Rivkin

It looks like a classically shaped and styled Soshu tanto crossing into hitatsura, which makes it one of the most copied sugata and styles, and accordingly can be difficult to identify precisely. Knowing kasane would be very useful here, but one can try without it. If one assumes its an original from Nambokucho period, then it should not be Hasebe because of the nakago, it can't be Akihiro because he did not do kaeri half nagasa long. Generally such execution is seen on extremely rare occasions with Hiromitsu and thus Masahiro, but it did not gain popularity until well into Muromachi. Also is their case the hardening along the mune seldom exhibits such well defined and sharp togari, its also more of Muromachi feature. Still, sometimes on hitatsura blade the length and togari of this era are excaggerated by oshigata makers, what in real life looks like faint disconnected tobiyaki becomes a single contour with sharp edges. One can hope that's not the case here. Can be Nobukuni, but highly unlikely. P.S. Just by chance I was going through some blades and remembered that hitatsura with very long kaeri and sharp togari close to mune in Nambokucho does occur with later Etchu students - Tametsugu, Hojoji Kunimutsu and Etchu Kuniyuki. Rather rare examples, would match the work here quite well. These are rare works, and unfortunately them being quite late in Nambokucho sugata can be tricky one to rely on. Out of these three Kuniyuki is most well known for this style, I guess. Kasane would tell more... So in all likeness this is late Muromachi, someone who worked in Soshu style, which is also a somewhat more natural match for sugata. With different nakago I would bet on Muramasa, since the hamon is reasonably symmetric and now and then he did work in such style. As is, we are talking about the period when even major Bizen smiths occasionally made hitatsura, and half of Mino guys were churning them up as well. Signature placing is not very Bizen-ish though. Can be Masahiro, Hiromasa, Tsunahiro, Fuyuhiro, Shimada or even Muramasa with a very unusual nakago. An upper quality example for any of these names. Occasionally one sees an almost exact later, Edo period, copy of such work, but nothing here clearly suggests this to be the case. So unfortunately this is the case where I would even theoretically not aim above dozen. First choice - late muromachi, sue-Soshu. Second choice - late Nambokucho, some Etchu Soshu smith, most likely Etchu Kuniyuki. In hand or with photographs one could easily spot the difference - Etchu examples would have much stronger hada, with a hint of Matsukawa, with plenty of ji nie and strong black hue to it. Kasane would be thinner. Nie would have pronounced "belted" structure. Sue-Soshu would have generally coarser nie, coarser hada, less pronounced color.

I saw this blade before and will be just repeating my thoughts that for me Hasebe attribution would be a strong alternative here. Early works by Tametsugu have a distinct similarity to both Go and Norishige, in terms of both hamon and jigane. Here the jigane is bright, well forged itame, something definitely more often seen in Kamakura branch of Soshu. The attribution to Tametsugu would involve pointing towards his later period, when he was moving from Echizen to Mino; however, if I remember correctly no extant blades with Echizen signatures exist, and such reference thus relies heavily on Edo period publications. No guarantees some of those are not gimei. There is however undeniable similarity of his works to those of other Echizen smiths, Echizen Yoshizane and Nagayoshi, and quite a few others, many of which are dozen to Tametsugu attributions. But they still tend to have strong Etchu-like feel to them. Matsukawa hada is common, nie tends to form long, broad lines, which are in Go style "vibrate" and thin out as they go into ji. None of which is obvious here. There are couple of segments where the nie forms "belts", but they are not a dominant feature, they don't really couple well with hada in the ji, and one could argue that things like this are occasionally seen in other Soshu works. Overall tobiyaki and tight itame are not very characteristic of Echizen Soshu. Go is famous for tight itame masterpieces, but those also betray strong similarity to Kamakura's forging and are given strong consideration to be attributed to Kamakura's Masamune. This is something I would argue is far less common in later Etchu and Echizen pieces. These three images: https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258726106 https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258725328 https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258726106 to me have a much more Hasebe look than anything out of Echizen or Etchu. Truly, Hasebe tends to be rougher in hada, and with strong o-mokume in the center with nagare towards ha and ji, while here mokume appears only in couple of places. However, Hasebe did forge in tight itame. Actually, there are not that many valid alternative attributions for this blade. It does not have a lot of sunagashi/kinsuji, which many of later (1360+) Soshu lineages would exhibit plenty of. Hamon has more "nie cloud" rather than gunome or togari-based appearance, which more of less definitely excludes another set of Soshu branches. It does not have strong nioi-tint to it, especially close to the ha, so we can't blame the unusual on Sa's influence. I would argue that here: https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/258727154 https://www.zonerama.com/Nihonto/Photo/7069496/259051137 The blade does look like Echizen Soshu, but that's one very small segment. I am sure I am missing something, but can't figure out what it is.

The latest suguha Ichimonji I ever seen is by Iwato Ichimonji smith, 1320-something. One of the reasons signed suguha Ichimonji are not too uncommon is that those are often tanto or naginata. Ubu daito Ichimonji are exceptionally small percentage of the existing blades, while obviously tanto are still mostly ubu, so even though tanto form was not favorited by Ichimonji, ubu signed suguha tanto with Ichimonji name is something one does see now and then. One of the reasons its not unusual for them to reside in TH territory.

I have a somewhat different take on this one. If you look at 500$ poorly made poorly polished shinto waki, frankly speaking you'll probably never get the exact maker's name guessed right. Shinsa will identity someone, if only because that's the way Japanese express their opinions about things - by associating them with a lineage and a position within this lineage, instead of discussing style, quality in situ. But the reality is that lower level pieces are usually not very distinctive. With collectible swords, 80% of those in polish are fairly straightforward to kantei up to Dozen level. If you have really good photos or sword at hand, you can guess pretty quickly and pretty accurately when it was made, approximate school and approximate level of the maker within this school. And the better the sword is, the easier it is to do so. Really high class items are not too common even with Juyo papers, and the circle of people capable of making them is narrow. Conversely, the worse the item is, the harder it is to kantei. And then there are 10-20% which are born as weird things which mix and match very different school's features and you'll probably never get a final answer no matter how many shinsa you try. There are Hasebe sunnobi tanto with substantial sori, but very thin kasane. There are occasional Tsunahiro with thin kasane and similar sori. Despite being 200 years apart, both were large schools with greatly varying quality and features, even though they tend to be Soshu-based. So from time to time you see the blades like this - thinnish kasane but some sori, good Soshu work but not great enough to be considered early Soshu with certainty. Chances are you'll never know what it really is. All you get is a "circle of confusion" which say included Tsunahiro, late Masahiro, Hasebe, maybe some Shimada name and Nobukuni - and there is no reason to pick one of those with 100% certainty. Often such blades are resubmitted until they get the most desired name out of this crowd. There are schools which are widely known to give you headaches like this. Soshu is the most important example, in part as there are almost no signed examples from any of the absolutely first tier smiths, so the attributions can be a conjecture based on top of another conjecture. And there are also schools which are known to spread widely in terms of features. I woudl argue most pre-1300 blades are kind of like that. Ichimonji is distinctive, but only in its choji form - while a lot, if not the majority of still fully signed ubu blades by Ichimonji smiths are in suguha, and often quite ugly one at that. Patchy nie, lots of nagare, it looks almost Yamato, ko Hoki or something alike - nope, its signed by someone from Fukuoka Ichimonji. The greatest issue with Japanese way to do Art History is that its strictly vertical - you are defined by your father, not by your contemporaries. Which is very often not the case. And then there is politics. A lot of politics. Not surprisingly coming into play where the exact attribution is objectively hard.

Very personal opinion: Such sugata typically goes to shinshinto or more likely Momoyama to Kanei period. Yasurime's state here and nakago condition is more consistent with the earlier date. The work etc. consistent with period's Mino examples. Its probably either the first Aizu Kanesada (Kanei period) or immedeately preceding Mino Kanesada generation. Its does appear authentic in all aspects.

One can call by this name many things, but most usefully is to refer by this name "uchigatana" typically Bizen, less often Mino blades with a distinctive short nakago and nagasa very close to 2 shaku, either slightly above or below. A popular weapon in 1510-1560. They are "long swords", but with a predominantly single handed use.

Some of the originals do have deep sori and uneven yet deep yasurime.

The wear on horimono is very natural, so its probably old enough. Its location is a bit awkward, as it barely fits above the hamon, which detracts a lot from its visual impact, but its actually quite detailed. Sugata can be consistent with the early Edo, the work is most likely shinto-style also. This smith's examples unfortunately seldom have some kantei quality which can be used for definitive judgement, the work varies and can have rough hada, or tight itame etc. etc. This could be brought to shinsa as is to verify the signature. Here is an authentic signature for comparison. There are significant differences, but I don't know if they are enough to be certain its gimei. Very personal opinion - gimei, but don't hold me to it.

Such shape and work were popular between 1360 and 1415, which is consistent with papers issued.

Nice sue-koto Mino tanto. Not Muramasa's style. The signature is relatively well done, probably not that long ago.

The problem is that wakizashi length swords came into being at least twice via completely independent paths. In Nambokucho they appeared as oversized tanto. In Muromachi in addition to that there was introduction of significantly reduced in size daito. Both functionality and design of those two is drastically different as well. So sunnobi tanto in wakizashi length is still a derivative of tanto and was often associated with "tanto-heavy" lineages like Soshu. The kind of wakizashi one could use in a daisho, i.e. shinogi zukuri, is a derivative of daito, and could be made by smiths specializing in daito rather than tanto. It is also a relatively recent phenomena. Though attempts at "ko-daito" were occasionally made way before, and such pre-Muromachi examples should be called wakizashi - since they were probably intended to be such. Which term is being used can thus depend on the context. If one discusses how Rai tends to be tanto heavy lineage, then even very large, later sunnobi examples can be referred to as tanto, since they were intended to be used as a large tanto. In the same way I would not call uchigatana at "just" 58cm a wakizashi, since it was never intended to be one, i.e. worn as a side, additional weapon, or a large sword which could still be carried indoors (you would still have to surrender it in places where daito were not worn), or to avoid legal/appearances issues. Which when it comes to long swords were common even during Nambokucho times - in Ashikaga's armies kuge generally avoided wearing armor or carrying swords especially during public events.

I can only say that very personally even with hi I seldom can guess what exactly it was before suriage, especially with more or less uniform sori blades. I hate "facts and fundamentals" book for many reasons, one of which is that places strong accent on techniques and observations which are arcane at the best of times. There are smiths who gradually tapered hamon into nakago, those who did not, and the blades where hadori by itself gives appearance as if they did not, that sort of thing. The blade is clearly in some polish, as a relatively wide nioi-guchi is very clearly seen. With this sugata it can be late Muromachi, but there were almost no smiths doing ko-itame at the time. It can be the end of Kamakura, but some things are wrong, and purely ko-itame smiths at the time generally were very few in number, very high class and with very bright jigane. You can say wide nioi-guchi maybe its lesser school like Nio, but then it would not be as uniformly forged and you expect to see clear nagare and substantial variation in jigane. I am sorry to say it looks very uniform and kind of featureless. I very personally think its shinto.

I think the "modern" definition of 60.6cm is very useful. There is one notable exception of Bizen, and to lesser extent Mino blades from around Tembun (1496-1540) period, where a lot of ubu swords are 56-62cm yet were clearly intended to be the main weapon, upper classes included, and the ones that are 62cm long are clearly of the very same kind and type of weapon as those with "only" 58cm. Aside from this, one clearly sees that in Edo times 60.6cm was always a red line of sorts, whatever the law said. There are a lot of daito that are shortened exactly to this size, with a clear intent to preserve its long sword status. Wakizashi "touching" up this range at say 60.1cm are anything but common.

Its hard to be certain, but I doubt its koto. Sugata is consistent with late Muromachi to early Edo. Its similar to late Kamakura, but kissaki does not scream Kamakura. Its suguha in nioi, which for koto means substantial hada effort. Here everything is very uniform and very subdued. There is utsuri, which is nice. If it had bright ji nie, I would say Enju (there are very few schools which worked with wide suguha and really dense itame-only execution), but as is I would go with some early shinto maker. But 10% chance its Enju which is really out of polish.

... and its in polish. The light direction choice was not particularly effective for the photography chosen. Blades that don't have strong nie are trickier to shoot.

The size looks about right for the period. There are many who will argue for me being quartered alive for such guesses, but most of the things appear to match.

Its really hard to see, but looks like a nice Bizen style blade that was roughly cut down. Could you measure kissaki's dimensions? By default something along the lines of Ishido , 1640-1690.

I am sure many will frown for posting here something unpapered, but I am a dumpster diver and too many of my items are like this. Not being an expert, I do suspect its the earliest portion of Kaga Goto lineage.

My understanding is that there are only two known dated tsuba which are on the basis of date can be accepted as the first generation's work. For the rest whether its first generation or not is a conjecture. There is an opinion that certain subjects, including kinko works in Mino style, are the ones that should be attributed specifically to the first generation. I am not knowledgeable enough to fully understand the details of such arguments. There are hundreds of Soten tsubas in western museum collections, as his works were quite popular during the early collecting (1880-1920) days. For a simple person like myself, Kanenori is quite likely the best signature within this school, as his works tend to be extremely well executed. Otherwise, there are later Soten signed pieces which are of top quality and likely were made for Hikone's best. Some of those are kinko, and they tend to have more complicated and uncommon scenes compared to "average" examples.

Its definitely real and of upper grade for such items. The problem is thus signed tsuba were produced for about a century and in quantity, mostly for II daimyo retainers. Almost all are most likely not the works of the "first generation", and frankly which are attributable to the fist generation constitutes a somewhat ambiguous topic, there are conflicting opinions on that. So most are judged strictly based on their quality. This one has really advanced detail and good depth to the figures, so its in the top 5-10% for the style. I think you could actually get 1,200$ if you were to consider selling it. Unless your hands are extremely miniature, its a large enough example, in good condition. Please don't clean it aside from simple paper towel or such.

I guess here is another generalization - Kambun period's smith were in general a step above their immideate predecessors. Quite an unusual phenomenon in Japanese history, but it was a short period of unparalleled economic prosperity and possibly it took smiths some time to get used to shinto steel.

I grew up with a few blades at home (nothing a discerning collector would be excited about) plus there was a very good exhibit of medieval European arms and armor closeby, which impressed me greatly. However, I suspected the European subject to be relatively well understood, and thus with somewhat limited excitement or opportunity to come up with something new and instinctively went into a different direction. It was a difficult trip nevertheless, but one thing I am still amazed about is how much of everything I got to see along the way. For some reason passion, history, money, art, politics and much else converged on the path. I've seen the humanity at its basic worst, but met a few talented people who taught me a lot in fields that have nothing to do with swords. Dozens of emails sent over many years spent trying to get inside some prestigious museum only to find out it only owns garbage, while having a friend who would bring out dozens of Durers anytime I visited. Death sentence in one country, a personal conflict with a leading terrorist in another one, protection offered by terrorists in the third one. And all of that because of a few blades!!! Who would have thought.

Unfortunately I am not aware of who exactly are the experts pointing it down to a specific generation... NBTHK tends to do first generation versus later generations, or even just Muromachi versus pre-Muromachi. Their papers to specifically second or third generation are exceptionally rare and usually concern very specific smiths where such generations are very distinctive (Nosada) or blades that are fully signed. Must be NTHK then, but they also as a rule do not write the generation. They write specific time period; if asked in person they can qualify whether the attribution means most likely the later work of the second or the early one of the third generation, but they very seldom write it in the paper itself. Regarding Masamune, what we have today is a long term reverbation from the times when thousands of blades were attributed to him. After many back and forth movements the only blades papering to this name are apparently those that were in the past considered to be his work. The arguments that are being maid for such attributions can be traced through recent NBTHK journal issues. They tend to heavily emphasize quality rather than any specific kantei features. There is an opinion that Masamune is like Samonji, in a sense that hamon can be a tad nioi and nie activity is sort of shifted upwards towards the ji, and compared to Sa there is really lots of nie but it has to be noted that most of works accepted as those of Masamune do not fit this specific description. Masamune is a great example where traditional+quality replaces the role of specific kantei features. Otherwise, personal attributions to the founder are nearly always suggestive of higher quality than those to the school in general; those to the second generation tend to be less coveted than those of the first. There are exceptions, but these are the apparent rules.

Yes, to me its an additional motivator to collect later things - plenty of deals even for ubu signed swords, as long as one does not subscribe to a standard high class Japanese collector preferences (Kotetsu and Kiyomaro). Which ofcoarse has its dangers of the blades in question unlikely to be ever "officially" appreciated above certain level, but if one wants to have fun its definitely an opportunity. There are some stunning Oei period makers with poor ratings, since everything connected to Ashikaga was officially despised for the entirety of Edo period, and plenty of Edo swordsmiths who never made it aside from being someone's apprentice, even if this someone was saijosaku and known to sign the blades made by his students. For Koto the deals are hard to find. Gets even harder with pre-Nambokucho with their distinctive sugata, where everything in Japan is papered. Some people at the upper end are searching for "slam dank Juyo" among Hozon blades and then paper them at higher level. Something I never really appreciated since have little interest in blades whose main accomplishment is being ubu and Kamakura. But there I would say still a few names where the deals are possible. For example, better works of Etchu Tametsugu will not go to Norishige, because Norishige is way too distinctive in his style. By the same token attributions to Norishige are seldom challenged or changed compared to most other smiths. There are also cases where the work is so unusual, they can't attribute it to anyone famous and it gets some weird attribution to really not well known contemporary. But its amazing how name-based Japanese sword collecting is. You get something attributed to a good name based on sugata and features, and its boring like hell with shingane throughout and its still sells in a day.

One has to add that "decreasing quality of later generations" with respect to pre-Muromachi items has a tint of self-fulfilling prophecy. While attributions to different lineages are (hopefully) based on kantei features, within the same linage quality plays a significant role. So we can find shinto signed chu-jo-saku with a first class blade, but in the world of early mumei blades such attribution cannot happen in principle. If its first class work it will be attributed to the founder. This also prevents one from objectively appreciating the second generation's real quality level - something which is quite possible in shinto and shinshinto.