Suriage / Machiokuri

[klee]

Good Afternoon

 

Just got a new blade I ve been looking for and was curious if there s a reasonable way to tell how much machiokuri was done based on the Hi placement ( Futasuji - bi in this case ) and mei placement.

 

Tokubetsu Hozon Katana 

Mei : Kongohyoe Moritaka Saku

 

Blade length: 69.7 cm. Sori: 2.0

cm. Motohaba: 3.2 cm. Motokasane: 0.75 cm. Sakihaba: 2.32

cm. Sakikasane: 0.55 cm.

 

Additionaly , any suggestion and discussion as to what time period it may be would be greatly appreciated.

 

My inital thought based on the katana mei was muromachi but the nagago and mei looks older 

 

Thank you

 

Kevin L

 

 

[Rivkin]

Not much could be said, but I like the signature, the blade is most likely circa 1540, but the sugata is very general and it could be substantially earlier - in theory, but usually less so in practice.

Probably under 2 inches suriage.

Edited November 13 by Rivkin

[Rawa]

@klee you are this texas seller?

[klee]

Hi @Rawa

 

I just purchased it from him last week. Arrived yesterday 

Edited November 13 by klee

[Rawa]

Are you able to spot darker parts on this nakago? Usually mekugi ana had some time „in service” so darker patina would point you into direction. Here you have 3.

Edited November 13 by Rawa

[PNSSHOGUN]

Basing it off the Mei is more reasonable as Horimono may be Atobori, and many original Horimono didn't stop above the Habaki. Your best bet would be to find an Ubu example of this same smith and compare the Mei placement. 

[klee]

Hi @Rawa

 

I tried looking very hard but they all look eaqually old. The patina under the futasuji bi actually looks very old as does the mei

[klee]

Thank you for the tip @PNSSHOGUN 

 

Been trying to find a good one with a similar signature but I do recall seeing ubu Moritaka swords where their longer mei looked unusually low on the tang or more centered.  Maybe someone here has a sample image with a " Kongo Hyoe Moritaka " or "Kongo Hyoe Minamoto Moritaka" 

[klee]

Thank you as always @Rivkin

 

I thought this was an early/mid muromachi but I would love it if it was the Tenbun Moritaka since I believe he was very prolific. Probably no way to find out unfortunately without a nengo 

[Tohagi]

Hello,

If the sword is TH Kongobeï Moritaka saku, you should have the generation on the paper ?

This will give you a time scale.

 

My feeling is that it is 3 fingers maki okuri (originaly 4 fingers over the 2nd makugi ana). You can see a deep change in patina color betwen the two mekugi ana.

 

Best,

Eric

[klee]

Hi @Tohagi

 

The certificate only mentions the mei and not the generation unfortunately.

 

I have read that the Moritaka line all have very similar features and workmanship other than the variation in sugata depending on the era.

 

It is my favorite school by far and Toku Ho for muromachi works seem to be quite rare for this school as well. 

 

Would definitely love to narrow down the time period

 

The sword is wide/thick, very heavy and has a very grand feel to it.

 

It must have been magnificent as a 75cm-ish  katana in it s original form

[Tohagi]

Lovely sword !

Kongobeï is quite rare with long meï.

Hope to see close picture of the hada...

 

Best,

 

Eric

 

[klee]

Thank you @Tohagi

 

I really enjoy this sword.

 

It shows the typical Kongo Hyoe characteristics with a mixture of mokume, Itame and masame near the HA. Always liked the wild feeling of their hada

[flemming]

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

[klee]

Hi @flemming

 

Thank you for joining. 

 

I ll take a whole nakago image when I get home but here are some I have from earlier

 

The kissaki looks like it was broken and reshaped at some point so the dimmentions are a little bit off as you can see.

 

I talked to Woody Hall who just polished a Ko Kongo Hyoe blade for me and he said it would be a pretty simple to bring the ko shinogi a little bit and correct it so I plan on sending it over sometime next year.

 

And thank you for the Kongo Hyoe book. Was a good read and definitely enjoyed the samples.

 

-Kevin

[klee]

And now that im looking at it it looks like that light area on the edge side is where the original machi was maybe ? 

 

It s strange that it comes out so clearly in a photo but extreemly hard to see in person.

 

The original mekugi ana would be the 2nd one down but it goes over the "Go" character which seems a bit strange for a smith to cut through his mei

[flemming]

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

[klee]

Thank you for the insight @flemming

 

I did not know about the compound sori .

 

But is this what you mean below ?

 

This is a Ko Kongo Hyoe blade I own and it does have a peculiar curve at the nakago 

[flemming]

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

Lloyd

[flemming]

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

[Natichu]

On 11/13/2025 at 11:25 PM, Tohagi said:

Hello,

If the sword is TH Kongobeï Moritaka saku, you should have the generation on the paper ?

This will give you a time scale.

 

My feeling is that it is 3 fingers maki okuri (originaly 4 fingers over the 2nd makugi ana). You can see a deep change in patina color betwen the two mekugi ana.

 

Best,

Eric

My understanding was that the NBTHK only specifies generations in rather rare cases (or I suppose better put, typically does not specify generation). Am I incorrect in this, or is there a peculiar exception for this school? 

[klee]

Thank you @flemming 

 

I cannot tell you how much I love that blade. I thought the shape is truly beautiful. It shows it age here and there but the boshi and kissaki is magnificent.

 

 

Going back to the signed Moritaka blade, here is the whole nakago and machi. I dont believe I see traces of the compound sori.

 

And here are measurements if it help you narrow a time period

 

Blade length: 69.7 cm.

Curvature: 2.0cm.

Motohaba: 3.2 cm

Motokasane: 0.75 cm

Sakihaba: 2.32cm

Sakikasane: 0.55 cm

 

I alse weighed the blade and it came out to 810 grams. Feels very heavy but also very front heavy.

 

[klee]

Hi @Natichu

 

I have personally only seen it a very few times where a Mortitaka signed blade had a generation attributed on NBTHK.

 

I have however seen them specify the time period here and there

 

i.e Nambokucho 

 

And also

 

End of Nanbokucho- Oei era

 

 

[flemming]

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

[Tohagi]

Hello Kevin,

 

Really beautifull swords.

Fantastic shape and hada!

 

Pictures seems to stronger my feeling that the original maki was at the level of first mekugi ana (just under). You can see a polishing bolt, a change of patina and the place were antique habaki could be. The place of the meï could be an issue and you can't exclude it been suriage twice...

 

I don't know why, but it feels Oeï to me.

Just an intuition, nothing to put into the balance.

 

Best,

Eric

[klee]

Thank you @Tohagi

 

Very excited to have this blade. I wish it still had the trademark sotoba tang but i think toku ho and a long Moritaka signature more than makes up for it.

 

My collecting taste is a bit out of the ordinary and I really love the rustic, functional look and feel of their work.

 

I think most people tend to dislike O-Hada but I think it really brings the rustic conservafive approach these smiths had when done well.

 

And thank you @flemming for the bits of insight. Good knowledge and information is always hard to come by in nihonto so I really appreciate it.

 

Kevin L

[flemming]

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

[klee]

Thank you @flemming  for the great bits of insight !

 

I thought the tachi might have been earlier in the nanbokucho due to it s smaller/ thinner size but that is great to know. The shape does make it look grand but it s actually quite a bit on the smaller side 

 

Blade Length: 67.0 cm (26.38 in)
Curvature: 1.6 cm (0.63 in)
Mekugi Holes: 2
Width at Base (Motohaba): 2.86 cm (1.13 in)
Width at Tip (Sakihaba): 2.22 cm (0.87 in)
Thickness (Kasane): 0.58 cm (0.23 in)
Sword Weight: 655 grams (1.44 lbs)

 

looks to have been a tachi of about 77cm before suriage.

 

One of my favorite part of this blade is that the Sakihaba is quite large compared to it s motohaba which gives it a grand feeling. And with the addition of the O kissaki I can definitely see it being  late nanbokucho as well.

Edited Sunday at 08:23 PM by klee