, there is a slightly small size long kanji signature, and the ura has a part of the date remaining.
The school to which this smith belongs often has notare midare hamon, and the number of his remaining swords is relatively small, and it is noted that he has a small number of notare midare hamon.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Oyako tori zu (parent and child chicken design) menuki
Warikitamei: Nagatsune Kao Nagatsune
This is a pair of the Kyoto master gold smith Ichinomiya Nagatsune‘s menuki from the mid-Edo period.
On the omote menuki, the smith used shakudo and sudo. On the ura menuki the smith used shibuichi and gold imotsugi (using gold and different metals), and the different surfaces express day and night. In depicting the chickens, he used appropriate iroe (colored) inlays. The menuki show the parent chickens, both male and female, bending down, and the figures are notably tense in appearance. The change in the feathers from the head and going down, and the fine details are faithfully recreated. A sword koshirae book “Token Kisho” (published in the late Edo period) notes the “lifelike depiction”, and mentions Nagatsune’s keen eye for observation, and discusses the fine details in the images. In addition, the parent chickens’ eyes are powerfully shown, full of vitality, and there is refined carving. The images emphasize the male chicken’s prominent sharp eyes, and the fierceness of the female chicken’s love. There is a strikingly realistic quality to the menuki, and even though the menuki are composed of inorganic elements, the chickens appear as if they are about to spring into action.
Nagatsune was born in Kyoho 6 (1721) in Echigo in Suruga. After he went to Kyoto he studied under Horii Takanawa, and the age of 50, he received the Echizen Daijo title which came from his hometown’s name. He was reknown as the west side master smith along with the east side master smith Somin, and was a representative of the Kyoto master smiths. As the Omiya school founder’s work this is a masterpiece that preserves his consummate artistic skill to the present day. Also, on some omote and ura signatures there are “Nagatsune-kao-Nagatsune”. Another version is Nagatsune-Kao-Kao. The kao which is repeated is seen in a few of his works, and it also has value as a reference material.
Explanation by Koiwai Daiki
Teirei Kansho Kai
Date: June 13th (the second Saturday of the month)
Place: Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Koiwai Daiki
Kantei To No. 1: Tachi
Juyo Bijutsuhin
Mei: Kunitsuna (Ko-Bizen)
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 2 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume and nagare hada; the hada is visible; there are ji-nie, chikei, a slightly dark jigane, and jifu utsuri.
Hamon: the entire hamon is wide; the pattern is ko-choji mixed with komidare; there are angular shaped elements, and frequent ashi and yo; some parts of the habuchi have yo style hataraki; there is a bright nioiguchi with ko-nie, kinsuji, and sunagashi.
Boshi: straight with a round tip; there is a short return.
This is the Tsuchiura domain family’s heirloom tachi, and from the signature and style, it is judged as being by Ko-Bizen Kunitsuna from Showa 4 (1316) and is classified as Juyo Bijutsuhin. The tachi has a narrow shape with a strong koshizori, even though it is suriage. The widths at the moto and saki are different, and there is a small kissaki, which is a classic tachi shape.
From these details, this is work from no later than the early Kamakura period. The hada is itame with strong nagare, and the entire ji has a strong visible hada. The upper half of the blade has dark jifu utsuri which reaches the shinogi line. There are some roughly forged areas in the Ko-Bizen jigane. The hamon width is high, and the pattern is mainly ko-choji. The nioiguchi is bright and nie are present. The entire hamon has prominent vertical variations. Among the Ko-Bizen smiths, this appears just like Masatsune and Yoshikage’s gorgeous hamon, but some places are mixed with komidare, ashi and yo and are not orderly or are unbalanced, the nioiguchi has nie, and in places there are mura-nie. From the shape and the jigane, the tachi appears to be an old work.
In voting, from the prominent vertical variations in the choji hamon, many people voted for Ko-Ichimonji work. Among wide-ranging Ko-Bizen work, compared with Tomonari’s suguha style hamon mixed with a classic komidare style, this has a more exuberant hamon with some similarity to Ko-Ichimonji work, and at this time we treated this as a correct answer. However, Ko-Ichimonji work has clear utsuri in the jigane just like later Bizen work.
The nakago is shown at 94% of the actual size.
Kantei To No. 2: Wakizashi
Mei: Nobukuni (Saemon-jo)
length: slightly over 1 shaku 0.1 bu
Sori: slight
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: mitsumune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; along the hamon the hada is mixed with nagare hada; there are fine ji-nie, chikei, and a bright jigane.
Hamon: gunome mixed with yahazu shaped elements, konotare, and togari shaped features; there are ashi, yo, frequent nie, some mura-nie, yubashiri, tobiyaki, muneyaki, and fine kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: midarekomi; the tip is a high togari; there is a long return.
Horimono: on the omote and the ura there are katana-hi finished in maru-dome. Inside the hi there are two bonji; below the hi on the omote side there is a long bonji and rendai; on the ura side there is a long bonji.
This is an Oei Nobukuni school wakizashi. The school is known for two famous smiths, Shikibujo and Saemonjo. From the “kuni” kanji’s interior on the left side, this is supposed to be Saemonjo’s work.
The shape is thick for the width, there is a shallow sori, and mainly the upper half has a sakisori, and this is a typical Oei period shape. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada, and is based on a beautiful bright distinctive Kyoto style jigane. Along the hamon, there are nagare hada, which are often seen in Nobukuni school work. The hamon is mainly gunome with nie, but looking carefully at the details, the nie are thick, and the interior of the hamon has kinsuji and sunagashi which are Soshu Den characteristic points. The entire hamon has two gunome fused into a continuous yahazu shapes in the midare hamon. There are connected konotare waves with a unique rhythm in the midare hamon. In the Nanbokucho period the school’s hamon were a Rai suguha style, and a Sadamune style notare hamon, and in the Oei period they developed a more distinctive style, and we can say that this is a characteristic Nobukuni school example.
In addition, usually, most of the Nobukuni school’s work has horimono, including simple ones. In voting, these small details become important highlights, so be sure to pay attention to these details.
Kantei To No. 3: Katana
Mei: Bizen Kuni ju Osafune Gorozaemon jo Kiyomitsu
Tenmon 24 nen (1555) 8 gatsu kichijitsu
Length: slightly less than 2 saku 2 sun 7 bu
Sori: 6 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
JIgane: itame mixed with mokume; there is a visible hada, frequent ji-nie, chikei, and a slightly dark color.
Mune: ihorimune
Hamon: open bottom gunome mixed with choji, gunome, and ko-gunome; this becomes a fukushiki gunome style. There are frequent ashi and yo, abundant nie, some nie kuzure, frequent yubashiri, tobiyaki, and muneyaki; the upper half is a hitatsura style, and there are frequent sunagashi.
Boshi: there is a wide yakiba; the boshi is midarekomi; there are some hakikake; the tip is komaru; there is a long return which continues to form muneyaki.
This is a Goro Saemonjo Kiyomitsu katana, and he was an excellent smith among the Sue-Bizen smiths along with his son Magouemon-jo. This is a wide and thick blade, a strong sakisori, a large kissaki, and a wide boshi yakikomi, and there are typical Sue-Bizen characteristic points. The jigane is itame mixed with mokume, there is a visible hada, a slightly dark color, and a rough composition in which we see Kiyomitsu’s characteristic jigane which is often mixed with unrefined hada, and different from the basically tight and bright Sukesada jigane. The hamon has frequent yubashiri, tobiyaki, and muneyaki, the upper half is a hitatsura, and it is a bit difficult to judge the basic hamon pattern. But carefully looking at the details, you can recognize open bottom gunome mixed with choji and gunome, which is basically the Sue-Bizen characteristic fukushiki gunome. In addition, there are strong nie, some parts have nie kuzure, the inside of the hamon has prominent yo which appear like stains on the edge of hamon, and these are called “Kiyomitsu’s drool”. Among the Sue-Bizen smiths, his hamon have especially prominent strong nie, the inside of the hamon has irregular hataraki, and judging this as Kiyomitsu work would be appropriate.
Also, in the Tenmon 22 to 24 period, the Harima Kuni Tatsuno Castle lord called Goro Saemonjo Kiyomitsu to Tatsuno Castle, and he forged swords there. The katana’s signature is not mentioned, but this is supposed to be one of the “Tatsuno uchi (made)” katana. There are small number of Tatsuno forged blades, and these are different from his usual style, many of them are a gorgeous hitatsura style, and it is presumed that they were made to a client’s order. From the katana styles, we think they likely were made to fill a wide range of orders, and demonstrate Kiyomitsu’s high level of skill.
Kantei To No. 4: Katana
Mei: oite Efu Abukumagawa Sokan tsukuru kore
Ansei 2 (1855) kinoto-u toshi 2 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun
Sori: slightly over 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are fine ji-nie, and chikei.
Hamon: choji mixed with gunome and ko-gunome; there are frequent long ashi; the entire hamon width is almost the same, but some places are wider. There is an embossed style hamon, and a nioiguchi with ko-nie. Below the Yokote, there are some kinsuji; there are a few muneyaki and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: wide midarekomi; the tip falls down towards the hamon and is a komaru; there is a long return.
This is a wide, thick blade with a shallow sori, and a large kissaki. There is a poor hiraniku, a heavy shape, and the hamon is composed of prominent choji. The ashi are long going towards the edge, and from these details, you can think about typical Shinshinto Bizen utsushi work. The hamon is mainly choji mixed with gunome and ko-gunome, the habuchi is mainly a nioiguchi, and since you can see a hamon pattern repeated at about 4 sun intervals, you can recognize it as an “embossed hamon” which was a style used by Koyama Munetsugu and his student Sokan, and this was the major characteristic point affecting the vote. This katana has many details of the teacher Koyama Munetsugu’s style, and in the jigane, we do not see the unique prominent washboard-like utsuri sometimes seen in Sokan’s work. Many of Sokan’s early works have a choji hamon which has vertical variations where some places show high and low widths, and from this, many people voted for Munetsugu. However, the hamon width was kept relatively the same except for some places, the boshi is a large notarekomi, the tip falls slightly down to the kissaki’s edge, and there is a long return called a jizo boshi, and these details can be judged as Sokan’s characteristic points. From these details however, Munetsugu was treated as a proper answer at this point. In addition, many of his jizo boshi are seen around the Manen era (1860-1861), and this is supposed to be work from relatively early in his career.
Also, this has a date of Ansei 2, and around Ansei 1, Sokan regularly used the Tairyusai title. From around August of Ansei 4 his signature changed from a kaisho to a reisho style, and this period is supposed to be a transition period when his signature style changed. The upper part’s style is similar to his teacher Munetsugu’s style which many people voted for, and one could think about the possibility that this is a transitional work made when Sokan established his own style, shape, nakago, and jiba (jigane and hamon).
Kantei To No. 5: Katana
Mei: Shoji Jiro Taro Fujiwara Naokatsu
Ansei 3 (1856) hinoe-tatsu toshi 5 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun
Sori: 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: large itame mixed with mokume hada; the hada is visible, the upper half’s hada has a spiral-like shape; there are frequent ji-nie, chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: kataochi gunome mixed with angular shaped features; there are gunome and togari; the entire hamon has saka ashi; there are frequent saka-ashi, a tight nioiguchi; on the ura at the koshimoto there are fine sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: large midarekomi; on the omote, the tip is a yakizume style; the ura tip has a togari shaped komaru, and there is a short return.
This is a katana by Taikei Naotane’s student who later became his adopted son, Jiro Taro Naokatsu. When making Bizen Den utsushi work, he was sometimes his better than Naotane, and this is one of his masterpieces.
This katana is wide, the widths at the moto and saki are not different, there is a shallow sori, a large kissaki, and a magnificent shape. However, from noting the thin blade, some people voted for Nanbokucho smiths. However, besides the poor hiraniku, the hamon nioiguchi is slightly tight, hataraki inside of the hamon are poor, the midare boshi has prominent kataochi gunome, and these details are different from Koto work. Also, the jigane is a large itame hada, especially in the upper half, and is mixed with a large mokume hada, a so-called “Uzumaki hada”, and there are utsuri. The hamon with a nioiguchi is mainly a kataochi gunome with prominent saka-ashi and angular shaped features. From the moto to the saki, there is an even composition. From among the Shinshinto utsushimono smiths it would be possible to judge this as Naotane school work, and those smiths worked in styles such as those of Osafune Kagemitsu and Kanemitsu who took the world by storm when making kataochi gunome midare hamon. Jiro Taro Naokatsu worked in the same styles as Naotane, but his hamon features or shapes were larger and more prominent, and the hamon were large. Also, many of Naotane’s Kagemitsu and Kanemitsu utsushi works have a standard width, a large sori, and a gentle tachi shape, and this should be helpful to note in voting.
Shijo Kantei To No. 832 in the May, 2026 issue
The answer for the May Shijo Kantei To is a tanto by Kaneuji.
This tanto has a length of 6 sun 4.5 bu, and for a tanto, this is a very short length. It is wide, thin for the length, and there is either almost no sori or a very slight sori. This appears as a scaled down Nanbokucho period Enbun-Joji large and long tanto. Also, the middle ridge of the mitsumune is wide for the blade’s thickness, and there is a furisode nakago shape, which is not usually seen after the Muromachi period, and those voting for later period Koto work should have noted this feature more carefully.
In the Nanbokucho period, one of famous smiths who made this kind of shape was Shizu Saburo Kaneuji. Besides Kaneuji, there are smiths such as Dai Sa, Hasebe Kunishige, Soshu Akihiro, and Osafune Chogi who also left the same kind of shape, but each smith’s style was different from this tanto, and especially Hasebe Kuninobu’s work shows thinner blades which are a characteristic point.
The jigane has itame mixed with large itame, and a slightly visible hada with chikei. The hamon is bright, there is a dense nioiguchi with frequent small beautiful nie. The inside and edge of the hamon has good hataraki, which shows strong characteristic points from high ranking Soshu Den smiths. In addition, many notare midare hamon are seen from the end of the Kamakura period which was Kaneuji’s active period.
On the other hand, the jigane is nagare hada mixed with masame hada, the hamon is mixed with nijuba and kuichigaiba, there is a short return on the boshi, and these are Yamato-den characteristic points. However, Soshu Den features mixed with Yamato Den features is one of Kaneuji’s characteristic points.
We can imagine that this means that in his Yamato Teigai school period he used different kanji in writing Kaneuji (包氏). As he became more well known, and even later, after he assumed an aggressive Soshu Den style, and his hamon were mixed with togariba, we see a glimpse of the later Mino Den characteristic hamon which he used at the height of his career.
The hamon in some places is mixed with sunagashi and continuous gunome (and sometimes are mainly gunome midare), and the boshi is a large round style with a short return, and these are important characteristic points to narrow down this tanto to Kaneuji’s work.
The nakago tip is kurijiri, the yasurime are kiri, the signature is on the omote under the mekugi-ana on the center, and this matches with his nakago style. The two large square shaped kanji in the signature is Kaneuji’s prominent characteristic point, especially the “kane” kanji which is angular. There is a theory that the round shaped “kane” kanji signature is the Nidai’s work, but recently it is thought to be the Shodai’s work. So, at this time, the Nidai is treated as a correct answer.
In voting, some people wrote the Kaneuji kanji 包氏. This is supposed to be Kaneuji’s Yamato period name, and he has a Yamato-Shizu common name. However, after he moved to Mino, some other smith assumed this name, and these are all treated as Yamato-Shizu works. Differentiation is difficult, and if you post a name, it would be necessary clearly write the smith’s name.
Besides the correct answer, from their relationship with Masamune, Sadamune and Norishige are considered correct answers (among the Masamune jutetsu, only Norishige and Kaneuji are considered as correct answers). Sadamune has no definitely confirmed signed work and his nakago tips are kengyo. Norishige’s typical styles have a poor fukura, a high mune and a takenoko sori, a unique shape, a matsukawa hada jigane, a dense yakiba hamon boundary, the jiba (jigane and hamon) is not clear, and there is a worn down nioiguchi.
The Naoe-Shizu school smiths such as Kanetsugu, Kanetomo and Kanenobu have many Enbun-Joji large sized works, but they do not have small sized work like this one. Their hamon are simple repeat gunome and konotare, their ashi and yo hataraki do not stand out, some of their work reminds us of later Seki smiths’ work, many boshi tips are either komaru or round and have a long return, and in the case of hiratsukuri work, the yasurime are higaki yasurime.
Besides the correct answer, and acceptable as a correct answer, people voted for Awataguchi Kuniyoshi, Yoshimitsu, Ryokai, Yukimitsu, and Enju Kuniyasu. Their observations were good, but those smith’s work do not seem to match with Kaneuji’s characteristic points as I explained above.
Awataguchi Kuniyoshi and Yoshimitsu’s work includes many kinds of shapes, and they have small size hocho shapes, but the thickness is standard and not thin, the jigane has nie utsuri, the hamon have suguha with ko-nie, and the boshi are straight, with a komaru and return. Moreover, Awataguchi Kuniyoshi’s nioiguchi are tighter, and many of his nijuba are longer than we see here. Yoshimitsu’s continuous ko-gunome hamon are seen mainly at the koshimoto, and his signatures are fluently carved, and his work has notable differences.
Ryokai has many standard width uchizori tanto, his styles are Yamashiro Den mixed with Yamato Den, he has prominent nagare hada, and many whitish jigane. His tanto have fewer midare hamon, a worn down and cloudy appearing nioiguchi, and many boshi have a komaru and return.
Yukimitsu has a few wide blades with a slight sori, and stocky hocho shaped tanto, but his thickness is standard and not thin like this. Most of his shapes widths, lengths, and thickness are standard, his sori are either uchizori or musori, and the original fukura are poor. Some of his signed tanto have a shallow gentle midare hamon, but usually we see a suguha hamon. Usually his boshi are straight, with a komaru, sometimes we see horimono, and many of his yasurime are katte-sagari.
The Enju Kuniyasu answer could be due to placing importance on the large round boshi and shallow return, and judging this as Enju school work. Among these smiths, from the midare hamon with strong nie, one could narrow down the style to Kuniyasu, and that is a valid conclusion. But his jigane are whitish, there is a slightly worn down nioiguchi, many nijuba are seen on his boshi, his nakago machi are deep on both sides, and his signature kanji are inscribed with a slightly round shape.
Explanation by Ooi Gaku
PLEASE 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.