1798 Ozaki Gengomon Suketaka

[Lindley]

On 3/30/2026 at 10:16 AM, SteveM said:

To be honest I've never heard that smiths had to submit samples of their work to the bakufu or to the court in order to receive the title. I think they had to make a formal application, or have one made on their behalf by someone of status (the actual daimyo of the fief, for example). But I am not a deep scholar in this area. I have read Markus Sesko's article here, which I think you will find very interesting if you haven't already read it. It provided the basis of what I know. 

Hey Steve,

upon doing further research the impression I am getting is that due to the fact that Suketaka was operating out of Osaka and had already earned a reputation, that likely got him the financial backing from the local daimyo required to become a no Kami elect. However, research shows that in this particular time period in Edo at the beginning of the Shinshinto revolution that he and Masahide where spear heading (Suketaka the hammer of the West, and Masahide the philosopher of the East.) One was the word, the other the living way. Suketaka was producing blades of such high quality it earned him his title. But there would have had to have been some physical proof for the imperial decree to go through. Which we all know it did. So I am again in the difficult place of being unsure of its exact importance. I wonder if Frye has researched any of this. I’ll ask him at some point. It’s the timing of this swords birth that has me so interested. Not just the rock star who made it out of sand, fire, and will power.

[Lindley]

11 hours ago, Brian said:

The title really is of little concern. This seem to bother you a bit, and I am not sure why. 

Hello Brian,

I wouldn’t call it bothered per se. As a history buff of 35+ years I come across something every now and then that just sticks with me. For some reason. I may not even be aware of what it is, but it feels like we are missing something here. Potentially important to Japanese history. But I am new to this part of the history arena, so I may be wrong. But I must inform all of you that until this sits right with me, I CAN’T leave it alone, it’s not in my DNA. If it is too bothersome of a subject, I can happily move on and leave things as they be. I don’t want to be a nuisance. 

[Rivkin]

52 minutes ago, Lindley said:

Hey Steve,

upon doing further research the impression I am getting is that due to the fact that Suketaka was operating out of Osaka and had already earned a reputation, that likely got him the financial backing from the local daimyo required to become a no Kami elect. However, research shows that in this particular time period in Edo at the beginning of the Shinshinto revolution that he and Masahide where spear heading (Suketaka the hammer of the West, and Masahide the philosopher of the East.) One was the word, the other the living way. Suketaka was producing blades of such high quality it earned him his title. B

By "research" you probably mean reading books or the internet, and the resulting statement above is kind of ....

Its something who might own Suketaka would come up with.

Because Suketaka did not pioneer or spearheaded much if anything, both he and Masahide at first followed Sukehiro, only Masahide essentially made Sukehiro forging the arch-nemesis of all good and noble in swords, continuing to more Soshu or Bizen inspired works, Suketaka remained where he was... 

[Lindley]

11 hours ago, Jussi Ekholm said:

I think as you have done the research Jared you have noticed that only very small portion of Japanese smiths are often considered as the important ones in traditional Japanese sword appreciation. That is bit unfortunate but you usually always just find the works and information of these top tier smiths featured in every publication. Finding information on lesser known smiths is a lot more problematic and requires lot of digging.

Hello Jussi,

Disappointment is part of the game with history. One I am very familiar with. But even lesser known smiths can be recognized in today’s world as performing exceptional works of deadly art. I think the thing that bugs me so much is that if a lordship was no big deal then why get it? Also the fact that Suketaka was one of the big players in the Shinshinto revolution (which the Japanese took/take very seriously) and made the sword that Frye owns. But it’s here, alive and well, even now. That sword meant something to Suketaka, more than the other swords I’ve seen, 4 of which are already Japanese treasured objects by your own admission. This sword falls right in the middle of all of it. The revolution, the no Kami title, all of it. It all happened in 1798….when this sword was made. I really could care less what its monetary value is to collectors, I’m thinking about what that could mean for Japanese history. Nihonto history, the thing we all love. Please forgive my passion on the subject, but if it means something to Suketaka, than it means something to history.

[SteveM]

4 hours ago, Lindley said:

I am again in the difficult place of being unsure of its exact importance.

 

The title is a nice thing to have. If you are from a lineage that has traditionally used the title, it is very important for you (and your succeeding generations) to continue to maintain and use this brand. It adds an aura of prestige. It is a kind of marketing tool. But it doesn't open any doors into the aristocracy. The smith just wants it because, in a way, it validates his position as a master swordsmith (even though the "validation" aspect was continually devalued by the bakufu selling these titles). Sukehiro's mentor did not have a title, so maybe Sukehiro or some patron felt Sukehiro's skill had surpassed that of his mentor, and was worthy of a title. 

 

Whether or not he can charge more for his swords after receiving the title is just speculation on my part. If you are a swordsmith from a province with dwindling need for swords, you probably don't have much leverage to raise your prices, even with a fancy title. If you are a swordsmith from a province that has great demand for swords, maybe you can use the title to justify raising your prices above those of your non-"accredited" peers. As others have noted, Suketaka was genuinely a master of his craft, as you can see from his several Jūyō-rated blades. So in his case, the title was well-deserved.

 

The date on this sword is interesting because it comes from the period just prior to receiving the title, but that's about all we can say. If there are any flaws or blemishes on the sword, it greatly devalues the sword regardless of the date (and/or any title that might be on the blade). 

 

 

I don't think there is anything else missing. I mean, Fujishiro's swordsmith index notes that Suketaka received the title "Kami" on Dec. 19th, Kansei 10 (1798). There may also be some primary source documents in the Imperial Archives, etc... which also note the date on which he received his title. It really is just a title, something like Esquire. 

 

I doubt that Suketaka would have considered himself to be a revolutionary swordsmith. His lineage goes back to the Bingo Mihara smiths (spiritually, not by direct bloodline). He was able to consistently replicate the dynamic toranba style of temper pattern that Tsuda Sukehiro was well-known for in the mid-1600s. This toranba style of hamon was also admired and replicated by Suishinshi Masahide, so somehow the timing of these two smiths, Masahide and Suketaka, converged, and due to their admiration of, and ability to consistently forge, blades with toranba, the sword world considers them as part of a new era. But I don't think Suketaka would have felt he was making a break from the past. 

 

 

Edit to clarify: the complete title is Nagato no Kami (Lord of Nagato). Nagato was the province on the southern tip of Honshū. Present day Yamaguchi, or thereabouts. This is one of many cases where the location of the "lordship" has absolutely no relation to the smith. It's just used for convenience.

 

And I don't mean to imply that Suishinshi Masahide's only contribution was an ability to replicate toranba. He was a smith who may have seen himself as advancing, or "restoring" the direction of swordsmithing in Japan.  

 

[Lindley]

37 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

1 hour ago, Lindley said:

Expand  

By "research" you probably mean reading books or the internet, and the resulting statement above is kind of ....

Its something who might own Suketaka would come up with.

Because Suketaka did not pioneer or spearheaded much if anything, both he and Masahide at first followed Sukehiro, only Masahide essentially made Sukehiro forging the arch-nemesis of all good and noble in swords, continuing to more Soshu or Bizen inspired works, Suketaka remained where he was... 

Hello Rivkin, 

My most sincere apologies as I was unaware of any other way to obtain knowledge except through extensive research through many different sources, yes including books and the internet, but as always I cross reference all material I can find and ask questions on sites such as this. If that bothers you, it is a personal problem. And just for the record, I do not own any genuine samurai swords, so I don’t own Suketaka. Now, I understand your position that he didn’t spearhead anything. I would ask where you learned that information. If I could read that document, it would definitely have an impact on my own opinion on the matter. Which is all this is. So relax. 

[klee]

Quite an interesting thread this has turned into but trying to attach historical importance based only on who/when a particular sword was made is I think a bit over romanticizing.

 

Swords were made for a thousand years. While I believe all of them are deserving of respect and preservation , 99.9% of them are not historically important.

 

This blade in particular may or may not even be genuine since it hasnt been submitted and gimei are frequent for well known names.

 

Add in the diy restoration and it may or may not have been rendered worthless.

Yes oiling it and leaving it covered in the stable black rust is an infinitely better choice. 

 

 

 

[Lindley]

1 hour ago, klee said:

Quite an interesting thread this has turned into but trying to attach historical importance based only on who/when a particular sword was made is I think a bit over romanticizing.

Greetings Klee, 

You’ve actually entered the thread just as I’m finished with it. I am apparently just an old romantic historian who doesn’t belong here. It’s been made very clear that titles are just titles and the men who held them were nothing but artists that are better forgotten to history. But hey! The swords are cool! Later!

[Brian]

Not sure why the lack of importance given to titles suddenly means we think less of the smiths. Why have you attached the title to the importance of the swordsmith? We appreciate and study the swords by these swordsmiths regardless of their titles. Just because we don't regard the titles as adding to their reputation, doesn't mean we don't regard the swords highly. You seem to imply if we don't appreciate the title then we consider the smith himself and his swords as not historically important?
That would be very wrong. We prove we respect and preserve them just by being here. Focusing on the title is actually doing the opposite of what you are implying. Are you saying the ones without titles are worthy of less respect?
 

 

[Lindley]

14 hours ago, klee said:

99.9% of them are not historically important.

 

Brian, 

Not an isolated opinion I’m afraid. I wish you all the luck in the world saving every sword you can. Truly I do.

[Scogg]

Jared,

 

I’m sorry the information provided about titles didn’t meet your expectations.

 

We are all here because we care about Nihonto. What’s historically important to the broader study of Nihonto isn’t always the same as what’s culturally or artistically worth preserving and respecting. All of it matters to most of us, and we feel strongly about it.

 

With any fine art, there’s a spectrum of importance. The Mona Lisa’s significance doesn’t negate the value of a family heirloom or an older painting with more personal meaning.

-Sam

[Hokke]

18 hours ago, Lindley said:

I think the thing that bugs me so much is that if a lordship was no big deal then why get it?

Because it’s an award, it’s recognition, who doesn’t want recognition of their work? Samuel Colt is considered a pioneer for his work in bringing the revolver firearm mass assembly into reality. That all on its own was a great accomplishment, but do you think he turned down the Silver Telford Medal? Of course not, why would anyone turn down an award. But that award gave him no more standing or value than he would have had without it. Awards are awards……..perhaps more valuable to romantics of history than the actual recipients.

Edited 11 hours ago by Hokke

[John C]

In the modern era, there have been multiple people in the UK that have turned down a CBE (Bowie, Lennon, Lawson, etc.), usually citing that they didn't feel they earned it. And in the US, several actors have turned down oscars for various objections to causes. I suspect we will never know if a smith were offered an award and turned it down for the same reasons.

 

John C.

[Hokke]

5 minutes ago, John C said:

 in the US, several actors have turned down oscars for various objections to causes.

 

Turning down an award recognizing your ability to be a great liar is not difficult to imagine