Rivkin

I think its a good sword. Shikkake is overall a good school, jigane is nice, utsuri is nice. Hamon is not too active but also the light angle is kind of difficult (i.e. wrong) for this type of work - its best to photograph shikkake hamon in "white light", i.e. light source directly above the blade. It shows whether nie is fine grained, coarse, how long are nijuba lines etc. P.S. I think I know this blade. It was sold at auction in Japan about three years ago.

I think accepted dated works are all from books (oshigata). Typically 1304-1338 range is being cited. It is not well understood how to interpret Den examples with o kissaki and wide mihaba which might suggest 1350-1360 range: there are no second generation signatures known.

As always I'll take issue with most things said. Nihonto is not per se a European type of art where a realistic scene is being interpreted and accented via specific technique. Its closest relations are probably the calligraphy and stone collecting, closely followed by ceramics, two more steps aways - ink painting. At its best it excels in conveying a particular emotion through an abstract form. It can be calm, strong, flamboyant, restricted, open, fresh. As long as its not "mundane", the artistic purpose is achieved. The "quality" assessment emphasizes first details down to individual strikes, then school-specific elements, consistency and finally composition. Understanding calligraphy does help in understanding what is a good sword. Taking into account that 95% of nihonto is calligraphy done by practicioners who can't even draw the lines at will because the media itself is exceptionally difficult. You see couple of areas where they sort of did what the school requires them to, the rest is smudges or just empty space devoid of ambition.

its a hard one, especially with this sugata. But the hada is dense and without flaws or much activity, though it does have some ji nie and itame is visible. Hamon is flamboyant probably nioi and is rather atypical in shape. Something not too old is a possibility. Early Showa, late shinshinto

There are many textual testimonies made by children or grandchildren that Hiromitsu, Masahiro, Shimada were destitute. We don't even know early Muromachi smiths that well - when was the first Shimada is uncertain, Oei Akihiro is uncertain, and we have almost nothing left by Masahiro circa 1440-1470. What's bizarre is that circa 1330-1350 there are almost no signed tanto by the mainline Soshu, quite a few mumei (Sadamune, Masamune) which is by itself most bizarre. The lack of signed daito by comparison is less alarming since aside from Bizen everyone else left noticably fewer signed pieces. Daito hitatsura is a controversial subjet since its very hard to produce one without overwarping or cracking the blade. There was Heianjo Oei smith, forgot the name, who made very attractive daito hitatsura and basically in Muromachi you see premier smiths here and there attempting it as a test of their skill. Its HARD.

The idea that Masamune was somehow considered "utilitarian" and Shizu or Norishige were prized sounds strange. The problem with mainline versus off-shoots I think involves both that Soshu is not a unified master and 10 students school it is usually posed to be, and that the bulk of sword demand came after the war started, towards 1350-1370. Which is Shizu, Hasebe, Nobukuni, sue Sa. At the same time Hiromitsu and Akihiro became provincial smith with meager demand and output. Shintogo is best compared to Awataguchi Yoshimitsu. "Court" maker specializing in tanto, despite probably two generations - limited production with very consistent quality. The bulk of early Soshu is Norishige versus Yukimitsu and Sadamune, the latter being basically the very best of Yukimitsu style. Roughly comparable in scale, Norishige's activity period was quite a long one also. If one is to compare their numbers against any strictly the end Kamakura individual smiths, there are not many names with comparable number of blades. Bizen Kanemitsu, but Bizen always churned up a lot of blades. There is not much inconsistentcy here. Masamune on the other hand is a rare attribution that typically implies historical acceptance of the blade as Masamune. Every kind of statistics breaks when it comes to him - atypical distribution of styles, atypical distribution of sugata, atypical stylistic divergence of signed versus unsigned works, atypical number of works versus the activity period. Its an attribution that sticks out in every manner.

Brian, your friends - do not collect at high level. No one ever heard of "Guido collection". It never existed. They do not publish books. They do not really understand kantei. Oh, I forgot - its because its pixels. In real life it would have been different... not. If someone barges into every conversations telling people they collect wrong, think wrong and buy wrong - does not mean he is a Collector and a thinker. Its just a personally trait. Even if someone actually buys a Juyo blade from a top notch Japanese store and then lists it for 20% more - it still does not make him a collector. Or an expert. They are your friends - virtual or real life. Unfortunately besides your and your friend's endless promotion - there is nothing.

Brian, they are your friends. Collectors, experts, historians - its a different crowd.

The nakago has a showa feel and yasurime in particular done sloppy. Shortened to fit gunto mounts? Later imitation of Yoshihiro's work? Could be. I would also say the work itself is half a notch below Ikkansai Yoshihiro himself.

Its pretty straight, transition from midare to suguha at boshi is instanteneous... Kambun shinto, maybe a bit later or earlier. Midare gunome choji. Not the most common choice, tends to be provincial. Probably mino derived - it does have close Bizen counterparts, but having a dominant choji in the grouping probably throws towards Mino.

Personally I don't like Fred's photographs, which I guess is mutual, but if that's the sword I've seen in hand (95% certainty), its very good. It has exceptional utsuri, ashi, lots of activity. One of the best Kunitoshi probably. It is not suguha+jigane kind of sword though, its very Kamakura in every aspect.

Unless you have an established and well defined taste chances are you will not like even something that looked good to you in pictures. and vice versa. It takes learning to know how to navigate between these worlds. In the US the best dealer will show you maybe 5 blades at once in this price range. In Japan you could see 50. There is usually no rush so feel free to ask after making selection. With modern you are expected to loose some since they don't appreciate and if you buy from top-level store anything below 100K its also unlikely to be a great deal.

Very hard to give advice. I would say - go to Tokyo around DTI time, or just go there anytime and crawl through shops for a week. Maybe add couple of provincial shops - they do have better bargains as the rule. Then ask around here about what you liked the best. Unfortunately at this price level offerings in the US are more limited. Enjoy the weak yen.

Can't tell without seeing the nakago sine habaki in good light.

Vivid hada with plenty of o-mokume and high contarast, nioi hamon which is not truly standing out. Ikkansai Yoshihiro school. The nakago can be showa rather than shinshinto style, but this needs extra study.

Absolutely the best book on Soshu den is by Dmitry Pechalov. Even though it spends a lot of time on researching particular swords, publications, owner relationships - its discussion of the school per se is excellent, rigorous and thoughtful.

I feel like a cruel anti-hero dissing traditional dojos but your description was proper, laborous, mostly accurate but not very useful. Kasane is important when the blade in suspected to be Nambokucho or earlier. Generally with Muromachi or later dimensions alone don't tell you much. Itame does not tell you much. Its rough and its alone can be a distinctive Muromachi trait. There seems to be a faint bo utsuri (?). Muromachi. Its periodic gunome with groupings and well defined togari. This alone is sufficient. Mino is not so much judged by jigane, unless you count masame in shinogi-ji... Pictures were ok, maybe the overall shot was a bit dark and indistinctive.

Looks like more or less classic sue seki sword, late Muromachi.

It interrupts in the most interesting place. Looks like Muromachi blade in notare, generally they get attributions to Mihara or Uda. Mihara would have stronger jigane, long kaeri (damaged here). My guess its more Uda-type. They also can have very patchy-looking and dark utsuri (antai).

Its an interesting (and huge) piece with prominent utsuri. Boshi picture next to measuring tape would be appreciated.

Its a temporary exhibit of private collections. Museum provides tsubas and some armors.

"We've been drinking about it for couple of weeks" but "the government still has to agree on it".

Suppose there is a prime museum venue in Europe available and nihonto exhibit is being arranged for. 15 TJ are already secured plus multiple Juyo. Would one be interested in attending? Attending or hosting additional events like clubs meetings, chats with polishers and other craftsmen? Would one consider providing a sword (Juyo+) to be exhibited? Would one be interested in a.... shinsa? The museum considers a one-off event with a team where each member has an impressive biography. What do you think about the endeavour?

It has significant curvature so if it was a very long blade it would have looked strange. Also hamon calms down towards the nakago. On the other hand - 3 mekugi ana with the bottom one placed very low... I would say it lost 5 inches? Which makes it a respectable sword. In regards to katana versus tachi, Shimada made a lot of ko wakizashi and a few katana. I actually think its a good beginner's sword which is interesting, easy to read and as of now is priced competatively. To the point I would wonder if there are worse kizu than what we see. Hitatsura can be very kizu prone, but on the other hand there is not much hard nie here.

My take will be unorthodox, per usual. It is a variation in hardening, but the causes are varied. For example, Nambokucho Aoe dan utsuri - the bright belt of nie utsuri is usually caused by a strong foldover of steel right in this area which isolates it from heat conduction either up or down and therefore causes high temporal temperature gradients and therefore - strong martensite formation. That's also quite a few circa 1360 Aoe have ware in the same area. There is utsuri which is formed by the core iron being placed very close to the blade's surface and this can produce the whole range of very distinctive utsuri patterns which are usually associated with a weaker jigane, irregular spot like appearance and dark color which is actually quite well observed with the light source from above, compared to most utsuri which require a sideplacement of light. Then there are blades where it is complicated since the core iron, the lamination and the hardening are all at play. As a result the same "midare utsuri" can actually refer to rather different things. Here is the same image as above with jifu utsuri (its kobizen/ko ichimonji Juyo Bunkazai) after a color correction for the lens I used, next is typical Nambokucho Aoe dan utsuri which is a bit simple but does illustrate nie formation well (and its really bright), then there is shirake utsuri. Utsuri is probably my favorite photography subject so I do have a lot of photographs. I feel like I did not see utsuri as well represented on as diverse set of blades even in Fujishiro's album, and few were able to raise to his level in photography.