SteveM

This is essentially a mumei sword, so there is no original Kanesada mei on this sword. The two gold lacquer signatures are: Kanesada - presumably written by Kōson, and the signature of Kōson himself. The actual inscription on the sword is an inscription that was added later, and it says 関東 (Seki Higashi, or maybe Kantō, but I think given the supposed origin of the sword it should be Seki Higashi). In any event, it isn't Kanesada's signature on the sword, so you'll have to dig into an analysis of the sword itself, which is hard to do with photos. The Kōson signatures look real, but all signatures and papers can be faked, so best to proceed with extreme caution. (The sayagaki also has Kōson's signature on it).

Location indicator? ヨ for Yokohama, etc? That's my guess, anyway.

Yes, I'm sure its Ryubundō　龍文堂

It's a name: Masuda 増田

Yes - still Chōunsai Emura kitaeru kore.

Looking back at my post from 2017, I would amend it and say the "fuku" carved into the mune of the nakago isn't a random good luck character scratched by the owner, but instead is a mark indicating the place of manufacture (in this case Fukuoka - 福岡).

Hello Luca #1 花洛住 氷筆 (花押) 最近になり should be 永峯　 外国資料に [花洛住渡辺即三良行 should be 治郎三郎 (Jirōsaburō - civilian name of the artist) 年六十ー歳 永峯 (花押)] と切つた小 should be small っ 策があることを確認レた should be 柄 and し, and こ was left out From the end of the second line onwards, "Karaku-ju Watanabe Jirōsaburō gyōnen rokujū-issai Nagamine" to kitta kozuka ga aru koto wo kakunin shita. A kozuka with a mei of "Karaku-jū Watanabe Jirōsaburō Gyōnen 61 years" has been confirmed in an overseas source". #2 花洛住 氷筆 (花押) 花の字をと異体に切つ same as above, 氷筆 should be 永峯. 花 should be 芲. And small っ たリ この緑銘のように華をくずしたようにみえろ字体に切る ろ should be る So, after "kaō": 花の字を芲と異体に切ったり この緑銘のように華をくずしたようにみえる字体に切る Hana no ji wo "hana" to itai ni kittari kono fuchi mei no yō ni "hana" wo kuzushita yō ni mieru jitai ni kiru "The character for flower "花" is sometimes cut/engraved using the variant of "芲" , or cut using a character that looks like the calligraphic (aka grass script) version of "華". #3 氷筆 (花押) 峰は必ず峯と切つていろ 　Same as #1 and #2, the name should be 永峯. The character 峯 was left out. ろ should be る. Nagamine (kaō) is always cut using the character for mine with the yama kanmuri (峯). *Note: There are two common ways to write "mine": either 峰 or 峯. The first one is the most common, but the second one is a very well-known, well-used variant. So this entry is just confirming that this artist always used the second variant (yama on top). #4 氷筆 (花押) この工人の花押を比較すると小異があ　　　　See above リ さらに別形もみられるので 同名二人説や複数説　　　　should be hiragana り もある この縁銘内字は他のものとくらべ変わつ　　　　　内 should be の永. Should be small っ ている 永峯（花押）。この工人の花押を比較すると小異があり、さらに別形もみられるので、同名二人説や複数説もある。この縁銘の永の字は他のものとくらべ変わっている。 Nagamine (kaō). Kono kōnin kōjin no kaō wo hikaku suru to shoi ga ari, sarani bekkei mo mirarerunode dōmei-futari-setsu ya fukusū-setsu mo aru. Kono fuchi mei no "naga" no ji wa ta no mono to kurabe kawatteiru. So: When comparing this smith's kaō, we can see small differences, as well as completely different kaō, so there is speculation that there are two smiths, or multiple smiths with the same name. The 永 character in this mei on this fuchi is is different/unusual from that used in other mei. #5 氷筆 (花押) 二字銘に花押を添えろのが普通であろ Same as above for the name. ろ should be る. It is typical to see the kaō after the two-character name. Steve Edit: fixed a mistake. kōnin → kōjin

This would have been an enormous sword. Would it be possible to get close up shots of the nakago? Those horimono on the nakago should have originally been on the blade part of the sword, which means the full length you quoted of 87cms would have been close to the original cutting edge length.

I searched around for various images, and I found a similar tsuba with three sages. The screen grab comes from a scam auction site, which steals data from Yahoo Auctions. I tried to find the original listing, but I can't. Anyway, it apparently has Hozon attribution, and the text from the Hozon certificate describes the design on this tsuba as "Gathering of Sages" (群仙の図), which, if you then plug the Japanese phrase back into a search engine you can find a number of similarly themed scrolls and screens Some with three sages, some with many more. Anyway, just another scrap of info. (It also attributes the tsuba to "Shōami").

Possible to see a shot of the whole tsuba to see how the sages are arranged? Gama Sennin and Tekkai Sennin are a natural pair, so those two feel like a given. I'd like to see the third figure in his entirety. Zhuong Guolao (Chō ka rō) wouldn't have been my guess, but I'm at the outer limits of my knowledge, so maybe he's a possibility.

Yes, that is one possibility. The sword has three mekugi-ana in it, so it was shortened several times. It may have been shortened due to the changing fighting styles. It may have been further shortened to better suit the size of a new owner. Or it may have been shortened to remedy some defect in the machi area. Or some combination of all/any of the above.

The rules may have changed since 1975 (when this sword was designated Jūyō), but nowadays when you submit for Tokubetsu Jūyō, you have to return the previous papers to the NBTHK. It's part of the agreement you sign when you submit your item for TJ shinsa. That's the rule, anyway. As for this sword; I don't think this one is in any danger of getting attributed to Yukimitsu. As Jussi mentioned, the provenance is as good as you will find, and it has been attributed to Masamune by Hon'ami Kōjō (1698), Kunzan (1972), and Tanobe (2009), as well as the NBTHK (1975). Why doesn't it already have Tokubetsu Jūyō attribution? That would be a good question for the seller. Maybe it was submitted and failed (due to some other magnificent Masamune bumping this one out of the competition?). Or maybe the owner has damaged it somehow? Who knows. In any event, nobody will buy a million dollar blade over the internet from an unknown seller without first examining the sword. Actually this one has already been removed from the online auction site in Japan where it was originally listed. My guess is that this was some kind of exercise in price discovery. I don't know why its still showing up as an active listing on Jauce. Darcy said there was once a tantō that was attributed to Masamune at the Jūyō level, and was then attributed to Yukimitsu at the TJ level. He said Kanzan was the one who gave it the Yukimitsu attribution. Kanzan was of the opinion that Yukimitsu was the equal of Masamune. He seems to have been a minority of one. Anyway, once Kanzan had passed away, the owner re-submitted the tantō and it was revised back to Masamune. I don't know if this is a true story... the details were a bit sketchy.

於岩清尾八幡宮邊佐々木正茂造 Oite Iwaseo Hachimangu atari Sasaki Masashige tsukuru Made by Sasaki Masashige at Iwaseo Hachimangu shrine

Yes, that's right.

Looks like sumire (violet) maybe? 三ツ割菫 Found one that's close, but not quite the same. No idea of the families that used it. https://kamon-db.net/portfolio/mitsusumire

That Tadayoshi is a different one, who spells his name differently. The one that Aoi has is 忠喜 (Kawashima Tadayoshi). Relatively famous smith gunto smith. The one that Klaus has is 忠義, who is something of a mystery, but looks like a pretty skilled smith.

I would add that learning to recognize quality is a constant pursuit, but sometimes people get derailed and start to concentrate on "learning to recognize defects". A longtime collector here, Guido Schiller, called these guys "defect fetishists". He writes briefly, but eloquently, and persuasively on the subject of defects and value in his article about collecting. If you are interested, I highly recommend his article. The bit about value and flaws starts around page 7, but the whole article is worth reading.

I wouldn't beat yourself up too much over this speck. I think a lot of us used to use prodigious amounts of uchiko "back in the day", and then wiped it off with washi paper. We all thought that was the proper form of care and maintenance of the blade. And the sword shops gave us those great "sword maintenance" kits that had the uchiko balls and the paper and everything. So of course we're going to use them. Anyway, I regret all that uchiko I put on my swords. I don't think I ruined the swords, but none of it enhanced the swords any. So...some slight guilt, but I reckon we've all had those moments.

弐拾七号　It means #27 (I don't know what the loop with the line through it signifies... maybe 日 - nichi - which means day/sun, not sure if it has any significance).

Yes, the narrator says the three dots are part of the signature of the smith who made the farm tools. Mitsu-boshi Ichimonji.

The way these are boxed, it definitely gives the impression they were intended to be sold as daishō menuki. On the other hand, I would expect the wakizashi menuki to be noticeably smaller in a daishō set, whereas both pairs of these menuki look to be the same size. Also, the workmanship looks late Edo and possibly early Meiji, even. Not very expertly carved, and maybe even cast. So then you get close to the rabbit hole of the question of "what is a true daishō?" It's a question that sparks a lot of animated discussion. If you search this forum, you can find other threads on it.

This one looks like a stylized tomoe (巴) https://glyphwiki.or...ki/u2ffb-u5df1-u4e28

I think Piers nailed it with Senshū 仙舟造. Same maker as the pot below https://www.1stdibs....47362/#zoomModalOpen

The Nanka Tōkenkai (SoCal Sword Club) is meeting tonight at the usual venue in Gardena. I will be speaking tonight on sword signatures, so if you are in the area and are interested in listening to me jabber away, drop by. 7:00pm - 9:00pm. If you have a sword or tsuba signature you want me to read, bring it by. (for some reason the Facebook page hasn't been updated yet, but the venue is the same). Japanese Cultural Institute Gardena Valley JCI, 1964 W. 162nd Street, Gardena, CA 90247

Very interesting to have this documentation. November 23, 1945. This was when the US army was going back and forth on whether or not family heirloom swords could be retained by their owners, or whether demilitarization meant absolutely no weapons whatsoever. I think the hardliners were in the majority in early December. But by the end of December, the negotiations had worked in the favor of allowing heirloom (i.e. art swords) to be retained by their owners. Great to see this kind of hard evidence of those times.