In the chaos of Honnō-ji’s battle, as Oda Nobunaga faced his doom to treachery, a Mitsutada blade stood firm in his hands—scarred with 18 battle wounds before burning in the raging fire that devoured the temple.
Why did the work of this master fascinate Japan’s most powerful warlord? and what led to Masamune superseding all other grandmasters as the most famous smith of all times?
Welcome to the Grandmaster series. Here, we tackle one of Nihonto's most debated questions: Who was the greatest Japanese sword maker of all time? There are many valid answers, and our aim is to equip readers with the knowledge to form their own informed conclusions—through a blend of engaging storytelling and rigorous analysis of the blades themselves.
As the first article of the series, I want to take a deep dive into a smith that doesn’t quite have the cultural footprint of Masamune in collective consciousness, yet has achieved extraordinary heights in his own right and stands as one of the defining figures that elevated the Japanese sword as a work of Art.
This is the story of grandmaster Mitsutada, who worked nearly eight centuries ago during the Middle Kamakura period and went on to define the height of Bizen-den during the Golden Age of Nihonto.
While his extant work is extremely scarce, we are fortunate to have a few remarkable pieces for this article that we will explore in-depth and contextualize within the leading theories on his origins, life and works.
The article assumes a certain level of knowledge and there are inevitably some technical terms that will be difficult to understand for those of you not familiar with the field. But do not let this deter you. Whenever possible, I’ve added helpful context and colorful anecdotes, to keep it accessible and engaging.
For newcomers, I highly recommend opening a new tab in your browser on Markus Sesko’s excellent lexicon, and use ctrl-F to find the definition of technical terms you come across. Alternatively, use an AI tool.
I hope you enjoy the journey.
It was Toyotomi Hideyoshi (豊臣秀吉) who elevated Gorō Nyūdō Masamune (五郎入道正宗) to legendary status. Prior to Hideyoshi's fervor, Masamune was seldom mentioned in historical records, and swords of Bizen and Yamashiro province were held in the highest esteem. Hideyoshi, known for his penchant for extravagant displays—such as commissioning a portable golden tea house—was intent on distinguishing himself from the tastes of the traditional aristocracy. It is plausible that he modeled his interests after the first Shogun, Minamoto no Yoritomo (源頼朝) and the later Hōjō regents from Kamakura, and as a result gravitated towards swords of the Sōshū tradition. Another compelling possibility is that improvements in polishing methods during the Momoyama period, spearheaded by experts such as Hon’ami Kōtoku (本阿弥光徳, 1552-1619), who was Hideyoshi’s personal sword expert and polisher, revealed the full splendor of Masamune’s work which enticed him to collect these swords personally.
But it wasn’t always so.
Toyotomi Hideyoshi, the OG Masamune collector
Hideyoshi’s predecessor, Oda Nobunaga (織田信長), the formidable warlord who initiated Japan's unification, held a different taste. For Oda Nobunaga, it was swords by Osafune Mitsutada that stood above all others, and he picked these blades for himself among the treasures gathered from his trail of conquests.
He was quite concerned about ranking his blades, as illustrated by the following anecdote that has survived:
Nobunaga called a sword merchant from Sakai (Osaka) and told the man, “You, supposedly being an expert on swords, should be able to tell from my collection which one belonged to Miyoshi Jikkyu… the blade which Miyoshi considered to be very outstanding.” The merchant inspected the many Mitsutada, picked one out and told Nobunaga that this was the one.
Nobunaga asked, “How do you know?” to which the merchant replied, “In the battle of 1562, Miyoshi met defeat and death against the forces of Hatakeyama Takamasa at Kishiwada. Before his death he was in hand to hand combat with a man named Negoro Sakyo who stabbed Miyoshi with his lance. But Miyoshi had swiped Negoro’s shin guard with the Mitsutada and the kissaki was chipped on striking the shin guard. As you can see, this kissaki has been polished down.”
So then Nobunaga, being pleased with his new find, kept the blade by his side constantly thereafter. Nobunaga is said to have had this Mitsutada with him when he met his death at Honnō-ji Temple in 1582 and the blade went through fire in the temple along with Nobunaga when it was burned down by attackers. Toyotomi Hideyoshi recovered the blade after the battle and the fire, and had Umetada Myoju re-temper it, and supposedly treasured it afterwards. The blade is supposed to have had 18 battle scars from the Battle of Honnō-ji.
Albert Yamanaka, Nihonto Newsletters
Through his spree of conquest, Nobunaga collected between 25 and 32 pieces by the master. This shows how rare and sought-after Mitsutada’s blades were, even during the Sengoku Jidai, some four hundred and fifty years ago.
Oda Nobunaga, the OG Mitsutada collector
“Today, for a person to own even one Mitsutada is a great feat and Nobunaga to have acquired 25 tells what a dictator can do especially in a society like 15th-16th century Japan.”
Albert Yamanaka, Nihonto Newsletters
Bizen, the heartland of Nihonto
From the 11th to the 16th century, the province of Bizen (備前) was the beating heart of sword-making. It is along the shores of the river Yoshii that many masters established their forges. During these five hundred years of continuous production, many Bizen schools rose and fell. From the classically refined tachi of the Ko-Bizen masters Tomonari and Masatsune to the fiery artistry of the Ichimonji masters Yoshifusa and Norifusa, there was no other place in history that saw as many great masterpieces travel through the centuries across successive generations of owners that cared for these objects with reverence. Today, it is estimated that up to 60% of all extant swords from the Kotō period hail from Bizen province.
Unlike other major centers of sword productions, the home of Bizen-den was not close to the major urban centers. It was located by the flanks of the Yoshii river, a region rich in the raw materials required for sword production, namely access to quality iron sands and trees suitable for the production of high grade charcoal. It was the availability of raw materials, combined with a major strategic road that linked the western provinces to the more densely populated urban centers in the East, that made this region so suited.
At its epicenter of activity was a bridge, which served as a major crossing point that funneled travelers seeking to reach the eastern provinces. Thanks to its safe distance to key contested areas, such as the strategic urban centers, the region was able to escape much of the devastations of war. It was this combination of factors that made this area fertile grounds for the development and longevity of the Bizen tradition.
caption...The left circle along the Yoshii River marks the dikes at Tennôbara. The old village of Osafune was located to the right (highlighted by the right circle). And the white dot to the north is Mt. Kumayama (508 m high). (source)
Amongst the schools of Bizen, one would rise above all others. This school was Osafune and its founder was Mitsutada. It was him and his son Nagamitsu that made Osafune swords famous. By the time of the third head of the school, Kagemitsu, Bizen Osafune’s reputation echoed wide and far, and from there, it would grow to become the largest coherent system of sword-making in Japanese history.
The relationship between Ko-Bizen, Ichimonji, Osafune and Hatakeda with their period of activity. Originally published on Yuhindo.com
Mitsutada’s remarkable talent as an artist and mentor left a legacy of excellence that would last 350 years. This extraordinary longevity came to an end in 1591. On that fateful day, an apocalyptic flood devastated the region that would extinguish the forges of Osafune forever.
According to the Kokon Mei-zukushi, Mitsutada worked around Hoji (1247-1249) and Kencho (1249-1256). In the same source, it isrelayed that he was born in 1194 and died in 1269 at the age of 76, and that he founded the Osafune School around Ryaku-nin (1238). Of course, ancient sources can be unreliable and can contradict each other, so it’s important to cross-reference with dated works. While there are no dated works by Mitsutada extant, his son and successor Nagamitsu (長光) was a prolific nengo inscriber, and one of the first to do so in Nihonto history. The earliest work by Nagamitsu bearing a date is inscribed 1274, although the authenticity of the nengo inscription is still debated by some scholars. With these caveats in mind, we can approximate Mitsutada’s long active production period to be roughly between early 1220 and late 1260, within a reasonable margin of error.
Mitsutada’s Ko-Bizen roots
According to old sources, it is believed that Ko-Bizen smiths produced swords in Osafune since at least the late Heian period. The Honchō Kaji Kō (本朝鍛冶考), a treaty from the late Edo period provides us with more details and introduces Mitsutada’s heritage.
“Descendants of the Osafune-based Ko-Bizen Masatsune group were, amongst others, Chikatada (近忠), Yasuie (安家), Yukiyoshi (行吉), Yukitoshi (行利), Hirotsune (弘恒), and Tameyoshi (為義) but the school of the same name was founded by Mitsutada, who was the son of Chikatada.”
Honchō Kaji Kō (本朝鍛冶考)
Another document, dating back to the Muromachi period, called Genki Gannen Tōken Mekiki Sho (元亀元年刀剣目利書) features in its chapter on the Osafune school the following genealogy:
The genealogy of Mitsutada from the Genki Gannen Tōken Mekiki Sho. This figure has been originally published in Gokaden No Tabi by Tanobe Michihiro.
Chikatada was Mitsutada’s father and teacher, but since there is no extant work of him, we consider Mitsutada as the de-facto founder of the Osafune school. According to the Honchō Kaji Kō, Mitsutada was a descendant of the late Ko-Bizen Masatsune school located in Osafune. It is believed that several generations of Ko-Bizen Masatsune, possibly three or even more, existed between the late Heian and the Kamakura period, and for this reason, a direct or indirect relationship is plausible from the chronology.
The strength of the Ko-Bizen Masatsune school was its ability to produce an extremely fine and resplendent jigane. The quality of this jigane is a trait shared with Mitsutada, who was highly reputed for his exquisite jigane that appears at first glance as Kyô-mono (works of the Gojo/Sanjo, Awataguchi and Rai school). We see further similarities between their work in the hamon, with some interpretation by early and middle Kamakura Masatsune showing gunome and ko-choji intertwined.
Until the late 1980s, the prevailing opinion in sword scholarship was that there were two distinct swordsmiths named Mitsutada—one affiliated with the Ko-Bizen tradition and the other recognized as the founder of the Osafune school. However, the analysis of transitional blades exhibiting a blend of workmanship and signature styles from Ko-Bizen and Osafune period work (Figures 1 and 2) has prompted a reassessment. Today, the prevailing consensus is that Ko-Bizen Mitsutada and Osafune Mitsutada are the same person.
This consolidation is part of a broader paradigm shift in how stylistic changes are assessed by scholars in the field. Going back at least to the early Edo period, the default stance was to assume that stylistic change, in terms of mei and deki, are evidence of a generational transition, and this is perhaps best exemplified with the well known case of Niji Kunitoshi and Rai Kunitoshi. Through the discovery and documentation of new swords that so to speak fall “in-between” styles, this stance has slowly shifted. It is now more readily accepted that the most parsimonious explanation is that distinct styles are part of the natural evolution of smith’s career, and this is especially so for smiths with long attested periods of activity, such as Nagamitsu or Rai Kunitoshi.
Such transitional work is perhaps best exemplified by the tachi shown below (Figure 1), which expresses a classical Ko-bizen hamon at the monouchi, but begins with a more Osafune-like expression composed of choji and gunome in the section below.
Figure 1: Transitional-style Tachi by Mitsutada. The hamon appears from the base to the center to be composed of Choji mixed with Gunome, which evokes a more mature interpretation typical of Osafune Mitsutada, whereas from the monouchi upwards, the hamon forms a gently undulating notare that is more typical of Ko-Bizen Mitsutada. This sword is an important reference that bridges the gap between the Ko-Bizen and Osafune workmanship.
Amongst the swords of Mitsutada that are more closely rooted in the Ko-Bizen tradition, we have a further four blades expressing many of classical traits of the late Ko-Bizen school. Amongst these blades, we find a tachi that was in the collection of the Kishu branch of the Tokugawa family (Figure 2). The sword features a nie-laden suguha-midare that features ashi and yo, and faint midare utsuri. The presence of midare-utsuri rather than jifu-utsuri is notable, as it prefigures the type of blend of Ichimonji and Ko-Bizen techniques that would come to characterize Mitsutada’s evolution.
Figure 2. Tachi signed Mitsutada. This piece expresses classical Ko-bizen elements, such as a hamon interpreted in suguha-midare, along with elements typical of later work, such as midare utsuri.
In addition to transitional works in terms of deki, we also have extant work showing a transitional expression of his mei. The blade that best demonstrates such transitional mei is a rare zaimei Kodachi, from a private European collection.
Jūyō-Tōken at the 68th Jūyō Shinsa from November 2, 2022
Kodachi, mei: Mitsutada (光忠)
Measurements:
Nagasa 48.9 cm, sori 0.9 cm, motohaba 2.45 cm, sakihaba 1.6 cm, kissaki-nagasa 2.5 cm, nakago-nagasa 13.25 cm, nakago-sori 0.2 cm
Description
Keijō: shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, normal mihaba, noticeable taper, moderate kasane, shallow sori with koshizori, some funbari, ko-kissaki
Kitae: itame that features ji-nie, fine chikei, and a faint jifu-utsuri
Hamon: ko-midare in nie-deki with a wide and somewhat subdued nioiguchi that displays urumi in some areas and that is mixed with a little bit of ko-chōji and ko-gunome, yubashiri and small tobiyaki in places, and with kinsuji and sunagashi
Bōshi: sugu-chō with some fine hakikake and running out in yakitsume manner Nakago: ubu, very shallow kurijiri, relatively deep katte-sagari yasurime, two mekugi-ana, the hakiomote side bears towards the nakago-mune a niji-mei that starts with one character positioned above of the first mekugi-ana
Explanation
Mitsutada (光忠) was active in Bizen Osafune in the mid-Kamakura period and is regarded as the de facto founder of the Osafune School of the same name, which was the largest current of sword production in the history of Japan. Being extraordinarily skilled himself, Mitsutada and his school grave rise to many renowned master smiths, e.g., Nagamitsu (⻑光), Sanenaga (真⻑), and Kagemitsu (景光), and Osafune was thus highly praised since earliest times. Most Mitsutada works in existence are ō-suriage mumei and have period attributions to this smith. They are of a magnificent sugata, display an excellent and beautifully forged jigane with ji-nie, which, aside of the utsuri, bear noticeable semblance to Kyō/Yamashiro works at first glance, and a hamon that is mostly a flamboyant and chōji-based midareba. In contrast, existing signed tachi by Mitsutada rather have a normal mihaba and a hamon that is relatively “calm” compared to mumei works with period attributions.
The fact that this blade is one of the very rare kodachi by Osafune Mitsutada makes it very important. Also, particularly noteworthy is the fact that with its kitae in itame featuring a jifuutsuri, its ko-midare-based midareba in nie, its yubashiri and small tobiyaki along the habuchi, its kinsuji and sunagashi within the ha, and its somewhat subdued nioiguchi, the blade is overall of a more unobtrusive and classical interpretation than most of the existing signed works of this maker and bears semblance to the Ko-Bizen style. The Honchō Kaji Kō (本朝鍛冶考) states that some smiths from the Ko-Bizen Masatsune (正恒) lineage resided in Osafune where their descendants flourished, and that Mitsutada was a descendant of that group. The blade described here is a very important reference as it is an existing works that supports this tradition from the point of view of workmanship.
Sayagaki by Tanobe Michihiro
This is a rare kodachi by Osafune Mitsutada which is signed in a niji-mei. Old sword texts state that the production site of Osafune overlaps with that of the earlier local Ko-Bizen School and that Mitsutada was a descendant of the latter group. This approach is substantiated by Mitsutada’s early workmanship in a nie-laden suguha-midare which reflects the Ko-Bizen style. Later, he changed towards more flamboyant interpretations in chōji. This blade shows an itame that features a jifu-utsuri and a nie-based hardening in ko-midare. It is overall quite classical and therefore this masterwork reflects in terms of interpretation and signature style the early phase of this smith. Blade length ~ 49 cm
written by Tanzan (Tanobe Michihiro) in December of the year of the boar of this era (2019) + monogram.
Kanto Hibisho by Honma Junji
9 September 1987, sayagaki written for Shingendō, Tōkyō
This is a kodachi with a slender mihaba and a shallow koshizori. The kitae is a rather standing-out ko-itame that features chikei and ji-nie. The hamon is a ko-nie-laden ko-gunome that is overall interpreted as a free midareba, with the upper half of the omote side being mixed with chū-gunome and showing in this area thus somewhat more clearly pronounced elements. Prominent kinsuji appear all over the blade and the bōshi is sugu which tends towards yakitsume on the omote and which runs back with a brief mediumsized maru-kaeri on the ura side, featuring hakikake on both sides. The nakago is almost ubu, is very slightly curved, and has a tip which slightly tends towards a kurijiri. Both the mune and cutting edge side of the tang show ko-niku, the yasurime are katte-sagari, and the omote side bears in the centre and towards the nakago-mune a slightly cursive niji-mei which tends towards a printed-style writing. At first glance, the jiba suggest an attribution to Ko-Bizen, particularly because of the interpretation of the hamon, but compared to the four or five known Ko-Bizen Mitsutada signatures, the mei of this blade is more close to that of Osafune Mitsutada. It is traditionally believed that Ko-Bizen Mitsutada was the predecessor of Osafune Mitsutada and when we follow this approach, it is possible that we are facing here a late work of Ko-Bizen Mitsutada made close to when Osafune Mitsutada started to be active.
9 September 1987, sayagaki written for Shingendō, Tōkyō
While the Kodachi displays a classical Ko-Bizen expression, the execution of the signature sits in between the Ko-Bizen and Osafune types. Specifically, the Mitsu (光) character follows the Ko-Bizen Mitsutada style of kanji, known as type A, whereas the character for Tada (忠) is closer to the later Osafune mei, known as type D (Figure 3). For this reason, this blade constitutes an important reference piece which lets us observe a continuity in the signature styles.
Figure 3: The evolution of Mitsutada’s mei. This figure has been adapted from Gokaden No Tabi Bizen by Tanobe Michihiro. On the right, a close-up picture of the mei of the Kodachi. Notice the inclination of the side strokes of the Mitsu (光) character, and the flat angle of the leg, which corresponds to type A. For the Tada (忠) character, notice the two bottom radicals and their positioning, which matches type D.
These transitional features, present in both deki and mei across a range of extant pieces, lend strong support to the view that Ko-Bizen and Osafune Mitsutada were one and the same smith. This conclusion aligns with the ancient historical genealogy describing Mitsutada as a smith with roots in the Masatsune school of Ko-Bizen.
In terms of deki, the hamon of the Kodachi displays exquisite ko-nie, which is to say, that the particles of nie are of small size, but still discernible to the naked eye. The nie appears as fine grains admirably distributed along the entire surface of the ha, which is sometimes poetically compared to fresh snow. A vigorous kinsuji decorates the ha admirably and reminds us of great Sōshū works.
The pattern of the hamon shows martensitic formations resembling ko-choji and ko-gunome, precursors to Mitsutada’s later Osafune style.
The Jigane on the Kodachi is highly refined, displaying ji-nie intertwined inside a finely forged hada, which aligns very well with Osafune Mitsutada’s reputation for forging the best jigane in Bizen.
While the overall deki of the blade is firmly Ko-Bizen, transitional elements such as structures evoking ko-choji and ko-gunome as well as the style of the mei support the idea that the blade was forged in the later part of Mitsutada’s Ko-Bizen period. Besides its special importance as an academic reference, the blade can be said to be an excellent work, and the signature is admirably well preserved and powerfully inscribed. This goes to show that Mitsutada stood on very strong technical grounds before evolving into his prime style of workmanship. Even in his earlier Ko-Bizen style, Mitsutada was more than an accomplished master. He had already attained a level of virtuosity that places him as one of the most talented Ko-Bizen smiths of the Kamakura period.
We have established Mitsutada's foundation in the Ko-Bizen tradition through both historical accounts and transitional works. It’s now time to examine the broader changes in the sword world of the Kamakura period that would catalyze his artistic evolution.
The Decline of Ko-Bizen
By the early Kamakura period, the popularity of Ko-Bizen amongst the warrior class was in decline. The smiths of Fukuoka, nearby to the south of Osafune, were on the rise. In this village, the Ichimonji school, united under their single stroke “一” and a flamboyant hamon to boast, were outcompeting their Ko-Bizen peers. During this period of technological and stylistic change, many Ko-Bizen masters, recognizing the writing on the wall, joined the ascendant group of smiths in Fukuoka village.
The decline of Ko-Bizen is attested in the selection of the Goban Kaji by Emperor Go-toba, who summoned the most highly reputed smiths of Japan to his palace forge on a monthly rotation. Out of the first group, 7 out of the 12 summoned smiths were Fukuoka Ichimonji masters. Not a single Ko-Bizen master. The Ko-Bizen school fares only slightly better in the second group of 24 Goban Kaji, where 4 summons are from the Ko-Bizen tradition. Once again, the Ichimonji smiths dominated the selection with an astonishing 14 smiths.
Emperor Go-Toba and the Golden Age
To understand what sparked the golden age which lasted from the middle-to-late Kamakura period, it is essential to contend with the pivotal role played by Emperor Go-Toba (後鳥羽院, 1180-1239, r. 1183-1194). Emperor Go-Toba was a true renaissance man, versed and fond of many art forms. He was a master of Waka poetry (和歌), and had a deep appreciation for swords.
As for his motivation, It is believed that one of the reasons sword held such a great importance to him was because of the presumed loss of the legendary blade Kusanagi-no-tsurugi (草薙の剣) during the Battle of Dan-no-ura in 1185. Kusanagi-no-tsurugi was part of the Imperial Regalia, alongside the jewel and the mirror, and it is possible that Emperor Go-Toba sought to recreate a blade worthy of replacing this relic. Perhaps, it was believed that the loss of Kusanagi-no-tsurugi weakened the legitimacy of the Imperial line, and contributed to the erosion of the Emperor’s power over the nation. While these musings are highly speculative, there is a certain poetic elegance to the idea that Go-Toba may have sought to create the perfect sword to restore the Imperial Regalia.
For his quest, he summoned the best smiths of the land and personally participated in the making of blades known today as kiku-gyo-saku (chrysanthemum-imperial works, Figure 4). His teachers were the most talented smiths of the early Kamakura period, and were placed on a monthly rotation at his palace in Kyoto. His court provided these smiths, known today collectively as the Goban-Kaji, with essentially unlimited resources and an environment where they could study, exchange, innovate and perfect their craft.
Figure 4: A magnificent kiku-gyo-saku tachi. Elevated Tokubetsu Juyo at session 21. Notice the faded imperial mon at the hamachi. Denrai of the Kuroda Clan. The blade is executed in Bizen-den, no doubt under the influence of one of the Fukuoka Ichimonji Goban Kaji with the participation of Emperor Go-Toba.
Emperor Go-Toba’s tastes likely played a role in the increasing artistic expression of Ichimonji smiths, evidenced by the growing exuberance of their florid hamon arrangements observed in works following the Goban-Kaji period. The tradition of bestowing court titles on masters likely began during this period, as it would have been unthinkable to allow commoners to work side-by-side with the Emperor at the imperial court.
The mere possibility to be selected by the Emperor as Goban-Kaji greatly elevated the status of swordsmiths in the major centers of sword production. This created a remarkable path for social mobility, something that was extremely rare for the period. For these reasons, Emperor Go-Toba was the most influential historical figure of all times in elevating the search for supreme quality and artistry as the north star of the craft, and it is his effort that in turn ignited the great Golden Age of Nihonto (Figure 5).
Figure 5: We can visualize the Golden Age by plotting the counts of the three highest designations over the different periods of history.
The Rise of Osafune Mitsutada
It is hard to imagine what it must have been like to be summoned to forge side-by-side with the Emperor - a living God - for a smith, which held a relatively low social status at the time. In an age of belief in supernatural forces and ancestral spirits, such a summons must have felt like a divine call. Without doubt, the young Mitsutada was raised hearing the tales of these great artists who were summoned by a Deity to shape iron into divine armaments.
His father, Chikatada, and the rest of the late Masatsune Ko-Bizen school, had not been amongst the chosen of Emperor Go-Toba. Mitsutada grew up in the shadow of a fading tradition, his father Chikatada overlooked by Emperor Go-Toba’s summons. Perhaps it was this quiet rejection that lit a fire in the young smith—a determination to forge a legacy that no court could ignore.
With the decline of the Ko-Bizen tradition, many smiths left their roots to join the Ichimonji movement in hope of a better future. The great Yoshifusa was one of them, and he would rise to become the best Ichimonji master of all time. It is likely that Yoshifusa was at his peak somewhat earlier than Mitsutada, and may have served as a model and a formidable competitor. We know that he would follow in Yoshifusa’s footsteps, but on his own terms, separately from the loosely federated group of smiths known as Ichimonji. Unbeknownst to the young Mitsutada, his legacy on the craft would far surpass even the great Yoshifusa.
Mitsutada went on to blend the flamboyance of the Ichimonji school with his mastery of the Ko-Bizen Masatsune school techniques. It is during this period of maturation that he developed his unique kawazu no ko-chōji (tadpole-shaped cloves pattern) which he rendered on a jigane that was unrivaled in its luster. His hamon is bright and clear andachieves an almost ethereal quality with its remarkably wide and soft nioiguchi that is rich in ko-nie and dotted with tobiyaki. The hamon is formed of flames dancing over the dark antai before re-emerging as midareutsuri. These three elements of classical Bizen, the hamon, antai, and utsuri, are formed and intertwined in a way that imparts a stunning impression of depth and clarity.
The dense ko-itame jihada glitters with fine ji-nie like fresh snow under moonlight
His jigane of ko-itame is so tight that it could go for Kyo or Yamashiro work. The fine ji-nie and nioi-deep choji containing gunome and kawazuko variations and the boshi of midare-komi forming a somewhat pointed tip are both typically indicative of Mitsutada’s workmanship. Compared with Nagamitsu’s work, Mitsutada has a more dignified appearance. In terms of skill too, the grain activity of the ha as well as the sense of depth that ji and ha impart is conspicuously superior in the father’s work.”
Token Bijutsu Meihin
During the remarkable period of artistry that characterized Mitsutada’s prime period of production, he created large and magnificent blades (Figure 6, 7) with masculine sugata, thick kasane, strikingly wide motohaba (reaching 3.3cm and above), and stout ikubi-kissaki so typical of the middle Kamakura period. These blades are not only extraordinarily imposing, they also display a sublime level of craftsmanship that has fascinated generations of warlords, scholars, and collectors.
Figure 6: Kokuhō Mitsutada bearing the name “Ikoma Mitsutada” with kinzogan mei by Hon’ami Kotoku. This is one of the best Mitsutada in existence, and it was acquired by the powerful Hosokawa family during the Meiji period.
Figure 7: Kokuhō Mitsutada, it was one of Oda Nobunaga’s favorite blades and was appraised as Mitsutada by Hideyoshi’s personal appraiser, Hon’ami Kōtoku, who inscribed his kinzogan mei on the tang. The blade is of a very robust shape, with wide mihada and ikubi kissaki. It stands alongside the Ikoma Mitsutada as one of the greatest mumei masterpieces.
As for incorporating Fukuoka Ichimonji influence, Mitsutada did not go ‘all in’ with the exuberant flamboyance. While gorgeous and certainly eye-catching, it is likely that Mitsutada foresaw that this approach posed risk to the structural integrity of a blade, and that it was crucial to preserve the balance between hardened and unhardened areas to create a resilient blade. For this reason, it is typically observed that Mitsutada’s hamon height peaks by the central section of the blade and recedes at the monouchi and hamachi (Figure 8). Already in the 17th century, the Ko-Hon’ami appraisers were sensitive to this trait, as is evidenced by their attributions to the master on mumei works.
Figure 8: Oshigata for Mitsutada (Left), Yoshifusa (Middle), Sukemitsu (Right). Notice how the flamboyance of Mitsutada’s choji peaks around the middle section, with a calmer hamachi and monouchi section. Moreover, Mitsutada’s hamon doesn’t reach the same height as the two others, which is quite typical for his work when compared to Ichimonji swords of the same period. Oshigata by Tanobe Michihiro, originally published in Gokaden no tabi Bizen.
The Mumei and Zaimei types of Mitsutada
Due to their sheer size, virtually all of Mitsutada’s most flamboyant and imposing works have lost their signatures from shortening during the tumultuous periods of Tenshō (1573-1592) and Keichō (1596-1615) periods when the nature of warfare had changed, and the long and robust tachi suited for mounted combat were superseded by new tactics and weaponry.
However, there was a mystery. It was known since old times that signed works by Mitsutada differ on certain dimensions from the mumei archetype. This discrepancy between zaimei and mumei blades has led to some debate in the past about whether the mumei types of Mitsutada are truly by the hand of the same smith.
The zaimei blades can be categorized into two distinct workmanship groups. The first, express a more restrained interpretation, characterized by a low to moderately flamboyant hamon composed of ko-choji and gunome elements which sometimes reminds us of Ko-Ichimonji, and a jigane that, while still of very high quality, does not display the exceptional refinement observed in the attributed mumei works.
The second type is most accurately characterized as resembling the work of his son, Nagamitsu, which is why we will refer to it as Nagamitsu-fū Mitsutada (Mitsutada in the style of Nagamitsu). While these later types can express great flamboyance, the choji vary less in height along the blade, do not constrict along the base to form kawazu no ko-chōji, and tend to merge together at the mid-height below the tassel, all key traits of Nagamitsu’s archetypical hamon.
The Experimental Phase
We have the rare opportunity to study two important works by the master representative of this period. The first blade currently holds the Tokubetsu Hozon designation, but there is little doubt it will be elevated to Juyo status in the future. Access to previously unrecorded pieces is very valuable, as they can offer new insights that expand the boundaries of current scholarship.
In terms of sugata, the extended chū-kissaki is unusual for a mid-Kamakura Bizen smith, though not without precedent. Notably, an extant blade by the Ichimonji grandmaster Yoshifusa features an ō-kissaki, predating the form’s popularity in the Nambokuchō period—suggesting the possibility of rare custom commissions. More plausibly, the kissaki’s elongated appearance may be the result of material loss in the monouchi area, with the tip subsequently reshaped as gracefully as possible. Although the blade has been shortened, it retains a refined and deeply curved koshizori as well as its original mei. Based on these features, we can see that the original nagasa was about 85 cm.
Sayagaki: Mitsutada from Osafune in Bizen province
This blade is suriage, but retains its niji-mei, with the lowermost mekugi-ana being the ubu-mekugi-ana. In terms of signature style and workmanship, the blade dates to the early phase of this smith.
Blade length ~ 69.5 cm
Mitsutada was the first grandmaster of the Osafune School. Surviving signed works of his are rare, which makes this blade extremely valuable. The blade is of a shape with a normal mihaba and a deep koshizori and displays a forging structure in itame that features fine ji-nie and a midare-utsuri. The hamon is a small-dimensioned and ko-nie-laden midare that is based on chōji mixed with ko-midare, sunagashi, and kinsuji, reflecting a rather classical approach. Thus, at first glance, the blade reminds us of Ko-Ichimonji works. In terms of signature style, it appears that the blade dates somewhat earlier than the Kokuhō in the collection of the Tokugawa Art Museum. Mitsutada is known for having moved away from the Ko-Bizen and Ko-Ichimonji workmanship by developing his own flamboyant style that is mixed with kawazu no ko-chōji.
Written by Tanzan [Tanobe Michihiro] in October in the year of the dragon of this era (2024) + monogram.
The work combines early Ichimonji elements, such as a rather unobtrusive choji-based hamon with the marked absence of kawazu no ko-chōji, and from there we can hypothesize that this blade may have been part of Mitsutada’s earliest experimentations with Ichimonji techniques, a period where his style had not yet mature to the flamboyant expressions seen in the later mumei type blades.
This idea is corroborated by the estimated signature period, which combines a Mitsu (光) traced as in A, from his early period, along with a Tada (忠) from type C (see Figure 3).
A second Mitsutada of the Ko-Ichimonji type was once offered by my mentor Darcy Brockbank, the founder of Yuhindo.com. While many of his excellent photographs are no longer available online, we are fortunate to still have a few to work with. The blade has been elevated to Jūyō in 1994, and retains a premium nagasa of 74.4cm. Despite shortening, it maintained an elegant koshizori typical of the Kamakura period. We can see from the placement of the bohi that it was approximately 10cm longer in its original shape, that is to say, it hasn’t been shortened very much and thus was able to retain its precious signature.
Appointed on the 11th of November, 1994
Tachi: Mitsutada
Measurements: Nagasa 74.4 cm, sori 2 cm, motohaba 2.8 cm, sakihaba 1.9 cm, kissaki-nagasa 3.5 cm, nakago-nagasa 22.7 cm, only very little nakago-sori
Keijo: shinogi-zukuri with an iori-mune. Both the width and thickness are average. Though the blade has been shortened there is still ample length and curvature.
Kitae: itame-hada mixed with mokume that is well covered in ji-nie. The jigane contains minute chikei and there is prominent midare-utsuri.
Hamon: ko-choji with a mixing in of ko-notare and ko-gunome. There are tobiyaki and undulations in the hamon, making the hamon somewhat flamboyant. The habuchi is nioi based in style but is well covered in ko-nie with kinsuji and a hint of sunagashi.
Boshi: light tempered sugu with ko-maru.
Horimono: square-ended bohi carvings on both sides of the blade.
Nakago: suriage, nakago-jiri is kiri. There is a two-character signature that was engraved with a rather thick chisel on the lower half of the haki-omote near the mune.
Explanation: Mitsutada was active in the middle Kamakura period in Osafune, Bizen. As the true founder of the Osafune school, his technique was excellent and his school gave rise to many master smiths such as Nagamitsu, Sanenaga, and Kagemitsu. Most of Mitsutada’s works at this point in time are shortened and unsigned, and are attributed to him. These show a magnificent sugata, a beautiful and excellently forged jihada with beautiful ji-nie which has features in common of Kyoto swords, and a large-dimensioned choji-based midareba. On the other hand, extant signed blades are in general more calm than mumei blades with attribution as they show a rather normal tachi-sugata and a more quiet hamon.
This blade has a normal tachi-sugata and the kitae is itame mixed with mokume and shows a prominent midare-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-choji mixed with ko-notare and ko-gunome. There are undulations in the hamon that give the blade a relatively flamboyant style. Here and there the nioiguchi is cloudy, but this does not affect the great beauty of this blade. The boshi is entirely intact. This blade is among the very few signed Mitsutada tachi that exist, therefore this blade is a highly important source of research information.
As with the previous blade, This piece exhibits many traits typical of the master's early experimentation with ichimonji techniques, such as the interpretation in ko-nie with gunome and ko-choji intertwined. It also possesses a rather ancient presence, reminiscent of earlier Ko-Bizen works in the way the activity in the ha is structured, with segments rendered in ko-notare.
While the setsumei states that the habuchi is nioi-based and somewhat cloudy, I tend to disagree with this statement, at least on the basis of the photos below. There, it appears quite clearly interpreted in fine ko-nie and appears bright and clear at first glance. The ha contains ko-choji intertwoven with gunome elements.
Sections of the blade are interpreted in ko-notare, a typical Ko-Bizen trait, and display sunagashi and kinsuji as well as tobiyaki that tend to yubashiri.
The hada of the blade also elicits a feeling of artistic experimentation. Curiously, it appears at first glance more similar to Sōshū-den. It shows a greater amount of beautiful chickei that what is usually seen with Mitsutada, and the fine ko-itame hada is composed of slightly larger dimensioned elements than what is commonly seen with the work of the master.
As for the signature style, it resembles type B (refer to Figure 3), possibly indicative of late work from his early period, which is aligned to the type of deki we observe that incorporates Ichimonji elements with the notable absence of kawazu no ko-chōji.
These early experimental blades reveal Mitsutada in transition, experimenting with Ichimonji techniques on his Ko-Bizen foundation. His experiments, however, were not solely comprised of the more unobtrusive, ko-ichimonji inspired types. He left us with an exceptional blade that shows him pushing his experiments to their absolute limit, producing a masterwork that combined both the styles of his forefathers and the future of the Osafune lineage in a prescient manner.
Mitsutada’s masterwork experiment
It is time to introduce what is considered to be the best of all zaimei blades by Mitsutada. It can be said without exaggeration that it stands as one of the most impressive national treasures in existence today. This sword was once a heirloom of the powerful Owari Tokugawa family, which were known to possess one of the most exquisite collections of swords during Japan’s feudal period.
Its deki is enigmatic, it combines both archaic elements typical of the Heian period, and forerunners to innovations that would become hallmarks of Nagamitsu and Kagemitsu of the late Kamakura period.
Unlike the archetypical mumei types, its hamon doesn’t vary so much in height as is so typical for his prime period of activity. While it contains kawazuko-no-choji, a hallmark feature of his artistically mature phase, it also displays a remarkable amount of uchinoke (crescent-shaped tobiyaki, typical of heian-period Ko-Bizen masters) and tobiyaki forming nijuba. For these reasons, it evokes Ko-Bizen works that predate the early Kamakura techniques of the Masatsune school. Adding to the mystery, the upper section of the blade near the monouchi contains angular gunome elements embedded into a suguha-cho, which is a trait typical for the 3rd head of the Osafune school, Kagemitsu. Its boshi shows a dimple in the middle section, an expression that differs from Mitsutada’s archetypical boshi but would become an important characteristic of the masters Nagamitsu, Kagemitsu, and Sanemitsu and called the sansaku boshi.
Keijō: The blade has a nagasa of 72.4 cm and a sori of 2.3 cm. The blade is wide, does not taper much, has a thick kasane, maintains despite of the suriage a deep koshizori, features plenty of niku, and ends in an ikubi-style kissaki. That is, the blade is of a magnificent sugata and shows on the haki-ura side somewhat underneath the middle section a kirikomi.
Kitae:The kitae is a fine and excellently forged ko-itame with plenty of ji-nie and a prominent midare-utsuri.
Hamon:The hamon is a chōji that is mixed with gunome, kawazu no ko-chōji, and angular elements and apart from some flamboyant areas on the haki-omote side, the ha is overall composed of rather small-dimensioned midare elements and does not have many ups and downs. On the haki-ura side we see some tendency towards nijūba and long and thin uchinoke-like tobiyaki as well as crescent shape tobiyaki.
The ha turns on both sides into a calm suguha-chō along the monouchi. Apart from that, the ha is mixed with many ashi and yō, is hardened in ko-nie-deki, and features sunagashi and kinsuji. The nioiguchi is bright and clear.
Bōshi: bōshi is a concise sugu-bōshi (with a little midare-komi on the haki-omote side) that runs back with a brief ko-maru-kaeri.
This tachi is praised as the best of all extant signed Mitsutada works and it comes with an origami issued by Hon’ami Kōchū (本阿弥光忠, ?-1725) in Genroku ten (元禄, 1697) that gives it a value of 2,500 kan. When the fifth Tokugawa shōgun Tsunayoshi (徳川綱吉, 1646-1709) visited the third Owari-Tokugawa lord Tsunanari (徳川綱誠, 1652-1699) on the 18th day of the third month of Genroku eleven (1698) in the Edo residence in Kōjimachi (麹町), he presented Tsunanari with this sword plus a tachi by Nagamitsu and a tantō by Awataguchi Yoshimitsu (粟田口吉光). As return gifts, Tsunanari presented Tsunayoshi with the meibutsu katana Kikkō-Sadamune (亀甲貞宗), the meibutsu tantō Sōzui-Masamune (宗瑞正宗), and with a tachi by Rai Kuniyuki (来国行).
Now the blade has the typical magnificent tachi-sugata of the mid-Kamakura period and although the chōji-midare mixed with its kawazu no ko-chōji is quite flamboyant in places along the haki-omote side, the overall impression of the ha is that of being composed by rather smaller dimensioned elements. This and the uchinoke-like tobiyaki spots along the haki-ura side and the basic interpretation of the ha as a complex midareba with nie is of a more classical approach and does remind of Ko-Bizen works like for example by Tomomura (友村), Naritaka (成高), or Yukihide (行秀).
In addition, a ha becoming calmer along the monouchi is a characteristic feature of early Osafune works and it is interesting that we can see here a forerunner of the later sansaku-bōshi and already some angular gunome elements, a local feature that is usually associated with Kagemitsu and his successors. As indicated, the suriage has caused only very little loss to the magnificence of the sugata and it may be said that the abundance of hataraki and profoundness of the jigane of this very blade are superior to Nagamitsu.
Excerpt from Gokaden No Tabi - Bizen by Tanobe Michihiro
The signature is the one presented as type C (see figure 3), which is believed to be middle period work. This blade is truly unique in that this combination of styles is found nowhere else in his corpus. While atypical, It can be said to be the supreme masterwork of his experimental period, and poetically, we can think of this sword as representing the moment where the master, after years and years of radical experimentation, finally found his pathway to the sublime.
As a whole, this experimental period represents a phase of creative soul-searching and synthesis, one where he was attempting to break free from the canvas of his teachers and chart his own path.
Nagamitsu-fū Mitsutada
Most of the signed Mitsutada that I have seen bear semblance to Nagamitsu (⻑光)
-Dr. Honma Junji, Kantei Hibishi
The second type of zaimei Mitsutada marks another transition period, this time in the autumn and winter years of the master’s life. Mitsutada’s reputation now echoed far and wide, and wealthy warlords from many corners of Japan visited his forge in Osafune. During this period, the question of succession must have been at the forefront of the master’s mind. By fortune, Mitsutada was also an excellent teacher.
Nagamitsu would become one of history's most celebrated and prolific swordsmith, leaving behind the largest surviving body of work among the great masters. Like his father, he adapted his style throughout his career to the demands of the time. His early period masterpieces—the Tsuda-Tōtōmi Nagamitsu and Daihannya Nagamitsu—follow Mitsutada's prime style quite faithfully, featuring a flamboyant and sublime hamon that vary widely in height and display refined kawazuko-no ko-choji. These early works, likely created under his father's close guidance but bearing the son’s signature, may have been a deliberate effort to establish Nagamitsu's reputation before succession. Today, these Mitsutada-style Nagamitsu blades remain most prized and exceptionally rare, with only a handful surviving—most designated as National Treasures.
The Tsuda-Tōtōmi Nagamitsu. Notice the outline of the hamon, and the the remarkable ups and down interspersed with wildly flamboyant choji that constrict at the base. This blade is widely considered the greatest masterwork of Nagamitsu, and executed in an interpretation that evokes the hand of his father Mitsutada.
Nagamitsu then developed the style of his mature period alongside his teacher. His choji patterns begin to intersect near their tassels, and the hamon maintains more consistent height along the blade. Whether this change originated with Nagamitsu or his teacher, we will never know. However, Mitsutada's zaimei works from this transitional period onwards begin to show these characteristics—first appearing in the monouchi area (replacing the earlier gunome elements), then extending across the entire blade. The hamon becomes more uniform in height, and nioi grows more prominent over ko-nie. The signature evolves: particularly the Mitsu (光) kanji, suggesting that Nagamitsu may have begun signing works on his father's behalf as the succession approached.
The Condell Mitsutada
As a prime example of this period, we turn to one of the most important blades discovered post-war in the USA: a Nagamitsu-fū Mitsutada. As the story goes, it was found in a basement of someone’s grandparents, and was verified with great acclaim by the traveling team of the NBHTK during one of the North American events. Avid collector, dealer and sword connoisseur Cary Condell acquired it, and shortly thereafter sent it to Japan for Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō examination, where it flew through with high praise. For two decades, it was Condell’s treasured blade. After his passing, it was the only sword that stayed in the family for another decade before making its way back to Japan.
Mitsutada (光忠)
Tokubetsu-jūyō-tōken at the 13th tokubetsu-jūyō shinsa from April 27, 1994
Tachi, mei: Mitsutada (光忠)
Gary Condell
Measurements
Nagasa 70.8 cm, sori 2.8 cm, motohaba 2.75 cm, sakihaba 1.7 cm, kissaki-nagasa 2.8 cm, nakago-nagasa 20.5 cm, nakago-sori 0.2 cm
Description
Keijō: shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, normal mihaba and kasane, deep koshizori, chū-kissaki
Kitae: rather standing-out itame that is mixed with mokume and that features fine ji-nie, chikei, and a prominent midare-utsuri
Hamon: chōji-midare in nioi-deki with ko-nie and a soft looking nioiguchi that is mixed with gunome, gunome with roundish yakigashira, many ashi and yō, and fine sunagashi and kinsuji in places
Bōshi: gently undulating notare-komi with a brief ko-maru-kaeri
Nakago: slightly suriage, kirijiri, katte-sagari yasurime, two mekugi-ana, the haki-omote side bears around the center and towards the back of the tang a niji-mei
Artisan
Osafune Mitsutada from Bizen province
Era
Mid-Kamakura period
Provenance
Naitō (内藤) family, daimyō of Nobeoka fief (延岡藩) in Hyūga province
Explanation
Mitsutada (光忠) was the ancestor of the Osafune School, which was established around the mid-Kamakura period in Osafune of the same name in Bizen province. Mitsutada was extraordinarily skilled and many noted warriors are known to have worn and treasured his blades. Beginning with Nagamitsu (長光), Sanenaga (真長), and Kagemitsu (景光), his school gave rise to a large number of outstanding smiths. The majority of existing Mitsutada works are ō-suriage mumei and attributed to this master. They can be of a magnificent sugata and display a beautiful and excellently forged jihada that features ji-nie and that is of a certain “wet” luster, reminding us so at first glance of Yamashiro works. In addition, the hamon is often a gorgeous chōji-based midareba. Signed blades, on the other hand, are usually of relatively normal dimensions and are hardened in a manner that is somewhat more calm that the flamboyant hamon interpretations seen on blades that are attributed to Mitsutada.
This tachi is of a sugata that has normal dimensions and is hardened in a relatively calm hamon that is based on chōji and that is mixed with gunome. The ji displays a prominent midare-utsuri and therefore we recognize a workmanship that associates the blade at first glance with the style of his son Nagamitsu. The fact that the blade is signed makes it extremely valuable and in addition to its great condition, it is also of an excellent deki. The blade was once owned by the Naitō (内藤) family, who were the daimyō of the Nobeoka fief (延岡藩) in Hyūga province.
A commemorative panel created by the person who discovered the Mitsutada in his grandparent’s basement in the USA. It was likely seized by an American soldier and brought home as a war trophy at the end of WW2. The sword was accompanied by an elegant itomaki-no-tachi koshirae, and traces its historical provenance as a treasured possession of the Naito family, a minor clan that ruled over Nobeoka Domain.
In terms of deki, the blade appears at at first glance as a work by Nagamitsu. The mei, specifically the Mitsu (光) character, follows the tracing of type D with its inclined radicals and foot, which is shared with Nagamitsu and associated of late work. While it may plausibly appear as daimei work, that is to say, a creation made by the student and signed with the master’s name, this possibility is not raised in the literature where this blade is discussed, whereas it is raised for two other extant blades interpreted in this same style. It is considered a masterwork by the Master in the later years of his career, and it is highly characteristic of his final period of activity.
Five Missing Links
In sword scholarship, reconciling the mumei and zaimei types depends on the discovery of missing links that display a technical overlap with the mumei types while bearing a mei. Thanks to the surge in interest during the immediate post-war era and the unprecedented sword access that followed, such missing links have come to light.
Today, we can confidently reject the theory that they were different smiths. Modern scholarship has concluded decisively that both types go back to the hand of the same smith, and that the zaimei types belong either to his late period of production when Nagamitsu was becoming a master in his own right, or during the time where he experimented with Ichimonji elements and had not yet matured into the flamboyant expression with kawazu no ko-chōji.
There are five such “missing link” blades recorded, all of which are important meito in their own right. Three of the missing links bear the highest level of provenance, as former or current treasures of the Imperial family (Gyobutsu, 御物). The fourth and most flamboyant one was a secret treasure of the Sagara clan. The final and perhaps most definitive missing link was kept in the collection of the powerful Satake clan.
The Satake Mitsutada
We begin our exploration of missing links with the Satake Mitsutada, an impressive meito considered by Tanobe Michihiro as the most definitive piece of evidence that reconciles the mumei and zaimei types of Mitsutada. This masterpiece became public in the year 2000 when it passed Jūyō and subsequently Tokubetsu Jūyō in 2002.
The blade is suriage but retains its niji-mei at about the center of the newly formed tang. It has a nagasa of 74.8 cm, a deep koshizori of 2,7 cm, has still some funbari, and ends in an ikubi-like kissaki. The original nagasa must have been somewhere around 82 cm, i.e. the blade was once truly powerful and majestic. The motohaba measures 3.1 and upon closer inspection, it turns out that many ashi go down to the very ha, which means that the blade has lost some substance and was initially even wider than it still is.
The ha is a midareba with many ups and downs and bases on fukura-chōji and kawazu no ko-chōji with high koshi (i.e. the tassels of the chōji only start to form high up in the ha), and with the appearing jūka-chōji, the ha is very flamboyant. Like seen at the previously introduced blades, the ha consists of smaller elements at the base and calms down at the monouchi where it tends to gunome-chō. There are many ashi and yō, the nioiguchi is soft and ko-nie-laden, fine sunagashi and kinsuji appear, and the bōshi is a gently undulating notare-komi bōshi with a brief kaeri, almost tending entirely to yakitsume. The jigane is an excellently forged ko-itame that is mixed with mokume and that features fine ji-nie and a prominent midare-utsuri.
We have here one of the most flamboyant midareba with the most noticeable ups and downs of all signed Mitsutada blades and with its wide mihaba and the abundance of hira-niku, we truly have here the “missing link” to the unsigned blades interpreted like that which have been traditionally attributed to Mitsutada. We also recognize some similarities to the meibutsu Ikoma-Mitsutada shown in picture 8. First of all, the nagasa of the tokubetsu-jūyō is about the same as that of the meibutsu, although the suriage-nakago of the latter is a little bit shorter, measuring 17.9 cm whereas that of the tokubetsu-jūyō measures 20.0 cm. However, this minor length difference of the newly shaped tangs does not correlate to the fact that at the tokubetsu-jūyō the signature is still extant whereas it got lost at the meibutsu.
Now the tokubetsu-jūyō from picture 7 was a former heirloom of the Satake (佐竹) family, the daimyō of the Akita fief (秋田藩). Its signature has lost some “substance” when the new tang was finished but there is the tradition that this was done on purpose in order to disqualify the blade for a potential gift request from the Tokugawa. Also other blades by famous smiths from the former possessions of the Satake family show slightly altered signatures. For example, a Sukekane (助包) whose mei has lost “substance” like here and a Yoshifusa (吉房) and a Kanehira (包平) where the bōhi that runs into the tang was intentionally extended a little so that it erases the left half of each of the signatures.
Excerpt from Gokaden No Tabi (restructured) - Bizen by Tanobe Michihiro
The sword expresses many classical traits associated with Mitsutada’s prime period of activity, notably the flamboyant hamon with kawazu no ko-chōji and the typical height variation of the tempered area that rises from the hamachi upwards in flamboyance before transitioning at the monouchi towards gunome-dominant interpretation. It is of particular interest to our reconciliation efforts that we infer from the position of the ashi that the motohaba was once wider, and thus matching the dimensions of the magnificent mumei archetype. I had the privilege to examine this blade in hand, and I can confirm that it is every bit as impressive as conveyed through written accounts.
The Takamatsu Mitsutada
Another sword to emerge that connected these two styles is a Ko-Gyobutsu, that is to say, a former imperial treasure. It has been elevated to Jūyō Bunkazai as part of the earliest promotion in 1911 and it was once part of a vast collection belonging to the noble Takamatsu-no-miya branch of the imperial family.
Tachi signed Mitsutada, ranked Jūyō Bunkazai. The blade is kept in the custody of the the Tokyo National Museum. Oshigata by Tanobe Michihiro, originally published in Gokaden no tabi Bizen
Keijō: The tachi has a nagasa of 68.5 cm, despite of the suriage a deep koshizori of 2.1 cm, a normal wide mihaba (of 2.7 cm), plenty of niku, and a compact ikubi-like kissaki.
Kitae: The kitae is an excellent and beautifully forged itame that is mixed with mokume and that features ji-nie, fine chikei, and a prominent midare-utsuri.
Hamon: The hamon appears for about 30 cm from the machi as a nie-laden ko-midare-chō that is mixed with smallish kawazu no ko-chōji and prominent sunagashi, kinsuji, nie-suji, yubashiri, and tobiyaki. It then turns into a midareba that bases on a mix of chōji, kawazu no ko-chōji, and gunome which displays many ups and downs but then calms down along the monouchi, featuring lesser ups and downs but a more prominent amount of gunome there. The nioiguchi appears soft all over the blade, is bright and clear, and comes with ashi, yō, and much ko-nie.
Boshi: The bōshi is an only slightly undulating notare-komi with a pointed and brief kaeri.
This Mitsutada tachi is signed in niji-mei and was once owned by the aristocratic Takamatsu-no-miya (高松宮) branch of the Imperial family. Today, it resides in the Tokyo National Museum. Incidentally, the Takamatsu-no-miya family are major figure in the sword world, and sponsors a prize for new artisans called the Takamatsu-no-miya Commemorative Award (高松宮記念賞).
The interpretation of this masterwork is not too wild and of quite a unique character.
Excerpt from Gokaden No Tabi (restructured) - Bizen by Tanobe Michihiro
In terms of deki, the blade displays a hamon composition that shows a florid appearance evoking an interpretation closer to what we associate with Fukuoka Ichimonji masterworks. We clearly see many kawazu no ko-chōji and tobiyaki along with kinsuji, sunagashi, and nie-suji from the lower to the middle section of the blade, with many ups and downs. Interestingly, the upper portion of the sword exhibits less ups and down, less hataraki, and with the heads of the choji and gunome being regularly spaced at a similar height, it reminds us of Nagamitsu. As for the signature period, it is a type D signature, with the Mitsu (光) character sharing some common elements with Nagamitsu’s Mitsu (光). This was probably a joint work, and it is intriguing to think that the unique interpretation of this blade reflect the style of both student and master in different sections of the blade. From here, we can hypothesize that the blade may have been produced before the transition to the Nagamitsu-fū style, in the late middle period of activity. Overall, the sword is a spectacular masterpiece.
The Sagara Mitsutada
The next missing link to explore is a tachi classified as Jūyō Bijutsuhin. Now, this classification requires careful scrutiny as assessment standards were not always up to par. This blade, however, represents a textbook example of the master's work. Without exaggeration, it rivals—even surpasses—many of the Jūyō Bunkazai Mitsutada pieces.
Once treasured by the Sagara clan, a relatively minor but astute family with a remarkable history of survival, this sword was likely kept hidden from more powerful neighbors who would have certainly requisitioned such a masterpiece had they known of its existence.
Studying blades with Jūyō Bijutsuhin designations from the Bunka-chō presents significant challenges. This classification typically lacks both the detailed written descriptions found in certificates and high-quality photographs that would reveal crucial features. We are therefore exceptionally fortunate that a collector in Japan shared this magnificent blade as part of a kantei challenge.
The oshigata reveals a complex and flamboyant expression characteristic of the master's style. The hamon rises gradually until reaching the midpoint, where it peaks in complexity with clearly defined kawazu no ko-chōji and impressive ōbusa-chōji formations reminiscent of the Ikoma Mitsutada. Around the monouchi, we see less height variation and the choji meet at the midpoint, which evokes the style of Nagamitsu. With these factors combined, we find similarities between this masterwork and the Takamatsu Mitsutada. In contrast to the Takamatsu Mitsutada, the lower section of the blade is composed of larger elements, contains less gunome, fewer tobiyaki, and the boshi lacks the sharp kaeri typical of the master.
The nioiguchi is characteristically soft, and while we cannot assess the luster of the jihada based on these types of photographs, we see that it is indeed very fine and in line with the reputation of the master.
As we move up, the angular gunome elements formed in the ha are superseded by large dimensioned choji elements.
As we come closer to the center, we witness a remarkable rise in flamboyance, with large kawazu no ko-chōji bubbling up from the hamon.
At the midpoint, we are in full sight of the sublime flamboyance of Mitsutada. The choji are composed of spectacular kawazuko no ko-chōji and ōbusa-chōji with deep ashi. The nioiguchi is wide and soft.
The signature is preserved at the bottom of the tang and has retained much of its substance. The inclined radicals on the Mitsu (光) character, as well as its foot that shoots upwards and the tracing of the Tada with its extended kick corresponds to Type D (see Figure 3). This is the same signature style as the Takamatsu Mitsutada, and with the similarities between their deki, we can hypothesize that both blades were produced during the same late mature period of artistic activity.
The Sagara Mitsutada is a spectacular masterpiece. It is noteworthy that the hamon is composed of the largest dimensioned elements out of all the missing links, which truly connects the piece with the exuberance of the best mumei types. And alongside the Satake Mitsutada, we can say that these two swords constitute the most compelling evidence in terms of hamon that connects both types.
The Nagamei Mitsutada
It is time to introduce a very special blade, a Gyobutsu, that is to say, it remains Imperial property to this day. The blade bears the only complete long signature by Mitsutada, inscribed as Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada (備前国⻑船光忠). It is the earliest blade currently known which mentions Osafune as a place of production.
By mentioning the province, the village, and the name of the smith, prospective customers had all the information required to make an informed trip. It is likely that the fierce competition with Fukuoka Ichimonji smiths inspired this type of mei innovation. As to what motivated the choice between a short nijimei and the longer, more informative nagamei, we can conjecture that the proximity of the customer played a role. The further away the destination, the less known the name of Mitsutada, and the more useful it would have been for the artist to sign nagamei.
No. 134. Gyobutsu, tachi, mei: Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada (備前国⻑船光忠)
Measurements: Nagasa 2 shaku 3 un 8 bu (~ 71.2 cm) (suriage), sori 7 bu 8 rin (~ 2.35 cm), motohaba 9 bu 6 rin (~ 2.9 cm), sakihaba 6 bu 8 rin (~ 2.05 cm), kissaki-nagasa 1 sun (~ 3.0 cm), nakago-nagasa 7 sun 8 bu (~23.6 cm), nakago-sori 1 bu 2 rin (~ 0.35 cm)
Shape: shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, despite the suriage a relatively deep sori, ikubi-kissaki.
Kitae: very densely forged ko-itame that features ji-nie and towards the mune a prominent midare-utsuri.
Hamon: ko-chōji with an overall clear nioiguchi that is mixed with gunome, many ko-ashi and yō, some nijūba from the monouchi upwards, and with nie and kinsuji in places.
Bōshi: midare-komi with a ko-maru-kaeri and with kinsuji on both sides. Horimono: on both sides a bōhi with soebi of which the bōhi runs as kaki-tōshi through the tang.
Nakago: suriage, kirijiri, slightly curved, katte-sagari yasurime, four mekugi-ana, towards the tip and in the hira-ji of the tang, there is the nagamei
“Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada”
Explanation:
Mitsutada was the ancestor of the Osafune School, but existing signed works of his are extremely rare, with the blade described here probably being the only naga-mei signed work of his in existence. The tachi is featured in the Kōzan Oshigata (光山押形), which means it must have been famous since early times. The blade does not display the flamboyance of ō-suriage works attributed to Mitsutada that are frequently seen. However, it displays the excellently forged jigane that is typical for this smith, and the deki with nie and kinsuji in places matches with other surviving signed tachi of his, and in terms of its bōshi and other elements, the interpretation can be matched with unsigned blades with period attributions to Mitsutada. Thus, the blade is not only a renowned sword, it is also a very important reference for studies on Mitsutada.
Provenance: Presented by the family of Iwasaki Yanosuke (岩崎弥之助, 1851–1908) to Emperor Meiji.
It is interesting to note that the Nagamei Mitsutada was presented by the family of Iwasaki Yanosuke to Emperor Meiji. The Iwasaki were the wealthy founders of the Mitsubishi Zaibatsu, and it is a gift chosen with great intention. The imperial family was traditionally fond of Bizen blades, and especially signed pieces. To bring such a rare treasure to Emperor Meiji, himself an avid sword lover, was a highly tasteful gift. It also goes to show that in the Meiji period, collecting masterpieces was pursued by the most prominent business families of the time. The Iwasaki family’s fondness for Mitsutada blades is perhaps best illustrated by an unfortunate anecdote, which highlights the pitfalls of listening to ill-intentioned experts.
A story is told about a Mitsutada. Baron Iwasaki Koyata, the founder of the Mitsubishi cartel had purchased a blade which had been attributed to Mitsutada. This was in the mid-Meiji era. He went to the Chuo Token Kai sword meeting once with this blade and showed it around to the various so-called experts of the time, like Imamura Choga, Bessho and others and was told that it was a Shinshinto, and a very good fake. Whereupon Iwasaki is said to have given the sword on the spot to an acquaintance of his and the blade was in this man’s hands until about a few years after the end of WWII. The blade when the family sold it found its way into the hands of a famous collector and the blade presently is a national treasure (Kokuhō).
Albert Yamanaka, Nihonto Newsletters
In terms of deki, when comparing the Nagamei Mitsutada with the Takamatsu Mitsutada, Tanobe Michihiro notes the following observations:
It is interesting that the 30 cm of ha (of the Takamatsu Mitsutsada) from the machi are noticeably similar to the ha of the gyobutsu tachi (nagasa 71.2 cm, sori 2.3 cm, motohaba 2.9) that is signed “Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada” (備前国長船光忠). Another factor that should be mentioned in regards to the Gyobutsu is that its ko-itame is even tighter and finer than it is the case with the Takamatsu Mitsutada . The blade features ji-nie and a midare-utsuri but without the latter, the degree of refinement of the jigane would almost make it pass as a Kyō-mono. This trend towards a refined jigane by the way is also seen at the aforementioned unsigned blades that are attributed to Mitsutada.
Excerpt from Gokaden No Tabi Bizen, by Tanobe Michihiro
What is clear from these descriptions is that the supreme jigane of this Gyobutsu aligns with Mitsutada’s greatest attributed mumei works. From the workmanship and the signature, we can hypothesize that this sword was created during the time where Mitsutada was gaining fame and sought to expand the awareness of his forge, that is to say - before the Satake, Sagara, and Takamatsu Mitsutada, but after the ko-choji types of works. While rather unobtrusive in the interpretation of the hamon, it is a masterwork that reconciles the quality of the jigane with the archetypical mumei types of Mitsutada.
The Kan’in Mitsutada
We have here an outstanding masterwork from the prime of Mitsutada's career. A magnificent blade full of lustrous beauty.
—Tanobe Michihiro
Such long nagamei was thought to be unique with a single sword on the record. However, in 1971, a second sword surfaced with a partially remaining nagamei reached Dr. Honma Junji. At the time, it was still the prevailing opinion that Ko-Bizen Mitsutada and Osafune Mitsutada were different smiths, and upon inspection, Honma remarked that certain stylistic elements were reminiscent of the Ko-Bizen smith of the same name. The sword bears the remnant of the long signature “Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada” (備前国長船光忠) with just the character 備 (Bi) and the first radical of 前 (Zen) remaining after the blade was shortened. It is also a Ko-Gyobutsu, or ex-imperial property, and traces its provenance to the noble Kan’in-no-miya (閑院宮家) branch of the imperial family.
In contrast to the Nagamei Mitsutada, its hamon expresses the gorgeous flamboyance with kawazu no ko-chōji that is so typical for Mitsutada’s prime period of activity. For this reason, it can be said that its existence further reinforces the observed continuity between the Nagamei Mitsutada and the archetypical mumei types.
NBHTK setsumei
Mitsutada Tokubetsu-jūyō-tōken at the 6th tokubetsu-jūyō shinsa from March 9, 1978
Measurements: Nagasa 66.9 cm, sori 2.2 cm, motohaba 2.8 cm, sakihaba 2 cm, moto-kasane 0.55 cm, kissaki-nagasa 2.7 cm, nakago-nagasa 15.8 cm, only very little nakago-sori
Description
Keijō: shinogi-zukuri, iori-mune, relatively slender mihaba, compact chū-kissaki, despite the suriage a deep koshizori
Kitae: dense itame that features ji-nie, a little bit of chikei, and a prominent midare-utsuri
Hamon: ko-nie-laden chōji-midare with a wide nioiguchi that is mixed with kawazu no ko-chōji, gunome, tobiyaki, many ashi and yō, and kinsuji
Bōshi: midare-komi with a pointed kaeri Horimono: on both sides a bōhi, on the omote side running as kaki-tōshi through, and on the ura side as kaki-nagashi into the tang
Nakago: suriage, kurijiri, katte-sagari yasurime, two mekugi-ana, remnant on the haki-omote side are at the tip of the tang and towards the ha the character for Bi (備) and the first two strokes of the character for zen (前)
Artisan: Osafune Mitsutada from Bizen province
Era: Mid-Kamakura period
Explanation: It is said that Mitsutada (光忠) was the son of Chikatada (近忠), but as no works exist of the latter, Mitsutada was and is regarded as the de facto ancestor of the Osafune School. Mitsutada is known for making blades with a magnificent sugata and a gorgeous hamon that features kawazu no ko-chōji. Most works that have survived are mumei, and the majority of those that are signed are signed in niji-mei and are, compared to the aforementioned characteristics, in most cases of a sugata of normal dimensions and hardened in narrower/smaller manner.
The gyobutsu that is signed “Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada,” for example, displays a relatively smallish hamon and its signature is very similar to the mei of this blade. This tachi is of a normal sugata, but shows the gorgeous hamon that is typical for Mitsutada and with the pointed midare-komi bōshi, we do recognize similarities between the more unobtrusive and the more flamboyant interpretations of Mitsutada that allow us to assume that both go back to the hand of the same smith. In this sense, this blade is apart from its excellent deki, a very valuable reference.
Nagasa 2.2 shaku, two mekugi-ana, normal mihaba, originally a deep koshizori. The kitae is a ko-itame that features fine chikei, fine ji-nie, and a midare-utsuri. The hamon is a ko-gunome-chō at the base of both sides, and also from the monouchi upwards on the ura side. Along the mid-section of the omote side and from the base upwards of the ura side, the hamon is a large-dimensioned chōji-midare, and above of the base on the omote side, roundish and angular tobiyaki appear. The nioiguchi is overall wide and the hardening is in ko-nie-deki. The bōshi tends a little bit towards midare, has a pointed kaeri on the omote side, and is nie-laden and features kinsuji on both sides. A bōhi is engraved on both sides which run as kaki-tōshi through the tang on the omote side, and as kaki-nagashi into the tang on the ura side. The wide nioiguchi, the ko-nie-based hamon, and the nie-laden bōshi with its pointed kaeri are typical characteristics of Mitsutada (光忠). The deki is partially similar to the gyobutsu tachi that is signed with the naga-mei “Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada” (備前国⻑船光忠). Most of the signed Mitsutada that I have seen bear semblance to Nagamitsu (⻑光), but this blade is different and is fairly close to the style of Ko-Bizen Mitsutada of the same name, which must be pointed out. It is said that this blade was the guntō of Prince Kan’in Haruhito (閑院宮春仁, 1902–1988) (brought by a member).”
Dr. Honma Junji, Kanto Hibisho volume 1
Tanobe sensei sayagaki
Tokubetsu-Jūyō Tōken at the 6th Tokubetsu-Jūyō Shinsa Osafune Mitsutada from Bizen Province.
This blade is suriage, but retains the character for Bi and the upper part of the character for zen at the end of the tang. The writing style of said characters is very close to the only blade in existence, a Gyobutsu, that is signed “Bizen no Kuni Osafune Mitsutada.” Combined with the workmanship of the blade, there is no doubt that the blade described here is a work of Mitsutada as well. What also should be noted is that like in case of the Gyobutsu, the signature is placed in the hira-ji of the tang as the hi extends as kaki-tōshi through the tang as well. Blade length ~ 66.9 cm Written by Tanzan [Tanobe Michihiro] in November in the year of the dragon of this era (2024) + monogram.
The blade is of a normal mihaba and has a deep koshizori and an ikubi-kissaki. It displays a refined and beautiful forging structure in a dense ko-itame that features fine ji-nie and a midare-utsuri. The hamon is a flamboyant chōji-midare in ko-nie-deki with a wide, bright, and clear nioiguchi that is mixed with kawazu no ko-chōji, fukuro-chōji, gunome, many ashi and yō, and with kinsuji. The ha is rich in variety and the nioiguchi varies in an excellent manner as well. This combined with the midare-komi bōshi with its pointed kaeri, it can be said that we have here an outstanding masterwork (kusshi-no-yūhin) from the prime of Mitsutada’s career. A magnificent blade full of lustrous beauty.
Incidentally, Mitsutada’s workmanship ranges from blades that still reflect Ko-Bizen characteristics over interpretations as seen here to a Nagamitsu-like style in his later years.
While the tachi is of normal dimensions, it retains a deep koshizori, and was probably originally around 80 to 85 cm, with the shortening having led to the partial loss of the signature. The blade is crowned with an Ikubi kissaki, and retains a healthy boshi with a sharp kaeri. The sugata differs from the imposing archetype of Mitsutada, in that its motohaba, sakihaba, and kasane are of normal dimensions, but with the ashi not traversing too deep towards the ha, we can say that it has not lost much substance over the last 750 years. Closer inspection reveals that the dimensions almost perfectly match those of the Nagamei Mitsutada in terms of motohaba, sakihaba, and sori.
With the hamon rising gradually before peaking in a spectacular fashion at the mid-section, we recognize an element that is typical of the master.
The Kan’in Mitsutada shares many traits in common with the Gyobutsu, such as an abundance of tobiyaki and the luster of its jihada.
Overall, the work exalts great depth and clarity born from the interplay of its flamboyant hamon, the dark antai, and the shimmering utsuri, and with all elements being tastefully in balance, it can be said that it truly exemplifies the ideal of Kamakura Bizen works.
The florid elements of the hamon are formed with a wide and bright nioiguchi and rich ko-nie, creating ashi and yo, and near the kissaki, fine kinsuji slither in different directions.
The dense ko-itame jihada glitters with exceedingly fine ji-nie like fresh snow under moonlight, and on the basis of its luster, the blade could be mistaken for a work of the Awataguchi school.
As Dr. Honma Junji remarked, the sword shows a certain ancient flair reminiscent of Ko-Bizen, and this impression likely stems from the unaffected quality of the hamon executed with fine ko-nie along with the abundance of tobiyaki. This unaffectedness, or natural form emerging without contrived effort, is a trait shared with other grandmasters of Nihonto and, arguably, of great artists in general.
In his extensive sayagaki, we learn that Tanobe Michihiro was manifestly moved studying the blade. He uses a highly florid and rare language to describe the piece as magnificent and full of lustrous beauty. He goes so far as to write kusshi-no-yūhin, translated here as “outstanding masterwork” but which literally means “countable on fingers masterwork”. This is exceedingly high praise, and he very rarely uses such expressions. In a sample of over 250 sayagaki, kusshi-no-yūhin appears just 11 times. What is almost unimaginable is that it is used here to qualify a work of Mitsutada, which can be understood to mean that this is one of the best extant works of the master.
Seasoned students know that the Tokubetsu Jūyō level has a very long tail of excellence extending well into Jūyō Bunkazai, and arguably all the way to National treasure. This sword, along with the Satake Mitsutada, are likely situated close to the edge of the distribution.
To bear witness to such virtuosity is a peak event in the learning journey, and it is truly a special privilege to present our audience with a state of the art video on the Kan’in Mitsutada.
The Provenance
As for the provenance of the sword, it is no less remarkable. It was once an imperial possession (Gyobutsu), and mounted as a war sword belonging to His Highness Prince Haruhito (閑院宮春仁王, highlighted below by the ‘a’ arrow). Prince Haruhito was the son of Prince Kan’in Kotohito (閑院宮載仁親王, highlighted below by the ‘b’ arrow), one of the most important figures in the history 20th century Imperial Japan, serving as mentor to the Emperor, Field Marshal of the Imperial Guard, and the longest serving Chief of the Army General Staff.
In 1946, Prince Kan’in Haruhito took action to protect the sword from any risk of confiscation by the allies. He placed the sword for safekeeping into the Imperial House Museum, which would later become the Tokyo National Museum. We often hear that Showa 26 (1951) Torokusho are the earliest issued licenses for possession, but this is not accurate. There is an earlier type, when the society was dealing with the chaos of the immediate aftermath of the war and the bureaucratic and legal apparatus had not devised the modern licensing system. The Prince was able to obtain such a license for possession on the 14th of October 1946, five years before the starting date of the new torokusho system. Through no small feat of fate, this document has survived to this day.
In 1961, 1963, and 1964, three swords with Kan’in-no-miya provenance passed Jūyō under different names, and these are some of the only documented treasures to ever lose their status of Gyobutsu. The Kan’in Mitsutada, however, would not surface for another ten years, until 1971, when it was brought to Dr. Honma Junji’s for examination. To give an indication of how rare this is, there are only six blades in the records of the NBHTK marked as former imperial property, whereas we have 749 swords with Daimyo provenance, and of these, 147 with the high-level provenance to the Tokugawa family. Of course, it is important to know that for understandable reasons of social unease, many great treasures originating from the collections of the elite have had their provenance obfuscated to preserve discretion, and hence it is necessary to take this data with a grain of salt. Thanks to the passage of time, unease surrounding provenance has gradually subsided and there is now considerably more openness and interest into reconnecting these treasures with their history.
In the course of research on the provenance of the blade, I discovered that its mounts were still extant. To my surprise, the gunto of Prince Kan’in Haruhito is quite famous in the militaria collector community, and it was at some point examined and photographed by Jim Dawson, a published author from the USA and expert in Japanese military swords.
A well-known Japanese military sword website devotes a page to Prince Kan’in Haruhito’s gunto. There, the anonymous author notes with surprise the poor quality of the wakizashi found inside the gunto Koshirae bearing the Imperial Kamon of the Prince.
The blade inside is an old wakizashi from the Kotō period. As His Highness was a tank officer originating from the cavalry branch, it seems he used a shorter military sword, similar to those used by aviation officers. Compared to the splendid fittings, and considering his position as an imperial general, the blade itself feels somewhat unimpressive. It cannot be ruled out that the original blade might have been sold separately while in the United States and replaced with another wakizashi blade matching the fittings.
With what we know today, it is clear that the poorly fitted wakizashi in gunto mounts is a swap designed to sell a complete package to an unsuspecting militaria collector. Unlike the author’s conjecture, the Kan’in Mitsutada was never in the United States. As such, it’s far more likely that it was separated by someone in Japan who saw no value in the mount and proceeded to sell it as a war relic retrofitted with a poor quality blade to an unsuspecting collector in the USA, and from there, it would become known to Jim Dawson.
The gunto is an early Type 94 and this can be inferred from the curved tsuka, thick tsuba, and a low position of the sarute. These early type 94 koshirae began production in 1934 and were issued specifically to commissioned officers. This particular mount was ordered early on, in 1935, as evidenced by the marking on the tsuba. The kashira bears a finely crafted silver crest of the Kan’in-no-miya family. Such early Type 94 mounts are rare, and were ordered through the officer’s club and custom fitted to the blades provided. For this reason, it is in these early war mounts that we most often find ancient heirloom blades. Owing to the quality of the photography on the Japanese website, we can test the theory that this was indeed the mount of the Kan’in Mitsutada. We know the dimensions, with a total length of 91 cm and a handle length of 23cm, and from here, we can deduct that the length of the saya was approximately 68cm, and with the Kan’in Mitsutada having a nagasa of 67 cm in length, we have a perfect match. Next, we check if the sori of the blade, standing at 2.2cm with its pronounced koshizori typical of the Kamakura period, matches the sori of the Type 94 mounts. Here again, we find a match. As a final check, we can compare the position of the mekugi-ana with the tsuka, and we find that it overlaps perfectly with the top most mekugi-ana of the blade, and with all these elements matching, we can conclude with a high degree of confidence that the Kan’in Mitsutada was the original blade of this Type 94 gunto.
While it may seem surprising, it was not unusual for such highly important treasure blades to be mounted as Gunto. For example, it is well known that admiral Tōgō Heihachirō (東郷 平八郎) was bestowed an important sword by Emperor Meiji, bearing a gakumei to the the famous Ichimonji master Yoshifusa. This important blade was mounted in a Navy admiral mounts, and is still extant today. It has been elevated to Jūyō Bunkazai after the war.
These five remarkable blades—each a masterpiece in its own right—provide the evidence needed to reunite Mitsutada's diverse corpus. With these missing links now in place, we can finally reconstruct a complete picture of his artistic evolution.
Mitsutada’s artistic evolution
The examination of Mitsutada's oeuvre reveals a remarkable artistic journey that spans from his Ko-Bizen roots through various stages of technical and stylistic evolution. The traditional debate about whether the mumei and zaimei types represent different smiths can now be definitively resolved—they are the work of a single master whose style transformed significantly over his long career.
Early Period: Ko-Bizen foundation. Mitsutada's earliest phase is rooted in the Ko-Bizen tradition inherited from his father Chikatada and the Masatsune. Works such as the Tokubetsu Jūyōtachi and the Jūyōkodachi connect this phase of his life with his later period of production. These transitional pieces show classical Ko-Bizen elements—nie-laden suguha-midare, jifu-utsuri, and refined itame—while already hinting at the technical innovations to come. The transitional signature style of the kodachi, which combines Ko-Bizen and Osafune inscription styles, further reinforces the continuity between his early and later period.
Middle Period: Experimental phase. As Mitsutada moved away from the declining Ko-Bizen tradition, he began experimenting with Ichimonji techniques. It is during this time that he produced his most prescient masterwork, the Owari Tokugawa Mitsutada. Beside this blade, his extant work of the period incorporate elements typical of the Ko-Ichimonji tradition. The recently surfaced Tokubetsu Hozon blade alongside the Jūyōtachi formerly offered on Yuhindo.com capture well this experimental ko-ichimonji phase, showing a rather unobtrusive ko-choji based hamon without the kawazu no ko-chōji that would later become his hallmark.
Prime Period: Artistic maturity. Mitsutada’s artistic maturity peaked, and during this time he produced some of the greatest masterworks in the history of Nihonto, such as the two Kokuhō with kinzogan mei by the Hon’ami family. Today, most of these blades are mumei, except for the five missing links—the Satake, Takamatsu, Sagara, Nagamei, and the partially signed Kan'in Mitsutada. These five swords bridge the gap between the zaimei works and the magnificent mumei types across different traits. The Nagamei Mitsutada, with its supremely refined jigane yet unobtrusive hamon, captures the point in time where Mitsutada's reputation was growing. The Kan’in Mitsutada combines the shape and jigane of the Nagamei Mitsutada with the flamboyance typical of the mumei works. The Takamatsu Mitsutada blends together the student and the master’s interpretation of the hamon. The Sagara mitsutada expresses a flamboyance composed of the largest dimensioned elements that we observe in the best mumei blades. The Satake Mitsutada reconciles both the flamboyance of the hamon with wide mihaba so typical of mumei masterworks such as the Ikoma Mitsutada. While speculative, the sequence of production for the missing links may begin with the Nagamei and Kan’in, followed by the Satake, Sagara, and Takamatsu Mitsutada, based on their signature styles and deki.
Late Period: Legacy integration. It is during this phase that his son and student Nagamitsu became a master in his own right and took on a more active direction. Mitsutada’s qualities as a mentor cannot be overstated, he laid a solid foundation for the Osafune for generations to come. The Condell Mitsutada that was found in the USA is a prime example of this late phase, and at first glance, the blade appears to be a masterwork of Nagamitsu’s archetypical style. These works show evidence of collaboration with his son Nagamitsu, featuring a hamon interpretation that prefigures the next generation's archetypical style and a Mitsu (光) character that appear similar to the strokes of Nagamitsu’s mei.
Analyzing signature evolution, workmanship characteristics, and technical details puts forth a compelling case for the unity of Mitsutada's oeuvre. In reconciling all phases of Mitsutada's work—from Ko-Bizen roots through Ichimonji experimentation to his mature flamboyant style and late collaborative period—we gain insight into the journey of one of Nihonto’s greatest artists. It can be said without exaggeration that Mitsutada's ability to synthesize the refined jigane of his Ko-Bizen heritage with the artistic boldness of the Ichimonji tradition created a new standard of excellence that would come to define the peak of the Kamakura Bizen tradition.
Masamune is ice, Mitsutada is fire
So, in the end, who was ultimately correct —Oda Nobunaga or Toyotomi Hideyoshi?
Comparing Masamune to Mitsutada is like comparing Michelangelo to Bernini. Each master achieved the pinnacle of their tradition. Where Michelangelo carved with restraint to reveal the divine spirit already present in marble, Bernini sculpted with theatrical brilliance to make stone dance with impossible life.
In their search to create magnificent works of steel, Masamune and Mitsutada employed a radically different approach. The beauty of Masamune’s work lies in the complex interplay of sublimely brilliant nie that evokes a snowstorm over a wild sea painted in sumi-e ink, whereas Mitsutada’s search for the sublime finds its form as rising flames of ethereal ko-nie that dance over the dark antei, and reminds us of wildfire raging under the moonlight.
A snowstorm over the ocean painted in sumi-e ink
Wildfire raging under the moonlight
The fundamental difference in their aesthetic approaches to perfection is evident, making it challenging to compare the two masters without falling into excessive subjectivity. However, we can analyze how they were valued. We can even go a step further, and trace how appreciation for each master evolved through the centuries using published data. The answer reveals as much about changing cultural values as it does about the enduring qualities of their creations.
Appreciation through the ages
Modern assessments provide our starting point. Fujishiro's ratings offer limited insight since both smiths predictably achieve his highest Sai-jō Saku designation—we simply hit the ceiling of his scale. Dr. Tokuno's data proves more illuminating, drawn from actual transaction records within the Japanese collecting community. In his first edition, Mitsutada commanded 3,000 yen, exceeded only by the Heian period Ko-Bizen master Tomonari, and rising to 3,500 yen in the second edition. Masamune began at 2,500 yen, then climbed to 3,800 yen in the second edition, achieving the book's highest valuation.
These figures, however, need to be interpreted carefully. They are derived from normalized market transactions based on extremely small sample sizes—inevitable given how rarely authentic works by either smith appear on the market. Fluctuating baseline demand and variations in quality, condition, and production period further complicate any direct comparison. The most reasonable conclusion is that by the turn of the millennium, both smiths commanded essentially equivalent status among elite collectors—a surprising fact given Masamune's much larger footprint in popular culture.
Dr. Tokuno’s ratings reveal only a brief snapshot of history. Comparing period data to modern designations allow us to go deeper and analyze comparative status across the Edo and Modern periods, and this is where far more intriguing patterns emerge.
During the feudal period, the Hon'ami family served as official sword polishers and appraisers. They issued origami, folded paper certificates that functioned as both authentication documents and valuation reports. These valuations, expressed in Oban (Mai) or strings or ten thousand copper coins (Kan), were essential for ceremonial sword exchanges among the elite. Analysis of 111 surviving origami for Sōshū and Bizen blades aggregated over the years reveals fascinating patterns in historical appreciation.
Hon’ami Kōyu origami. for a sword attributed to Masamune and valued at 500 mai. This is equivalent to 82.5 kg of pure gold (165 gr per Oban), worth 7 million dollars at the time of the writing of this article.
While Sōshū blades commanded higher average valuations during the Edo period—reflecting the Shogunate's well-documented preference for Sōshū-den —a striking pattern emerges when comparing historical valuations with modern designations. Bizen blades require significantly lower Edo-period valuations to achieve elite modern status compared to their Sōshū counterparts (Figure 10). This pattern suggests a shift in appreciation between the Edo period Hon’ami family, and the Bunka-chō/NBHTK in the present day.
Figure 10: Origami valuation comparison between Bizen and Sōshū during Edo by the reliable and prolific appraisers Hon’ami Kochu and Hon’ami Kojo. Note the conversion 20:1 is approximative, and suggested by Dr. Tokuno.
The data reveals remarkable insights about Mitsutada's modern standing. Despite having fewer Kokuhō designations than Masamune (3 versus 9), Mitsutada's extant corpus shows a higher proportion of blades classified above Jūyō level (137% versus 98.2%). With only 65 verified surviving blades compared to Masamune's 89, Mitsutada appears even rarer (Figure 11). However, approximately one-third of Masamune attributions carry varying degrees of uncertainty reported in the setsumei, often suggesting alternative makers like Shizu or Sadamune as more probable. When accounting for these uncertainties, the corpus of confidently attributed blades becomes roughly comparable between the two masters.
Figure 11: Counts of designations and nakago status between Masamune and Mitsutada. Note that there are certainly more undesignated blades that are not known to me. The data combined NBHTK records, the Imperial collection catalogue, the Ministry of Culture designated blades, and undesignated swords presented in the Token Bijutsu Magazine.
The critical difference lies in attribution reliability. Masamune left only two signed works (or three, depending on who you ask), creating uncertainty about what constitutes authentic Masamune workmanship. Mitsutada, by contrast, left 33 signed blades—providing scholars with a far more substantive foundation for understanding his authentic style and evolution.
Provenance analysis offers another lens for assessing historical appreciation. During the Edo period, exceptional blades migrated upward through Japan's power hierarchy, often through "requests" that Daimyō could hardly refuse. The Tokugawa's aggressive accumulation is evident: 19 Masamune blades show direct Tokugawa provenance, compared to 56 total blades with a published record of ownership (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Provenance of Masamune blades with major families organized in order of their fiefdom koku value (presented in parenthesis). Note that these values have changed through the centuries, and shown here are late Edo period values.
As for Mitsutada, the Imperial House leads with five blades (Figure 13), closely followed by the Tokugawa—a pattern reflecting the Imperial family's traditional preference for Bizen-den over Sōshū-den, perhaps influenced by the latter's association with the Kamakura shogunate that had usurped imperial authority.
Figure 13: provenance of Mitsutada blades with major families organized in order of their fiefdom koku value (presented in parenthesis). Note that these values have changed through the centuries, and shown here are late Edo period values.
This historical context illuminates the shifts in sword appreciation. During the Edo period, Masamune reigned supreme under the Tokugawa influence inherited from Toyotomi Hideyoshi and commanded extraordinary valuations. The Imperial House, however, maintained its traditional preference for Bizen masters, and with the Meiji Restoration returning the Emperor to prominence, appreciation patterns may have shifted accordingly—away from Hideyoshi's Sōshū-den obsession and toward renewed admiration for Bizen-den.
Today, this transformation is manifest in the exceptional number of elite designations awarded to Mitsutada's oeuvre. What emerges is not just the story of one master superseding another, but rather a combination of political power, cultural influence by the elite, and evolving connoisseurship. Mitsutada's current elevation as peer to Masamune reflects both the intrinsic quality of his work and the restoration of aesthetic values that predate the reign of the Tokugawa.
Conclusion
Mitsutada’s exceptional talent as a teacher ensured the Osafune School’s prosperity for generations. The foundations he laid led to the birth of the most prolific and enduring school of Japanese sword-making history. His son Nagamitsu, grandson Kagemitsu, and great-grandson Kanemitsu carried forward his technical innovations and artistic vision, each adding their own brilliance to a lineage that would dominate Bizen production for three and a half centuries.
In the end, the divine summons that never came for Mitsutada's father Chikatada would be answered in full by his son—not through invitation to Go-Toba's court, but through works so sublime that centuries later, the Imperial House itself would come to cherish Mitsutada's creations above those of the Goban-Kaji.
This study draws primarily from Tanobe Michihiro's comprehensive work, Nihonto Gokaden no Tabi: Bizen Den (日本刀五ヶ伝の旅備前伝), which provides the foundational framework for understanding Mitsutada's oeuvre.
I extend my sincere gratitude to the private collectors in Europe and Japan who generously permitted the reproduction of images and documentation from their collections for educational purposes. Their cooperation has been invaluable.
I extend my gratitude to Michael Spasov for his valuable feedback and thorough peer review. To Jussi Ekholm, thank you for generously sharing your invaluable data and references. To Markus Sesko, thank you for your expertise in translation and editing. To Ted Tenold, thank you for providing the pictures from Yuhindo, reproduced here with permission. To Ohira-san, thank you for your outstanding videography. To Tanobe Michihiro, thank you for your leading role in advancing the field and for generously sharing your passion for and knowledge of the Japanese Sword. To my friend and mentor Darcy Brockbank, thank you for teaching me how to learn in this field.
This article is intended to be a living document, and as more quality material regarding the master becomes available, I will endeavor to integrate them in the article and adjust the narrative accordingly.
Agency for Cultural Affairs. (2024). Database of National Cultural Properties [Kokushitei bunkazai dētabēsu]. Japanese Government. https://kunishitei.bunka.go.jp/
Honma, J. (1936). Kokuhō Tōken Zufu [Catalog of National Treasure Swords].
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (1977). Jūyō Bunkazai 27: Kōgeihin IV [Important Cultural Properties 27: Crafts IV]. Japanese Government.
Books and Monographs:
Honma, J. (1974). Kantō Hibishō [Appraisal diary].
Seishōsha. (1985). Nihontō Jūyō Bijutsuhin Zenshū [Complete collection of Japanese swords designated as Important Art Objects] (Vols. 1-8). Seishōsha.
Tanobe, M. (n.d.). Nihonto Gokaden no Tabi: Bizen Den [The journey through the five traditions of Japanese sword making: Bizen school]. Menome.
Sato, & Numata. (1958). Gyobutsu Tōhaku Meitō Oshigata [Oshigata of famous swords of the Imperial properties of the Tokyo Museum].
Serial Publications:
Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai. (1958-present). Jūyō Token Nado Zufu [Important swords and related items illustrated catalog]. NBTHK.
Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai. (1971-present). Tokubetsu Jūyō Token Nado Zufu [Special important swords and related items illustrated catalog]. NBTHK.
Nihon Bijutsu Token Hozon Kyokai. (1979-1993). Token Bijutsu: Journal of the Japanese Sword Museum (English ed., Vols. 1-59). NBTHK.
Yamanaka, A. (1994). Nihonto newsletter (P. Allman, Comp.; Vols. 1-4). Japanese Sword Society of the United States. (Original work published 1968-1972)
