Rivkin

.... when you don't have the funds to buy ubu signed pieces. Blades were shortened or altered even in 20th century to fit the military koshirae.

For me its much harder to judge signatures compared to blades. On the one hand it does not look badly written and does look like a koto signature. On the other hand Sagami signatures tend to be bolder, with larger kanji, somewhat lower and at least with a bit more towards the center placement. They are also often faked. The work is not the most typical Masahiro but within roughly the same style. I think the possibility it papers is 50/50.

Ok that clarifies things a bit. Very straight bo utsuri, very weak hamon but high contrast jigane, this is circa 1510-1550.

Unlikely. There are some similarly styled Nobukuni's and Yamamura's from this period, but there are many differences... There was one generation of Masahiro who did similar things, but again I don't get the feeling for this period's steel. In theory - can be, but the shape is a bit off (too long, too large sori), hamon is bit too nioi etc. etc.. But like I said I have issues understanding this work. Stylewise very close to Nobukuni, but the nakago is not a typical one then. Otherwise it sort of Masahiro, but then kaeri is off. I guess no papers? It always helps being given the original link. A lot of beginners feel like they managed to get a super deal and they don't want to burn their secret supplier, but its usually not true.

It looks like a good late Muromachi o tanto or ko waki. I don't want to read the signature since Japanese is frankly a bit difficult for me. Don't know how I would kantei it otherwise - its sort of Soshu in terms of notare hamon and nakago but most Sagami schools have longer kaeri at the time and a little bit wider hamon.

Its a late Muromachi mumei katana. Those tend to have weak specific attributions and often resubmission yields another name. it has a bit rougher jigane and a bit more bland hamon than better Ujisada works, so while the attribution can stick it can be a bit optimistic. So by itself its not a very expensive blade. The koshirae however is of a more expensive type and is a very large portion of the package. Still it would be an interesting offer at a lesser price.

Looks good. Can be Sukesada, can be other names, but does appear to be genuine late Muromachi Bizen blade, the signature is most likely ok.

Need boshi and details of the hamon. Sugata can in principle be Eisho. So far nothing overly concerning, might be a genuine package.

Very hard to say anything without seeing details of the work and overall shape (its too distorted when photographed from one of the ends, the camera needs to be in the middle). Fittings are good. Habaki is quality end of Edo or Meiji, kozuka is upper grade (waki Goto?) end of Edo.

Congrats! Sorry I had to work and missed on fun.

There are quite a few long ware here some of which clearly touch hamon's upper portion. I think light from a side significantly exaggerates how deep those are compared to angled image. The rounded darkening I would hope is hand caused.

Its unclear if there was a generation before Nyudo Kunimitsu so in reality he might be the first one. Takes about 5 years to find a blade attributed to directly him, about 20 to find a signed one.

Very good hamon, very coarse jigane.

You can get first rate mumei Muromachi daito for this price. Signed pieces, yes there are probably will be significant demerits involved. Shinto is easier to appreciate though.

Its not bad and has a number of positives about it.

Its hard to be certain but I would doubt koto attribution, though its a possibility. Wide, heavy looking blade with very uniform curvature and no taper does not sit well with early Muromachi. Jigane is relatively featureless, hamon is plasticky as if drawn by hand and more or less the same when shot from every angle... I would vote for Ishido, early shinto and not the top name in the school.

No idea about the signature, but I don't like the horimono. Show it to someone who knows the signature and chances are you'll get a good advice whether to invest in it any further.

Thank you very much, I am probably going to be there for a day or two without a table...

The Art of uncovering what NBTHK really meant is arcane indeed, but my take is by monitoring how setsumei and publications changed in the past 60 years one can guess, though one can be very wrong when doing so. First, with blades like this usually one submits to TH directly. If it gets TH its Nambokucho, if its H - Muromachi. This one is just H. Second, I think Tomotsugu and Kunifusa are two most common attributions. Kunifusa generally means jigane is itame and can be rather fine, and most likely its pre 1500, post 1500 fine itame samples tend to go Kaga etc.. Tomotsugu means jigane is rougher, more Yamato styled and possibly has masame. I don't think there is anything more definitive in those attributions, there is nothing overly distinctive about Tomotsugu's work, its sort of just average Muromachi Uda. Dealers always bring into picture that Tomotsugu, Kunifusa and other Uda names have published Nambokucho generations and therefore they Always write its Nambokucho (and ko Hoki, Naminohira and Senjuin are Heian) and admit maybe its MAYBE a bit later, but those are as generic Muromachi attributions as they come. In kantei all these names are counted as atari to each other, and NBTHK simplifies its job by using two-three names instead of dozen. There is an argument that Uda was relatively conservative sugata-wise in Nambokucho and thus in the absense of dated examples it could be that some of those are Nambokucho, but its quite optimistic since there are many dated or signed Muromachi examples and its clear this style's popularity went up considerably at the time. Ko Uda in dealer's speak implies Kamakura, and in 1970s that could have been true as many believed there are quite a few signed Kamakura blades and maybe even something dated. Today most of those went way forward in time, and what remains is basically Nyudo Kunimitsu so if setsumei says its him, better if its also signed, then the attribution is Kamakura specific. There are blades with generic judgement ko Uda and attribution to Kamakura in setsumei, but those also tend to be somewhat weak and often reclassified as Senjuin, Tegai or Shikkake on resubmission.

Its a rough blade maybe pre 1500 but certainly Muromachi.

Yes the style of hamon is typical shinto. Weird size/sugata, suspect it had a major crack and was shortened considerably. There are couple of things which I really good - entire hamon is composed from well distinguishable nie particles and there are "gaps" within it where nie is less dense. These are difficult things. Unfortunately this smith's ambition resulted also in multiple ware, so its not the top class work by far. Also - better smiths in almost every school practiced this kind of style. Can be Kyoto, Osaka etc. etc. Maybe 1650-1660 or about. Seeing boshi might help.

Overall view is usually important, but it looks like late Muromachi Bizen work.

Love the piece! I would think this is some generation around 1640 when Bungo produced quite a few blades in Hizen style.

Attributed to sue hosho and it does look Muromachi but the quality is Impressive.

It would paper, but if its post Nambokucho, its a Problem.