Rivkin

Personal opinion: Its blind at H/TH level, though sometimes it does happen that shinsa members know the blade beforehand. For example, many of NTHK (non NPO) judges are higher end dealers. Not trying to state anything bad about such practice. At TJ you are allowed to even submit supportive documentation like Edo period's judgements, sayagaki etc. They don't want it to be blind. Rebranding Enju into Awataguchi at least stays in the same "inclusive" school and time period, plus TJ Enju is something very rare, TJ Awataguchi is far less so, considering one sees one Awataguchi blade for 10 or so Enjus.

The sinister thing is top Juyo Enju today costs 3.5mil, unless one does Tokyo super-retail prices. Awataguchi Juyo like that - I would say 5-7. The blade is exactly the same.

I can only speak to my personal experience: I've papered >100 blades, probably closer to 200 swords (did not count in any formal way). Of those re-papered (with different or same organization) something between 40 and 60. It has to be admitted that in all repapering cases I had doubts about the original attribution. These were with very few exceptions mumei blades, so I'll talk about those, with fully readable signature its just a whole different game. NONE papered to the same name. Exactly zero out of 50 or so. Including blades with half intact signatures. Most papered to the same school (i.e. Bizen, Soshu, Yamato etc.) if one accepts a more inclusive definition (i.e. Nio is Yamato, Unju is either Bizen or Yamato etc. etc.). There was no clear preference in terms of any particular shinsa team giving more favorable judgements. I had two decent Juyo repapered by NTHK-NPO to lesser names and with respective scores of 75 and 76, i.e. just "average-good" in their opinion. There was a significant spread in terms of name recognition. O-Kanemitsu and a much lesser name, almost Kozori-class - but in all honesty not that different in terms of either time or work style. The worst game is Soshu. Basically every high class tanto with late Muromachi/also late Nambokucho sugata had 50% chance to draw Shimada Yoshisuke or other Shimada name or actually something quite recognizable from Nambokucho times. i.e. if you buy really good mumei Shimada tanto and resubmit you have reasonable chance to get TH Masahiro. Uda tanto is another all-too-often notoriously weak attribution. Pre-Nambokucho blades were often messed up. Had one papered to Aoe, Bizen, Rai and Ryumon Nobuyoshi. And if I remember correctly both Rai and Bizen attributions also had smith names. True, the papers were from different time periods, but I'll just repeat myself - green papers are by far more often Kanzan Sato rather than Yakuza papers. I think all the four judgements were neither crazy nor done in bad faith - but one was definitely weak. So I am a sceptic who thinks the ability to pinpoint an exact smith name, unless one deals with an ultra-stereotypical blade by someone famous, is basically Japanese appraisers showing off. They have to do it, since their competition does it and collectors expect the name and not just (less valued) generic school attribution. If you want to stay in business you have to follow suit, even when there is honestly very little justification to be that specific. Its a small community which lives by its own rules. The problem comes when generations of appraisers change and suddenly the name you secured can be "legitemally" contested.

In this condition its unlikely one can state anything definitive, but judging by really coarse large featured hada its the end of Muromachi. Lots of masame and mokume, something Yamato related, possibly provincial, but hard to say without seeing the hamon.

For almost a decade I struggled to photograph Ichimonji. I could do the shallow angles technique; the results are bright and can show some details, but are difficult for kantei or to publish. But other techniques were just giving me watery images with little substance. Yet finally I think I am getting to point where I am personally comfortable with the results.

Aaaah. Yes.

Ok, if we are told its not that old, then its Shinto Bungo.

Sorry, can't see the boshi's shape clearly, but my guess is ko maru. Still go for Enju, the end of Kamakura.

Late Muromachi Mihara. I would argue for 1530-1570 period, though in the latter portion larger kissaki is more common, so probably 1530. Somewhat earlier shinogi zukuri waki would tend to be somewhat less chubby and more slender,

Yasurime can be shinto. Regarding the price, the issue is the same as bringing a dealer's sword to a sword club - what are the chances of getting an honest opinion? I've sold a dozen pieces to Eric over the years, I obviously not going to badmouth his goods. And vice versa - if you bring up a sword from an unknown dealer, chances are people will badmouth it simply because its a competition they don't want. So in questions like that, one is mostly on his own. I would certainly take all opinions with a lot of salt. This sword will paper, and its pretty much known how it will paper, so the risks are probably minimal on this front. The price is not really high in terms of nihonto prices.

I can't kantei shinto (don't know much about it), but I can throw couple of guesses. Its mostly straight with taper - its unlikely to be earlier than 1650. Would love to see yasurime and coloration of the nakago in detail, because nakago shape is something along the lines of what became more popular from 1665-1700 onwards - long, with pronounced taper. I would even think about shinshinto, but kissaki is a tad small to be characteristic to the period. Hamon is sort of typical for the period, jigane is too tight, nie is too large to be the first tier work, but it is something that can be easily appreciated. Looks like it has a long Edo [??] yakidashi, which is not too common and an unusual hakikake boshi, so I would go through references trying to find such specific combination. Chances are you'll get an exact name out of it. P.S. I personally would not call this hamon doranba, its almost more like somebody copying Kotetsu or his circle rather than Sukehiro.

I am very sorry to hear that. Bill did a very good job running the show; not in the least because he had a capacity for seemingly effortless dealing with a bunch of otherwise problematic people, myself included. He will be missed; when the temporary measures we all endure now are over the world of sword shows will still never be the same.

Ara nie is something quite uncommon in Kamakura period; there were some smiths who forged in nie, but none with such hamon, so I would say its safe to say its Muromachi. Nice blade, lots of ware, signature is poorly photographed to the point that its difficult to resolve first kanji. If its Mino Kanemitsu, it probably has decent chance to paper. Otherwise - may be not.

Unfortunately cameras can greatly distort things like taper. The first picture in the thread looks like Kambun shinto. The last one less so. If it has no taper, it can be late Nambokucho, probably Tegai school. There is an additional issue of it being suriage, so one does not 100% know how much the curvature/tapering is affected by that.

Usually organizers of shinsa in the US do accept mail in swords for an additional 100 or 150$ per item. That's the easiest way. Alternatively you can send a blade to an agent in Japan who will paper it for you. 99% of what people think is really important turns out to be fake junk. Unfortunately. Regarding confiscation worries, I would avoid sending chokuto and chokuto koshirae. With the rest, few have the relevant experience. Maaaaybe there is an issue if its something along the lines of the earliest known signed and dated Bizen or signed ubu Munechika. Everything else is of little concern.

Pre-Muromachi fumbari is indeed lost when the blade is shortened, since it concentrates right next to nakago. Basically in continental chokuto you sometime see an extremely rapid (over the space of 1cm) tapering, and in Kamakura Japanese blade it can taper over something like 15cm. In Kambun period tapering is much more gradual, and it should involve the entire lower half of the blade. Some argue it can't be called "fumbari", but then again on earlier pieces tapering can also be somewhat more gradual. If one goes by sugata here, I would say its Kambun Owari in Yamato style. But occasionally one does see similarly shaped blades in Muromachi times, they are just very uncommon.

Forging does look like Yamato and Koto. Sugata is unusual, with such unusual fumbari (no, not the Kamakura one) which continues all the way to kissaki. This unfortunately most likely excludes pre-Muromachi examples, and the hamon is a tad too wide and rough for earlier work. Kambun shinto would be a good fit, but with such forging I would argue its from about 1500. Can be Shikkake, but I would argue for Sue Tegai. Or maybe even Mino Kanenobu, they forged in Yamato style at the time. Its in more than enough polish to paper. Polishing expenses... Up to 4-7k depending on exact length, the need for new shirasaya, habaki etc. Price of such sword in full polish - below investment. I also would be concerning that it can very well be Edo Kambun Owari school, which forged at times very similar to Yamato, and had rather rough (un-shinto) jigane. http://sanmei.com/contents/media/S19795_S2068_PUP_E.html

Hirazukuri, late Muromachi... It can paper, its just not a pricy item. After Oei Nobukuni's are not that important. P.S. I had better names from this smith papering. But what he sells is usually not in polish and has forging flaws.

Congrats, interesting read!

It might sound like a cheap shot After seeing the papers, but I think this is classical later Mizuta work. Strongly nie-sunagashi based gunome with nie actually "separating" from the base of the hamon. Interestingly enough, ko Mizuta blades, each one I saw had unusually strong hada, but also each one was in its own style.

There are green paper Ichimonji with Kanzan's sayagaki which repaper as shinto Ishido, and far less often, but sometimes, one does get NTHK/NBTHK difference on those, but I don't think anyone from shinshinto has this distinction. Whatever the reason, they all were "Bizen inspired" rather than an accurate copy of Ichimonji jigane/hamon.

Definitely Edo period, but need two more pictures: detailed macro shot of hamon (with a camera looking from a side) and boshi. Then one could possibly identify the smith and date very accurately.

I'll throw in a very controversial statement: Its exceptionally rare for NBTHK to classify any koto nijimei as gimei. The reasoning is that you can't prove that the tanto signed Kunitoshi was made to fake the Rai Kunitoshi and not by some later person, whose name was indeed Kunitoshi. One can argue that nagamei is factually wrong, but doing it for nijimei is difficult. The papers issued would simply note that its a Muromachi (for example) period's Kunitoshi, even though one can reasonably suspect that it was made to be fake - but it is an old, Muromachi period's fake. So I think this one will paper with >90% probability. Such reasoning aside, it does appear as later Muromachi example with genuine signature (Uda?). Unfortunately with those, sugata does not get one to a very precise dating/attribution.

Its hard to be absolutely certain, but there is a substantial and mostly uniform curvature - something that completely went out of fashion around 1630-1640. Kissaki is small, nakago is smallish compared to nagasa, so its more or less typical for late Muromachi. And not Momoyama Muromachi, but more along the lines of 1515-1550. The negative is this being a period when a LOT of swords were produced, or rather unimpressive quality save for but a handful of names. Actually were it post-1560, I would have far better expectations regarding its quality.

One of the cases where I have to start with a disclaimer that my opinion on this topic is likely to be uneducated, erroneous and subjectively personal. I think these two blades are very different and "Den" here has strong connotations. The underlying problem is Sa school excelling in basically every single style of their time. They can be strongly Soshu flavored, Bizen, Rai or their old, provincial Yamato-sort-of style. Frankly speaking the last option is the least impressive, but every seller of such items always insists it still has some connection to Masamune and O-Sa's fame. Which it does not - its just a provincial style, and more often than not - a coarsely forged one. Within "Soshu works" you also have a big spread - from things that are almost Bizen, some could be mistaken for Chogi's school flavor, with ko nie and nioi and very sparse usage of any distinctively nie based activities, to the works where the foundation of hamon is sort of in nioi, but there are lots of nie activities, sunagashi, very often there is inazuma etc. Interestingly enough, the hada can in both cases can be either more or less pure itame or large featured mokume/itame/nagare based. The work on the left is in more Bizen-like style. Jigane is probably very good, but its mostly nioi/ko nie and will not have strong Soshu feel to it. Its a style which is distinctively Sa. Its also much harder to photograph and thus pictures might not reflect the real quality out there. The blade on the right is late Nambokucho, of distinctive later style, sunagashi dominated with somewhat rougher nie. It will be much brighter, but I wonder whether Sa Yoshisada is a strong attribution here. I feel today such items would have a strong chance to be attributed as Sue Sa, or something similar. The ones with stronger nie and masame would even go Mino Kanenobu. I think most learned collectors today assign lesser value to this type of work, though I personally like it a lot. Here is an example. Still of the two blades I would take without question the one from 65th Juyo session. Later Sa works can have rougher jigane, and I suspect the 15th session examples is like that.