MEITO KANSHO
APPRECIATION OF IMPORTANT SWORDS
Classification: Juyo Bunkazai
Type: Tachi
Mei: Mitsutada
Owner: Izumo Shrine
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 6 bu 4 rin (68.6 cm)
Sori: 7 bu 3 rin (2.2 cm)
Motohaba: 8 bu 6 rin (2.6 cm)
Sakihaba: 5 bu 6 rin (1.7 cm)
Motokasane: 1 bu 7 rin (0.5 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu (0.3 cm)
Kissaki length: 8 bu 3 rin (2.5 cm)
Nakago length: 4 sun 9 bu 2 rin (14.9 cm)
Nakago sori: 5 rin (0.15 rin)
Commentary
This is a shinogi zukuri tachi with an ihorimune. It is slightly narrow, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is not prominent, there is a standard thickness, a large koshizori, and a chu-kissaki. The jigane is itame mixed with mokume, the entire jigane is well forged, and in places there is a visible hada. There are ji-nie, fine chikei, and clear midare utsuri. The entire hamon on the omote is ko-midare mixed with ko-gunome and small togariba. On the ura, around the central area, the hamon is wide, and there are choji mixed with kawazuko choji, togariba, and prominent variations in the width of the hamon which is an active midare. The entire hamon has frequent ashi and yo, a dense nioiguchi, and along the edge of the hamon there are small tobiyaki, some kinsuji, and the nioiguchi is soft, bright and clear.The boshi on the omote is midarekomi, and on the ura is straight with a slightly shallow notare. The point on the omote is a komaru. Both sides have a round return, and the tips have hakikake. The nakago is suriage, and the tip is a ha-agari style kurijiri. The new yasurime are katte sagari, while the original yaasurime are not visible. There are two mekugi-ana, and on the Omote’s bottom half, along the mune there is a two kanji signature.
According to Token history, Osafune Mitsutada founded the largest Osafune school. His skills were excellent, and the school produced many master smiths such as Nagamitsu, Sanenaga, and Kagemitsu, and the work of the school was highly valued from its founding. Mitsutada was supposed to be active around the Hoji and Kencho (1247-56) periods and with his son Nagamitsu has signed blades from Bunei 11 (1274) and Koan 8 (1285). His Mei, except for a sword in the Emperor’s collection with the mei “Bizen Koku Osafune Mitsutada”, are all two kanji signatures. He has twenty signed blades, but many blades are suriage, and the original lengths were 2 shaku 5-7 sun long. He has two styles, one has a standard width, and the other style is wide with a magnificent shape. The width differences between the two styles are smaller when there is an ikubi kissaki. His well forged jigane have a tight small pattern itame hada with clear midare utsuri, and there is a refined jigane. His typical hamon are mainly choji mixed with fukuro and kawazuko choji, and at the top of the hamon these features are rounded or plump, and form a small size pattern. But at the koshimoto, and around the monouchi the hamon is narrower with prominent gunome. There is a gentle nioiguchi, ko-nie, kinsuji, and sunagashi, and the hamon is usually bright and clear. But compared with the Ichimonji school, it has been pointed out in the past, his midare hamon have fewer vertical variations, and in the central area, the hamon is more restrained looking.
However, many large suriage blades which are judged as his work have a magnificent shape. The jigane is well forged, there are beautiful dense ji-nie, and except for the utsuri, it initially looks like Kyoto work. Many of his hamon are basically a gorgeous choji midare hamon. On the other hand, Mitsutada’s signed tachi have a standard width, and there is less variation in the hamon. They have a relatively gentle look compared with mumei blades which are judged as his work. From this, some people questioned whether the mumei blades were Mitsudada’s work.
However, the 17th Tokubetsu Juyo token was the Akita Satake family’s heirloom “tachi mei Mitsutada”, and this tachi is a valuable resource which can help to fill the gap between mumei blades judged as Mitsutada’s work and his signed work, and an appraiser such as Honnami Kotoku’s observations have proven to be valuable.
In recent years Mr Tanobe Michihiro’s studies of old sword documents, Mitsutada’s signature styles, and work supposed to be Ko-Bizen work, he concluded that the two kanji signature work was made by the same smith who made the Osafune Mitsutada swords, and that they are his early work. This article is really worth reading (NBTHK Journal, issue No.528).
Although it is suriage, this tachi still has a large koshizori, the width is narrow, and the difference in widths at moto and saki is not large. There is a chu-kissaki, a dignified tachi shape, and distinctly Bizen characteristic points. Also, the hamon mixed with kawazoko choji has a soft nioiguchi and is bright and clear, which shows enough of Mitsutada’s characteristic points. A noteworthy feature is that the hamon omote and ura are clearly different. Among Mitsutada’s work, a hamon with such large differences between the omote and ura sides has never been observed on any other sword. It is possible that this could have resulted from an unintended yaki-ire event, but this could also demonstrate the scope of his styles and represent a valuable study material.
This tachi was originally owned by Toyotomi Hideyoshi. In Keicho 14 (1609), Hideyoshi’s son Hideyori help Izumo shrine install a deity in a new shrine, and Hideyori and his mother Yodogimi presented this sword to the shrine. Since then, for more than four hundred years, this tachi has been famous and represents the shrine in the Japanese sword world.
In the lunar calendar, October is called Kan-na-zuki or the month when the gods are absent. In November, eighty million gods from all over Japan assemble in Izumo shrine, and in Izumo Koku (province) people now call this Kami-ari-zuki (the month when the gods stay here) and celebrate this instead of the month that they are gone as was done in the past. This year, on November 22, the shrine will have a welcoming ceremony for the gods, and on November 29 they will have a ceremony to recognize the event that the gods are leaving.
Commentary and photo by Ishii Akira
Shijo Kantei To No. 801
The deadline to submit answers for the issue No. 801 Shijo Kantei To is November 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 November 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.
Information
Type: Katana
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun 2 bu (70.25 cm)
Sori: slightly less than 8 bu (2. 35 cm)
Motohaba: slightly over 1 sun (3.1 cm)
Sakihaba: slightly less than 7 bu (2.05 cm)
Motokasane: slightly over 2 bu (0.7 cm)
Sakikasane: 1.5 bu (0.45 cm)
Kissaki length: slightly less than 1 sun 2 bu (3. 6 cm)
Nakago length: slightly less than 5 sun 6 bu (16.9 cm)
Nakago sori: slight
This is a shinogi zukuri katana with an ihorimune. It is wide, and the difference in the widths at the moto and saki are not prominent. The blade is thick, there is a large saki sori, and a slightly long chu-kissaki. The jigane is a somewhat tight ko-itame hada, and there are fine ji-nie and midare utsuri. The tops of the open valley hamon features have ko-gunome and ko-choji. There are frequent ashi and yo, nie-deki, ko-nie, small sunagshi, and a bright nioioguchi. The boshi has a wide yakiba. The nakago is almost ubu. The tip is kurijiri and wide, and the yasurime are katte sagari. There is one mekugi ana. On the omote, along the mune side there is a long signature. On the ura there is a date positioned slightly below the signature.
Juyo Tosogu
Shiki kacho zu (four seasons flower and bird design) soroi kanagu
Tsuba mei: oji kaigu zu (all components were made to an order)
Kozuka mune mei: Kinoe-ne toshi fuyu oborozuki Isshin saku
Kogai mei: Heian shoshi Wada Isshine Seiryu with kao
Menuki wari tanzaku mei: Wada Isshin
Fuchi-kashira mei: Koto shoshi Wada Isshin with kao
Kurikata mei: Isshin saku
Ura-kawara mei: Isshin saku
Wada Isshin was born in Bunka 11 (1814) in Kyoto. In his early days, he studied under the Goto group carver Fujimoto Kyubei, and was named Masataka. Later, the sword dealer Takuya Chubei recognised his talent and with Takuya’s introduction, Isshin became a student of Goto Ichijo, received permission to use the Ichi kanji and changed his name to Isshin. He was a refined person who liked waka (poetry) and playing the koto, and his character greatly influenced his work.
The matched kanagu which includes menuki made of solid gold, and other kanagu made using an oboro-gin (3 parts copper mixed with 1 part silver) ground. He carved flowering plants and showed small details which emphasize the feelings of the four seasons, such as chrysanthemums and water and cherry blossoms blown by the wind. But whatever we say, among the kanagu’s most eye-catching items is the tsuba. On the omote there is a willow with hanging branches and a bird perched on it. Under the willow, on the gentle wavy surface of the water, the moon is reflected, and we can recognize an evening scene. On the ura there is a white heron in shallow water looking at small fish swimming in the stream. The contrast of a bird and white heron are like night and day, and I think the subject of the scene is supposed to be a day and a night. The composition is excellent. On the omote side the willow’s base is not visible, a large branch stretches out, and below it is the water’s surface. This perspective works well, and the tsuba shows a depth of feeling. On the ura side, you first look at the inlaid white heron. Then your line of sight will naturally move to the left and to the right, where the white heron is looking at a small fish in the swaying seaweed.
The choice of subject is not the usual auspicious crane, brave kite, and conspicuous ho-o (a mythological bird), but are familiar small things, and from this, we can recognize Isshin’s aesthetic sense which focuses on everyday beauty. This masterpiece was made in Ganji 1(1864) at the age of 50 years.
Commentary by Takeda Kotaro
September Token Teirei Kansho kai
Date: September 9 (second Saturday of September)
Location: The Token Hakubutsukan auditorium
Lecturer: Takeda Kotaro
Kantei To No. 1: katana
Mumei: Toma
Kinzogan mei: Kyo (fear)
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 9.5 bu
Sori: slightly over 5 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame hada mixed with mokume and nagare hada; notably, the nagare hada stands out on the ura, and along shinogi it is almost masame. There are abundant dense ji-nie, and frequent chikei.
Hamon: chu-suguha style hamon mixed with ko-gunome and ko-notare; there are ashi, frequent thick dense slightly rough nie, kinsuji, sunagashi, and some hamon edge hotsure.
Boshi: straight and round, with a shallow return.
This is a Tokubetsu Juyo Token judged to be a Toma katana. At first, looking at the jiba ( jigane and hamon), there are frequent dense ji-nie, prominent chikei, and a strong impression from the jigane, and you can see that both the jigane and hamon have abundant nie. Furthemore, there are frequent prominent sunagashi, kinsuji, and nie-suji, inside of the hamon, and these show strong Soshu characteristic points. But on the ura side, the forging has prominent masame hada, and also some places along the hamon’s edge have strong hotsure, the shape is wide and there is a high shinogi, and Yamato characteristic elements are apparent.
At a glance, this looks like Soshu Den master work, with the addition of some Yamato Den elements or characteristics, or, in other words this is based on Yamato den, but there are many Soshu den elements present. We can say these are the katana’s characteristic points, and the important highlights suggest this is Toma school work.
From considering these points, people looked at this as Yamato work and voted for Toma, Tegai, and Shikake. A few people voted for Soshu work, and voted for Yukimitsu. At an appraisal, a usual rule is “if it is not Yukimitsu’s work, it is Toma work”, and both blades have many similar points. This is understandable, and in the second vote, some people did change their vote for Toma work.
However, the Toma school’s actual founder Kuniyuki has only two signed blades, and both blades have fine ha-nie, and at a glance look like Kyoto work and have a gentle appearance. But from the Edo period, many blades which were judged as Toma work are a Yamato style, and have strongly emphasized nie hataraki.
Kantei To No.2 Tachi
Mei: Kunimura
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 5 sun 8 bu
Sori: 1.05 sun
Style: shinogi-zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada mixed with some itame hada; some areas have nagare hada; there are ji-nie and jifu utsuri.
Hamon: chu-suguha mixed with ko-gunome. There are ashi and yo, on the omote there are Kyo saka-ashi, and the ura has standard prominent saka-ashi. The nioiguchi has slightly uneven nie.
Boshi: straight; on the omote the point is round; on the ura the point is a is large round style; both sides have a shallow return.
Horimono: on the omote and the ura there are bo-hi with maru-dome.
This is a Juyo Bijutsuhin tachi. The widths at the moto and saki are different; the upper half has sori; the kissaki is a standard width and not wide. From these details and shape you can judge this as work from around the end of the Kamakura period. There is a natural parabola-like wazori-shape, and on the inside of the hamon, especially in the central area on the omote and ura, there are “Kyo-saka-ashi” which are ashi which slope toward or are angled toward the nakago. In considering these details, you can guess that this is Rai school work. However, the jigane is mixed in places with nagare hada, on the ura the boshi tip is a large round style, and there is a short return, and from this, we could say that this is possibly Enju work.
From observations of Kunimura’s other work, his hamon widths are usually narrower than this, there are fewer hakaraki, and there is a gentle look. I can say that this sword has fewer elements or hataraki than usual when looking at it as Kunimura’s work. Therefore, from the jiba (jigane and hamon) style, and the overall high level of workmanship, Rai Kunitoshi’s name could come to mind. Since the inside of the hamon has relatively prominent strong nie, among the Enju school smiths, Kuniyasu’s name could come to mind. As I explained, some people voted for the two smiths, and they are both acceptable as a correct answer.
Many of Kunimura’s signed ubu blades are around 2 shaku 7 sun, which is long. This tachi is largely suriage, but is still over 2 shaku 5 sun long, and originally was about 3 shaku long. You can imagine, among his work, this could be his longest dignified appearing tachi.
Kantei To No. 3: wakizashi
Mei: Bishu Osafune Iesuke
Oei 23 nen (1416) 2 gatsu hi
Length: 1 shaku 2.05 sun
Sori: slightly less than 2 bu
Style: hirazukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame mixed with mokume; the hada
is slightly visible over the entire ji; there are ji-nie, chikei, and midare style utsuri.
Hamon: open valley gunome mixed with ko-gunome and ko-choji; there are ashi, yo, a nioiguchi with the upper half having slightly rough nie, and fine sunagashi.
Boshi: midarekomi; the tip is a yaki-kuzure style and there are hakikake.
Horimono: on the omote there is a katana hi; the ura has futatsuji hi and all have marudome.
This wakizashi is long for its width, and is thick. We see this kind of shape in the early Muromachi period around the Oei period, and so you can easily guess the era.
The jigane has clear midare style utsuri, and furthermore the horimono stop above the machi, which are Oei Bizen characteristic elements.
At this time, the two best master smiths were Morimitsu and Yasumitsu. Compared with their work, the slightly visible hada is prominent, the forging work is less refined than theirs, the open valley hamon is only on the bottom half of the hamon and is not emphasized. The entire blade’s composition is irregular and disorganized, and considering this, you honestly must hesitate to vote for the names of two master smiths. Of course, Iesuke does have some work comparable that of Morimitsu and Yasumitsu. However, on the whole, Iesuke’s signed works rank below that of the other two. This wakizashi is the same, and in addition, sometimes his sunagashi are relatively prominent. In voting, more than half of the people voted for the two best master smiths which is treated as a proper answer, and considering the workmanship, a few people voted for Iesuke.
Kantei To No. 4: katana
Orikaeshi mei: Unjo
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 2.5 bu
Sori: slightly less than 8 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: ko-itame hada mixed with small mokume hada; the entire ji is tight; there are fine ji-nie, on the omote and pale utsuri stripes which become dan-utsuri; on the ura, dark areas form jifu shaped midare utsuri.
Hamon: wide suguha mixed with gunome; the hamon contains angular shaped features; there are choji and some saka ashi; there are frequent ashi and yo, and ko-nie.
Boshi: on the omote the boshi is notarekomi; the ura is straight; both tips are a large round style.
We can see that this katana is largely suriage, and has clearly lost its funbari at the moto. The shape is wazori just like the No. 2 tachi. This style is often seen in the work of the Yamashiro Rai school and the Bizen Unrui school. From the hataraki inside of the hamon, and the condition of the nie, you can see Rai school elements. But there is dark jifu style midare utsuri on the omote, and lines of utsuri that form dan-utsuri, and these are different from Rai’s nie utsuri. More likely this is Bizen work with the addition of some Aoe characteristics, and you can see that Unrui work is a high probability. Also, a hard to miss point is that the valleys of the midare hamon have an acute angled and pointed shape, which is like a reversed togariba seen in places. Also, the boshi’s round shape is large, and these are obvious Unrui characteristic points.
Most Unrui signed works are different from this one: they have a low or narrow hamon and a gentle suguha hamon. But Unji has some works in the same style as this one, so because of this, Unji is considered a proper answer.
Other attributions seen during the voting were Aoe, Motoshige, Kagemitsu and Chikakage. Aoe’s jigane have dark jifu shaped mujihada (sumihada) areas. If this were Motoshige’s work, often his forging has masame hada visible in some places, and the omote and ura boshi tips tend to be sharp. In the case of Kagemitsu and Chikakage, there would be no omote dan-utsuri.
Kantei To No.5: Katana
Gaku mei: Masatsune
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 5 bu
Sori: slightly less than 8 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; there are ji-nie, fine chikei, and jifu utsuri.
Hamon: on the omote and the ura at the koshimoto the hamon is based on a choji style hamon mixed with ko-gunome; on the ura, the hamon is mixed with large bunched choji, and prominent vertical variations. above this, the hamon is a wide suguha style mixed with ko-midare and with ko-gunome; there are ashi, yo, and frequent nie.
Boshi: straight and komaru.
Horimono: on the omote and ura are bo-hi carved almost completely through the nakago.
This is a Ko-Bizen Masatsune katana with a gakumei. The shape is wide, the difference in widths at the moto and the saki is not prominent. The tip has sori, there is a chu-kissaki, and a strong shape. On the omote and ura koshimoto areas there are vertical variations and a midare koshimoto area hamon. From these details, many people voted for the next generation smiths in the mid-Kamakura period, such as Mitsutada, Nagamitsu, Kunimune, and Moriie. But if it were work by these smiths, the entire hamon would be gunome or choji, and there would be a richer variety and a gorgeous hamon. In talking about the Ko-Bizen shape, you can imagine that the width at the moto and saki are different, the tip’s sori is shallower than on the other parts of the blade, and there is a small kissaki and elegant tachi shape. But sometimes among the Bizen smiths, we see strong shapes just like this one. This kind of work is seen in the work of smiths such as Masatsune, Sanetsune, Kanehira, Kunitsugu, and Yukihide.
Furthermore, along with Masatsune, the other best master smith Tomonari has a Juyo Bunkazai tachi dated in the Katei period (1235-38). One theory proposes that there is a ni-dai Masatsune using that name.If so, it is possible that his work in a later period could have been made after the early Kamakura period.
Considering these points, and looking at it carefully, we can see that the vertical variations in the hamon are only on one part at the koshimoto, and the hamon is mainly a suguha style mixed with ko-midare and with ko-gunome. There are abundant even nie from the moto to the saki, and they even extend into the kissaki, and you can see mainly nie along the nioiguchi. Also, the dark jifu utsuri are clear and obiously go up into the shinogi ji, and you can recognize the jiba (jigane and hamon) has Ko-Bizen characteristic points. In addition, the tight refined ko-itame hada in the jigane, the wide hamon, and the straight elegantly round boshi and return suggest that this is Masatsune’s work and shows his characteristic points.
Shijo Kantei To No.799 in the August, 2023 Issue
The answer for the Shijo Kantei To is a katana by Yamashiro no kami Kunikiyo (from approximately the Kanbun-Tenwa period)
A hint was that the katana has a kiku mon plus an “ichi” kanji. According to the “Kokon Kaji Biko”, around the Shodai’s time, there was a sword with an engraved “Kiku ichi-monji” (an “ichi” kanji) at the habaki-moto”. But an older source, the “Shinto Bengi” states that since Kanbun 12 (1672) there were katana with an engraved “Kiku ichi-monji”. Looking at the year, Kanbun 10 (1670), this seems to the first time this engraving was described. There is a small gap with the “Shinto Bengi” list, and today, the idea that the “ichi” kanji was carved after the second generation is considered to be a strong possibility. The Shodai Kunikiyo passed away in Kanbun 5 (1665).
Each generation Kunikiyo produced excellent suguha work. From the jiba (jigane and hamon), it is difficult to clearly judge differences between generations, and in addition, the data or observations for each generation are not consistent. there are various theories concerning the nidai and the sandai, and about generational differences. Also, there are daisaku and daimei blades, and distinctions between them are difficult to observe. Because of this, at this time, either generation of Yamashiro no kami Kunikiyo is treated as a correct answer.
Looking at the shape, the widths at the the moto and saki are different, there is a shallow sori, and a chu-kissaki. It was not noted, but the kissaki is short, and when there is a chu-kissaki with a shallow sori, and the widths at the moto and saki are different, it is appropriate to suppose that this is a Kanbun shinto work.
In looking at the forging work, we can call it zanguri (rough) hada, and this kind of jigane is seen most often in Horikawa school work in the Shinto period, and this is supposed to be by the shodai Kunikiyo who was a Horikawa student. In addition, the jigane is dark, and this is supposed to be a northern country characteristic.
The suguha hamon has ko-nie with a slightly dense nioiguchi, and at a glance, looks like a Hizen To. But compared with Hizen To, there are differences: the nioiguchi does not have a clear belt-like shape, but is rather uneven and frayed looking, and there is a worn down nioiguchi. The boshi is suguha but is not parallel to the fukura, the tip’s yakiba is dense and these are elements to be considered.
The nakago yasurime are katte-sagari and sujichigai, and many of the nakago have narrow tips with either kurijiri or ha-agari kurijiri tips, and the nakago mune is kaku-mune.
The signatures on many of these swords are carved in the center of the shinogi ji along the mune side, and it does not matter if the blade is a katana, wakizashi, or tanto. Basically they are signed on the omote (i.e. they are tachi mei). As far as I know, the only exceptions are supposed to be two of the Shodai’s unokubi zukuri wakizashi. One of them has an ura kiriba and has a katana mei. The hint that the “shinogi zukuri wakizashi has the mei signed on the ura” refers to this.
Kunikiyo is a famous smith, but in recent years, the “Token Bijusu” journal hasn’t used any of his works for appraisal or teaching or in the headquarter’s Teirei Kanshokai meetings. However, in voting, people understood the above characteristic points, and many people voted for the correct answer.
For another proper answer, some people voted for Kunihiro and Shin Kunisada.
Kunihiro has tachi mei and suguha work. However, his shapes are wide, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki is not prominent, and there is a long kissaki. Many of his swords are really Keicho Shinto katana, and on the nakago, we never see a kiku mon and ichi kanji. Also, many of his works have katana mei. Shin Kunisada’s nakago characteristics are different, and suguha work is rare.
Besides the correct and proper answers, some people voted for Bo-Hizen Yukihiro and Tadakuni. They are good at suguha with a dense nioiguchi, their jigane are ko-itame hada with a slightly visible hada, and there is a dark colored jigane. In the case of katana, their signatures are on the ura side, and these are the same characteristics we see in Kunikiyo’s work. If this were a usual kantei kai, you would be able to examine the blade, but not the nakago, and as I explained above, it is necessary to judge the hamon edge’s condition, and the brightness of the nioiguchi. However, in the Shijo Kantei To, nakago information is listed, and this helps to judge.
For both smiths, in the case of katana, many of their nakago mune have a small niku (or are very flat appearing); on wakizashi, they signed with katana mei, and these are big differences from Kunikiyo. Also, concerning the signature, Yukihiro has an “ichi” kanji but no kiku mon. Tadakuni has kiku mon but no “ichi” kanji.
Beside these smiths, some people put emphasis on the “kiku mon and ichi” and voted for the following smiths.
If this were work by Echizen no kami Nobuyoshi, his signature would be a katana mei, his forging work is like Osaka Shinto work, and apparently many of his swords have a tight ko-itame hada, his nakago have kesho yasuri, and his nakago tips would be iriyamagata.
Tango no kami Kanemichi’s forging produces a tight refined jigane, his nakago tips are iriyamagata, his characteristic signatures are a katana mei on the omote, and on the ura he has “kiku mon” with an “ichi” kanji.
In Yokayama Sukenaga’s work, many of his blades are thick, there is a long kissaki, a slightly large sori, and his forging is tight, and can be a muji style. His suguha hamon have notably tight nioiguchi. Many of “kiku mon with ichi kanji” are on the ura side, and his long signature is seen on the omote and ura. Also, his nakago tips are ha-agari kurijiri and wide, and his characteric yasurime are kiri to katte sagari to sujichigai, and his file marks are deep.
SWORD IN THE FIGURE:
Sword length: 2 shaku 6 bu
Ura mei: Yamashiro jo Fujiwara Kunimune saku
Omote Mei: Yamashiro moku Fujiwara Kunikiyo saku
Commentary by Ooi Gaku.
NBTHK 75th Anniversary
Tatara 45th Anniversary
NBTHK 3rd National Convention
Information:
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
Tel: 03-6284-1000
Members fee: Plan A: 32,000 yen
Includes Kanshokai fee, Token Museum 2 day pass Social gathering at the Dai-ichi Hotel
Ryogoku Meeting souvenir
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 kantei bid
Plan B: 17,000 yen
Token Museum 2 day pass and meeting souvenir Not eligible for social gathering or kantei bid
Registration to attend: Please register to attend by using the application at the end of the Token
Bijutsu Journal’s October issue
Deadline to apply for the 3rd national convention: Friday, October 20th 2023
Convention schedule:
November 25 ( Saturday): all events are at the Dai-ichi Hotel, Ryogoku
Reception: 12:00-16:00
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 ※
※Before registration begins for the convention (starting at 12:00 noon), entrance to the NBTHK’s museum’s sword exhibit will require a separate entrance fee. After registration, attendees will have free admittance to the 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
Notes:
· Fees are subject to change due to unplanned or unexpected circumstances
· Seating at the gathering will be in order of arrival
· Please make your own hotel arrangements
· At the Token Kansho, please follow the venue staff’s instructions