Geraint

Dear Daniel. Welcome to NMB. As I am sure you already know famous swordsmiths are a target for gimei signatures. Fortunately certain smiths or schools adopted distinctive styles of cutting mei, the Yokoyama are a particularly distinctive school in this regard. It is therefore relatively easy to find papered examples of this smith's signature and to make comparisons. Bear in mind that you are looking at several things; the shape of the nakago, the position of the mei in relation to the nakago and the mekugi ana, yasurime and nakago jiri. With those things in mind compare your sword with examples such as this, https://nihontocraft.com/Yokoyama_Sukenaga_Wakizashi.htm Remember that a sword which is gimei is not necessarily a poor blade. If you wish to pursue studies of Yokoyama school then might I suggest as a starting point this book, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Cutting-Edge-Japanese-Swords-British-Museum/31809028143/bd I belive one of the JSS/USArt and the Sword volumes is also useful in this regard. All the best.

Dear Steve. A handachi mounted sword the blade signed Tadamitsu saku. Tsuba is upside down. All the best.

Dear Steve. Harimono, horimono, horrormono, the carving is bad whatever you call it. Bonji on one side, easy to look up, not always easy to match. You have of course noted the peculiar sugata, unusually wide shinogi on one side, almost as if someone intended to add that wide horimono.......... Mei looks like it is trying to be Kanekado, theway the kanji are chased looks pretty weak, compare here, https://nihontoantiques.com/project/seki-kanekado-fss-904-katana Others may have a different take but I am suspecting a sword tarted up for export to the gaijin. All the best.

Dear Steve. Not to rain on your parade but the habaki is of a type called ganseki, illustrated here along with several other styles. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/habaki.html All the best.

Dear Burt. Your photography is really good, I wish I could capture some of these features. The diagram you show is very dated and indeed even in this one the dotted line for slag inclusions points to the gourd shaped darker area. Slag inclusions typically show as a dark spot or area, not ridges.The marks on your blade are mukade shinae, often caused by having a bent sword straightened. Just to add to what Sam has suggested, polishers usually place a demarcation like the one in the red box at the point where the kaeri or return of the hamon in the kissaki, meets the mune. If you follow the line of the boshi you may see this. Much more detailed information about flaws,9 and indeed so much more that might be of use to you on this site), here, http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/flaws.html There is so much to learn and so much to see, that's partly why this study is so fascinating! Enjoy the journey. (I see that Sam beat me to it!) All the best

Dear Jusyn. I am wondering if the treatment suggest mist partially obscuring the Torii and temple. (I am having trouble with the angle of the torii, visually I find it disturbing!) All the best.

Dear Catalin. This appears to be a bonji horimono, have a look here and you might find it, https://swordsofjapan.com/nihonto-library/Japanese-bonji/ This would originally have been carved on the blade above the habaki and so its presence here suggest a sword which is suriage/shortened. The presence of two mekugi ana at his point suggests that it has been shortened quite a lot. A picture of the whole blade without the habaki might help us here. So far this looks like an original piece but the condition of the blade really matters so photographs please? All the best.

And the menuki are tsurugi or ken. Here with a dragon,https://www.ricecracker.com/inventory/896_menuki_ken_dragon/896_menuki_ken_dragon.html All the best.

Dear Burt. To summarise somewhat. This is a very nice sword, the thick seppa/washers and the pierced tsuba/guard as well as some other features are probably what lead your friend to tell you it was 1934, there is a quality about these mounts which not all Shingunto have. The original label called it a tachi because of the fact that the mei/signature is on the side usually called tachi mei, most katana are signed on the other side of the tang. Now as Chandler has already said this is a distinctive feature of the Hizen school who tended to sign tachi mei on katana, it would not mean that the sword was a tachi though from a dealer point of view it might be nice to describe it as such. Dating it to Shinshinto or late Edo period is understandable but in this case wrong I think. Have a look at this thread, particularly about 11 posts down where Morita san has posted an oshigata that matches well with yours. This does suggest that this smith was known for forging gendato, traditionally forged swords as opposed to Showato which are not traditionally forged. To my eye and from your photographs your sword does look interesting and I wouldn't be surprised if it does turn out to be gendaito which puts it into a whole other bracket. Go slow, don't do anything more than wipe the blade surface with some very light oil and get in touch with a local sword club who can examine the sword in hand and tell you more. There is a ton to learn and a never ending mine of information to assimilate but the journey is fun. All the best. All the best.

Dear Pawel. All depends. You have an offer of $1500 which is about £1100, that's certainly within the right realm for what it is right now. If on the other hand you are thinking of importing this then that might add to your difficulties/costs. The next question is what are you going to do with it? Do you want to have it polished and put in shirasaya? If so the costs/ time/ difficulty rise quite a bit. Generally Fujiwara Takada blades are not thought highly of so I doubt that financially you would get your money back but most of us don't collect with that in mind and the joy of restoring a blade might be your reward. If you want to own it as an interesting example and keep is essentially as it is but with some care then it's an interesting proposition. I would be concerned that it only has the one seppa, carelessly lost or have the mounts been altered? It might be possible to replace seppa but you would need to know that the blade and mounts will accept this. I do appreciate that I have raised more questions than I have answered but in the end it is your call. Do let us know how it turns out. All the best.

Welcome to NMB Martin. Point 1 Don't poliosh anything! I assume that you know not to touch the blade with bare hands, just a little light oil on this, very thin coat. So far this looks like a nice example and, depending on what the nakago/tang reveals, by a smith who commands some interest. Do you know how to disassemble the sword? If so then a good shot of the tang/nakago would be interesting. Next question, is the tsuba/guard pierced? Depending on where you are there may be some members not too far away who would be happy yo tell you more with the sword in hand. All the best.

Dear Minh. For some detail on kazu uchimono see here, https://nihonto.com/a-brief-study-of-bizen-blades-of-the-muromachi-era/ To gain more insight you are ging to need to do some seriou study, asking for opinions here is fine but as Jacques intimated we are going from photographs that are moderately good but don't reveal everything, the boshi for example. You have the lead that, in general swords from this time and province with this mei are considered as kazu uchi mono so what does that mean for the chance of TH? What about this sword leads you to believe that it has a chance of going to TH? Given that it is Sue Bizen with the classic mei and nothing more it has papered as a genuine sword, is there something that leads you to think that is has been underestimated by the Japanese seller? If there is something to be gained by having it at TH level why didn't the Japanese seller take it further? What do you think about the slightly loose forging evident in the last photograph? Just some questions for you to think about. All the best.

And just a minor correction, the mei is, 'Bishu Osafune Sukesada'. All the best.

Dear Minh. The date on the nakago is Tensho as Steve has pointed out. Nihonto club is a useful resource but not comprehensive, Hawleys lists several smiths signing this way working between 1350 and 1573. It is not reasonable to jump to a date based on Nihonto club which contradicts the mei on your sword, rather more likely to be one of the other smiths working in the Tensho period. Enjoy your sword and your research. All the best.

Dear Kyle. Obviously you will do your own research on this one and others will express opinions but at first glance this does not have the 'handwriting' of the school. As you look at examples you will note a particular style of cutting which is distinctive and I imagine hard to copy well. All the best.