Research into sword.

[KotoCurious]

Hi, 

 

I’m doing some research on this blade and someone recommended I post pictures of it up here. Based on previous help, I think it’s koto, maybe of the Oei period, with the signature Noritsune.The only Oei Noritsune smith on Nihontoclub that I can see is of the Katayama Ichimonji school, but they have a particular slanting sakura-choji hamon, which I don’t think is present on this blade. I know the hamon pictures aren’t that clear, but I think they’re about as good as I’m going to be able to get at home. Aside from it being nailed to a particular school (which would be great!) I’m particularly interested in anything anyone can tell me about the hamon and the partial bo-hi/futasuji-hi. Oh and anything about the jitetsu would be great, but I know I’m flogging a dead horse on that, with these photos.

 

Thanks, Ian.

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[KotoCurious]

[Rivkin]

I like what I see but i am away from books. Does look like early Muromaci Bizen and i personally would be a bit more comfortable with 1440. Signature is well done

[KotoCurious]

3 hours ago, Rivkin said:

I like what I see but i am away from books. Does look like early Muromaci Bizen and i personally would be a bit more comfortable with 1440. Signature is well done

Thanks. I'm interested in what makes you go for a 1440, rather than an Oei date? Also when you say the signature is 'well done', what do you mean? That it look genuine, rather than gimei? Or that it shows some kind of skill?

[eternal_newbie]

14 minutes ago, KotoCurious said:

I'm interested in what makes you go for a 1440

 

There was a Noritsune from the Yoshii school (also Bizen) who worked in the 1440s. One of the key kantei points for this school is a regular and even ko-gunome for the entire length of the blade, which is a much better match than Katayama Ichimonji (as you pointed out, due to the lack of saka-choji).

[KotoCurious]

3 minutes ago, eternal_newbie said:

 

There was a Noritsune from the Yoshii school (also Bizen) who worked in the 1440s. One of the key kantei points for this school is a regular and even ko-gunome for the entire length of the blade, which is a much better match than Katayama Ichimonji (as you pointed out, due to the lack of saka-choji).

Ah great. Do you have a source for that please? It's not on nihontoclub's smith list as far as I can see.

[eternal_newbie]

14 minutes ago, KotoCurious said:

It's not on nihontoclub's smith list as far as I can see.

 

https://nihontoclub.com/smiths/NOR401

 

Edit: my bad, looks like that's the wrong kanji for 'tsune'

[KotoCurious]

Ah, easy to do I imagine! I wouldn't have spotted the mistake. 

Aside from the smith list - is that how you'd classify the hamon then? Ko-gunome? I'd wondered if it was more midare. Or perhaps I'm using terms that aren't mutually exclusive?

[Jean]

Sorry but pictures are really bad, Nothing can really be said on the hada, same for hamon.

 

I dislike the Hi, they are not as the ones used in this period.

 

From my friend’s book (Markus Sesko) Japanese sword smiths, there is no smith with this kanji (tsune) in Muromachi period. Usually, in post Oei period, smiths used nagamei. Exception are scarce and often the swords were dated.

[Rivkin]

9 hours ago, KotoCurious said:

Thanks. I'm interested in what makes you go for a 1440, rather than an Oei date? Also when you say the signature is 'well done', what do you mean? That it look genuine, rather than gimei? Or that it shows some kind of skill?

 

Its Katana mei and not really Aoe looking, so Kamakura is probably off the bet. The signature is written confidently, without pretense and without hesitation. Can it still be fake - sure, but such a rare name anyway... The style looks Bizen. In principle at the time Kaga and Bungo also did Bizen styled pieces. Bungo works are quite rare and many are center signed, nakago finish is a bit... different. In case of Kaga in particular such nijimei looks viable, as is nakago.

So it could be unlisted smith - either Bizen, most likely not from "mitsu" mainstream, but one of the last Kozori or Omiya lineages which tend to be less understood, or it could be an unlisted Kaga smith, which might overall be a better match.

Regarding the date I would not focus on Oei specifically.

[KotoCurious]

7 hours ago, Jean said:

Sorry but pictures are really bad, Nothing can really be said on the hada, same for hamon.

 

I dislike the Hi, they are not as the ones used in this period.

 

From my friend’s book (Markus Sesko) Japanese sword smiths, there is no smith with this kanji (tsune) in Muromachi period. Usually, in post Oei period, smiths used nagamei. Exception are scarce and often the swords were dated.

Okay thanks. What period would you say has Hi similar to this?

[KotoCurious]

7 hours ago, Rivkin said:

 

Its Katana mei and not really Aoe looking, so Kamakura is probably off the bet. The signature is written confidently, without pretense and without hesitation. Can it still be fake - sure, but such a rare name anyway... The style looks Bizen. In principle at the time Kaga and Bungo also did Bizen styled pieces. Bungo works are quite rare and many are center signed, nakago finish is a bit... different. In case of Kaga in particular such nijimei looks viable, as is nakago.

So it could be unlisted smith - either Bizen, most likely not from "mitsu" mainstream, but one of the last Kozori or Omiya lineages which tend to be less understood, or it could be an unlisted Kaga smith, which might overall be a better match.

Regarding the date I would not focus on Oei specifically.

Great thankyou. 

[Tcat]

The hi appear to me to be atobori / ato-bi.

[KotoCurious]

7 minutes ago, Tcat said:

The hi appear to me to be atobori / ato-bi.

Interesting, what makes you say so? 

[Tcat]

44 minutes ago, KotoCurious said:

Interesting, what makes you say so? 

I know that this may not seem like a satisfactory response… but they just look “wrong” for that sword in a couple of ways.
 

Firstly the bohi terminates midblade before the monouchi with a nagashi (tapering away) style. Unusual, and often an indication of atobori in and of itself. What does not indicate atobori is the nagashi style termination at the machi, this is / would be normal. However, on the ura side I find my eye to be anxiously checking alignment of the carving of the futatsuji-hi, which appears ever so slightly misaligned. With strong futasuji-hi, the eye will relax and everything will feel right to the trained observer. The spacing here however feels functionally parallel but aesthetically unresolved (seems to be some slight divergence). Meanwhile, a sword of this style is seldom seen with this kind of carving, that is to say, a utilitarian sword from the muromachi period, which this seems to be, basically does not originally have soe-hi. I don’t want to come across as elitist but the “eye training” one gets from looking at hundreds / thousands of “correct examples” over decades solidifies an aesthetic expectation which is very difficult to describe but this sword falls short of. Call it a gut feeling if you will, but I’m far from an expert.

[KotoCurious]

8 hours ago, Tcat said:

I know that this may not seem like a satisfactory response… but they just look “wrong” for that sword in a couple of ways.
 

Firstly the bohi terminates midblade before the monouchi with a nagashi (tapering away) style. Unusual, and often an indication of atobori in and of itself. What does not indicate atobori is the nagashi style termination at the machi, this is / would be normal. However, on the ura side I find my eye to be anxiously checking alignment of the carving of the futatsuji-hi, which appears ever so slightly misaligned. With strong futasuji-hi, the eye will relax and everything will feel right to the trained observer. The spacing here however feels functionally parallel but aesthetically unresolved (seems to be some slight divergence). Meanwhile, a sword of this style is seldom seen with this kind of carving, that is to say, a utilitarian sword from the muromachi period, which this seems to be, basically does not originally have soe-hi. I don’t want to come across as elitist but the “eye training” one gets from looking at hundreds / thousands of “correct examples” over decades solidifies an aesthetic expectation which is very difficult to describe but this sword falls short of. Call it a gut feeling if you will, but I’m far from an expert.

Thankyou for the explanation. It's interesting to see what kind of criteria you might be applying to the blade. 

[Jean]

Ian,

 

concerning the hi, it is a gut feeling. I have seen a lot of hi and this one makes me feel uneasy, it takes time to carve futasuji hi, (there are seen mainly on koto blades, Nambokucho, short ones in the first part of Muromachi). Why carve futasuji hi on a low quality tired blade.

 

BTW, all these info can be found in  Nihonto books, buy the Nakayama Kokan, the Connoisseur book of Japanese sword. You will learn from it.

 

have look on the futasuji hi of this Tametsugu blade:

 

 

 

 

 

[KotoCurious]

53 minutes ago, Jean said:

Ian,

 

concerning the hi, it is a gut feeling. I have seen a lot of hi and this one makes me feel uneasy, it takes time to carve futasuji hi, (there are seen mainly on koto blades, Nambokucho, short ones in the first part of Muromachi). Why carve futasuji hi on a low quality tired blade.

 

BTW, all these info can be found in  Nihonto books, buy the Nakayama Kokan, the Connoisseur book of Japanese sword. You will learn from it.

 

have look on the futasuji hi of this Tametsugu blade:

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for explaining. I'm not sure what you're implying though. Are you saying you think the sword is gimei/fake in some way? Or just that you wouldn't feel comfortable putting a date or school to it? Or maybe just that the hi has been added at a later date? 

Edited December 29, 2025 by KotoCurious
Expanding question.

[Jean]

I think the hi have been added later. What is the blade nagasa? Could be late Muromachi (16th century) Bizen.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Horimono can be added for a variety of reasons, some less noble than others. Poor quality Horimono are an easy fix for unsightly flaws or to simply "tart up" an otherwise unremarkable blade. When done correctly Horimono are absolutely beautiful and greatly enhance a sword. 

[Tcat]

2 hours ago, KotoCurious said:

Are you saying you think the sword is gimei/fake in some way? 

 

No. Atobori was a historically common and context-dependent practice from the Edo period onward.

 

To recap.. Atobori (後彫り) refers to carving in a blade separate from the original design for the blade at its time of manufacture. That is to say after the sword was originally forged and finished, rather than as part of the smith’s initial “conception”. While often viewed critically by modern collectors, atobori was quite common practice from the Edo period onward.

 

The prolonged absence of large-scale warfare in the Edo period reduced the practical emphasis on armor-piercing and battlefield durability, while factors such as balance, handling, and visual refinement gained relative importance. Within this context, atobori bo-hi were sometimes added to existing blades to alter weight distribution, improve handling characteristics, or adapt older swords to contemporary preferences.

 

Atobori was also influenced by aesthetic fashion. Certain periods favored the presence of hi as a visual element, particularly on otherwise plain blades. Adding a groove could visually sharpen the sugata, emphasize curvature, or lend an older sword a more “classical” appearance in keeping with prevailing taste. When carried out by skilled hands, such work could be executed in orthodox styles, including nagashi terminations, making the best atobori difficult to distinguish from original carving.

 

In the Meiji period, motivations shifted further. The abolition of sword-wearing and the collapse of the traditional samurai market led to the modification of many older blades to enhance their visual appeal to collectors, tourists, or foreign buyers. Atobori bo-hi from this period were often added to make a blade appear more dynamic or refined, sometimes with little regard for historical coherence, though the quality of execution varied widely.

 

In the early 20th century, atobori continued for mixed reasons. Some blades were modified for martial arts use, where balance and handling were prioritized, while others were altered during remounting or refurbishment. As before, the workmanship ranged from careful and traditional to purely cosmetic.

 

Importantly, atobori does not automatically imply deception / fake / gimei or poor quality. Many atobori hi were executed competently and reflect legitimate historical practices. However, because the carving was not part of the blade’s original forging concept, any but the best often reveal subtle inconsistencies in proportion, termination logic, or stylistic harmony when compared to original work. For this reason, experienced observers tend to assess atobori not by a single technical fault, but by the cumulative weight of visual, stylistic, and historical considerations.

[KotoCurious]

Thanks, that's great information. To be honest, as I'm not intending to sell, it just adds more interest for me. Here is a sword that's had a history and may reflect the changing attitudes of the times. It makes me wonder what was happening with the owner who wanted to add this feature. It came to me in type 94 gunto fittings. What I would do for it's previous koshirae!!

[KotoCurious]

8 hours ago, Jean said:

I think the hi have been added later. What is the blade nagasa? Could be late Muromachi (16th century) Bizen.

85cm.

 

Edit: sorry that's the full length. It's actually about 68cm.

Edited December 30, 2025 by KotoCurious
Error

[Jean]

My guess is late Muromachi