Reiwa 5 nen (2023) Gendai Toshoku Ten:
tachi, katana, wakizashi, naginata, and yari section
Prince Takamatsu award
Reiwa 5 nen 3 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku 4 sun 7 bu 5 rin ( 75.0 cm)
Sori: 8 bu 9 rin (2.7 cm)
Motohaba: 9 bu 9 rin (3.0 cm)
Sakihaba: 6 bu 9 rin (2.1 cm)
Motokasane: 2 bu (0.6 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu 7 rin (0.5 cm)
Kissaki length: 9 bu 9 rin (3. 0 cm)
Nakago length: 6 sun 8 bu 9 rin (20.0 cm)
Nakago sori: 1 bu 7 rin
This is a shinogi zukuri tachi with an ihorimune. The width and thickness are standard, and the widths at the moto and saki are different. There is a large koshizori and a short chu-kissaki. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada, and there is a fine visible hada. There are frequent ji-nie, fine chikei, and a bright jigane. The hamon is chu-suguha mixed with some ko-gunome. There are frequent ashi, some yo, frequent very fine nie, and in places hotsure and uchinoke. There are long nijuba which intermittently touch the hamon edge, some nie-suji, and a bright nioiguchi. The boshi is straight and the tip is round. The nakago tip is a shallow kurijiri. The yasurime are sujichigai, and there is one mekugi-ana. On the omote under the mekugi-ana on the center, there is slightly small two kanji signature and the ura has a date.
Morikuni Kiyohiro (whose name is Morikuni Toshifumi) was born in Showa 42 (1967) in Fukui city in Fukui prefecture. During his childhood, he watched a Japanese sword forging program and became fascinated by it, and since that time he wanted to become a sword smith. In Showa 61 (1986) he become a student of the late Miyairi Kiyomune. He trained for 5 years under his teacher, and in Heisei 3 (1991) he received his sword smith’s licence. Two years later, he had his first exhibit, and in the same year he became an independent smith. The following year, he wanted to improve his skills and studied under Kiyomune’s eldest son Miyairi Norihiro. Futhermore, he became motivated to make more sword associated items, and in Heisei 9 (1997), he studied making tosu under Norihiro’s teacher, the late Ningen Kokuho Sumitani Seiho. From exhibits of small items he received many awards such as the Sankei Newspaper award.
At the Gendai Toshoku exhibit in 2016, he exhibited suguha work, which was a change for him, since up to that time he had made choji midare hamon. His work was influenced by his teacher Norihiro’s suguha style work, and he received the special first prize, the “Prince Takamatsu Award.
This blade has a well balanced beautiful shape, and each element, the width, thickness, the niku-oki, and sori, is well balanced. The blade also is comfortable when holding it in hand. The entire ji is tightly forged but we can see a fine jihada pattern with frequent ji-nie, and there is a feeling of depth. The hamon is a chu-suguha mixed with ko-gunome, and there are classic appearing bright fine ha-nie, frequent gentle ashi extend from the hamon, and sometimes the tips of the ashi almost appear like an extension of the nioiguchi in the hamon. There are also some niesuji hataraki. Mainly along the bottom half, there are hotsure, uchinoke, and variable nijuba shaped hataraki which intermittently touch the border of the hamon. There is a Yamashiro Den feeling here, and this is not a monotonous suguha. There are many variations in the hamon and along the edge of the hamon, and there are natural appearing hataraki. There is an overall cohesion or unity in this sword , and there is a dignified style in this work.
Explanation and photo by Imoto Yuki
Shijo Kantei To No. 797
The deadline to submit answers for the issue No. 797 Shijo Kantei To is July 5, 2023. Each person may submit one vote. Submissions should contain your name and address and be sent to the NBTHK Shijo Kantei. You can use the Shijo Kantei card which is attached in this magazine. Votes postmarked on or before July 5, 2023 will be accepted. If there are sword smiths with the same name in different schools, please write the school or prefecture, and if the sword smith was active for more than one generation, please indicate a specific generation.
Length: slightly less than 8 sun 1 bu (24.5 cm)
Motohaba: slightly less than 7 bu (2.05 cm)
Motokasane: slightly less than 2 bu (0.55 cm)
Nakago length: slightly over 3 sun 1 bu (9.5 cm)
Nakago sori: very slight
This is a hirazukuri tanto with a mitsumune, and the middle ridge on the mitsumune is wide. The length, width, and thickness are standard, and it is uchizori. The jigane has a tight ko-itame hada, there are abundant dense ji-nie, bo-utsuri, some nagare-hada, and in some areas, the jigane appears soft. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the picture. The hamon is a nie style, the fine nioiguchi is gentle, and the jiba (jigane and hamon) are bright and clear. There is a tight nioiguchi. The nakago is ubu (but the tip is slightly altered), and the tip is kurijiri.The yasurime are kiri. There is one mekugi-ana. On the omote, under the mekugi-ana and along the the nakago center, there is a large size three kanji signature made with a fine chisel.
Mizube maiha tsuru chidori zu (design showing dancing cranes and plovers on the waterside) tsuba
Mei: Mogarashi Soten sei (made)
Soten came from Kyoto and later he is supposed to have lived in Omi Kuni Hikone Nakayabu. At that time, Nakayabu was located between Hikone castle’s outer moat and the Ashikawa river’s southwest crossing. For defensive purposes there were ashigaru houses in the area since early times. Soten become the Hikone feudal retainer Kitagawa family’s okakae smith, and he is supposed to have changed his last name to Kitagawa. From his existing signed work, we understand that he was born in Shoo 1 (1652). There is a theory he was a second generation smith, but this is not established.
Many of his works are tsuba, and generally he has two styles. On one style he used either iron or shakudo for a ground, and he carved nikubori ji-sukashi Japanese and Chinese designs such as battle scenes, warriors, and hermits. Another style used flower and bird designs carved with a takabori technique with zogan iroe (colored inlay), and magnificent color work. We have seen more of the first style, but the second style is later work and better work.
This tsuba has a shakudo ground with a takabori zogan. On the omote there is a flock of cranes playing, and the water’s surface is rippled. On the water, there is a flock of cranes. On the ura side there are plovers flying above strong waves breaking on rocks. Soten colored them using many kinds of irogane (colored metals), and at first glance, we can recognize a gorgeous setting. But above all, what is notable is his carving technique on the ground. He used warm colors in nikudori areas and carved lines, and his work does not show stylized waves and water. Looking at the real tsuba in hand, I fell into an illusion where the water’s surface appeared to be moving slowly, and the effect of this results in the high relief carved cranes having a feeling of life. Possibly the background of the ji produces this effect. We see the same effect on the ura side's plovers. This side is quite different from the Omote’s clam waterside, with raging waves moving from left to right, and appears like a living scene. The plovers are not only flying, but also are hit by splashes from the waves and are affected by the strong wind, and appear to be flying as hard as they can. Soten seems not focus not just on the cranes and plovers, but also brings the focus to the water’s surface and waves. This kind of scene is difficult to express with the nikubori ji-sukashi technique, and this is a tsuba demonstrating Soten’s skill.
Last fall I saw Lake Biwa from Hikone, and there were gentle waves moving over the surface and it was a beautiful scene. But sometimes in spring, Lake Biwa can become stormy and turbulent. Possibly Soten was trying to depict the lake and bring attention to the relaxed lake in this tsuba.
Explanation by Takeda Kotaro
May Token Teirei Kansho Kai
Date: May 13th (second Saturday of May)
Location: The Token Hakubutsukan auditorium
Lecturer: Kugiya Natsuko
Kantei To No. 1: Katana
Mumei: den Chogi
Length: 2 shaku 1 sun 7.5 bu
Sori: 6.5 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Jigane: itame hada mixed with mokume and nagare hada, and the hada is visible. There are frequent ji-nie, chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: based on notare, and containing gunome, choji, ko-choji, and togari. Some areas have open valley gunome. There are frequent ashi and yo, a nioiguchi with ko-nie, kinsuji, and sunagashi, and a worn down nioiguchi.
Boshi: midarekomi; the tip has hakikake; the omote has kinsuji; on both sides the point is sharp and there is a return.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi carved through the nakago. The omote has traces of soe-hi.
This blade is greatly suriage, and is judged as being work by Chogi, and is Juyo Bijutsuhin. It is suriage, but is wide; there is a large sori, it is thin, and there is a large kissaki.The jigane is itame hada mixed with mokume and nagere hada, and the hada is visible. There is midare utsuri. From this, you can judge this as Bizen work from the peak of the Nanbokucho period.
In the Nanbokucho period, Soshu Den style work was a popular trend seen all over Japan, and it was also seen in Bizen. The jiba (jigane and hamon) have strong nie and this Soden Bizen style became popular. The smith showing this strong influence here is Chogi. Chogi has two styles: one style which shows a visible jihada is remarkable, and the jiba (jihada and hamon) has frequent nie, and a strong Soshu Den style, and from this, people describe Chogi as “among the Bizen schools, he is the smith whose work is most unlike Bizen work”. However, he also has a blade with gentle nie and with clear midare utsuri, and showing a strong Bizen Den style, and this katana is considered to be the later Bizen Den style.
This katana’s hamon has high and low areas and is more controlled or orderly than usual. The hamon is based on a large notare, and mixed with many kinds of elements: sometimes we see an open valley midare hamon; there are ashi and yo, and abundant hataraki, and this is a good example of the strong and distinctive work which can be produced by Chogi, and cannot be seen as work by anyone else. If you recognize these characteristic points, the judgement is clear.
In voting, the Soshu-Bizen smiths’ names such as Kanemitsu and Morikage were prominent. If this was work by Kanemitsu, the jigane would have an Osafune mainstream refined hada, the hamon would be gentle with large elements and with a relaxed notare mixed with gunome; the jiba’s nie and hataraki are gentle compared with Chogi. If it were Morikage’s work, the notare hamon would be mixed with square shaped ko-gunome, ko-choji, and togariba, and the nie are uneven, and the hamon composition would be different.
Kantei To No. 2 Tanto
Oan gen nen (1368)
Length: 9 sun 4.5 bu
Sori: 1.5 bu
Style: hira zukuri
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume; there is nagare hada, and the hada is slightly visible. There are ji-nie, chikei, and a whitish hada.
Hamon: suguha, with a slightly notare style; there is a tight nioiguchi with ko-nie, some hotsure and kuichigaiba.
Boshi: straight; on the omote the point is a togari style; the ura point is komaru; the tip has hakikake.
This is dated Oan 1, and is a Ko-Mihara Masakiyo tanto. It is hira zukuri, wide, long, and very thin, and there is a shallow sori. From this you can judge this as being from the peak of the Nanbokucho period. Looking carefully the jiba (jigane and hamon), some parts of the itame hada has traces of nagare hada, and the hamon has slight hotsure and kuichigaiba. The boshi tip has hakikake, and from details you can judge this as being Yamato Den work. On the other hand, the jigane is whitish, the nie are not strong, the suguha hamon’s nioiguchi is tight, and from these details you can judge this as being non-mainstream Yamato den work, but rather branch school work.
Bingo Kuni Mihara produced many Yamato style works, and the neighboring province’s Aoe style is mixed with Yamato style elements. This is a later style, and at first glance, an Aoe style, but from the tight nioiguchi, hotsure, and kuichigaiba, this has Ko-Mihara characteric points.
People voted for Nio work, and looked at this as Yamato Den work which is understandable, but if it were Nio work, the jigane would be relatively fine, and the nioguchi would have a recognizible soft appearance. If it were Aoe work, the jigane would show their characteristic chirimen-hada with utsuri, and the hamon’s nioiguchi would be brighter and clearer.
Kantei To No. 3: Tachi
Mei: Bishu Osafune Morimitsu
Oei 12 nen (1405) 8 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 7 bu
Sori: slightly over 8 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume, and the hada is visible. There are ji-nie, chikei, and midare utsuri.
Hamon: open valley gunome mixed with choji, ko-gunome, and togari. There are ashi, yo, a nioiguchi, weak tobiyaki, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: midarekomi; on the omote the point is a komaru style; on the ura the point is a komaru with a return.
This is an Osafune Morimitsu tachi dated Oei 12 nen. There is a standard width, a large koshisori with saki sori, and it is thick for the width and has a tachi shape. From this, you can judge this as work from the early Muromachi period. The jigane is itame mixed with mokume, and the hada is visible, and there are midare utsuri. The hamon is mainly an open valley midare hamon. The hamon is wide and there are choji. Furthermore, the boshi tip is not sharp, but the boshi is midarekomi, and if you can recognise these characteristic points, you can think of Oei-Bizen smiths’ names.
Among the Oei Bizen smiths, two great smiths are supposed to be Morimitsu and Yasumitsu. Their hamon are a large size, with a gorgeous midare pattern, the top of the hamon is round, and these are supposed to be Morimitsu’s characteristic points, and this tachi shows these characteristic points very well. On the other hand, Yasumitsu’s hamon are mixed with togariba, the midare pattern has a slightly small size, and they are different from this hamon’s composition. If it were work by Tsuneie and Iesuke, their hamon would have prominent togariba and square shaped features.
Beside the proper answer, some people voted for Sue Bizen smiths such as Yosozaemon Sukesada. That answer is supposed to be come from a clear shape for Oei-Bizen work, and their hamon are larger than usual. But if it were work from the latter half of the Muromachi period, the length would be around 2 shaku 3 sun, the sori at the koshimoto would not be prominent, and there would be a strong saki sori, and an uchigatana shape from the latter half of the Muromachi period. Also, the hamon would be an open valley gunome mixed with gunome, choji, and togari and have fukushiki-gunome (variable sized gunome and choji) and have frequent nie.
Kantei To No.4: Katana
Mei: Higo no kami Tachibana Yoshitsugu saku
Ichini no Aida Otoshite Hirachi ni Hairi Nochi Ryoguruma to shite
Hirachi ni Hairi Mata Nochi Wakige Otoshite Hirachi ni Hairu
Length: 2 shaku 4 sun 5.5 bu
Sori: slightly over 5 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Jigane: itame hada; there are abundant dense ji-nie and frequent fine chikei.
Hamon: based on a wide suguha and mixed with gunome and ko-notare. There are frequent ashi and yo, a dense nioiguchi, abundant nie, and some ara-nie; there is a kuichigaiba style, and nie-suji, sunagashi, and a bright nioiguchi.
Boshi: straight; the tip is round, and there are hakikake.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi carved through the nakago.
Hojoji Yoshitsugu was called Edo Hojoji Masahirokado, or Kunimasakado in his home province of Hitachi. He received a title around the Kanbun (1661-72) period, and in the Genroku period (1688-1703) he was making swords for a period in Kagoshima and was the Shimazu family’s okakae smith. His signed works are few, but he has some Enpo and Genroku period signatures.
This katana has a standard width, the widths at the moto and saki are different, and there is a chu-kissaki. However, the sori is large and this is often seen in Yoshitsugu’s shapes. The hamon is based on a chu-suguha with continuous gunome. There are frequent ashi which shows a Hojoji school characteristic point. On the other hand, each gunome is large for the Hojoji school, there are more prominent rough nie, and there are nie-suji and sunagashi inside of the hamon, and these details show Satsuma’s style, and these are Yoshitsugu’s characteristic points. In voting, many people understood and observed these characteristics, and voted for Higo no kami Yoshitsugu.
Besides the correct answer, some people voted for Kotetsu, Okimasa and Kazusa no kami Kaneshige. If this were Kotetsu’s juzuba, there would be thick ashi, and the jiba (jigane and hamon) would be bright and clear. Kotetsu’s boshi are often characteristic Kotetsu boshi. If this were work by Okimasa, we would see two fused gunome continuously, and many of them would have ha-nie extending up into the ji and they would be rough looking. Kazusa no suke’s hamon would show a one-two, one-two continuous hamon.
This katana, on the ura side has a saidan-mei inscribed by Yoshitsugu himself, and says that he had conducted tameshigiri three places himself.
The nakago photo is 95% of the actual size.
Kantei To No.5: Tanto
Length: 9 sun 7 bu
Jigane: itame mixed with some mokume; there are abundant ji-nie, and frequent chikei.
Hamon: gunome mixed with togari and square shaped gnome. There are frequent ashi and yo, the hamon is nie deki, there are some tobiyaki, frequent kinsuji and sunagashi; the hamon is bright and clear.
Boshi: midarekomi; the tip is komaru and there are frequent hakikake.
This tanto is slightly wide and long and large. It is thick, and there is a poor fukura, and this shows a Shinshinto characteristic shape very well. The jigane is itame hada with frequent chikei. The hamon is a characteristic gunome, with a bright and clear nioiguchi. Inside of the hamon there are long kinsuji, and from this unique style, many people voted for Kiyomaro in the first vote.
Kiyomaro’s styles changed. Around the Tenpo and Koka periods (1830-47) his hamon are gunome mixed with many choji, and there are variations. He produced hamon with abundant thick long kinsuji and sunagashi. Around the Kaei period (1848-53) his hamon have slightly large prominent gunome, and his kinsuji and sunagashi have a gentle appearance. From the signature, this tanto seems to Kaei period work. There are many excellent highlights, the jiba (jigane and hamon) has good characteristic points from around the Tenpo, Koka and Kaei periods, and there is a bright and clear hamon with frequent hataraki such as kinsuji. The boshi has strong hakikake.
Some people voted for Naotane and it is understandable they looked at this as a Shinshinto Soshu Den work. Naotane’s jigane has what is called an uzumaki (swirling) hada, and many of his hamon are based on notare mixed with gunome.
Shijo Kantei To No.795 in April 2023 issue
The answer for the Shijo Kantei To is a katana by Kazusa no suke Kaneshige
On this katana, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is prominent. There is a shallow sori and a short chu-kissaki, and from this, you can judge this as a Kanbun Shinto sword.The actual kissaki is slightly short, and it is not a typical shape seen in this period, but sometimes this style of kissaki is seen. However, many Osaka Shinto kissaki and Hizento kissaki are not short. Also after the Enpo period (1673-80), from any part of the country, many swords had this style. We can also see a masame hada in the shinogi ji with a visible hada, and this is most often seen in Edo Shinto swords.
Around the Manji and Kanbun periods (1658-72), in Edo, a hamon with a dense nioiguchi, round topped continuous gunome, slightly reduced vertical variations, and with thick ashi become a trend. These swords sometimes have saidan mei by Yamano Kaemon Nagahisa and his group, and we can imagine that this trend resulted from influence from tameshi-giri katana groups such as the Yamano school. The smiths supposedly had strong ties with the Yamano family, and the associated style showed a wide shinogi ji, a high shinogi, and a flat shape with less hiraniku. Among these swords, the shinogi ji's width is smaller than the thickness (kasane) of the blade. This shape is supposed to have developed from the idea that without the protection of armour and a helmet, this would reduce the probability of being hit or injured when using a sword. This period was long after all the major historical battles had taken place, and Japan was a peaceful place. Combatants at this time would be wearing civilian clothes, and a sharp blade would be used while standing in a single place. This shape was supposed to be ideal for the current conditions and reflected current thought at that time.
During the Kanbun period, before and after this trend in Edo Shinto styles, a candidate smith would be one who made hamon in which the tops of the gunome would form an almost straight line, and this type of hamon was called juzuba (a string of beads). Among such smiths who made juzuba hamon, a good answer in this period would be Kotetsu. During his Hakotora period, at the yokote there is a gunome, the boshi is straight, there is a komaru and return, and this forms a Kotetsu boshi. At first glance, that is very similar to this, but there is no yakidashi, no teko tetsu in places, and no description concerning the clarity and appearance of the jiba (jigane and hamon), and the details here are different from Kotetsu’s work. In addition, early period Kotetsu work (the Hane tora period) has kesho-migaki work, but in later swords with juzuba hamon (the Hako tora periood) there is no kesho-migaki work. In addition, at that time, the yasurime become katte sagari.
However, the hints said that some parts of the midare hamon repeat with a constant rhythm. Looking at the hamon carefully, there is one gunome, and then there are two fused or continuous gunome, and there is a repeated pattern of one gunome, two fused genome. There is a one-two repeat with a unique rhythm. This was a big factor in judging this work as possibly being by Kotetsu’s teacher Kazusa no suke Kaneshige. Many of Kazusa no suke Kaneshige’s boshi have a Kotetsu boshi style.
But there is a unique rhythm in the hamon, there is no yakidashi, there is a different clarity in the jiba, and a different nakago and mei style. Also, it is helpful to note that the hamon edge is less tight. The nakago tips for both Kaneshige smiths tend to be ha-agari kurijiri. Actually, his nakago tip toward the mune side is a straight line, the tip of the nakago has niku only on the hamon side, and sometimes there is a raised shinogi, similar to Hankei’s yaken nakago.
For answers, besides Kotetsu, some people voted for Izumi no kami Kaneshige. Izumi no kami Kaneshige has a dated Kanei 2 (1615) blade. Kazusa no suke Kaneshige has a dated Kanbun 7 (1667) blade showing that his age was 43 years, and a gassaku blade with the Edo san-dai Yasutsugu, and so we understand the two Kaneshige are different smiths, either a father and son, or a teacher and student (Nakasone Kotetsu was discussed in “Shinko” by Ogasawara Nobuo). Concerning the two smiths and different generations, either they changed their titles when there was a new generation, or in later years the Shodai changed his name to Kazusa no suke, or during the Nidai’s early period, he used the name Izumi no kami, or in later years the Shodai and the Nidai worked together (daisaku) and sometimes signed for each other (daimei) in their work, but details are still uncertain. But their main efforts are different, and they are treated as different smiths. Izumi no kami Kaneshige has a confirmed date from the early Kanei period, and he was active during the Kanbun period. He has some Kanbun Shinto style swords where the widths at the moto and saki are different, with a chu-kissaki or a short chu-kissaki shape. But he has more large sori, with funbari at the koshimoto, and these are considered a Kanei Shinto shape. His hamon are based on a large gentle notare, with continuous gunome, and are as good as Shinkai’s suguha with a dense nioiguchi. His boshi are not Kotetsu boshi, but are straight, with a round return. His nakago mune are mostly kaku-mune, and there is either no kesho-migaki work, or if present, it is small or inconspicuous, and clear kesho-migaki examples are very rare.
However, at this time some smiths just wrote the Kaneshige name with no Kazusa-no-suke or Izumi-no-kami title. We treated these as a proper answer in this situation though.
Besides the correct answer, among similar smiths, some people voted for Yamato-no-kami Yasusada, Nakasone Okimasa, and Hojoji Yoshitsugu.
Yasusada’s many works are long and have a very shallow sori and a stick-like shape. The mune angle is sharp and prominently high. His hamon are notare mixed with large gunome, and a wide large midare hamon which includes some square shaped elements, and there is a slightly worn down nioiguchi. His boshi are a shallow notare, and there is a round point and return. His nakago yasurime gradually become deeper and this is one of his characteristic points.
If this were work by Okimasa, his characteristic hamon contain two gunome fused together and there is a continuous pattern. Many of his swords have a yakidashi. Also there is no kesho migaki work, and he has no title.
Yoshitsugu has dated Enpo to Genroku period (1673-1703) work, and is a later period later smith. Many of his shapes have almost no differences in the widths at the moto and saki, and there is a large sori. His midare hamon do not have a characteristic repeat rhythm, there is no Kotetsu boshi, his yasurime are katte sagari and there are no kesho-yasuri.
Explanation by Ooi Gaku.
NBTHK 75th Anniversary
Tatara 45th Anniversary
NBTHK 3rd National Convention
We will hold the 3rd national convention as described below.
We are looking forward to the participation of many people who appreciate Japanese swords.
Date: Reiwa 5 nen, November 25 (Saturday)-26 (Sunday)
Meeting place: Token Museum
1-12-9 Yokoami Sumidaku, Tokyo
Members fee: Plan A: 32,000 yen
Includes Kanshokai fee, Token Museum 2 day pass
Social gathering at the Dai-ichi Hotel Ryogoku
Plan A cost for a companion: 21,000 yen
Includes Token Museum 2 day free pass and
the social gathering
Companions are not eligible for the Kanshokai or
Plan B: 17,000 yen
Token Museum 2 day pass and meeting souvenir
Not eligible for social gathering or kantei bid
November 25 ( Saturday): all events are at the Dai-ichi Hotel, Ryogoku
Token Kansho: 12:00- 16:00
Gendai smith exhibition: 12;00-16:00
One time appraisal bid: 12:00-16:00
Celebration ceremony: 17:00-18:00
Celebration gathering: 18:00-20:00
Token Museum special exhibition: 9:30-16:00 at the Token Museum
November 26 (Sunday): all events are at the Dai-ichi Hotel, Ryogoku
Token Kansho : 9:00-14:00
Gendai smith exhibition: 9:00-14:00
Cooperating organization representatives meeting: 11:00-13:00
Token Museum special exhibition: 9:30-14:00 at the Token Museum
- Fees could change due to circumstances.
- Seating at the gathering would be by order of arrival
- Reservations to attend will be confirmed as soon as possible
- Please make hotel arrangements on your own.