Rivkin

It looks Soshu-styled. A macro shot of activity with light applied from a side should do the trick. Unfortunately, nihonto photography is always difficult. Nakago is also important. As is it can (big guess) be shinto piece.

It has to be a dedicated photo of the nakago, then activity, mune. Its in polish and has potential so best to look at it carefully.

Here is a photograph I did of Hizen Tadayoshi

I don't know what exactly to add - to me Hizen is just not too rich in things to see. There is a wide hamon with little activity, a wide nioiguchi, bright and consistent itame hada with ji nie. They are nice, attractive blades which are somewhat sensitive to polish level and tend to be a bit more tricky with light compared to most shinto blades - side illumination can work poorly, ji nie sparkles when the light sources is from above, while nioguchi typically stands out from beyound the edge. For some reason they are extremely appreciated in Japan and Juyo sessions where a single owner papers a few (three-four?) identical Hizen blades at once if I remember correctly are not too uncommon.

Dedicated cases are exceptionally expensive. The key is however to make sure there is no dust, no active rust and humidity is below 60%. Given this even blade in polish will typically be fine. Early shitahara is another name that comes to mind when I look at it now. Again this is all super-guessy given a very few things that are visible, without boshi etc., but ....

This is a hard question to answer because of the overall condition, however the nakago itself shows very bright showa-period steel with a lot of recent red rust. Theoretically someone could have cleaned the nakago and then it rusted, but the kengyo shape appears to be original, both holes are drilled and the nakago's surface is processed rather haphazardly. I would not be optimistic that its an old blade.

Attractive shinshinto blade.

Hizen no Kuni Yoshikane. Meiji smith. The carving of mei is almost showa-styled, deep spaced yasurime is shinshinto or later, patination is shinshinto or later. Overall I would say its a decent possibility this is authentic. The blade (as little as we can see) is sort of consistent with late shinshinto Hizen. Sesko: YOSHIKANE (吉包), Keiō (慶応, 1865-1868), Hizen – “Hizen no Kuni Yoshikane” (肥前国吉包), “Hizen no Kuni Saga-jūnin Fujiwara Yoshikane” (肥前国佐賀住人藤原吉包), “Hizen no Kuni Fujiwara Yoshikane” (肥前国藤原 吉包), student of the 8th gen. Tadayoshi (忠吉)

It does need some oiling and clean-up from active rust and overall fixture is a bit unorthodox and would not be appropriate if the blade would be in good condition, as is the damage it does is probably very limited. In regards to what it is I would say no later than 1750, probably no earlier than 1250. The polish unfortunately is very heavy on hadori so seeing hamon is difficult. Has some masame in shinogi ji; the most weird feature it has kaku mune (?) which is extremely uncommon. You do find though it on some late Muromachi swords, Bungo for example, and by default (can be WAY OFF as its all based on really tiny evidence) I would think its late Muromachi and (possibly) Bungo. Yes I would clean it a bit from active rust, oil it, and would look at the nakago.

NTHK shinsa, maybe Chicago, I don't know where else it will be (florida?), but usually they do come to Chicago sword show. You can mail in the sword. Alternative is to find someone willing to go through specialized books and compare the signature. Then you can sell it even with a photograph from a book showing identical signature. If its gimei, you'll have to sell it as is, no gain from polishing etc.

There is very faint belt darking and brightening close to kissaki.

Somebody really wanted to be Rai Kunimitsu. Jigane is a bit softer though and there is very little utsuri I guess. Can be photography effect as Yamashiro can be hard to shoot. And hard to judge without sugata and nakago. Hizen?

Kashu Kiyomitsu did suguha and those are sometimes really nice blades, but this one has quite a few kizu, unlikely to be close to first tier - with this style you expect the best to be Yamashiro looking and without blemishes. It looks late Muromachi, and most likely the attribution/signature is ok. Second blade with pronounced gunome-sunagashi is a good match for Fujishima. The polish is a bit "dealer level" and the seller is known to offer en masse blades which are out of polish, damaged etc. at bottom prices. I think both are genuine late Muromachi examples.

On the one hand looks interesting (tobiyaki? possibly utsuri?) on the other hand not much to see and the hi turned out not as well done as I guessed. I would check the signature against books (or find someone willing to do it) and depending on the answer would decide on polish.

I think the sugata is ok and the hi appear to be well cut, so there is a chance its real. A detailed shot showing work somewhere on the blade can reveal more.

Late Muromachi (short nakago, yasurime is basically straight, not sugu boshi, sugata etc.), hard to come up with school as polish is very heavy on hadori and sugu-notare hamon is not too distinctive. I would say Mino since later generations did do wide sugu-notare, though I can't see masame in shinogi-ji so might be someone provincial instead.

Late shinshinto to Showa.

Well, it looks late, maybe shinto, a decent blade, more precisely is very hard to say... Owari etc., whatever, many possibilities.

It feels more like a plaque commemorating the war rather than single specific event. Nice Americana but sword has to be judged separately

As always discussion moves towards irrelevant things. Are there Heian Naminohira - if you believe Edo period's publications the answer is yes. If you believe in comparing to blades for which the dating is somewhat known, then the question is whether the early Naminohira appears more ancient compared to Bungo Yukihira. My personal impression is they appear to be of roughly similar age, and Yukihira is known as early Kamakura smith, so its unlikely Naminohira is older by 200 years. The question for this blade is whether it has appearance similar to the earliest Naminohira, and the answer is difficult. The overall shape appears somewhat different, kissaki proportions are a bit different as well, especially taking into account its a relatively wide blade... Maybe there is mizukage or yaki-otoshi or something else. We don't know and its all very theoretical.

Don't know where it goes, but: ko versus sue are specifically introduced to avoid any controversy related to when the school first appeared. There is no certainty in regards to what is the earliest Naminohira blade (there is a dated example but...), and in principle only Senjuin (Mogusa?) and Sanjo (and related) schools more or less certainly were present in the Heian period, the rest borders between "likely" and "not likely". Nishu's sayagaki are seldom associated with the top blades, though there are some. Dr. Honma has been the golden standard and I have not seen a sayagaki of his that has been challenged. That's been the status from the beginning, and he is the founder of the modern sword appraisal and mofrtn understanding of smith's genealogies. Kanzan Sato wrote a lot of sayagaki and I would estimate 5-10% of those have been successfully challenged in modern papers, especially those written in 1974-1976 (by memory). There are various explanations, some say they are faked often (and they are), but then in most cases they are also green papers issued by the head office with the same judgement. Honami Nishu was considered third choice compared to these two gentlemen and the last option for those not satisfied with other opinions. I probably have two dozen photographs of his writing with the NBTHK differing greatly. Lots of Ichimonji classified into Ishido, Hosho into Sendai etc. With each blade I've seen NBTHK position was easy to understand.

Let's stop that. Not helpful and scratches the blade. Potentially Mihara, early Muromachi. To say more one needs pictures of the blade which actually show some activity, not blend reflections.

Hard to be certain especially on a phone, but the shape leans towards pre 1500 and the school is likely Yamato. Even more speculative it’s either 1430 Mihara or 1300 Senuin. In either case likely a good sword

Mino style, boshi is not sugu, very straight with large kissaki - generally hints towards shinshinto, Tensho or Nambokucho. The style is a bit too much Mino to be early, so either Tensho or someone in shinshinto who worked in a traditional Mino style, alike to 10th generation Aizu Kanesada. My personal guess would be the end of Muromachi, sue Seki as the most likely attribution. P.S. The restoration was a bit untraditional.

hmm, I have one for sale... Generally these are of interest to collectors who like to research and study unusual and potentially old forms. They are not common, but such collectors do own quite a few.