2026 GENDAI TOSHOKU TEN
Tachi, katana, wakizashi, naginata, and yari section
Prince Takamatsu memorial award
Tachi
Mei: Kaneda Shimizu Kunizane sei kore
Haru arashi Reiwa 8 nen kichijitsu
Length: 2 shaku 8 sun 6 bu 8 rin (86.9 cm)
Sori: 1 sun 9 rin (3.3 cm)
Motohaba: 1 sun 9 rin (3.3 cm)
Sakihaba: 7 bu 6 rin (2.3 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu 3 rin (0.7 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu 7 rin (0.5 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 1 bu 2 rin (3.4 cm)
Nakago length: 7 sun 4 bu 3 rin (22.6 cm)
Nakago sori: 7 rin (0.2 cm)
Commentary
This is a shinogi tsukuri tachi with an ihorimune. It is long and wide, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is slight. There is a large koshizori with funbari, the tip has sori, and there is a chu-kissaki. The jigane is itame hada mixed with some nagare hada. The entire ji is well forged, and there are ji-nie and chikei. The entire hamon is wide, and composed of many styles of choji mixed with togariba, and ko-gunome. There are chu-suguha sections mixed with ko-choji. On the omote, there are high and low variations in the width. There are frequent ashi and yo, and some tobiyaki. The central area of the ura has sunagashi, is nioideki, and has a bright and clear nioiguchi. The boshi has a wide yakiba and is midarekomi. The tip is a komaru and there is a return. The horimono on the omote and the ura are bo-hi finished in marudome. The nakago tip is ha-agari kurijiri, the yasurime are sujichigai and there is one mekugi ana. There is a long kanji signature on the omote under the mekugi ana, on the shinogi line. On the ura on the shinogi line, above the mekugi ana, above it says “haru arashi” (spring storm), and under the ana there is a date.
The sword smith, Kaneda Shimizu Kunizane’s birthplace is Fukuoka prefecture. He was born in Heisei 1 and is 36 years old. In his second year of high school, he read Kawachi Kunihira’s book “The Fascination of the Japanese sword”. Kunihira is a sword smith, a mukansa, and an intangible cultural asset of Nara prefecture. Kunizane felt a deep admiration for Kawachi’s way of life, and in Heisei 20 (2008) he entered Kunihira’s tanren-jo (forging group). After he studied there for six years, he received his sword maker’s license from the agency for cultural affairs, and the following year, in his first entry in the NBTHK competition, he received the grand prize or the Kunzan Award and the Newcomer’s prize. Since then, he has received a prize every single year, the grand prize twice, the excellence prize five times, and hard effort effort award twice. In Reiwa 3, he set up his own workshop in Yamazoe village in Nara prefecture, and is now an independent sword smith.
Kunizane’s skills have been very consistent, and he works consistently in the Bizen Den style, year after year. His hamon style was inherited from his teacher, and show a large variety or complexity. He hamon style is distinctive compared to most Gendai (present day) choji hamon. He continues to submit work to the contest, and for this work he received the Prince Takamatsu Memorial Award for the second time in two years.
This tachi stands out with its long length, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki. There is a slightly large koshizori, the tip has sori, and there is a reasonable degree of sori for the long length. There is a chu-kissaki and a magnificent tachi shape. With the bo-hi, the weight of the blade is moderately reduced. In spite of the long length, it does not feel particularly heavy, it feels well balanced in the hand, and there is a well-proportioned shape. The entire jigane is well forged, there are chikeki, and a gorgeous hamon with a gentle clear nioiguchi. The entire hamon is high, and from the moto to the tip there is even forging work and no mura nie. The midare hamon shape has variations and is not simple, and especially on the omote, the choji midare hamon is well balanced. The hamon appears calm and natural, and we can appreciate this particular work.
From this point forward, while he models his work after old master’s work, we hope he will produce a Reiwa period master work which will be highly appreciated in the future.
Explanation and oshigata by Ishii Akira
Shijo Kantei To No. 833
Information: Tachi
Length: 2 shaku 4 sun 2 bu (73.35 cm)
Sori: slightly less than 7 bu (2.05 cm)
Motohaba: slightly less than 1 sun (2.95 cm)
Sakihaba: 6.5 bu (2.0 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu (0.65 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: slightly over 1 sun (3.15 cm)
Nakago length: 7 sun 4.5 bu (22.6 cm)
Nakago sori: 1 bu (0.3 cm)
This is a shinogi tsukuri tachi with an ihorimune. There is a standard width, the widths at the moto and saki are slightly different, it is thick, there is a wide shinogi ji, a high shinogi, and a large koshizori even though the blade is suriage. The moto has funbari, the tip has sori, and there is a chu-kissaki. The jigane is itame hada and a strong nagare hada mixed with masame hada. There are abundant ji-nie and chikei. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the oshigata. The hamon is nie-deki, and from just below the yokote to the boshi there are strong nie. The edge of the hamon has hotsure, kuichigai-ba, kinsuji, sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi. The nakago is suriage, the tip is kiri, (the original tip was either iriyamagata or a katasogi style). The yasurime are katte sagari. There are two mekugi ana. On the omote along the mune side, there is a long kanji signature made with a fine chisel.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Chasen zu (tea whisk design) tsuba
Mumei: Jingo
Representatives of the mainstream Higo gold smith’s four schools are Hayashi, Hirata, Nishigaki, and Shimizu. All of their Shodai or founding smiths worked for Hosokawa Sansai Tadaoki, and received guidance from him. In Kanei 9 (1632) after the Kato family’s confiscation of the domain, Sansai’s son Tadatoshi received a 540,000 koku fief in Kumamoto from the Shogun. At the same time, Sansai moved to the Yashiri Kumamoto area, and Yashiro castle became his retirement home. At that time, Jingo followed Sansai and moved to Yashiro with Hikozo.
Jingo’s styles show the strongest personality among the Higo smiths. Most of his work used an iron tsuchime ground (a hammered or uneven surface), and on the omote, the subjects were birds of prey, chickens, owls, and rain dragons. They are expressed with large sizes and strong brass suemon inlay. The ura is the opposite, and has a large empty space with a small sized pattern, and also the color and nikuoki (the volume of the subjects) are gentle. This work shows a balance between the omote and ura sides, and exhibits a strong taste for a wabi-sabi feeling (the beauty of imperfections). This work conforms with Jingo’s style, and on the omote, on the center of the tsuba the tea whisk is boldly arranged. On the ura there is a small size tea ceremony feather broom made in brass suemon inlay. Judging from this, Hosokawa Sansai was not only good at Buke-kojitsu (samurai courtly etiquette and military protocols), Noh, and waka (Japanese poems), but also was one of Rikyu’s senior students. He was one of Rikyu’s seven masters of tea, and later Sansai established own school, and even today the Sansai school exists in some places. This tsuba’s subject is tea ceremony tools, and Jingo followed Hosokawa Sansai’s ideas, and he supposed to have created his own style. This is a masterpiece tsuba in which we can fully appreciate the high level of JIngo’s skill.
Explanation by Arakawa Fumito.
Teirei Kansho kai
Date: May 9 (the second Saturday of the month)
Place: Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Ooi Gaku
Kantei To No. 1: Tachi
Mei: Senjuin
Length: slightly over 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu
Sori: 8 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume hada; some places are mixed with a strong nagare hada; the hada is visible; there are abundant ji-nie and chikei.
Hamon: narrow suguha hamon; some places are mixed with ko-gunome; there are ko-ashi, frequent nie, hotsure, uchinoke, nijuba, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: straight with strong hakikake. On the omote the boshi is yakizume; the ura’s tip is a togari shape, and there is a slightly long return.
There are several opinions about Senjuin’s location. Today, a plausible theory is they were enslaved sword smiths belonging to Todaiji. From in the early Edo period book “Todaiji Jichu, Jigai Soezu Isanrin” we can recognize the area as being southeast of Todaiji’s east tower, and which is listed as “Senjuin forging residence”, and “Senjuin field”.
This blade is thick and there is a high shinogi. The jigane is itame mixed with strong nagare hada. The hamon is a suguha style with frequent nie. The hamon edge has abundant parallel hataraki (vertical hataraki) such as hotsure, uchinoke, and nijuba. Inside of the hamon there are frequent kinsuji and sunagshi, and above the monouchi area, ha-nie are strong and the boshi has frequent hakikake and yakizume. In various places there are Yamato Den characteristic points.
In addition, if you notice that the entire blade is well made, there is a large koshizori and ubu nakago tachi shape, you can recognize this work as being made no later than the Kamakura period when the Yamato five schools (Senjuin, Teigai, Toma, Hosho, Shikkake) were active. Among these schools, this has a narrow shape, and the widths at the moto and saki are quite different, and there is a small kissaki. There is even more funbari at the koshimoto, a large koshisori, but less sori at the tip, and this is a classic old tachi shape. Also, the entire hamon width is low, and some parts are mixed with komidare which is a classic appearance. Thus, you can imagine work from the end of the Heian period to the beginning of the Kamakura period. Among the five schools, the school established the earliest in this period was the Senjuin school, and this school’s work matches what we see here.
Also, looking at this as classic work, some people voted for Ko-Naminohira and Ko-Hoki work. Both school’s work is often seen with a worn down nioiguchi, and a hamon with yakiotoshi. The Ko-Naminohira jigane is looks sticky and soft, with a whitish color, and the hamon can appear soft or with a moist appearance. In Ko-Hoki work, the jigane’s dark areas have clear jifu utsuri, the hada is based on an itame and large itame hada. Variations at the edge of the hamon follow the jihada pattern.
Kantei To No. 2: Wakizashi
Mei: Echizen Yasutsugu
motte Nanban tetsu oite Bushu Edo
Length: slightly less than 1 shaku 2 sun 9 bu
Sori: slightly less than 2 bu
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame hada mixed with some mokume hada; the hada is slightly visible; there are strong ji-nie, dull chikei, and a dark jigane.
Hamon: notare midare, and some places are mixed with gunome and kogunome;
there are ashi, a slightly dense nioiguchi, and abudant nie; strong nie form mura nie; some of the mura nie extend into the ji; there are sunagashi and kinsuji; some niesuji from stripe-like shapes; there are some muneyaki and a worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: On the omote the boshi is straight; the ura boshi is midarekomi; both sides have a slight notare shape; there are frequent hakikake; the tip is a togari shape and there is a long return.
Horimono: On the omote there is a katana-hi carved into the nakago. The inside of the hi has a kaen bonji and a so style kurikara relief. The ura has a sanko-tsuka ken on the flat area.
Yasutsugu is supposed to have received a request to retemper (saiha) the Meibutsu Shishi Sadamune (the No.43 Juyo Token). The Yasutsugu family confirmed that the shodai and nidai did make utsushi (copies) of several works. They are not copies of specific Sadamune swords following exact sizes, shapes, and horimono, and are supposed to have recognized that some changes occurred with use of the swords. They seem to have used Sadamune’s work as a motif or model, and there is a strong emphasis on Yasutsugu’s style.
Some people realized this was an utsushi work, and they voted for the correct answer immediately. Even if some people did not recognize this as utsushi work, this sword has Yasutsugu’s characteristic points showing very well, and many people voted for the correct answer on the second vote.
This blade is wide and thick, and there is a sakizori. It has a broad hiratsukuri wakizashi shape. This shape is often seen in work from around the Tensho period to the Shodai Yasutsugu’s active period around the Keicho to Genna periods. The jigane is itame hada mixed with mokume hada, there is a visible hada, and a dark jigane which is an Echizen jigane.
Also, there are frequent chikei, the jiba (jigane and hamon) has strong nie which shows a possibility for it being Soshu Den work, the hamon looks like it was modeled after Sadamune’s work, and is a gentle notare mixed with ko-gunome and gunome.
Also, the ha-nie fall into the ji, there is a rough nioiguchi, kinsuji, sunagashi, some niesuji, and the thick sunagashi form stripe-like shapes. There are muneyaki which is sometimes seen in the Shodai’s work, and a worn down hamon. The boshi is a notare shape with a sharp tip and long return. Moreover, we can confirm the carvings are deep and rough, and characteristic Kinai-bori, and this has many of the Shodai Yasutsugu’s characteristic points, and of his typical work.
However, the Nidai has often has work which is difficult to distinguish from the Shodai’s work, and at this time, we treated both names as a correct answer.
Kantei To No. 3
Mumei: Sadamune
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun
Sori: 7 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight itame hada; in some places there is a visible hada and a large itame hada and nagare hada. There are frequent ji-nie and chikei.
Hamon: shallow notare mixed with gunome and ko-gunome; there are frequent ashi and yo, a dense nioiguchi, and abundant ko-nie; there are some yubashiri, nie, kinsuji, niesuji, sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: shallow miderekomi; there are hakikake and yubashiri; there is a sharp tip and a short return.
The Tokugawa Jikki records say that this blade was handed down in the Tokugawa Shogun’s family, and was given to the sixth Shogun Ienori’s second son Iechiyo.
At the koshimoto, the funbari is gone, and from this you can imagine first of all there is a possibility that a large suriage was performed. In addition, it is slightly wide, the widths at the moto and saki are not very different, there is a deep sori in the middle of the blade although it is suriage, and there is a long chu-kissaki. From the shape, you can judge this as work from the end of the Kamakura period to the early Nanbokucho period.
The jigane is itame hada mixed with large itame hada. There are frequent ji-nie and chikei, and a clear jigane pattern. When we see this kind of work, it could be an ordinary smith’s jigane lacking subtlety, or a too strong visible hada, or a rough and dry appearance. But this jigane is quite different from these ordinary jigane, and is well forged and tight, shows uruoi (a moist appearance), is refined, and indeed is an extraordinary jigane.
This is a Shosu Den master smith’s refined jigane, the hamon is based on a shallow gentle notare, there are frequent kinsuji, niesuji, and sunagashi. However, these hataraki are not excessive, there is no clutter or disorganization, the nioiguchi is dense and gentle, and the nioiguchi has abundant ko-nie, and this is a bright and beautiful hamon, and is beyond the reach of an ordinary sword smith’s work.
In addition, the boshi has good hataraki but has a calm feeling, and the entire katana has a gentle feeling or impression. Among the Shoshu Den master smiths, this is a calm and sophisticated work, and is judged as being a rare Sadamune masterpiece. Also, Sadamune has many futasuji hi horimono, and this could help support selecting his name in the voting.
Among the Soshu master smiths, some people voted for Shizu Kaneuji. If it were his work, the jigane has more prominent nagare hada, the hamon would be mixed with some continuous gunome and togariba. The boshi would have a large round shape which is the same as seen on his signed work. There can be strong variations in his hamon which are similar to Masamune’s style.
Kantei To No. 4: Wakizashi
Mei: Omi Daijo Fujiwara Tadahiro
Kinzogan mei: Enpo 2 (1674) Kinoto-u Shogatsu Misoka (January 1)
Shigetsuna with kao
Tomita Yaichi Saemon-jo futatsu (2) do
Saidan kore (tameshigiri)
Length: slightly less than 1 shaku 5 sun 9 bu
Sori: slightly over 4 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are abundant dense ji-nie, fine chikei, and a bright and clear jigane.
Hamon: chu-suguha mixed with some ko-gunome; there is a dense nioiguchi which forms a belt-like shape. There are abundant ko-nie, and a bright and clear nioiguchi.
Boshi: straight; the tip is komaru; there is a slightly long return; the ura has a slight return.
The jigane has a tight ko-itame hada. There are abundant dense ji-nie and a refined and bright komenuka hada. The hamon is chu-suguha with a clear nioiguchi which forms a unique belt-like shape. The nioiguchi has abundant ko-nie without mura, is bright and clear, and mixed with ko-gunome which look like they were shaved off of the nioiguchi. The boshi is straight with a komaru and a slightly long return. The jiba (jigane and hamon) shows a typical Omi Daijo Tadahiro style, and many people voted for the correct answer at the first vote.
This kind of work is similar to that of the Shodai Tadayoshi’s Musashi Daijo Tadahiro mei period, and to the Sandai Mutsu-no-kami Tadayoshi. So, at this time, Sandai and Shodai Tadayoshi with the Musashi Daijo Tadahiro mei, or the Shodai Tadahiro were treated as correct answers.
However, a shinogi tsukuri wakizashi with a large kissaki or with a long chu-kissaki are few among the Shodai’s Tadahiro mei period, and his hamon have more kuichigai-ba and nijuba than the Nidai’s work.
Also, the Sandai has more examples with this kind of shape, but he passed away before the Nidai, at the age of 50, and was supposed to have worked for a long time as the Nidai’s assistant. Consequently, examples of his signature are fewer and unfamiliar, so there were fewer votes for him.
Compared with the sandai, the shodai passed away when the Nidai Tadayoshi was 19 years old, and then he led the school until he passed away at the age of 80 years. He produced so many blades, that his works overwhelms the others, and among the three smiths, inevitably we have more chances to see his work. Consequently, we can say that voting for the Nidai would be a reasonable view.
On the other hand, among blades which are supposed to be the Nidai’s work, we can recognize some that are supposed to be the Sandai’s daisaku daimei work. Many of their jigane have a tighter ko-itame hada, there are fine chikei and a clear jigane when compared with the Nidai’s work. His nakago yasurime are strong, the file mark’s katte sagari angle is steeper, his signature’s kanji are written with the right shoulder up, the last kanji chisel mark goes strongly straight down, and these are his characteristic points. This wakizashi has these characteristic points, and it is considered to be the Sandai’s daisaku mei or daimei. In view of this, we can say that voting for the Sandai is natural, and shows an educated perspective.
Kantei To No. 5: Tachi
Mei: Rai Kunimitsu
Length: 2 shaku 4 sun 3.5 bu
Sori: 8 bu
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight itame hada; some places are mixed with a visible mokume hada and nagare hada; there are abundant ji-nie, fine chikei, nie utsuri, and a clear jigane.
Hamon: chu-suguha with ko-gunome, ko-choji, and komidare; there are ashi, yo, some kyo-saka ashi, a soft nioiguchi, and abundant ko-nie; some places have tobiyaki and yubashiri; there are a few mune yaki; there are kinsuji, sunagashi and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: straight; on the omote the tip is a togari style; the ura tip is a komaru.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi; on the omote the hi is finished in marudome, and the ura is carved through the nakago.
Rai Kunimitsu’s oldest existing signed work is a tanto dated Karyaku 1 (1326) and which is a Juyo Bijutsuhin. His latest dated works are from Kano 2 (1351) and are two tanto which are the No.16 and No. 20 blades to be classified as Juyo Token. His active period was from the Kamakura to the Nanbokucho period which spans two eras, so from this, not only his shapes, but also his hamon show diversity, and among the Rai school smiths, his work exhibits the widest range of styles.
On this tachi, there is a long length, and around the koshimoto, the funbari is gone, and from this, we can conclude that this blade has suffered from a large degree of suriage, and is a wazori style with a chu-kissaki.
The hada is based on a tight itame hada, there are abundant ji-nie, nie utsuri, and beautiful forging, but we can see some places have a slightly visible hada or different type of hada call Rai hada.
The hamon is chu-suguha mixed with small midare. There are ashi, yo, a bright nioiguchi, and abundant ko-nie. Inside of the hamon there are kinsuji and sunagashi, some kyo-saka ashi, and muneyaki which shows the Rai school’s characteristic points very well, and from this many people voted for Rai school work in the first vote.
Notably, the hamon has ko-midare, in some places, at the top of the hamon we see small yubashiri, there are tobiyaki and karimata style features, and from these details, a large number of people looked at this as an elegant simple work by Rai Kuniyuki. In discussing this tachi, we can say that this is a very straightforward point of view. This style does not present a clear detail which limits it to work by Rai Kunimitsu, so at this time, we treated Kuniyuki as a correct answer.
This tachi shows Rai Kunimitsu’s capabilities in using diverse techniques. I am hoping that the people attending the Kansho Kai will be able to gain a fresh appreciation of Rai Kunimitsu’s wide range of styles and his high technical ability.
Shijo Kantei To No. 831 in the April, 2026 issue
The answer to the April Shijo Kantei To is a tachi by Osafune Nagamitsu.
At this time, some people voted for Shokan Nagamitsu (the Nidai) or the Nidai Nagamitsu. However, works which are supposed to be the Nidai’s work also fit with the single smith hypothesis, which means that these works could be Nagamitsu’s later period work, and today, the main idea is at that there was only one smith. Also, the Junkei name is supposed to be Nagamitsu’s Buddist name in his later years. There are some works signed just Junkei with a two kanji signature. Work signed Nagamitsu or Junkei are made in a Ko-Bizen classic style, but the signature and the chisel marks in the Junkei mei are different from the Nagamitsu mei. In recent years, the theory that the two kanji Junkei mei was by a different smith is influential.
This tachi is slightly narrow, the widths at the moto and saki are different, there is a small kissaki, a koshizori, and a large funbari. At first glance, this looks like it is a tachi from no later than the early half of the Kamakura period. But if you pay attention to the fact that the tip area has sori, you can recognize that this is work from the latter half of the Kamakura period, and is a narrow tachi. From the hamon and boshi, you can judge this as Nagamitsu’s mid-period to late period work.
The jigane has itame hada, there are fine ji-nie, chikei, and clear midare utsuri, and so you can imagine that this is work from a highly ranked smith who was able to obtain good steel. The hamon has mainly a nioiguchi, and from these details, it is possible to narrow this down to a highly skilled smith working in the latter half of the Kamakura period.
A popular hamon for a Bizen smith is midare with choji, and looking at this hamon we see that the hamon has many gunome, in some places, the tips or peaks of the hamon gunome project up, and there are straight ashi but no saka-ashi.
We can also note that the midare hamon’s vertical variations are a bit restrained compared to mid-Kamajura period Fukuoka Ichimonji work. We can see there are no large choji which extend to the shinogi, and even the midare hamon’s highest or widest sections around the center of the blade maintain a low height.
In addition, above the monouchi area, hamon is low and there are fewer vertical variations, and it is a gentle hamon. In addition, the width of the hamon at the koshimoto is low. These characteristic points are often seen in Nagamitsu’s work and this is a major difference from Fukuoka Ichimonji work.
Over the period of the Mongol invasions of Japan, we can imagine that with the samurai’s experience in actual combat and military exercises, they found that the period’s popular styles with a high, wide and very active hamon such as Ko-Ichimonji and Ko-Bizen work and suguha hamon were not strong enough, were damaged more often, and suffered a larger extent of damage when compared to swords with a low or narrow hamon. We can imagine that in these circumstances, the Osafune smiths such as Nagamitsu responded promptly, and their styles were different from the other schools.
When using a tachi in battle, most of the damage occurs in the monouchi area, so a lower or narrower hamon in the monouchi area and koshimoto could help to protect the blade compared to a blade with a wide hamon in these areas. A thicker moto area also helps protect the blade and increases the strength of the blade at the koshimoto. In addition, old blades had a yakiotoshi, and Oei Bizen and Sue Bizen period blades had a yaki-otoshi section extending above the machi. In the Suishinshi school’s work, at the koshimoto the nioiguchi is deliberately weak or soft, which is another way to protect the blade from impacts. These techniques are supposed to significantly alleviate the effect of an impact and mitigate the risk of damage.
These ingenuous improvements were supposed to help protect the sword during use in combat, and were widely adopted. In view of this, we can conjecture that it was possible that the Osafune school became a mainstream school in place of the Ichimonji school which was a mainstream school until then. This kind of adaptability could be one of the major factors involved in the Osafune school’s major rise under Nagamitsu.
The boshi’s central area is a shallow notare with a ko-maru and return called a Sansaku boshi. Many of Nagamitsu’s later period hamon have a gentler midare and suguha style.
The nakago tip is a ha-agari kurijiri, and the yasurime are katte sagari. On the omote slightly above the mekugi ana there is a two kanji signature. Without horimono his signatures are along the mune side, and this matches Nagamitsu’s usual nakago styles.
Besides the correct answer, some people voted for Mitsutada, Sanenaga, and Kagemitsu. Many of those three smiths’ jigane are a tighter ko-itame hada than Nagamitsu’s, and they do have some work similar to this one, but this is not a representative work. However, at this time, either of them will be treated as a proper answer.
Mitsutada’s hamon are the most gorgeous midare hamon among the Osafune school smiths. They are mixed with numerous choji with vertical variations, kawazuko choji, and around the monouchi area, the hamon becomes small, and many of his boshi are midarekomi. Also, he is Nagamitsu’s father and one generation earlier, and the shapes of his blades are wider.
Sanenaga’s entire hamon are low, and with the tight nioiguchi, many of them appear to be a bit weak. Even his wide hamon with choji with short ashi stand out, compared to Nagamitsu’s hamon, and are more gentle appearing than Nagamitsu’s hamon. His midare hamon often are mixed with ko-notare and his yasurime are sujichigai.
Kagemitsu’s early period work has some similarities to Nagamitsu’s later period work, but his hamon are smaller than Nagamitsu’s hamon. His notable hamon are a midare mixed with angular shaped features and kataochi gunome which can form saka-ashi, and notably, his work has prominent saka-ashi in the hamon.
Commentary by Hinohara 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.