Rivkin

Personally I would no be too concerned with any signature. These things are rare enough, if the signature is even 100% mismatch, it can still be unlisted later generation or unrelated lineage. It just needs to look like a true Kamakura item. But I think this is potentially something quite uncommon - purposefully made fake. Everything is a bit off - the nakago, patina's behavior around the edges, sugata. Forging looks koto but has late Muromachi roughness, a few other things. Everything sort of tries to be Kamakura, but does not reach there. Judging by the forging and how nakago is constructed it can be late Muromachi. I've been burned many times buying blades in Japan and ultimately my success rate in buying unpapered blades there was consistently high only in a few (well, two) locations. Both had no shinkansen and it took about 14 hours to get to Tokyo by train/airplane. And even in these cases a strong contributing factor was the local guru having unusual kantei habits. Every single unpapered blade in Tokyo itself will pass so many hands.... Sometimes one gets lucky if its signed and somebody who is greatly respected was the first to look at it and said its obvious fake, and it turned out its probably not, but its exceptionally rare. Usually if there is one person among ten who says "it can be real Kamakura", it will go to NBTHK.

Aside from Bizen koto blades are unpredictable. They can hagire from falling on the floor.

Simple: do not buy anything offered on ebay from Japanese sellers. They think Americans are ... .... and ..., and therefore offer things at random prices that they can't sell in Japan. Case in point - weak Juyo covered head to toe in ware, which recently saw extensive combat against ninja. The extent of damage inflicted on ninja is unknown, but the blade did suffer "what looks like a hagire".

No problem, were this unsigned, with no sayagaki, from a provincial seller in Japan preferably from its western or northern provinces, a solid chance its something few people looked at. Signed, sayagakied, major name, no papers whatsoever - that's strange.

Thank you. Again admitting the rudeness of unsolicited opinions, but: sugata may look a bit off, but in deep theory it can be late Kamakura kodachi... the attribution can't be made with such pictures alone... suguha notare hamon in nioi with ashi, theoretically can be ko choji, but the jigane is a bit crude with large features. This does not work well with what looks like Norimune(?) signature. Unfortunately Kamakura Norimune is also big enough claim it would have been checked many times... Honami Nishu was unfortunately good at polish, bad at kantei.

Thank you. Offering unsolicited advice is a bit rude, but I personally would send it as is without additional polish. Unless the photographed areas are the only places where something is seen. Because strictly personally, I feel there are issues here.

Thank you, does it have papers?

Here is he: IETSUGU (家次), 1st gen., Ōan (応安, 1368-1375), Bitchū – “Ietsugu” (家次), “Bitchū no Kuni-jū Ietsugu saku” (備中国住家次作), “Bitchū no Kuni-jū Ietsugu” (備中国住家次), “Bitchū no Kuni-jūnin Ietsugu” (備中国住人家次), Aoe school, we know blades from the Jōji (貞治, 1362-1368) to the Ōan era, saka-chōji that tends somewhat to koshi-nohiraita, also a suguha with ashi, compact nioiguchi, ō-wazamono, jō-saku (Sesko) There is a famous ko Aoe guy, but it would be not even close.

Without looking at books (Markus Sesko swordsmith is a must though): tight itame, wide hamon in nioi with tight kochoji, well defined ashi is in most cases Nambokucho Aoe. Style changed after 1380, this could be 1360-1380. By comparison Kaga Aoe is vastly inferior school with almost no jigane.

Nothing beyond a personal observation: early torokusho with mumei attribution are rare and most I encountered had good associations. Awataguchi is a big name and also classy, not something an average pawn shop appraiser would typically use (unlike more common things like Rai Kunitoshi) and not something an average person would own. I saw exceptions like mumei Muromachi Kaga blades owned by what appears to be a regular name still with a pack of 1945, 1946 and early proper torokusho all with attributions, but almost every other case was something interesting.

Nice! Much nicer than in Aoi images. Usually they are good, but their light is more to a side which exaggerates "roughness". It has much more classic Yamato feeling... Can be earlier.

The first two photographs are good, more depth of field - larger f number would be helpful. Unfortunately, high end attributed blade for a high end collection probably did not settle to Muromachi without a fight, so it was probably checked at least a few times. It has nice, dense itame jigane with some nagare. I think its certainly an attractive blade. Hamon appears weak. Would its kissaki be a bit shorter it would have been more consistent with earlier attribution. Mihara/Ryokai/Enju Kunifusa are typical possibilities for this kind of work without looking deeper into boshi etc. Still I think it has the potential to be judged as ko Mihara...

I had couple of blades with either confirmed or disputed Enju Kunifusa attribution; there are Honami Koson sayagaki to him. Weak suguha hamon, prominent shirake utsuri, long masame-nagare somewhat about the ha. It looks like jigane is the key - if its a bit darker but with finer itame it goes to Enju Kunifusa, otherwise Ryokai is a common choice. Rai Morihiro is another similar style, but tends to have wider more prominent hamon, often with a bit of notare.

Just from the geometry this looks no earlier than 1520.

Not much is seen, but: Its significantly shortened so the original curvature point was most likely in the middle. The blade does not taper much, kissaki is chu kissaki and is somewhat long compared to width. That's not an early sugata. 1520+, probably later. At the time better Mihara blades typically opt for standing out jigane, with mokume etc. It is bright and can be seen from every angle. Hamon is usually rather indistinctive. Nothing is seen here at all. Which suggests that its not the first tier blade for the period. This being said, characteristic shadows, dark mune, super bright keicho mean that the seller uses a technique where you buy a long lighttube and place it underneath the blade. Its very fast - just put down the blade and you are ready to shoot. It overblows keicho, subdues hada and gives it unnatural navy-grey color. So there might be still something there... but still its probably not great anyway.

Its hard to analyze the blade because there are too many light sources above and therefore no contrast. Otherwise - good news, a mumei attribution in early torokusho points it was very likely a Daimyo blade. Sometimes the province reveals which one. Bad news - it was submitted for papers probably many times. Oei Enju can go Ryokai, sometimes Mihara. It can't go Awataguchi. They might have been said Oei because shortly afterwords Enju did change quite considerably.

Japanese-like swords of the Continent are much lesser known than Japanese per se and I am definitely not very knowledgeable on those, but: Round/sometimes slightly elongated, tosho-like very large tsubas are usually Korean. It looks a bit recent (WWII?). Korean hilts tend to be longer which is why I was more inclined towards Vietnam at first. The knot wrapping is as was indicated above is later adoption and the whole assembly could be XXth century, though I think using an authentic blade and done not with the purpose to create a souvenir. Unfortunately the market for such blades is poor. I personally is interested but maybe its because my understanding of the subject is lacking.

Far away from my specialty, but I would think this is Vietnamese or from roughly the same region. Authentic. Possibly with Japanese blade, in which it will still have a drastically reworked and shortened nakago to accomodate a difference in style.

Had nearly identical one, papers to Mino.

Premier koto collections tend to focus either on early Soshu or on Kamakura period's Bizen/Yamashiro/possibly Aoe. Between Yamashiro and Bizen, Bizen offers by far larger number of blades so Bizen oriented collectors are more common, though Yamashiro names such as Munechika, Hisakuni or Yoshimitsu carry exceptional resonance. I personally like Aoe a lot, but it does not have the same level celebrity names and it is also associated with a number of mediocre works, though frankly Bizen and Yamashiro also have quite a few.

You guys have the fancy stuff, mine comes with a bit of tekkotsu...

Needs a macro picture with a light source on the side, but... Suguha is unusual for [Odawara] Soshu, except Tensho, plus sometime around 1460, and possibly 1370 where some believe in Kamakura Yukimitsu/Yamato looking pieces were produced by the related lineage. This being said Hirotsugu work in 80% cases is very wide gunome midare, sometimes hitatsura, sometimes other, but not pure suguha. Its exceptionally unusual for this family. So far the nakago shape and yasurime looks ok for Odawara Soshu, strong masame in shinogi ji is also common, suguha seems to include some uncommon activity which is ok for the school... It well maybe 1560-1570 Odawara Soshu blade. But Hirotsugu is a bit of a stretch for this type of work. I am sceptical. Maybe macro photo will reveal something else.

my kanji reading is quite bad, but it looks like Hirotsugu. Entire blade is needed, otherwise so far it has a chance of being real, but don't like the "tsugu" writing at all. Typically all signed pieces are from 1500s, though 1460- generation is verifiably known, and son of Hiromitsu-founder generation (1360) is sometimes used as an attribution with mumei pieces. He is one of a few Soshu smiths who made considerable number of katanas rather than being tanto-waki dominated.

Congrats! Interesting!

About 70% of pre Heian iron blades have two piece construction. Its universal to the early iron age - since steel was very hard to produce, its often was but a narrow strip around the edge. One of the reasons they can be hoso-suguha: heat treating pure iron is unsound. Also it seems to be one of the reasons asymmetric blades (cutting edge on one side) were popular - one basically inserts a steel element on one side to larger iron plate. However, almost none of these early blades can have shintetsu - precise and careful wrapping of steel around iron is indeed a later technology (Heian).