SteveM

None of these swords could be licensed. The licensing system is only for Japanese swords. There was some debate in the early years of the licensing system about whether or not foreign swords should be allowed to be licensed and held in private collections. If I'm not mistaken there was one collector who sued the government because he could not get his antique foreign sword licensed, with the government eventually winning the case. So the defacto position is that only Japanese swords may be licensed.

將柳軒　英随　Shōryūken Teruyuki Some more information on this smith in the post below

Hi guys, looks like Kataoka Kunihiro 片岡国廣

Far left line says it passed the army's quality inspection. 本廠檢定

Kamon are used by multiple, often unrelated families. Impossible to tell who owned a sword just by looking at the mon (unless it is an extremely unique mon, but even then you would want some corroborating provenance).

I think maybe you are confusing 堀川門, which is, as John says above, a kind of "bucket" attribution to "the school of Horikawa".

@Cola It's the same smith for both of the swords you linked to. But there is a lot of variation in the inscribing of the mei. Possibly this is due to several people making swords under Nagamitsu's supervision. Brian and Chandler both talk about this in the other thread. If the papers are important to you (and, they usually are important for most people, especially if you are ever contemplating selling your sword - or you would like to make it easy for your heirs to sell your sword), then save yourself some trouble and buy the sword that is already papered. That sword also comes with a paper receipt for the sword, dated 1978 and signed by Tsukamoto Sozan, who was an ex-military man who went on to do various activities after the war, including managing a sword museum in Chiba prefecture. So, considering it has not only an NBTHK paper, but also a little bit of provenance. I have no reason to doubt the other sword is also an authentic Nagamitsu sword, but ultimately it comes down to a question of how much friction will there be when the sword eventually gets resold. Having the NBTHK paper eliminates a lot of friction. Without the paper, the sword will eventually end up back at a site like this with the owner (or potential owner) asking, is this a real Nagamitsu?

Hopefully this is what you are looking for?

Do you know who the consignment seller is, or is it just being sold by an anonymous person on the internet? The one small tidbit I can provide is that the sword was registered in Ehime prefecture, and the Kamata family was indeed from Ehime. The Vice Admiral's son (Kamata Hideo) was an accountant who died in 2009, and the accountant's son (Kamata Toshiya) is a music producer based in Tokyo. He's got his own twitter and instagram page.

Name of the theme of the kozuka with the chrysanthemums on it is 枝菊図 (edagiku-zu), or chrysanthemum branches. I believe it is a common theme of the Gotō artists. There is an explanation of this theme at the link below, which basically says it contains various elements: elegance, nobility, strength, endurance, all present in the chrysanthemum in the field. http://katana.mane-ana.co.jp/touwa0510renjyoukiku.html Here is the theme again as part of a set https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/472635

Usually bamboo is used for mekugi on swords when they are out and in use (i.e. not in the shirasaya). Longtime NMB member Guido Schiller said that bamboo is used because bamboo doesn't make a clean break when its placed under stress, which would allow the sword to fly out of the handle. Instead, bamboo is fibrous so it might split under stress, but the strands of bamboo will retain some structural integrity, so your sword has less of a chance of flying out of the tsuka. It sounds like a very plausible explanation to me. For shirasaya, I think bamboo is actually the default material, but horn is an inexpensive, nice-looking, and long-lasting upgrade, so you see a lot of it being used. The sword in the resting (shirasaya) tsuka isn't under a lot of stress, so the mekugi doesn't need to be bamboo.

The article above was written by Tanobe-sensei. He says, (my loose translation of the salient bits) Regarding Tomoshige 1st; he is said to have been either a student of Rai Kunitoshi, or a student of Kashū Sanekage. However, by looking at the the oldest extant sword believed to have been made by Tomoshige 1st (Important Art object in the Atsuta Shrine) the former claim, while not impossible from an age standpoint, seems difficult to accept judging by the style in which the sword was made. Meanwhile, the latter claim is inconsistent with the age of the sword. Indeed, judging from the work of the jiba, and from the shape of the nakago jiri being in the style of Katayama, and from the workmanship being of the kind often seen in kanmuri-otoshi blades, it seems as if it is a continuation of the Yamato tradition, and swordsmith groups coming from Yamato, such as the Uda who settled in Etchū in the Hokuriku, and Nobunaga et. al who carried on the Taima tradition in Echizen Asago, are gaining attention.

Inside of the cup says "commendation" Outside of the cup has the date of Showa 9 (1934), and looks like these were presented to some support group for Imajō Station, in Fukui Prefecture.

I saw this one from your other thread, and one thing that I got stuck on was 直指人心見性成佛 the kanji in red doesn't look like the kanji that Tesshu has written. I was wondering if he wrote it in some idiosyncratic way, or if he deliberately used a different kanji. I couldn't get the other poem at all, but it is an odd coincidence that it uses the same 水せず phrase in both scrolls.

I'm just reading the descriptions from the auction sites (like the one Baby Joe linked to above). The person/company selling these knives is claiming they are made from tamahagane.

I think it is a modern (post-war) utility knife. Maybe the cutout near the tip hints at it being some kind of special-purpose knife, I don't know. It bears the inscription "made using traditional methods", which hints at it being made with tamahagane. I can find other utility knives with this same inscription showing up on several dodgy auction sites, as well as Japan's Yahoo auction site. It could be a legitimate tamahagane product, but it could also be something churned out of some forge/factory in Japan, China, or elsewhere. Not enough information to pinpoint what it is. Edit: hit the "send" button without seeing Baby Joe's answer above. I agree for the most part with what he says.

Looks like katakana カケヌ (kakenu), but it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe a tradesman's contraction/jargon.

Yes, its usually pointless to try to assign a mon to one specific family, unless you have a provenance for the sword (a surrender tag, etc...). Another site suggests this crest was used by the following families. Oddly enough, it lists neither Abe or Sakai as a possibility (but this list is not exhaustive); 佐野、金子、岡島、上原、梶、窪島、神、杉枝、中西、岩佐、貝瀬、大木、保科、中島、堀川、水上、原田、平山、山本、池原、小野、中山、田中、山本、中沢、有賀、梶川 https://irohakamon.com/kamon/kaji/marunitachikajinoha.html

Here is a gassaku with a Nagatsuna mei on one side. Construction of the mei is different (Settsu-jū Fujiwara Nagatsuna), but its the writing of the "naga" character that strikes me as being different from the one on the sword in your post. But...this single gassaku is probably not a great reference. Anyway, I add the link here for reference, and snip a bit of the mei.* *As always, credits to the owner, and reference is only intended for educational purposes. https://www.seiyudo.com/ka-098129.htm

I think this is true for all of us. The quality of the images in the foundational texts leaves much to be desired

呰部 I think this is pronounced Azae. It's an unusual reading.

The black writing says 権之丞寫 (Gonnosuke utsushi), meaning "copy of Gonnosuke". Gonnosuke is a name, but I'm unsure if it is an historical figure or fictitious character. There is a Gonnosuke who fought Miyamoto Musashi, but the clothing of the figures in this picture look as if they predate Musashi's time. I haven't cracked the red artist's seal yet.

I don't quite understand your post. What I'm saying is that shōwatō (aka guntō), especially ones that have signatures by known smiths, have been successfully licensed and some have been papered. It would have been unthinkable before the 2000s, but Japan seems to be more open to seeing the historical value of these swords, if not their artistic value. We see these swords being licensed with increasing frequency. I'm using the word "guntō", but its virtually interchangeable with the word "shōwatō". Items that were mass-produced for the war effort. Some items were produced with a bit more effort, skill, and artistry, but all of these were deemed weapons, and were not eligible for licenses; hence, illegal to own.

Couldn't crack this one. The first three are 大和守 (Yamato-no-kami) as you might already know. The last one I assume is 作, although it looks unusual. Which leaves the 4th and 5th kanji, which are obviously the swordsmith's name, but here they both look so strange as to be illegible. Well, if we know the smith is allowed to use "Yamato-no-kami" we can go to the list of smiths who were granted that title, compiled by Markus, and search through the list for possible/plausible matches. Unfortunately the kanji on the sword look nothing like the kanji used by any of the Yamato-no-kami smiths. Actually, both of the kanji on the sword look like parts of kanji, or unfinished kanji. This one has me stumped.

Some WW2-era blades have torokusho. Some even have NBTHK papers. I think there has been a gradual reappraisal of the term "art sword", and relaxing of standards that were formulated in the immediate post-war era. This sword is an example of that.