Rivkin

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).

The influence of kizu on high level papers is always school specific. At TJ level, Sumigane or Rai shintetsu are not seen as strictly negative. Ware can be tolerated with ko Hoki or Sairen or Hiromitsu. Fukure with Masamune. Bizen blades with almost any kizu generally can't get Juyo.

I think its circa 1520. It does have some koshi zori which tends to be earlier, but this sugata has been used well into 1500s. The forging is coarse and rough. Few laminations, which very much stand out. By contrast early Muromachi Uda smiths were very careful with jigane, one line opting for tight itame and overall rather refined appearance, another having more Soshu-Yamato feeling but still being very careful about their forging. Even Sanekage-like work from Oei period tends to have more "smooth" appearance. This in no way a precise statement, but the tendency is observable. Good thing is that it looks like the work is relatively clean compared to other period examples, its a bright work which is easy to appreciate. Photographs taken from above greatly exaggerate the roughness of masame laminations making them all look like ware.

Actually if one is to judge the blade by what papers it is likely to receive, than its more simple. Bring it to NTHK (non NPO) shinsa. I'll bet 100$ it papers to Echizen Seki.

Personal opinion: The difference between the shinogi ji and ji hada is indeed Mino kantei point, but its interpreted in a sense that strong masame is not a characteristic ji hada for Muromachi Mino. The most Yamato-looking, Zenjo school, can have some nagare here and there, but generally one is going to see some widely spaced itame and mokume. The hue is going to be black. Here the steel is bright. Most importantly, hotsure and nijuba are uncharacteristic for Mino works in suguha. Their hamon is mostly devoid of activity - often nioi-deki, sometimes with some ko nie and ashi in the upper portion. Nioi-guchi can be rather bright. In Zenjo school one often encounters bo utsuri. Also, Zenjo hamon tends to be a bit more narrow, even with later generations. The closest one gets is early Kanemoto/Kanetomo lineage, which has a bit of hotsure and nagare close to the ha. Still, presence of packed long parallel masame lines in the ji is uncharacteristic, and rather than long lines in ko nie within hamon one expects shorter but more nie based activity. Darker hue, hada lines are more sparse. I don't get a feeling its a good match for this blade.

1520, shimada.

Not my cup of tea. Smith who is difficult to repaper with Fujishiro papers. Average quality.

Broad, curved wakizashi with takanoha yasurime and visible large gunome... Sounds like end of Muromachi to kanei shinto, Mino school. Sue Seki or alike.

Dimensions-based guessing is a bit difficult for me, as is guessing based on photos, but I was generally aiming at four, somewhat competitive statements as massive: 1. Relatively wide mihaba for the length. I did not realize that nagasa is very short, so I assumed its more in katana range. 2. Tegai blades tend to be in 6.5mm range motokasane, a solid number. Tapering to 4mm is a good thing - for Edo swords it often stays in 6-7.5mm range. 3. It does not feel like it has very high shinogi? Getting this from photographs can be hard, it definitely not low, but I wonder if its actually high. 4. Its overall quite healthy. I am not concerned about scuffs here and there. If its koto, its expected. Average Tegai will have ware and sometimes long one. If its shinto than yes, small things are still kizu that affect the value.

I think with tsukare utsuri the hada disappears or is subdued in the dark section. Its also tends to be associated with Muromachi blades. It also tends to be spotty and uneven.