Rivkin

Well, the sugata is ok for Muromachi say 1500 and the nakago is consistent with sue-Bizen. The signature is in the right place and I don't want to check the books on whether its written ok, the steel feels Muromachi (though its hard to be sure based on these photographs) and they did suguha like this at the time. On the negative the patination towards the upper portion of the nakago is highly uneven suggesting something was done rather recently and the signature written is a bit too deep in my opinion. I would prefer the strikes to be a bit more shallow and not to stand out nearly as much with respect to yasurime... So yes on koto, hard to say on whether its Bizen original or the signature was added a bit later.

I should probably go for the reveal. Lets start with blade #3. Sugata is unusual with wide mihaba, extensive curvature, a little taper. Too deep curvature for Nambokucho, so its roughly either Muromachi or Shinshinto. Shinshinto idea can be shelved for now, if only because there is usually no such thing as direct school continuation into this period. Long kaeri continuing into muneyaki - its not Hasebe but someone Soshu inspired. Hamon is in nie with nioi base - western Soshu like Sa or Naotsuna, but the period is wrong, the work is way too wide. Also the structure of the hamon is weird - the patches of nie are well controlled but appear almost at random and without disturbing the suguha profile a bit too much, there is belted nie a-la Uda-Norishige but it appears is certain segments rather than dominating the structure. Its suguha with random ko midare. If it was Mino/Seki we would see more periodic gunome. If it was Odawara we would see more togari or at the very least Sadamune-like notare. Fuyuhiro would be random large togari or almost pure suguha. The hada is not a key kantei factor for most Muromachi works but also noting its fine itame with chikei, unusual. So wide suguha with random ko midare in nie + Muromachi period has only one school - Dotanuki. The verification for this school - katana are extremely heavy. Mihaba is wide, but also the thickness profile is just a bit more than you would normally expect. There is about 30% difference in weight against a typical same size blade of the period, and it is felt in hand. Going back to other blades, blade #2 is very tight itame with nie utsuri. if stated it is not Rai than its Enju, though admittedly it lacks typical Enju hada with masame and hotsure at least somewhere and a boshi is a bit off for the school - but such was the judgement. Its Kamakura period, unusual shape in a sense it retains curvature even despite being cut down severely. Possibly it was originally a kodachi. Enju was one of the schools which turned hard at Muromachi from Rai to Yamato. Blade #1 is an example of that - periodic gunome, coarse o hada, large nie which is clearly seen towards the tip. Though Muromachi Enju are extremely rare but nevertheless such appearance is "typical". Another example of similar sharp turn in style is Aoe.

The branch has two kantei points - one is hamon's shape, another one is unseen... they are deemed more than sufficient to be certain in attribution and it does appear in formal kantei competitions and not as a "trick" blade.

Very reasonable but negative. Rai does not have unseen kantei points.

That's actually close, but no, mihara changes were far more subtle.

After contemplating life for a week in a desert... I find the lack of ninja commitment disturbing. There is a hint. Its Muromachi branch is the only period school which has a kantei point which cannot be seen.

Some weird combo of Soshu-Bizen is not at all uncommon beginning from the late Muromachi. This one has a typical modern steel look, it produces very harsh nie and as if drawn hamon contours.

Two keys things are missing - overall shot of the sword and the whole nakago. The writing is quite coarse, raising questions as of its originality.

Depends on the collection. If its top rate and unique, it often goes as a whole. If its a step below usually it goes into a specialized auction, handled someplace between Christies to Bonhams. A step below.... You can put it on ebay, you can put it with a dealer etc. etc. etc.. Each sales venue has its price target. There are places which can sell 1000$ blade in a day and those that can sell 100k sword in a year, but will never have a 1000$ client. This message board is basically 1-2k usd place. Unfortunately in the current environment a dealer will give you 25% in cash, and chances are he will wait for the first two blades to sell to raise the funds. They are cash stripped. but some can do well with a consignment.

There are two ways I personally would approach it. First is to consider which school changed between the styles exemplified by blade #1 and #2. There are like three I can think of right away and then it is straightforward to narrow it down to one. Second option is to kantei the blade #3. Its a very good example of the type and it does show kantei feature which is school specific and allows to distinguish it from two-three similar ones from about the same period. There is another kantei feature there which however cannot be displayed by photo.. but even without it there are not too many options. Well easy for me to say knowing the answer but its a typical one... on a "good side" of the name's distribution.

One image got overcompressed so I will put the original here: http://www.historyswords.com/e22.jpg

Its not Bizen. One more clue: the subject is evolution of a single school over relatively long period of time, each of the given blades is more or less typical for its specific period. The difficulty is that few books manage to track such developments in full.

Blade #3. When you see it you think "how on earth are these the same school". Well, its a branch office.

Blade #2. Its darkness so great there are multiple belts of utsuri one is much brighter than others some consider it nie utsuri. Ko choji in the hamon here and there. When kantei-ing this blade alone I got it wrong.

Blade #1. Signature obscured by ninja spell.

Few know that among the many practices of illegal kantei there is but one deemed so evil the practicioner's souls have no hope of attaining Nirvana and cursed forever to walk the earth as ninja spirits. Even the most exalted order of volunteer knights of NBTHK are powerless before the sinister inclination of those partaken in the ritual. It is said to have been founded by a blind kantei expert whose family ko-Aoe was "bungoed" by the NBTHK. Filled with anger he offered his soul to the vengeful spirits of Kurama mountain, granting him i exchange illegal ninja kantei powers. The rules are deceivingly simple... Instead of kantei-ing one blade you kantei by photo THREE papered to the same school. Branches are considered as the same school. Today is the day to find out: Are you ninjas or pussies? The answer should include the school name and dates of the three blades. Let's fighting love.

I wrote a sarcastic message but then realized where the problem is coming from. In normal people's textbooks Nambokucho can be part of Muromachi period. In Nihonto definitions it never is. This blade by papers and sayagaki is from 1400s, i.e. nihonto's Muromachi.

Its an interesting case in a sense that stylewise a very active Bizen in nie can and is mistaken for Soshu. In both cases you have choji-togari with lots of ups and downs , in both cases the hada plays the secondary role... I think this is late Muromachi Kaga. This is when such hirazukuri waki were most popular, the nakago has Kaga shape (though damaged), and the hamon is more Bizen than Soshu - and Kaga liked to produce this style. One can even state "Kaga Kiyomitsu", 4th generation, but I have to run before the "friends of NBTHK" volunteer unit gets on my case for yet another illegal kantei.

I saw the blade. This was 2022 NTHK panel with a new staff. Quite a few attributions to ko Aoe and Bungo Yukihira. Ko kissaki seems to be the thing for all such submissions - and in real life this one did look miniaturesque.

Virtually every description is quite... optimistic.

I'll join a previously made statement. It has an unusual shape with a very slight fumbari/koshizori. The nakago is suriage and is patinated as it it was done in the early Edo or around. The hamon even assuming big chunk of what we see is hadori is very wide and periodic gunome. This makes it unlikely to be a really old blade. If its shinto then its something along the lines of Jumyo, but its a big "if" because the shape is strange, and we have to assume how the hamon looks underneath this hadori. Shinshinto or even somewhat later is quite possible here, in which case the shape and patination are sort of purposeful while the work will likely be average execution in this style.

Copper coins were always towards the bottom of the metal quality in East Asia. More often than not the government monopoly mattered more than the content; 18th century Japanese copper coins are magnetic (i.e. iron based).

I think the issue is that for a variety of reasons (i.e. different Ph.D. thesis give different explanations) production of soft metals was scarce in early Muromachi Japan, the imports were quite common and absolutely all coinage was imported. Such coins were later outlawed when Hideyoshi was shifting country to a centralized trade system, all melted down to make whatever was made out of bronze at the time. But their metal content is extremely varied and dirty, so you can't just get any decent shinchu or other alloys from them as is.

Does look like early shinto (1650) tanto. The style is sort of arch-typical for shinto-soshu-mino, the work itself is decent.

Looks quite possibly late Muromachi. No way to be sure with these photographs, but I think it can be sue Tegai or something similar.