Archived Nihonto.ca (Yuhindo.com): Daido

Daido

Shodai Daido was a smith working in the Mino tradition, and achieved the title of Mutsu no Kami in 1574. His work period dates to the transition years in the Keicho era where Koto gave way to Shinto. His history states that he was the personal swordsmith to Oda Nobunaga who employed smiths of the Mino tradition (the rise of his armies contributed to the spread of the Mino style throughout Japan, and its large contribution to what would become the Shinto style). He reportedly moved to Kyoto with his sons Iga no Kami Kanemichi (Jo-saku), Rai Kinmichi (Jo-saku), Tanba no Kami Yoshimichi (Jo-saku), and Etchu no Kami Masatoshi (Jo-jo saku) making swords for Nobunaga. They would become the Kyoto Gokaji, or the Five Swordsmiths of Kyoto.

All of them have sharpness ratings of at least wazamono, so they made blades well in keeping of the warrior tradition of Mino, and from the success and fame of his sons it would seem that Daido was a very good teacher.

Daido began his career with the name of Kanemichi, which explains the names of several of his sons. He was granted the “O” character 大from emperor Ogimachi. After using the name O-Kanemichi, he later changed to “Daido”, using the alternate reading of the 大 character. Fujishiro seems to interpret the two signatures as two different smiths, though he records this story under Kanemichi. Kanemichi is dated to 1558 (Eiroku) and listed at Chu-jo Saku and Daido to 1596 (Keicho) at Jo-saku so there was an improvement in skill over time.

This tanto dates from the very last days of the Koto period. The hamon is a gunome midare featuring ashi, yo, and some sunagashi and inazuma near the boshi. It is probably taking inspiration from the founder of the Mino den, Shizu Kaneushi.

The kaeri is long, and the sugata reminds one of Nambokucho work due to the sori. The curvature being mostly sakizori dates it, and at this time in the momoyama period much inspiration was being taken from the smiths of the Nambokucho which is clearly reflected here.

The jigane is mostly mokume, and there are no flaws other than a small cluster of old pitting. The sword is nicely polished sashikomi style.

The papers have been issued by Kotoken Kajiwara, a well known sword polisher of good reputation. His opinion carries some authority, though not as high as Fujishiro sensei or the NBTHK. I have not examined any Daido blades myself, but I think the period is clear from the sugata and correct, and that the blade is Mino of high skill and so see nothing to argue against his kantei. I want to state though that if the blade is submitted to the NBTHK, there is a possibility that the attribution could change up or down.