Tsushima no Kami Tachibana Tsunemitsu bore the surname Hioki and is said to have used the common name Ichinojo, later styling himself Saburozaemon. Born in 'ei 3 (1626) in Gamo District of Omi Province, he belonged to the Ishido lineage of swordsmiths. According to the prevailing view, he relocated from Omi to together with such makers as Dewa no Kami Mitsuhira and no Kami Munehiro; however, the more persuasive theory holds that Mitsuhira and the other Ishido smiths first went up from Omi to Kyoto and only thereafter went down to , as evidenced by swords inscribed at "Heianjō." Tsunemitsu has traditionally been regarded as Mitsuhira's elder brother, but back-calculation from dated works reveals that Mitsuhira was six years older, and the fact that Tsunemitsu adopted the Tachibana clan name while Mitsuhira styled himself Minamoto further casts doubt on the sibling theory. Whatever the precise family relationship, Tsunemitsu, together with Mitsuhira, stands as a representative smith of the Ishido group.
Tsunemitsu's technical hallmark is his flamboyant , executed with a range and vitality that some works recall the atmosphere of old masterpieces. His is tightly forged mixed with and , bearing very fine and conspicuous -- a reflection effect that rises vividly in his best pieces. Upon this ground he sets a of incorporating large , round-headed , small , with overlapping double blossoms, -, and ; and enter in profusion, the tends toward tightness and is bright, and fine and intermittent appear. In places the rises so far as to reach the , a bold characteristic that heightens the sense of grandeur. The overall effect is brilliant and showy, with marked height variation in the temper producing a dynamic, large-scale pattern. His typically enters in and turns back in .
Across his oeuvre, Tsunemitsu's finest display an especially florid that surpasses his usual works, with the decorative interplay of and yielding an expansive, masterful pattern. His likewise demonstrate excellent form and workmanship aimed squarely at the manner in which his lineage particularly excelled. Some works bear the title Tsushima no Jo, which has prompted scholarly debate about a possible "second generation," though the overall tone of inscription and chisel use share points in common with his Tsushima no Kami signatures. Dated works such as those of 1 (1661) and Enpo 9 (1681) are of great documentary value, and the question of generational succession must await further evidence.