Rivkin

My guess would be shinto, certainly no earlier than Momoyama, but probably shinto. Not the most typical shape for the period, but you see them now and then. Very broad on the school. One can say something like "Owari" but it does not matter that much. Unfortunately with such information its all guesswork.

The market is the most depressed compared to the past 10 years.

Showa, not the highest quality, Mino style.

I think big issue with koto attributions is they deny most major smiths a "formative" period. The comparison is made to a few signed, prized blades which retained ubu form since they were collectibles from the day one, anything of lesser quality is got to be "the second generation". If we look at modern smiths... Nabuhira, the American smith, first blades (made in Japan) are above the level of early Showa's production. Latest blades are good and look nothing like the early ones. For a koto smith such story is unthinkable. Part is that all their early work was signed by the father, part is the early blades are nowhere to be used for comparison, and even if they appear, they'll be called gimei...

I think many collectors traverse the same evolutionary tree. At one time they have a blade that everyone around tells them is Ichimonji, they submit it and get "Bungo". "Aaa, this is because I am a Gaijin". Some stick to things which are 100% provable, which is not uncommon among Shinto and Bizen collectors. If one collects pretty much anything in daito form outside of these areas, one has to get used to mumei. I personally accepted uncertainty. Within my typical interests I think I have a good grasp of what these opinions are based upon... And comfortable with making my own choices and enjoying (very few) blades I really like.

I feel the field is just too complex for 100% certain single line answers. I will trump my usual trumpet that I papered a considerable number of blades (probably 200?) in a lifetime, and not a single judgement received was completely impossible... Even if later every other judge in the field gave an opposite opinion. You sort of get a feeling "oh, they must have relied on how hamon behaves here". There are some judges "married" to sugata, others to nioi-guchi, ir other features which they value extraordinary high. The big issue is that with early koto very often the categories are completely invented in a sense that there is a miniscule (if any) number of signed examples. So you have a judge A who says "I define it as Houju" and a judge B who says "No, its ko Uda", or maybe "Hokke". And a simple reality that there is no signed/dated or even just signed sword with this set of features. Interestingly enough when people who are really good at this visit someone and look at stuff, they seldom say "This is X". "A very good item, can be this or that".

Wow! Congratulations!

With Juyo the process is subjective and explaining it is difficult. The funner part is that papers don't even have to identify the smith, they just confirm the item is worthy of preservation. They don't have to identify the province (though usually do), the generation or the date. They typically do make a note of sorts, if the difference in period involves serious money, but by default they don't have to. The system helps beginner collectors who would be lost without papers and dealers who get "security" backing for their offerings. No wonder they and their agents always get hysterically violent on the forums when someone challenges the papers - "well, issue you own", etc.. Its not an educational or discourse tool per se, not intended to be one, not setup to be one. Its also a huge stream of money for a few days of work per session. I just got papered Kamakura ko dachi (NBTHK) and thought the school attribution seemed weird (atypical hamon, borderline atypical boshi). One of the alternative shinsa gave it late Muromachi Kaga. Both are understandable - suriage ko dachi with its toriizori, wide mihaba with little taper can be easily confused with late Muromachi. Nie utsuri can be at times reinterpreted as shirakke. etc.etc.etc. So both are not insane attributions, but they rely on specific interpretations. If you take a major Juyo or even TJ blade which is "weird" (suriage ko dachi are difficult, and there are plenty of others) and submit to NBTHK for Hozon... You'll often be surprised with a result. More so if its NTHK, where the standards of judgement are different to begin with. Their statistics of names issued is very much divergent from each other (NTHK NPO vs. NTHK) and from NBTHK. Its also divergent between shinsa generations. Everytime someone important departs (surprisingly there is only one way it happens) you look at the pile of judgment sheets (even NBTHK issues them, they are just small), and its a different world... And no one wants to have to explain why its different.

Makes sense if one compares Yukimitsu with Tametsugu, but if I remember correctly (oshigata included) has 1357 and 1369 signed as Etchu and 1374 as Mino. He has to be compared to contemporaries from 1360-1370. Late Sadamune, Takagi, Hasebe, Hiromitsu, Nobukuni, shodai Masahiro, Etchu school like Kaneyuki. The only way to believe they don't have masame is to employ an old trick - its nagare, kinsuji or chikei when its the first class school. If papers say Yamato we don't have to call it nagare. Shintogo has ayasugi-masame going through the entire blade, that's kinsuji. Sadamune can have similar kinsuji 50+cm long, and these blades usually do have "straight segments" in shinogi ji... One also will need to call Hasebe "Yamashiro", since masame is his kantei trait, discard in a similar way Nobukuni, forget about shodai Masahiro, believe that the entire Etchu group centered around Tametsugu is not Soshu. Quite honestly a lot of work. I much rather just call it masame if its long and straight.

I don't know where it all goes. Whether the province, artistry or the age is used for classification is always a question since no single criteria is a perfect fit. There is also no clear separation on practice of the type we read in NBTHK journal. "There were some bids on Tomogochi, but with tomogachi we expect hotsure to be more zanguri". These statements are important but they are from the world of "competitive kantei", which presumes careful selection of but a handful of singed blades which are the very definition of respective swordsmith's style. Alas, in real world such blades do not exist; an acclaimed kantei champion who drills for months the differences between Awataguchi Hisakuni and Norikuni is often lost outside of the space defined by 300 or so blades deemed proper for a "real kantei". The real life's examples are a mixture of this and that, and appraisal depends on how much value is given to specific features. There are plenty of blades migrating between Mino Kanenobu, Sue Sa and Naotsuna. If gunome in sunagashi is Mino trait, it is also typical for Kaga Fujishima and Kinju's and of many others. There is a question whether a periodic gunome evolved from Shizu's style or it actually came with Kinju and others, and it all depends on how one interprets signatures and generations. In Nambokucho the additional problem is the lack of signed examples which affects absolutely all daito schools (maybe except Bizen), Yamato included. A lot of attributions are modern agreements. There are plenty of o-kissaki (Den) Yukimitsu daito, and one is left wondering why the school was still prospering making daito in half burned Kamakura, where everyone else switched to signed ko wakizashi. Its a convention. Its a convention that Houju was made at Hiraizumi, though it peaked in production late Nambokucho to Oei, when Hiraizumi was 200 years as completely destroyed. These conventions are probably not too far off though, and the gap is closing fast in Muromachi.

Its signed Echizen Yasutsugu. I am one of the worst when it comes to reading Japanese, but the way the signature carved looks very suspicious to me - its not like a stylish signature of this group. And big enough name to be faked.

Deep, highly slanted yasurime I also think screams shinshinto, as do a few other points. Horimono is not too bad, there is a chance its ok tanto. The signature is hm... Its difficult to say. Katsushige is not a bit name, but I could not easily find a nijimei example that late. This is probably a later, unrecorded generation of Harima Katsushige or unknown signature of Owari Katsushige (early Meiji).

Kambun shinto, the work has strong Yamato flavor but I don't think its anywhere close to Shigekuni school. Owari did a lot of Yamato stuff.

I am getting this question multiple times for every blade I sell. On practice fake papers do not exist. In 25 years of collecting I've seen one fake jubi paper, two or three TH (there was a time those were circulating) and one Juyo paper. There is no point in making fake NBTHK papers. You can't produce them en masse without people quickly catching on what you do and tracing the sales back to you. There is no deniability factor. By comparison I can buy old paper, old typewriter and knowing the format of pre-torokusho police permits produce a decent fake attributing the blade to Marquies Kuroda. And nobody will ever prove with 100% certainty its a fake or that I am the one who made it.

After Grey's message I think might have been wrong calling it on Mino; Mino tends to have sharper nakago contours and prominent yasurime like takanoha or higaki... The work style to me looks a bit more Mino than Bizen but its the kind I think was used by both. It seems to be from Tembun and Bizen nijimei are uncommon at this time though...

Its supposed to be first generation Aizu Kunisada I guess... Good photos can allow one to understand whether its gimei or not. I would not be too worried by default.

I can't see the signature its so small, but its believable Morimitsu. Can't see the yasurime but looks like Mino Jumiyo, Tembun era.

The key question was - how many H/TH signed Yamato blades are out there compared to those at Juyo+ which one can thus easily count? The answer: Almost zero for Hosho. Hosho signed blades are significant portion of their total, but its a small school and signed ones are almost all Juyo. Almost zero for Taima. Larger school, but almost all blades are suriage daito, tanto are rare of which >50% are signed. Tegai/Senjuin. I see a signed example at TH every other year, but how often do I see a signed Juyo for sale? About as often. I can argue for 100 Juyo examples there should be at least 70-80 of those kept at H/TH levels. Possibly more. This further opens the gap: signed Taima is a unique opportunity, while signed Senjuin/Tegai you actually can buy if you want to. For Tegai the signature premium is significant, so a signed daito at TH will be easily 1.5mil if its in good condition. For comparison, buying any Awataguchi other than Shintogo Kunimitsu, unsigned, is more problematic than buying a signed Yamato blade. Shintogo exists even at TH level (six mil, Shintogo Den). Awataguchi.... Eh. If you are looking for signed pre-Muromachi blades, Bizen is the only one that for some reason was not that often suriaged (except Ichimonji daito??) and had also plenty of tanto. Then you have Rai Kunitoshi and late Rai in general (post Kuniyuki) which is often ubu/signed. And Naminohira. All other schools, you'll have to deal with suriage daito as a rule. Echizen Rai is a large attribution, comparable in numbers to Tegai: how many are ubu and signed? Signed Soshu daito... Ehh... Signed Awataguchi... That's the stuff only a Serious Japanese Collector has.

Quite similar to the table... Never seen Taima or Hosho below Juyo if signed, one Tegai every three-four years and one Senjuin in two years. pre-Muromachi. I did not pay enough attention to Shikkake.

I see Tegai and Senjuin every other year at H-TH level, often unreadable though. Others are more rare to begin with and if signed tend to be Juyo.

I am frankly puzzled what to say... Is it common for Tegai Kanenaga to have kissaki that long? It is a mistake or not to judge a bit midare hamon as Shikkake and not Tegai? What does it mean certified expert, today? There is government certification which certainly some have, but does it help when judging a particular blade? On Yamato signatures its like lumping everything in one bowl and arguing it tastes sour so the ingredients must be. Signed Hosho tanto can be acquired, signed Kamakura Senjuin were thought to be very rare, but there are a few which one can buy today at TH level and they are not going above that. Signed Taima is extraordinary rare, early Tegai is very rare (but they exist even at TH) and Shizu is precious. Signed Muromachi Mihara is very common. Signed Zenjo or similar stuff is pretty common.

Anything entering the US through New Jersey (East Coast) customs. From Europe or Japan. Customs marks the item as released, but it never gets back to the carrier (USPS, UPS, Fedex etc.). Sometimes they don't steal the item, but instead butcher the box to the point that the postal service itself throws it out. USPS has the right to assume ownership of any package at which point it pays out the insurance and legally you no longer own the item. Its gone bad to the point no package from Europe is safe (most used to go through the East Coast) and packages from Japan are best send to the West Coast address. The rate of loss is staggering.

Has to be a selfie.

I would guess Kaga, Momoyama, can have active hamon. fittings on saya are upper end.

No, there are later generation Sukemitsu and also 1460s dates are commonly encountered. Without looking at books (treat with salt) - I think the main generation for this lineage is not Oei but Eikyo Sukemitsu. And he was like 1440-1465. The signature can be ok, but without seeing the blade itself its hard to be certain. Taking in mind Sukemitsu did a lot of non-mainstream work.