Iesuke is a Bizen Osafune smith of the Hatakeda line whose dated tachi run across the Ōei era of the early Muromachi period, and whom the published sources name, beside Morimitsu, Yasumitsu and Tsuneie, as one of the representative swordsmiths of Ōei-Bizen[[c:1]]. The earliest dated work on record is a quiet tachi of Ōei 3 (1396); the bolder pieces commonly seen carry dates from the teens and twenties of the era, one signed tachi of Ōei 19 reaching Tokubetsu Jūyō. His name and his line are themselves a problem the sources set out plainly. The reference works trace a first generation to a son of Hatakeda Moriie about the Bun'ei era, yet among examined blades none predate the Nanbokuchō, the oldest read as Bunwa-era work; the surviving generations are therefore taken as one continuous Hatakeda hand rather than separated with confidence, the question of whether the early Ōei 3 tachi is a predecessor or an early work of the same man left open for further study.

His characteristic hand is the Ōei-Bizen midare. Over an itame that tends overall to stand a little, mixed in places with ko-itame, mokume and flowing nagare-hada, the steel carries ji-nie and chikei, and across it rises a bō-utsuri or a clear midare-utsuri, the bar-like reflection the published sources single out as one mark of Ōei-Bizen. The temper is a gunome that opens broadly at the valley, the koshi-biraki gunome the sources name as common to the Ōei masters, mixed with chōji, ko-chōji and pointed togariba, at times a small notare. Ashi and yō enter frequently, the construction is nioi-based with a ko-nie feeling, and in the lower half sunagashi and kinsuji run through the temper. The bōshi turns back in a midare-komi with a pointed feeling, sometimes a ko-maru, now and then with tobiyaki toward the point.

The jigane is the feature by which the judges set him a step apart from the leading Ōei names. They find his forging tending a touch more toward standing grain and his nioiguchi a touch tighter, at times a little subdued, yet they grant that in technical terms his best blades are "in no way inferior"[[c:2]] to Morimitsu and Yasumitsu. The ji of his finest pieces is well-refined and moist, with ji-nie, chikei and midare-utsuri, and the work within the temper is its real strength; of the Tokubetsu Jūyō tachi the published commentary writes that "the activity within the temper of this tachi is especially splendid."[[c:3]] Devotional and practical carving recur in the form of bō-hi, with tsure-hi or soe-hi on the shortened attributions and bonji cut into the shinogi-ji of one signed uchigatana.

The published sources draw his work into two registers explicitly. Beside the typical Ōei-Bizen midare they set "a somewhat calmer, suguha-toned hamon,"[[c:4]] a chū-suguha mixed with ko-gunome over a tightened, flowing itame with ji-nie, chikei and a faint utsuri, the nioiguchi tight with nie and sunagashi, the bōshi straight to a ko-maru with hakikake at the tip. His surviving blades divide between the ubu, signed and dated tachi and the ō-suriage mumei katana later attributed to him, several of which had passed under other names before being read by period and manner as his late-Nanbokuchō-to-Ōei work; one such blade, once appraised as Sanemori, was returned to him.

What sets the Hatakeda Iesuke apart is exactly what the judges name. His koshi-biraki gunome and bō-utsuri mark his typical midare as Ōei-Bizen rather than mid-Kamakura work, and his standing itame and tightened, subdued nioiguchi set him beside Morimitsu and Yasumitsu yet a little apart from them; the published sources liken one of his finest dated katana to Osafune Masamitsu[[c:5]] in its standing itame, mottled ji and shallow ko-notare mixed with open-valley gunome. He stands at the Kozori periphery of late Osafune, and the sources judge that, although his name is less widely known than the leading Ōei smiths', works such as his best tachi show he "deserves to be evaluated more highly."[[c:6]]

For the collector he is a documentary name rather than a household one. Fujishiro grades him Chū-jō saku. He has no National Treasures; his record reaches instead the Important Cultural Property rank, with two signed, dated tachi designated, and the Tokubetsu Jūyō and Jūyō tiers above the wider research record. His blades are preserved in collections grounded in their own provenance, the Ōei 19 tachi held by the Hayashibara Museum of Art and transmitted through the Kaga Maeda house, one Important Cultural Property at Kasuga Taisha, and a shortened katana that was the battlefield sword of Ikeda Katsunyū before later owners had it cut down. Only a small number fall in the Tokubetsu Jūyō and Jūyō tiers, and these are largely held rather than traded, so a signed and dated Hatakeda Iesuke comes to market only seldom and from time to time; the published sources call such a blade "of high value as reference material,"[[c:7]] a well-forged document of how Bizen forging carried itself into the Ōei revival.

Iesuke is a Bizen Osafune smith of the Hatakeda line whose dated tachi run across the Ōei era of the early Muromachi period, and whom the published sources name, beside Morimitsu, Yasumitsu and Tsuneie, as one of the representative swordsmiths of Ōei-Bizen[[c:1]]. The earliest dated work on record is a quiet tachi of Ōei 3 (1396); the bolder pieces commonly seen carry dates from the teens and twenties of the era, one signed tachi of Ōei 19 reaching Tokubetsu Jūyō. His name and his line are themselves a problem the sources set out plainly. The reference works trace a first generation to a son of Hatakeda Moriie about the Bun'ei era, yet among examined blades none predate the Nanbokuchō, the oldest read as Bunwa-era work; the surviving generations are therefore taken as one continuous Hatakeda hand rather than separated with confidence, the question of whether the early Ōei 3 tachi is a predecessor or an early work of the same man left open for further study.

His characteristic hand is the Ōei-Bizen midare. Over an itame that tends overall to stand a little, mixed in places with ko-itame, mokume and flowing nagare-hada, the steel carries ji-nie and chikei, and across it rises a bō-utsuri or a clear midare-utsuri, the bar-like reflection the published sources single out as one mark of Ōei-Bizen. The temper is a gunome that opens broadly at the valley, the koshi-biraki gunome the sources name as common to the Ōei masters, mixed with chōji, ko-chōji and pointed togariba, at times a small notare. Ashi and yō enter frequently, the construction is nioi-based with a ko-nie feeling, and in the lower half sunagashi and kinsuji run through the temper. The bōshi turns back in a midare-komi with a pointed feeling, sometimes a ko-maru, now and then with tobiyaki toward the point.

The jigane is the feature by which the judges set him a step apart from the leading Ōei names. They find his forging tending a touch more toward standing grain and his nioiguchi a touch tighter, at times a little subdued, yet they grant that in technical terms his best blades are "in no way inferior"[[c:2]] to Morimitsu and Yasumitsu. The ji of his finest pieces is well-refined and moist, with ji-nie, chikei and midare-utsuri, and the work within the temper is its real strength; of the Tokubetsu Jūyō tachi the published commentary writes that "the activity within the temper of this tachi is especially splendid."[[c:3]] Devotional and practical carving recur in the form of bō-hi, with tsure-hi or soe-hi on the shortened attributions and bonji cut into the shinogi-ji of one signed uchigatana.

The published sources draw his work into two registers explicitly. Beside the typical Ōei-Bizen midare they set "a somewhat calmer, suguha-toned hamon,"[[c:4]] a chū-suguha mixed with ko-gunome over a tightened, flowing itame with ji-nie, chikei and a faint utsuri, the nioiguchi tight with nie and sunagashi, the bōshi straight to a ko-maru with hakikake at the tip. His surviving blades divide between the ubu, signed and dated tachi and the ō-suriage mumei katana later attributed to him, several of which had passed under other names before being read by period and manner as his late-Nanbokuchō-to-Ōei work; one such blade, once appraised as Sanemori, was returned to him.

What sets the Hatakeda Iesuke apart is exactly what the judges name. His koshi-biraki gunome and bō-utsuri mark his typical midare as Ōei-Bizen rather than mid-Kamakura work, and his standing itame and tightened, subdued nioiguchi set him beside Morimitsu and Yasumitsu yet a little apart from them; the published sources liken one of his finest dated katana to Osafune Masamitsu[[c:5]] in its standing itame, mottled ji and shallow ko-notare mixed with open-valley gunome. He stands at the Kozori periphery of late Osafune, and the sources judge that, although his name is less widely known than the leading Ōei smiths', works such as his best tachi show he "deserves to be evaluated more highly."[[c:6]]

For the collector he is a documentary name rather than a household one. Fujishiro grades him Chū-jō saku. He has no National Treasures; his record reaches instead the Important Cultural Property rank, with two signed, dated tachi designated, and the Tokubetsu Jūyō and Jūyō tiers above the wider research record. His blades are preserved in collections grounded in their own provenance, the Ōei 19 tachi held by the Hayashibara Museum of Art and transmitted through the Kaga Maeda house, one Important Cultural Property at Kasuga Taisha, and a shortened katana that was the battlefield sword of Ikeda Katsunyū before later owners had it cut down. Only a small number fall in the Tokubetsu Jūyō and Jūyō tiers, and these are largely held rather than traded, so a signed and dated Hatakeda Iesuke comes to market only seldom and from time to time; the published sources call such a blade "of high value as reference material,"[[c:7]] a well-forged document of how Bizen forging carried itself into the Ōei revival.