Looking for Ko Mihara, Hokke, Kongo Hyoe, Sue bizen

[klee]

NBTHK would be a must and length around 70cm give or take. Would prefer to buy from a us based seller before looking at importing from Japan

 

Thank you kindly

-Kevin 

[Lewis B]

Hi Kevin,

Not a Ko Mihara but a very nice Mihara signed Masachika. Kanzan liked it a lot. Very unusual vermillion lacquered Hi. 

 

https://www.toukenkomachi.com/index_ja_tachi&katanaA060426.html

[klee]

Hi @Lewis B

 

I did notice that one. Very active and attractive blade.

 

This is the one I am currently considering. Theres a lot I love aboug it. Tsukada san did confirm a Tanobe sayagaki can be ordered. I keep going back and forth on pulling the trigger everyday 😄

 

https://www.toukenkomachi.com/index_ja_tachi&katanaA070425.html

[Sukaira]

Isn't the red lacquer usually used to hide or fill in flaws or damage though? What is underneath it would be my worry.

[Sukaira]

If you’re looking for a Sue Bizen…

[klee]

@Sukaira

 

Oh i wish but my budget is about half of that currently 😆 dream blade tho

[Rawa]

On 4/22/2026 at 7:40 AM, klee said:

@Sukaira

 

Oh i wish but my budget is about half of that currently 😆 dream blade tho

You are from states sadly, in Europe @Lexvdjagthave some marvelous pieces which is posting at forum. Jake's NJC Hokke with 2 koshirae was also worthy buying.

[klee]

Ah that ubu hokke was such a nice piece . Id but it in a heartbeat but didnt have $$ at the time

[Natichu]

Not a US vendor, but still, that is a long Hokke katana:

 

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeiunsignedhokke-ichijo-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

[Hoshi]

Hi, 

 

Mihara Nihonto: https://nihontowatch.com/?q=mihara

 

Many to choose from. 

 

You can adjust the size filter to narrow down to exactly what you're looking for. 

 

Hope this helps, 

 

Hoshi

[klee]

Thank you @Hoshi

 

Been using the app non stop daily 😁

 

And thank you @Natichu , saw that one last night and it s definitely worth a strong consideration

[Rawa]

6 hours ago, Natichu said:

Not a US vendor, but still, that is a long Hokke katana:

 

https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeiunsignedhokke-ichijo-nbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

Fatty classic.

[klee]

I may bid on it at the current price when it gets closer but the Ichijo attribution suggests this is an osuriage early muromachi blade

 

Not nanbokucho like aoi often likes to suggest optimisticaly

Edited April 30 by klee

[Lewis B]

38 minutes ago, klee said:

I may bid on it at the current price when it gets closer but the Ichijo attribution suggests this is an osuriage early muromachi blade

 

Not nanbokucho like aoi often likes to suggest optimisticaly

Could be Nanbokucho. Founder was Kaneyuki and he started in Ōan (応安, 1368-1375). 

[klee]

Hi @Lewis B

 

As much as I love Hokke work, I was never able to get a clear understanding of their origin. There are reliable sources that say Sukekuni early nanbokucho, Kaneyuki, and Ichijo early muromachi. The 1st Ichijo was also supposedly either the son of Masie or a student of Sukekuni but I dont think that timeline would add up

 

The NBTHK on this one says Hokke Ichijo specifically so I would think around 1394 at the earliest.

 

Aoi also didnt mention what was written on the saya but it doesnt looklike a sayagaki by anyone notable

 

Either way this is definitely a nice piece that has a lot of the things I like. Very stout and rustic with textured jigane

Edited April 30 by klee

[Jussi Ekholm]

The blade at Aoi used to have just Hokke attribution at Hozon, so they specified it a bit more at Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa.

 

I admit if I would look at that blade from pictures without attributions I would not pin that to Nanbokuchō nor early Muromachi.

[klee]

Thank you @Jussi Ekholm !

 

That is very intersting to know. I did not know that the nbthk can narrow down attributions from Hozon to TH.

 

Would have been great if they indicated which Ichijo they thought this was as im aware there were 4 generations from Oei to Eisho

 

 

[Jussi Ekholm]

Here you can see them side by side so it is the same sword.

 

 

Attributions can change when NBTHK evaluates the item again. There has been actually quite large shifts in attributions few times when the item has been sent in for re-evaluation.

 

I feel in general mumei attribution Hokke Ichijō by NBTHK would usually indicate the sword is late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi. That is how I see things personally. As a general rule NBTHK does not award Tokubetsu Hozon to mumei swords made after early Muromachi (yes I have seen few exceptions but I believe that is their norm). There might be different views on Ichijō generations I checked Meikan and there 1st Ichijō is listed around Ōan (1368-1375). However so far I have only managed to find 3 signed Ichijō short swords and so far I haven't been able to find a single signed tachi remaining by specifically attributed to Ichijō as the Ichi signed tachi and katana have general Hokke attributions. 

[klee]

Hi @Jussi Ekholm 

 

Thank you so much for the insight as always 🙏🙏🙏 I always learn something new whenever you chime in 😄

 

I ve always seen Hokke Ichijo pinned at 1394 so this is valuable to know for future reference 

 

-Kevin

[Jussi Ekholm]

Just to be noted those are my personal take on things and the correctness of it is up to debate. Just that lot of sources have slightly varying information.

 

I have been wondering about the Mihara smiths too, as it is very rare to encounter one that would have been attributed to late Kamakura by authorities. Of course dealers will tout Ko-Mihara attributed blades as late Kamakura items, and I admit for many mumei swords I have personally late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō as the range. The different generations might be bit varying from book to book. For example for Ko-Mihara Masaie there are 7 different one in Nihontō Meikan and 5 in Sesko Index. For Ko-Mihara Masahiro there are 3 different ones in Nihontō Meikan and 2 in Seskos. Here the notable difference is that Meikan has 1st Masahiro working roughly 1320s to 1330s while in Seskos the first gen is listed c 1360's. There are actually few items that are attributed to late Kamakura Mihara Masahiro by authorities.

 

However all dated items I have found by Ko-Mihara smiths so far are from Nanbokuchō to Ōei. Range is 1353 to 1415 among 15 dated blades.

 

Then you have Kokubunji Sukekuni at late Kamakura, for him there are few dated blades ranging 1323 to 1329.

 

Then for Hokke

Chikatsugu has 1352 dated blade

Kaneyasu has several blades 1369 and 1370

There are 5 other dated Hokke blades by various smiths ranging 1367 to 1390

For Ichijō I have only found 1411 dated blade

And one 1459 dated ōdachi by 2 Hokke smiths

 

Then there is Tatsubō school in Bingo province

And for them I have 4 dated blades ranging 1365 to 1373

 

Here is one problem that I am not sure about, I am not sure if the attribution Hokke Ichijō (法華一乗) is referring to one smith/lineage or a larger group among Hokke smiths. And of course attributions are attributions they need to throw out some fitting classification bracket.

 

[Sukaira]

This one isn't bad for the price: https://world-seiyudo.com/product/ska-030126/ - wide with good length and curvature 

[klee]

Definitely a good one @Sukaira. It s one of the 4 blades im considering currently. Have limited $ to make one choice is no fun 😆

[klee]

Hi @Jussi Ekholm or anyone else with info.

 

Im starting the process purchasing a TokuHo ubu Kongo Hyoe blade signed " Minamoto Morihide Saku " 

 

https://www.asahitoken.jp/contents/01_token/details/token-B/B_sd394.html

 

Everything about it screams late muromachi with the shorter nakago and fumbari. Tho it is rather long at almost 70cm. Which would be great to add since I have a Nanbokucho and early muromachi Kongo Hyoe.

 

I do not have any info on a late muromachi Morihide in my record and the latest I have is Oei ( 1394 ) and Kyotoku ( 1455 ) from Sesko along with a Teiji from the index.

 

Do you have any record of a later Kongo Hyoe Morihide in your records by chance ?

 

If not I would guess this blade being from the around the 1455 timeline.

 

Thank you as always 

-Kevin

[Lewis B]

Is there a reason you prefer the Morihide blade over the Masanobu. Comes down to signed vs mumei or price or combination? The NBTHK are quite definitive for the attribution to Masanobu. I quite like the Seiyudo piece.

 

Did Asahitoken show you the TH papers?

Edited May 5 by Lewis B

[klee]

Hi @lewis

 

That Masanobu is very nice indeed. 

 

Im just very partial to Kongo Hyoe as a collector and ubu/signed is definitely a big plus since I have a suriage Ko Kongo Hyoe and a suriage signed Moritaka.

 

I will most definitely confirm the TH certificate and other minor detail with Asahi Token 

[Sukaira]

Moses had this one: https://nihontoantiques.com/project/den-kongo-byoe-fss-985/ but it looks like its on hold now

[klee]

Hi @Sukaira

 

That one was on the market for a little while but it was for an outrageous price of around $10,000 usd. I guess someone found the package was worth it but I cant wrap my head around spending that much on a late muromachi suriage/mumei  Kongo Hyoe despite it being my favorite school.

 

Beautiful jigane tho !

[Jussi Ekholm]

I was just about to write I have never even heard of Kongōbyōe Morihide but it seems I have a reference blade by one of the smiths. Still I actually have zero knowledge about these smiths, and even though I have the reference item, they are completely unknown to me. I have put it to early Muromachi period as both Sesko and Nihontō Meikan have only the same two smiths featured. Unfortunately the item is now gone from online but here is the NBTHK paper, the info is quite scarce as is pretty much the norm by them.

 

I would call in @flemming as he knows a lot about this school.

 

[flemming]

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

[klee]

Kinda back to square one with my search and this really caught my eye last week

 

https://www.aoijapan.com/tachi-bishu-osafune-norimitsunbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/

 

Dont think i ve seen a Norimitsu with this graceful shape and jigane with so much mokume and running hada. Beautiful all around in my taste.

 

Theres another Norimitsu dated 1445 that looks nothing like this one.

 

How early could this one be realistically  ?? I feel like it would be a great candidate for Tanobe sensei to get his opinion