Kantei. NBTHK is wrong!

[Rivkin]

Continuing on the previously enjoyed subject, this is a blade that was kindly offered for me to photograph... there are three written opinions.

The last time the different opinions were hitting roughly the same spot. Here they diverge into different schools and somewhat different periods.

I also believe - two of them are plain wrong. 

 

The thing which is important here is that the first paper (NTHK) was issued in a very old polish. Jigane was probably hard to see in places but hamon was still very well detailed. 

Then it got through Mishina san's polish, which often gives you really vivid hada whose blackness is a bit exaggarated. I personally really like him on hada-heavy blades, but some people say the vivid-fresh appearance then often throws judges into later periods. Admittedly, its a risk. But I rather have a vivid blade.

I think NBTHK when judging this blade after the polish did not really inspect the hamon (somehow), and made a judgement based on sugata and hada alone.

Then came Sayagaki (Mr. T.) who took painful and unusual step of openly contradicting NBTHK... and I (my kantei: me - sensei!) think rightly so, taking both hada and the hamon into consideration.

 

Boshi has hakkikake look with very short kaeri.

 

So what are the three judgements?

 

 

[Utopianarian]

Guess 3: Sue-Mihara. Enju. ko-uda

[Utopianarian]

Maybe Bizen Yoshii

[Rivkin]

On 8/14/2022 at 6:19 AM, Utopianarian said:

Maybe Bizen Yoshii

 

I actually forgot about the thread.

You are correct! Congratulations!!!!

 

The wavy hamon itself with poorly seen jigane triggered NTHK attribution to Yoshii.

NBTHK did the attribution to Uda.

Now the question is - what Sayagaki does attribute it to???

[Paz]

Was that ko uda or uda muromachi? 

 

The hada looks similar to my ko uda 

 

Let me guess they attributed it to Masamune  😏