Rivkin

Specific list where I think descriptions are significantly diverging from what I believe to be the right description? It would be a rather large one, and the end result would still be "no, I don't think so, yes I think so" and back to square one - my opinion very often diverges significantly from the one expressed by the site. I can even assume in some cases it is the site description which is correct, and I am not. It is what it is.

If a Ford dealer said - well, in truth, Honda has fewer breakdowns and our service hours are twice as expensive, but we have higher fuel consumption - he probably wouldn't be successful in selling If a seller doesn't include misleading information, but emphasizes sales arguments in a positive light, then he is just applying the right sales strategy Yeap. To me, there is a way dealer's descriptions are written, the rule of the genre. It is seldom the right place to wonder out loud if "jutetsu" is real or ponder if XVIth century Tulwar does have a chance to come out as XVIIth century one. Buying or selling, sometimes its just hard to be truly cynical and skeptical. Ciceron "On honor" re: why one should not sell antiques. But then his solution was to teach a slave to sell them. Then someone forwards the description and asks if its really XVIth century. And then I wonder if I am being overly skeptical when responding simply because I want to feel superior to "those dealers who say things that suit them"... Can't trust people who suggest dealer's description "is wrong and self-serving". Can't trust dealer's descriptions either. Can't trust myself, this one I learned many times. Unfortunately the only way to make really good money in antique business is to catch a wave. In 2000s it was Gulf, Russians, to an extent Chinese. Were these collectors educated? Back then nobody was in the respective fields. Often big trades and investments happen when the field is young and emotions are high. Then comes the knowledge, except now there is little to buy, most of the great mysteries are solved and you've seen most of the things to be seen. No, I would not rate the top 1% collectors in most fields as top 1% educated. "institutional" investors who believe in forced diversification of their portfolio and buy antiques as outliers because of their reduced correlation with stocks/property. The dream of every antique dealer since they buy the most expensive items in what they believe to be a growing valuation field.

As a seller at times, I have to attest many do prefer this demographic. And it happens on autopilot when you sell you catch yourself pushing "the positive image".

At times when I look at the site I tend to disagree with much of what is posted as item's descriptions, but some (or much?) of it is subjective, can be purely a matter of preference or personal opinion.

Intriguing! It has been a while but if I manage to find photos of papers I'll post them to figure out how the registration was done.

I had the registration done for couple of shamshirs and flintlock pistols I owned while in Japan and having to deal with local collectors of non-Japanese items they all had torokusho as well. I did not study the system but the registration did look like ordinary torokusho. I however also encountered a number of western swords with sawed off blades the argument being we could not get a torokusho since its non-Japanese. I saw Japanese katanas mounted with European blades (probably ubu mount) with torokusho as well.

Torokusho is a bizarre system. USMC sword from 1960s will probably not pass. XIXth century smallsword probably will. WWI German saber - a bit of a gamble. Its the same with Japanese swords. They are on a lookout for stamped showato, but if its suriage they are not high grade sword experts. They can refuse or they can issue papers. Its always subjective, I look at pictures and don't know for certain if its modern or just non-traditional thingy from shinshinto or Showa or whatever, and even having the blade in hands it will be more or less a guess. There are "traditional" shinshinto or gendai blades which if suriage will look showato. Student work of Keith Austin was frankly bland and indistinctive to the point you wondered if its a souvenir rather than nihonto. His late California work - there are impressive pieces. Plus there is some market in Japan for martial arts grade suriage blades which do not appear to be fully kosher.

Its non traditional to the point I would avoid using any proper nihonto terminology for the sake of preventing confusion. What is also troubling that this definitely new hamon comes with a crudely shaped "suriage" nakago with rather deep patination... purposefully patinated I would say.

Probably that's the guy. Very often such judgements come down to a specific senior shinsa team member seeing an actual blade signed this way (Dosao Morihiro) and now introducing this attribution to mumei examples. I do not think this attribution has been used before, or at least it was used exceptionally seldom. Because it is based on knowing something exceptionally rare, it is hard to comment, understand (how similar is the work? what are the key kantei factors?) or relate... Unfortunately all Horiyoshi I've seen were Soshu styled, some had very coarse and simplistic jigane, though I heard there are some with tight itame. I only heard about Bizen styled Horiyoshi, as is the case here.

It is a decent blade, but I would also say Takada Munekage. I would even consider it more or less a typical work. For Hiroyoshi I've never seen their work in this style, but I heard the early ones (first generations) or actually shinto generations can look like this.

"Terminology wars never change". In passing conversation, a dealer in Japan mentions "oh, young people using the term ..., they don't know it really means ...". Someone hears that and eager to look smart and cool, puts it on the forum - you are all stupid, in reality it means that ..., everyone in the know knows that. But alas even seasoned collectors are yet to reach my level. Or an "academic" starts to "enforce" the definition saying that those who use it differently are "unscientific". ... The historical literature very often uses whatever suits the moment. Their goal was to make a description for a specific situation not the general set of precise definitions for all times. In Japan at least the general culture and language remained more or less consistent with a strong reflection in literature sources. Elsewhere outside European weapons which are also reasonably documented, terminology wars are just pointless and endless bickering for prestige. In "wootz" there are plenty people believing they know "the proper, historic way to call these steels", except historic sources are actually unclear what to call what. There are dozens of sword names that are "contested" because someone traveled as a tourist and discovered "the natives do not understand the name we collectors use". Ofcoarse they don't - the original word was used centuries ago, and in the XVIIIth century was copied rather half-efforted into English and other languages.

I would be more interested in the blade's style. Is it Soshu with strong nie deki hamon but coarse and featureless jigane or something else? From this a specific view of which side of this family it is, may become apparent.

Writing is more consistent with Edo period, in particular Odawara and other Soshu groups did not sign like this around Tembun. They did do on occasion large nijimei with center-right positioning, but the signature will not have deep cut triangular strikes, and the kanji would have a tad more "writing, cursive" rather than "printed, stamped" appearance. There are some schools which began to sign this way especially around 1550-1570. Yasurime - the depth and coloration and not super typical for shinshinto, but while it is not typical kesho type but at the top it does come at two different angles: its not gyaku takanoha where it comes at two angles all the way, it is just the top. This is more consistent with shinshinto (?). If we assume its Edo period, the work, while little is shown, is definitely not shinto type. So I would seriously consider shinshinto as an option.

Can't say anything without better pictures. It does look like very Yamato-ish Yamato Shizu, the key question is jigane any good.

Clear picture showing sugata would help a lot, but otherwise - I see nothing obviously wrong with the attribution. Weak hamon, ayasuhi hada - not too many other options are here. Nakago is ok. Not burnishing above shinogi is a choice, and often a fine one. Theoretically it is possible that with detailed photographs the signature comes out as very weird and its Muromachi (Tembun) Gassan with a gimei Gassan signature. Such things do happen - mumei from birth and then someone quickly "corrects" the omission and we have a genuine blade with a horrible writing. Another possibility it has a hagire, running off hamon or other issue the seller does not want to show. But again it is most likely Muromachi Gassan.

I do not think there are any two utsuri which are exactly alike, especially when done not by the same smith. There are Muromachi hitatsura works which have very dark, utsuri-like patches; distinctive property is that jigane in these areas is visibly subdued. This one however to me this looks plus/minus typical Kiyomitsu work. The second image for shirake utsuri here: http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/utsuri.html is also sue Bizen (Kiyomitsu). It has quite a bit more dispersed white utsuri on top of antai, but its still a visible, recongizable "band" of utsuri. I think one of the differences is that here the polish is more modern, more aggressive, with a specifically more accented contrast. Were this polished by Honami Nishu the white band would be more faint and would have more gradual boundaries. By default Kiyomitsu is associated with shirake utsuri or bo utsuri, so I've seen the lineage producing clear midare utsuri as well. Ofcoarse since it involves terminology we can name this one something else, but to me the differences from other Kiyomitsu pieces are not exceptional.

Yes. It might even approach nie utsuri if the crystals are bright and their location is well defined.

Shirake utsuri

The best shinshinto is typically imitation of Soshu - can be Naotane, Naokatsu, Kiyomaro. I personally would consider Naokatsu to be most affordable of the three, with quality often superior to Naotane. Kiyomaro's best works are shinshinto's very best, but he also made some rather coarse stuff where the goal was basically make it as koto as possible and there are a few simply failing to reach the top grade.

I am not a believer in attribution being strictly reflective of quality, in the very least I have not seen people with such philosophy winning kantei competitions. There are blades which are borderline Shizu/Yamato Shizu, but the majority of contested Yamato Shizu attributions go mainline Yamato as an alternative. Yamato Shizu attribution presumes strong masame below shinogi and relatively calm notare-gunome hamon with kinsuji, but few to no distinctive togari. Accordingly if gunome is quite periodic and the same size an alternative attribution is Shikkakke. If there is something strange (say, strong midare utsuri) an alternative attribution is Senjuin since Senjuin accumulates all unusual options, but also because there are verifiable Senjuin smiths who worked in such diverse styles. The best Kaneuji would be much more itame dominated below shinogi, with nice bright jigane and very powerful and stylistically varied nie activity. The best Yamato Shizu would have, for example, very uniform masame mixed with thick chikei and uniform, consistent nie deki hamon. So Kaneuji and Yamato Shizu's very best can be going into two rather different directions. Yamato Shizu Kaneuji is a rare attribution which can presume this is an early school's (i.e. late Kamakura) blade which supposedly was made by Kaneuji before his switch to Soshu style. There is one challenge is that oshigata signed [Yamato Shizu] Kaneuji show later (1360s) examples,so the notion Kaneuji was first Yamato style and then Soshu is reasonable in theory but might not be very useful in practice. A lot of top class Yamato Shizu works are from 1360s - and so are the ones attributed as "Shizu Kaneuji". Another example of sort of dealer speak when one tries to push the idea of "the earliest, the best, the famous, and the Masamune student" while in fact it is simply a very good blade and the rest is a conjecture upon conjecture.

I am sort of in the beginning phase of digging through my Kaga information for a writeup, so things will change, but: I would not trust the genealogies 100%. Kashu Sanekage is very seldom reattributed to any Kaga smiths. Despite considered the founder, his typical secondary attribution is ko Uda. Tomoshige is more or less consistent in terms of work style, it seems to be either Yamato shikkake or maybe Kinju related, the best items tend to be from Oei. Kiyomitsu and some other mitsu are mostly Bizen imitators. it might have something with the name they chose. Yukimitsu is basically the most Soshu of them all. Considering the great number of Yamato, Aoe and other smiths migrating at the time to Echizen area, there is a chance Tomoshige and Kiyomitsu might have other relationship than father/son, for example.

The greatest problem of mino all its best smiths were going full soshu, rai or even bizon of yamato

Nakago was cleaned recently, i.e. the rust inside characters is actually quite old. I am 80% for the signature being authentic. Probably 1670-1730, might be a lesser known generation in 1700s, it is often the case as sword market collapsed completely 1705-1710. Not a typical style for the school, but one of Edo period's attempts at something Rai-ish.

There are many old genealogies connecting the lineage to Rai or Bizen, but in reality its provincial Yamato offshoot.

Nothing clearly stating water, but often boshi area is more instructive.