flemming

Regarding fire damage, I think I see a hamon in one photo, however I have acquired a few blades including an Inoe Shinkai which were "burned out". A good polisher can do a Kesho polish in which the hamon appears to exist, but careful examination reveals it is not there. The only way to be sure, is to use a light, like an overhead tungsten or led spotlight, and force the nioi-guchi to illuminate, which they all will. I am sure you have seen the effect in photos if nothing else. If it is there, at some angle you will see it, usually near a light flare. If no hamon is illuminated, it is not there, and the metallurgy has changed from a fire. That is the only way to be sure, but shale type rust on the nakago is an indication that it should be checked. Lloyd F.

John's picture with the red line, and knowing the nagasa says everything necessary to pinpoint the period of manufacture. It is from the earlier Sengoku period, or warring states, or Period of Anarchy, by the nagasa; something seen with many schools during this time. The red line highlights the sori, which as you can see reveals 3 individual curvatures. Koshi sori at the base, central sori, and the addition of saki sori seen an inch or two behind the kissaki. This is common in the latter 1400's in Kongohyoe and I have a very nice Moritaka (1492) which is almost identical in length and shape to your blade. It does not have a bo-hi unfortunately. So, I think this must be from the later Yoshifusa with a peak period stated as 1469. Lloyd F.

Hi Jussi The main problem with this blade is the jiri, as every Kongohyoe blade has a Sotoba or at least Kengyo jiri. I know that there was one shown in the first book with ha-agari kurijiri, but I have since rejected that smith from Kongohyoe. Some people might think that the jiri has been re-shaped, but I have never seen that done with these, they always are kiri, if suriage. I think you will agree that this nakago has a Bungo look to it, and there was a Morihide practicing with the Taira group in early Muromachi. Also, the shinogi-haba looks a little narrow for Kongohyoe. I no longer submit blades for Shinsa, since in some cases you have to submit three times to get the correct attribution, and recently I have seen some rather obvious mis-attributions on NBTHK Hozon papers. I do have ultimate faith in Tanobe San, however. I received a mumei blade for evaluation not long ago, with Hozon papers attributing it to Kongohyoe. It was a beautiful elegant tachi, which immediately was a red flag to the attribution. Beautiful jigane of ko-mokume with a little nagare and bright hamon in suguha looked odd and then I noticed that after suriage the original mekugi-ana was still there, but there was no koshi-sori component in the nakago. The blade was completely tori-sori, ruling it out as Kongohyoe, not to mention the shinogi-haba was that of Yamashiro tradition and too narrow. After lots of research and the use of your wonderful spreadsheet, I pinned it down to Awataguchi, and then a smith from Inaba, the son of the founder of the Inaba Ko-Kaji group. As the founder was trained by the Awataguchi school, they made excellent duplicates of those blades, appearing to have the sugata just after mid-Kamakura when the compound sori was abandoned by the Awataguchi smiths and the koshi-sori removed. Anyway I eventually found signature fragments on the Mumei blade, showing "Kanenaga". So the moral of the story, is that the Shinsa judges are not infallible, and sometimes guess the wrong island. Sorry I cannot be of more help. Lloyd

Jussi is right, this is signed "Kongohyoe no-Jo Yoshifusa Saku", and dated "a day in August". That unhelpful date is frequently seen with Kongohyoe blades made during the Muromachi period. There were 2 Yoshifusa smiths, and I suspect this may be the work of the second, 1469 peak period, Hawleys reference YOS 1226. Rather than pictures of the furniture that have nothing to do with the sword, I would have expected some of the standard measurements, like Nagasa, Kasane, etc. to determine the exact period. This nakago appears to have been cleaned, hence the vertical marks that look almost made with a file. The rust appears to have some shale-like patches, so one might suspect it has been in a fire. I would check it out for being re-hardened. Lloyd

This blade contains copious amounts of nie and random large nie grains with lots of nie and nioi kuzure. The hamon midare is based on chaos with distribution of uchinoke and other nie hataraki. These always remind me of the Bitchu Mizuta school, which is predominantly Shinto, including Kambun which this sword may be. I would look at Tameiye, there were many generations but most used the iriyamagata jiri as seen here I believe. Lloyd

With respect to Mr. Robertshaw's post, it is quite perplexing with respect to Tadayoshi's activities, since it would appear that almost all of the "Omi dai Jo Tadahiro" works of Tadayoshi are either by Yoshinobu or the "real" Omi dai Jo" Tadahiro nidai I have noticed. I actually have a theory that every sword after the bestowing of Omi dai Jo to the first Tadayoshi, were daisaku-daimei based on workmanship and signature...

If you look through the Tadayoshi school Meikan, you see that everything under 2 shaku was considered a wakizashi, and is signed "katana mei". I hope this answers the question. Lloyd

I see on ebay that another of these is being offered. It is apparently in a Toad Theme. I find it peculiar that I have not seen one of these type ever before now. The toad theme item appears to be Japanese, since the level of workmanship to produce it seems above the Chinese offerings, similar to the blade of this discussion. As a long time collector, I am puzzled by these, since they must be some sort of reproduction!? https://www.ebay.ca/itm/365786805403?_skw=sword+morikuni+kongohyoe+moritaka+tanto&itmmeta=01KDG5VV8WXXQ94F1Z8QV8K5KB&hash=item552a97b49b:g:hZsAAOSwNydn64VV&itmprp=enc%3AAQAKAAAA4FkggFvd1GGDu0w3yXCmi1d9zCpwjtNWHlFamxbvJ4G%2BoczlU%2BTLLEJCUuIgKELTYZDJxxGEVBe8uPaKR4OQtETKQc7X6jYlLbWYk6g0BK8fTuXRVJYZ5BYsKXC72v1aCc0%2BBOZNpuVZiP0%2FY%2FbhAgt7SVnucUv%2FiUOomn6ESIcs%2F%2BQZzVJSQEjCXT0qpD6w4qLgyxD5BNtSr3hN8I5G64d7g%2B5YOoB0SDbPnp51IqYxfeUc60NDa%2B2KTJr%2BGSpylYj0%2Bz%2B%2FLCMy872ivEMhJNl4e11UPkYqR9f0WZ68LkmG|tkp%3ABk9SR86074XsZg

After looking at the photos, I agree that the original machi was around the top ana. The koshi sori can be seen in the horimono. Now, the habaki is just ahead of the koshi sori, originally it would be just behind the curve. That makes the middle mekugi ana the original, making the blade about 76cm. originally? since it does look a little machi-okuri. Based on the measurements, especially mihaba taper and kasane I agree that this is an early Muromachi blade, and around this time the double shallow horimono was used by a few Kongohyoe smiths replacing the bo-hi style used during Nambukcho. The kasane had become thicker than late Kamakura blades for the most part, so they do feel quite heavy as a rule. There was a Moritaka from around 1375, the 5th generation, whose signature does appear in Fujishiro given a jidai of 1390. That may be who made your big tachi. The first Muromachi Moritaka is the 6th generation, 1409-1429 who I believe made your signed blade. It is a nice piece of work with plenty of remaining hada, and the signature makes it quite rare as most katana have lost the signatures or were not signed. Lloyd

That is my finding as well. It may be because there are only 2 generations listed in Fujishiros with signatures, and being suriage in most cases, it may be difficult to pin down the jidai with full confidence. The Juyo blade I mentioned has comments with the papers, attributing it to Nambokucho due to shape, length and nakago. I have seen few NBTHK papers with a jidai mentioned for Kongohyoe, but I do have one, ko-Kongobyoe with jidai of Bun-Ei 1264 in Tokubetsu Hozon papers. I will study the photos that you posted and possibly tomorrow will have more info. Lloyd

By the way, that is a magnificent tachi, of the Nambokucho period. I recently examined similar mumei tachi which had achieved Juyo Token papers. Lloyd

Yes! That is exactly right. It is easier to see in the oshigata. Lloyd

I am glad that you have seen the Kongohyoe book. I have written a very different and more comprehensive book about the school which I hope to publish in the new year. In my opinion the kissaki is just fine; it was originally an extended-ko and still has its shape. If you push the ko-shinogi back, it may not look proper. It is typical to find the hakikake in the boshi nearing the tip on some Moritaka blades. Because all Kongohyoe blades were made with compound sori, this enables one to figure out where the original machi and habaki were located. There is around 2 inches of koshi-sori at the base, which is not exposed in most samples, from suriage. If you can locate in the nakago this curvature, which is usually still there, originally it began abruptly, coming forward out of the habaki. If you can locate this spot you know which ana is original and where the machi was. The picture you have posted is not clear enough to be sure. Perhaps you can place a ruler beside the mune side to make it more obvious. Also, you might include some measurements to aid in kantei of period, like moto-haba, saki-haba, moto-kasane, and come to think of it, a top down photo of the kasane might be handy. Lloyd

If you could post a picture of the whole nakago plus an inch or two past the machi, it would be easier to see where the original machi was. The picture should be taken straight on if possible. It would also be nice to see a picture of the kissaki. Lloyd Flemming

As a Mitsumori the signature is not good, as it is signed Morimitsu, of which there are many generations. This one probably selling as the highly ranked 2nd generation from around Oei. Lloyd