MEITO KANSHO:
APPRECIATION OF IMPORTANT SWORDS
Juyo Bijutsuhin
Tachi
Mei: Masatsune
Accompanied by a Honami Mitsutada origami dated Genroku 5 nen (1692)
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 3 bu 6 rin (70.8 cm)
Sori: 7 bu 8 rin (2.35 cm)
Motohaba: 8 bu 7 rin (2.65 cm)
Sakihaba: 5 bu 4 rin (1.65 cm)
Motokasane: 1 bu 8 rin (0.55 cm)
Sakikasane: 1 bu (0.3 cm)
Kissaki length: 8 bu 3 rin (2.5 cm)
Nakago length: 5 sun 8 bu 4 rin (17.7 cm)
Nakago sori: 5 rin (0.15 cm)
Commentary
This is a shinogi tsukuri tachi with an ihorimune. It is narrow, and the widths at the moto and saki are different. There is a standard thickness, and there is a koshisori although the blade is suriage. The tip falls down going forward (the sori becomes shallower going towards the point), and there is a small kissaki. The jigane is itame mixed with mokume, and the entire ji is well forged. There are ji-nie and chikei. On the ura at the koshimoto there are pale jifu utsuri. The hamon is ko-midare, some parts are suguha, and there is some kuichigaiba. There are ashi, frequent yo, abundant nie along the nioiguchi, and some areas along the edge have yubashiri. The boshi is straight, there is a large round point, and the tip has hakikake. The nakago is suriage and the tip is ha-agari kurijiri. The new yasurime are a slight katte-sagari, and the original style is unknown. There are three mekugi ana and two are closed. On the omote under the second mekugi ana (the original) and along the center, is a large two kanji signature made with a thick chisel.
Masatsune, was especially famous as one of two Koto smiths whose work was compared to that of Tomonari, and both smiths have a relatively large number of signed works. Compared with Tomonari’s work, his tachi shapes are less elegant looking, but having a refined and elaborate jigane, Masatsune’s jigane are better. His hamon are more technically detailed, and overall have a more sophisticated style than Tomonari’s hamon. In contrast, Tomonari has less technically detailed hamon and a gentle tachi shape, and a more classical style. Also, in looking at the mei, sometimes Tomorari signed with long signatures such as “Bizen Koku Tomonari”, but Masasune’s Mei are limited to just two kanji.
However, sometimes Koto smiths made wide blades with a large sori in the upper half, and a strong tachi shape, and there are many smiths who worked in this kind of style starting with Masatsune, including smiths Kunitsugu, and Yukihide, (of course, these smiths had elegantly such as Sanetsune, Toshitsune, Kanehira, Yoshikane, shaped work too). In addition, Tomonari has dated work from the Katei (1235-38) period which is Juyo Bunkazai. Also, according to one theory, Masatsune’s signature is supposed to have been used by three generations or more, and so there is a possibility that Masasune’s active period could be later than the early Kamakura period. Therefore, Masatsune’s hamon styles show a wide range, from a typical Ko-Bizen classic style to a wide suguha hamon with almost no notable ko-midare areas, and in addition are mixed with ko-choji, and the midare hamon is somewhat emphasized.
This tachi is slightly narrow, there is a large koshizori, even though the blade is suriage, the upper half’s sori falls down (becomes more shallow) going forward towards the point, and there is a small kissaki which reflects the period’s classic elegant tachi shape. The jigane is Masatsune’s characteristic well forged ji, and is itame mixed with mokume. There are frequent ji-nie and fine forging, and this work demonstrates a number of his characteristic points. In addition, the hamon width is low, and mainly ko-midare, and is sophisticated. There are abundant nie from the moto to the saki, and a remarkable Ko-Bizen appearance. The yubashiri on the edge of the hamon adds interest, and the entire tachi has a classic feeling.
However, because of abundant evenly distributed ha-nie and ji-nie, and there is almost no ji-utsuri, this shows Ko-Bizen characteristics. Looking at the technical aspects and condition, and the hataraki on the Hamon’s edge, one theory is that starting with Masamune, Soshu Den smiths supposedly admired he Ko-Hoki and Ko-Bizen work, and greatly used those as reference points which we can’t deny.
Also, as you know, Masatune’s “tsune” 恒 kanji’s left side has a vertical line along with two short strokes on either side of the line. There are two styles in writing these lines: † or ﾘ . This is a later kanji signature. The hamon is mainly an elegant classic ko-midare style. However, the shape reflects an end of the Heian period to early Kamakura period style, the entire jigane and hamon are clear, and this is better than his usual work. There is a noble appearance, and this shows the extent of Masatsune’s abilities.
In Showa 17 (1942) this tachi was classified as Juyo Bijutsuhin, and the owner was Nakajima Kiyoichi who wanted to save Japanese swords immediately after the war, and strongly supported the establishment of the NBTHK. He was a sword lover and owned many famous swords, such as “Mikazuki Munechika”, “Kikko Sadamune” and “Inabago”. He was also the president of the Nakajima Hikoki co, Ltd, which was the maker of fighter planes such as the “Zero Sen”.
This tachi is from Mr.Suzuki Shoichi’s collection assembled over a forty year period, and was given to the NBTHK. In January of Reiwa 7 (2025), he felt individuals should not store or hide away such a collection, which included a Juyo Bunkazai tachi by Kuniyuki, a Juyo Bunkazai ken with the mei Mitsutada, and other Juyo Bijutsuhin, Tokubetsu Juyo token, and Juyo token which included 13 blades. In addition, he had three Juyo Tosogu, and one complete Juyo Tosogu set. Fulfilling his wishes that these items be widely seen and appreciated, there will be a memorial exhibition “Japanese Swords: the Suzuki Shoichi Collection” from October 25 to December 21, 2025.
Explanation and oshigata by Ishii Akira.
Shijo Kantei To No. 825
Information
Type: Wakizashi
Length: slightly less than 1 shaku 7 sun 2 bu (52.0 cm)
Sori: slightly over 2 bu (0.65 cm)
Motohaba: 9.5 bu (2.85 cm)
Sakihaba: 7 bu (2.1 cm)
Motokasane: slightly over 2 bu (0.56 cm)
Sakikasane: slightly less than 2 bu (0.55 cm)
Kissaki length: 1 sun 3 bu (3.9cm)
Nakago length: 5 sun 4.5 bu (16.55 cm)
Nakago sori: almost none
This is a shinogi tsukuri wakizashi with an ihorimune. It is slightly wide, the difference in the widths at the moto and saki does not stand out. There is a narrow shinogi ji, a standard thickness, no hiraniku, a shallow sori, and a long chu-kissaki. The tip of the nakago looks narrow, and as though this was reduced or altered. The jigane is a tight ko-itame hada with a slightly muji appearance. There are abundant ji-nie, and a bright jigane. The hamon and boshi are as seen in the oshigata. Some parts of the hamon have characteristically shaped midare valleys. There is a dense nioiguchi, abundant nie, some kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bright and clear nioiguchi. The nakago is ubu, the tip is a narrow pronounced iriyamagata. The yasurime are a large sujichigai with kesho. There is one mekuigi ana, and on the omote, under the mukugi ana and along the mune side there is a long kanji signature. The ura has a date with one kanji above the mekugi ana.
This smith has many wakizashi and fewer katana.
Tokubetsu Juyo Tosogu
Sakuragawa-nuri (urushi) saya aikuchi tanto koshirae (Koei Juryo issaku kanagu: all parts were made by one person)
Fuchi: Inmei Juryo
Menuki: warikiwamei Juryo
Kozuka mei: Juryo (kao)
Kogai mei: Koei
Shibahara (Fujiwara) Juryo was one of the master smiths called the “Bakumatsu’s three best master smiths” along with Goto Ichijo and Kano Natsuo, and he was a student in the Toryusai Seiju school. He was born in Bunsei 12 (1829), and used artist names such as Seijo, Kojo, Ryugansai, and inherited Seiju’s techniques.
The saya surface is sakuragawa-nuri, or cherry tree bark and knots, and carefully detailed. Above that is an urumi-urushi (brown color) lacquer and suki-urushi lacquer (transparent). The result is so good it looks like real cherry bark.
The metal fittings used have a solid gold ground, and over that, all kinds of colored metals such as silver, shakudo, shibuichi, and suaka, and this creates an idylic peaceful scene. The kozuka, kogai, and kojiri have a bird’s eye view of a street and a flowing river, and details of people passing by in shakudo hirazogan (inlay), and this creates a stunning depth for the scene. Also, he used yo-bori for white fish on a kawara (tile) background, shijimi (freshwater clams) saguri, ikada (a raft) in the menuki, and miyakodori (seagulls) on the ura, and used elaborately crafted metals for each of these fine details. The entire design is an idyllic scene, but it is elegantly put together. This is a masterpiece and demonstrates his high level of skill.
This is a one of the full koshirae which were gifts from Suzuki Shoichi among which there were two Juyo Bunkazai swords and 16 toso (koshirae) with origami and a full koshirae.
This will be exhibited at the “Japanese Swords: the Suzuki Shoichi Collection” organized by the Suzuki Shoichi Collection” from October 25 to December 21, 2025.
Explanation by Arakawa Fumito
Teirei Kansho kai
Date: September 13 (second Saturday of the month)
Place:Token Hakubutsukan Auditorium
Lecturer: Takeda Kotaro
Kantei To No. 1: Wakizashi
Mei: Sagami kuni ju nin Hiromitsu
Koan 2 nen (1362) 10 gatsu hi
Length: 2 shaku
Sori: 1 bu
Style: hiratsukuri
Mune: mitsumune
Jigane: itame hada; some parts of the hada are visible, there are abundant ji-nie and chikei.
Hamon: choji mixed with gunome, notare, and ko-gunome; there are frequent ashi and yo, strong nie, tobiyaki, yubashiri, and frequent muneyaki, and this forms a hitatsura effect; there are kinsuji, sunagashi, and a bright and clear nioiguchi.
Boshi: midarekomi; there is komaru tip, the ura has strong hakikake; there is a long return continuing to form muneyaki.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are katana-hi carved into the nakago.
This is a Joyo Token Hiromitsu wakizashi. Hiromitsu has dated work from Shohei 7 (1352) to Joji 3 (1362), and it is known that his active period was during the peak of the Nanbokucho period. This wakizashi is wide and long, there is a shallow sori, and from this you can judge this as being a Nanbokucho period shape. There are abundant ji-nie and chikei. The choji hamon is mixed with gunome, and the hamon becomes wider going from the moto to the tip. There are abundant ji-nie, tobiyaki, yubashiri, and muneyaki. With the strong kinsuji and sunagashi, there is a gorgeous hitatsura hamon, and this shows Soshu’s characteristic hitatsura style hamon well. In some places in the hamon, we see Hiromitsu’s characteristic large choji which are called dango-choji. There is a bright and clear nioiguchi, and this is a powerful wakizashi.
In voting, besides Hiromitsu, many people voted for Akihiro and Hasebe school smiths. Akihiro and Hiromitsu have a similar style. But I have to note that Hiromitsu has wakizashi with lengths over 1 shaku, and Akihiro has more tanto with lengths around 8-9 sun. He also used Akihiro’s dango choji hamon which was mentioned above, and his midare hamon tend to be smaller. The Hasebe school made hitotsura hamon which were as good, but in that case, the blade can be conspicuously thin, and the jigane’s characteristic point is a strong nagare hada along the hamon and mune, and this can form a masame style hada.
Kantei To No. 2: Tachi
Mei: Bishu Osafune Tsuguyuki
Length: 2 shaku 2 sun 6 bu
Sori: 7 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame hada mixed with mokume hada and nagare hada; the hada is visible; there are ji-nie, thick chikei, irregular kawari gane, jifu, and pale midare utsuri.
Hamon: square gunome mixed with ko-gunome, ko-choji, and small togariba; the entire hamon has a prominent saka-ashi style. The hamon is small, there are ashi, yo, nie deki, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: shallow notarekomi; the tip is sharp.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi; the omote is finished in marudome, and the ura is carved through the nakago.
Osafune Tsuguyuki is a Kosori smith. The Kosori smiths worked from the end of the Nanbokucho period to the early Muromachi period in Bizen. They are different from the mainstream Osafune smiths such as Kanemitsu, and the branch school smiths such as Chogi, Morikaga, Motoshige, and so the Kosori group’s lineage is not certain. This tachi’s funbari is gone, and from this you can assumed it is suriage. It has a standard width, and the widths at the moto and saki are not very different. There is a large koshisori, the tip has sori, it is thick for the width, and there is a chu-kissaki. This is supposed to be an early Muromachi Oei period shape, and is consistent with the Kosori group’s active sword making period.
Generally, the Kosori jigane is itame mixed with mokume and nagare hada, there is a large pattern hada, the hada is visible, and there is a slightly disordered appearance in the forging work. The hamon are gunome mixed with togariba and angular hamon features, and these can form an irregular hamon. The hamon width is low, and there is a small size or narrow hamon. This sword has itame hada mixed with mokume and nagare hada, the hada is visible, and there is utsuri. The entire hamon consists of small sized square gunome mixed with all kinds of hamon features such as ko-gunome and togariba, and it noticeably shows these characteristic points.
From these details, many people voted for Kosori smiths, but some people voted for Motoshige. Itame hada mixed with mokume and nagare hada, and a visible hada with utsuri are Bizen branch school characteristic points, and in this tachi, some places have sections with square gunome and small togariba, so from this, the answer is understandable, but Motoshige’s shapes would be different. Some people voted for Chogi and Morikage, but if it were their work or Soden-Bizen work, there should be more hataraki such as strong nie, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Kantei To No. 3: Katana
Mei: Hizen Ichimonji Dewa no Kami Yukihiro
Length: 2 shaku 3 sun 4.5 bu
Sori: 5 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada; some areas have a visible hada; there are frequent ji-nie, fine chikei, and a dark jigane.
Hamon: yakidashi at the moto and above this there is a gunome midare hamon with choji, yahazu style choji, conected with a notare pattern. There are ashi, yo, and a dense nioiguchi. In the midare hamon valleys there are clusters of nie, and frequent nie, sunagashi, and tobiyaki.
Boshi: straight, with a round tip, some hakikake, and a long return.
Horimono: on the omote there are bo-hi. The ura has futasuji-hi, and on both sides, the hi are carved into the nakago.
This is a Juyo Token katana by the Shodai Dewa no kami Yukihiro. It it’s slightly wide, and the widths at the moto and saki are not very different. There is a slight sori, a chu-kissaki, and a well balanced Hizen to shape.
The entire jigane is a tight ko-itame hada, some places have a slightly visible hada, and there is a dark jigane. Considering this, you can look at this as a Bo-Hizen (branch school) katana. The hamon is gunome and choji midare and these elements form groups, and a shallow notare hamon connects them. There are abundant nie in the valleys of the midare hamon. The boshi is straight along the fukura, round, and there is a return. This katana clearly shows the school’s characteristic midare hamon.
In voting, some people voted for Bo-Hizen smiths such as Masahiro, Yukihiro, Tadakuni, and the Osaka Shinto smith Shin-Kunisada. Among Hizen To, Tadakuni’s hamon have frequent midare, prominent kinsuji and sunagashi, and a bold and distinctive appearance. In his midare hamon work, his boshi are often midarekomi, and there is a long return. This is different from Tadayoshi’s style. The Bo-Hizen smiths Masahiro and Yukihiro’s boshi are often straight and follow the fukura, and are komaru with a return. Yukihiro sometimes has a unique choji hamon which looks like it is spread out horizontally, and this katana has a similar hamon, and if you consider this, you can vote for Yukihiro. But we thought it would be difficult to pick an individual smith’s name, and Bo-Hizen smiths’ names are treated as correct answers.
Votes for Shin-Kunisada seems to come from the yakidashi and the boshi which follows right along the fukura. It is komaru and has a return and a midare hamon. Generally, his hamon overall are a small size gunome and choji, and some of them have tobiyaki at the mitsu-kashira and monouchi areas and mune.
Kantei To No. 4: Katana
Mei: oite Eshu Kato Tsunatoshi tsukuru kore
Ansei 2 sai (1855) 8 gatsu kichijitsu
Length: slightly less than 2 shaku 3 sun 1 bu
Sori: 6.5 bu
Style: shinogi zukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: tight ko-itame hada, and almost a muji style. There are fine ji-nie.
Hamon: diagonal yakidashi at the moto, and above it, the hamon is choji midare mixed with gunome. There are ashi, a tight nioiguchi, and nioideki.
Boshi: straight, with a round tip and long return.
This is a Kato Tsunatoshi sword dated Ansei 2. It is wide, and the widths at the moto and saki are different. There is a large sori like on a tachi, but it is heavy. There is a narrow shinogi for the width of the blade, poor hiraniku, and muji style forging, and from these details, you can look at this as Shinshinto period work. The hamon has a diagonal yakidashi, and above this, choji and gunome. The top of the hamon goes in various directions. There is a slightly tight nioguchi. Looking carefully looking at the details, you can recognize the constant length of the same hamon repeat units. From these details, you can narrow this work down to Tsunatoshi.
Besides votes for Tsunatoshi, a relatively large number of people voted for Koyama Munetsugu. Considering the repeat units in the hamon, the answer is reasonable. But if it were Munetsugu’s work, this kind of yakidashi is rare, and his boshi are always midarekomi. Some people voted for a smith who was good at making choji midare hamon, Unju Korekazu, but Korekazu’s choji have a dense nioiguchi and is different from this. From the tight nioiguchi, some people voted for Hamabe, and his boshi shapes are similar to this, but many of his hamon are a smaller size kobushi (fist like)-choji, there is no repeat unit style, and his yakidashi would be straight.
Kantei To No. 5: Katana
Mei: Soshu ju Hiromasa
Length: slightly over 2 shaku
Sori: slightly less than 8 bu
Style: shinogi tsukuri
Mune: ihorimune
Jigane: itame hada; there is a strong nagare hada along the side of the hamon which forms a masame hada. There are frequent ji-nie and chikei.
Hamon: gunome mixed with notare, ko-gunome, and ko-choji; there are ashi, yo, frequent nie, nijuba, tobiyaki, yubashiri, kinsuji and sunagashi.
Boshi: straight. There is hakikake at the top, the point is round, and the ura has strong hakikake.
Horimono: on the omote and ura there are bo-hi carved into the nakago. On the omote side, the inside of the hi has a shin-no-kurikara. The ura has a long bonji in relief (under the habaki to the mekugi-ana there are traces of soe-hi).
Soshu Hiromasa’s name continued to be used from the Nanbokucho period to the end of the Muromachi period for several generations. There is a small number of signed works, and the distinctive characteristics of each generation are not clear. There is a standard width, a slightly short length, a large saki-sori, and this could be judged as work from the mid- to the latter half of the Muromachi period. The ji has frequent ji-nie and chikei, the hamon is gunome and notare with frequent nie, there are tobiyaki, yubashiri, kinsuji, and sunagashi, which show well the period’s characteristic Soshu style.
Also, one more characteristic point for judging this as Soshu Den work would be detailed horimono on the blade. The Sue-Soshu smiths were good at toshin-bori (horimono on the blade), and a highlight is their deep and strong carving, and the kurikara shows this characteristic point well. However, in the early half of the Muromachi period, many horimono works were centered on the shinogi ji and above the koshimoto, but as time goes on, later they are centered closer to the koshimoto. This is an important point in judging the period. On the omote, inside of the hi, a detailed kurikara is similar to Soshu Fusamune’s work, so we can recognize work from the same period, and which notably resembles Odawara Soshu work.
Also, concerning Soshu horimono work, it is pointed out that the sankozuka-ken’s hilt has a hexagonal shape, but strictly speaking, this is only a so-style kurikara, and there is a sankozuka-ken outside of the hi. In the case of kurikara and sankozuka-ken carved inside of a hi and hitsu, they are not a hexagonal shape, but rather close to a round shape, and the demon’s eyes would be strongly carved and emphasized. Also, in the case that there is a male demon, often his tail is wrapped around the handle and ken, and the ken is horizontal.
Mr. Sato Kanichi (Kanzan) who was involved with the NBTHK and who was a Token museum vice president, left this to his eldest son Sato Junichi who donated this to the NBTHK.
Shijo Kantei To No. 823
The answer for the Shijo Kantei To 823 is a tachi by Unji.
Including Unji, the Unrui smiths lived along the upstream area of the Asahi river along a branch river, the Ukai river. This is close to Bitchu, Ukai-go (a town). They are in the same Bizen Province, but are different from the Ichimonji and Osafune school smiths who lived geographically separated and along the Yoshii river basin area.
However, their tachi style was wazori, it was based on a suguha hamon with nie, and had a round boshi, and these details are similar to the Rai school’s style. There are some confirmed works with a tight ko-itame hada jigane, which have a strong feeling of Kyoto’s elegance.
On the other hand, their saka-ashi style midare hamon, characteristic utsuri with a shape looking like it was made by a finger pushing on the surface, the dark jigane, and strong sujichiagai yasurime show the feeling of Aoe work. The visible hada is a prominent mokume hada mixed with jifu, which is more notable than in Aoe work. In addition, the nakago’s hamon edge is thick, and there is a prominent gyaku tagane signature, and these details are similar to Aoe work, and their work seems to have more strong influences from the Aoe school rather than from the mainstream Bizen style.
Therefore, Unrui’s highlights suggest a Bizen style mixed with Rai and Aoe school styles, just like this example.
The tachi has an almost standard width, the widths at the moto and saki are different, there is a slightly high shinogi ji, a large wa-sori, and a chu-kissaki. From these details, candidate smiths would be from either the mid-Kamakura period Rai school, or the branch Enju school or Unrui school.
The forging is itame mixed with mokume hada, there is a slightly visible hada, a dark jigane, jifu utsuri in which the darker surface areas appear as though the pattern was made by a finger pushed onto the surface. This is different from the Rai school, and an Unrui characteristic point. From this you can think for about candidates who are not from the Yamashiro school.
The hamon is based on suguha, mixed with frequent square shaped gunome, and saka-ashi. Some valleys in the suguha hamon and square gunome have “in-no-togariba” (sharp pointed shapes in the hamon valleys pointing down) and frequent yo. The midare hamon is concentrated at the bottom half of the blade, and the upper half’s nioiguchi is not worn down, and it is a nie style, and these are also Unrui’s characteristic points. Notably, Unji has many very wide hamon, prominent yo, and frequent ha-nie.
The boshi is straight, the tip is a strong round shape, and there is a short return, and this matches with Unrui’s characteristic points, one of which is an often seen large round boshi. Unji’s boshi begin with extending the suguha hamon to slightly up above the yokote, and close to the fukura. The Boshi’s width becomes slightly narrow (sometimes a boshi hamon starts in this area, and old sword books call it a “kan no ha”), and we can see that in this tachi.
The nakago tip is the original shallow kurijiri although it is suriage. The yasurime were originally a large suji chigai, and these are Unrui features. Notably, the signature is written in two kanji on the omote almost on the center, and this helps to narrow this down to work by Unji.
For another proper answer, in Unjo’s work, some of the hamon on the upper half of his blades are difficult to distinguish from Unji. Unji’s tachi have a standard width and are slightly wide, but many of Unjo’s tachi are narrow and long. His hamon usually are narrow, there is a tighter or denser nioiguchi with nie, there is a gentle appearance, and he has some yakiotoshi at the moto too. His boshi do not show a kan no ha design. His signatures are carved above the mekugi ana along the mune side, and these are notable differences from Unji. Also the “jo” kanji’ location is slightly shifted to the right from the “un” kanji, and this characteristic habit is often pointed out.
Another proper answer is Unju because his active period is the Nanbokucho period, his shapes are wide, and there is a long kissaki. Many of his utsuri are pale or not prominent, there is a slightly dense nioiguchi, and frequent nie. On tachi, he signed many of them with a long kanji signature along the mune side, and under it, signed a date, and there are not many two kanji signatures.
Besides the proper answers, from their similar styles, some people voted for the Ko-Aoe and latter half of the Kamakura period’s Aoe work. But in Ko-Aoe work, their usual tachi shapes often have a sori falling down going forward (i.e. the sori becomes more shallow going towards the tip). Sometimes we see a saki sori shape, but from the strong koshizori, we do not ever see a clear and regular wazori shape. The forging is mixed with abundant mokume hada, and there is a fine visible hada which can become a chirimen-hada. The hamon are narrow and there is a prominent ko-itame hada mixed with saka-ashi. Also, in the latter half of the Kamakura period, Aoe work sometimes has dan-utsuri, often a strong nioiguchi and nie, and the boshi are often slightly tsukiage, and the tips are sharp.
From the emphasis on the boshi hamon starting above the yokote, some people voted for Chikakage. His characteristic boshi above the yokote become either notare or straight, there is a komaru and return, and is what is called a sansaku boshi. Also, his tachi signatures are signed along the mune side and there are almost no two kanji signatures.
Among the Osafune school smiths, some people voted for Motoshige. His utsuri are midare utsuri, the same as Chikakage, his ji is mixed with masame hada, and his boshi tips are sharp.
Concerning the Rai opinion, the shape matches, but their characteristic style is a tightly forged ji with bo-utsuri, and we often see Kyo saka-ashi and muneyaki, and the jiba (jigane and hamon) is bright. Ryokai has some worn down jiba work, his hada is nagare and the ji is whitish. Overall, his hamon have less hataraki, and the nioiguchi appears loose (i.e. with a lower density) or not as tightly formed.
Commentary by Ooi Gaku
Attention:
Once you vote for an answer and submit it, you cannot change it. If you voted multiple times, later answers will be considered invalid. 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.
For correct submitted answers, the name of the person who submitted it will be listed in accordance with their address by prefecture or country.