Jacques

Make your choice (from Shoshin's site) HIDEKUNI MEI-JI 1868 AIZU MEIJI HIRONOBU TEI-KYO 1684 YAMASHIRO/KII SHINTO HIRONOBU GEN-JI 1864 MUSASHI SHIN-SHINTO IYETSUGU KAN-EI 1624 YAMASHIRO SHINTO KANEHIRO KAN-BUN 1661 HIZEN SHINTO KANEKURA TEN-WA 1681 MINO SHINTO KANENOBU SHO-HO 1644 MINO SHINTO KANENOBU KAN-BUN 1661 MINO SHINTO KUNIHIDE GEN-ROKU 1688 OSAKA SHINTO KOBAYASHI KUNITERU (same as KUNIHIDE) KUNIMORI KAN-EI 1624 MINO SHINTO KUNITAKE TEI-KYO 1684 YAMATO SHINTO SUKEKANE (same as KUNITAKE) KUNITSUNA KAN-EI 1624 BUNGO SHINTO YUKIHIRA (same as KUNITSUNA) KUNIYUKI KAN-BUN 1661 BUNGO SHINTO MASAKATSU TEN-PO 1830 HIGO SHINTO MASANORI KAN-BUN 1661 ECHIZEN SHINTO MASAUJI KAN-EI 1624 BINGO SHINTO MOTOHIRA KAN-SEI 1789 SATSUMA SHINTO MOTONOBU SHO-TOKU 1711 SETTSU SHINTO MOTOOKI KEI-O 1865 AIZU SHIN-SHINTO MOTOUJI KAN-BUN 1661 MINO SHINTO MUNEKUNI GEN-ROKU 1688 MUSASHI SHINTO NAOHIRO KA-EI 1848 BUNGO SHIN-SHINTO NAOYUKI GEN-BUN 1736 BUNGO SHINTO NOBUSADA TEN-MON 1532 YAMASHIRO KOTO NOBUSADA KAN-EI 1624 HIGO SHINTO NOBUTOSHI TEN-WA 1681 HARIMA SHINTO SADAHIRO GEN-ROKU 1688 OWARI SHINTO SUKEMASA TEI-KYO 1684 OSAKA SHINTO TADATSUGU KAN-BUN 1661 YAMASHIRO SHINTO TADAYUKI KAN-EI 1624 BUNGO SHINTO TADAYUKI TEN-WA 1681 BUNGO SHINTO TAKAMICHI MEI-REKI 1655 OWARI SHINTO TOSHITOSHI MEI-WA 1764 CHIKUZEN SHINTO TSUGUIYE - origin obscure YASUKUNI SHO-TOKU 1711 SATSUMA SHINTO YASUMICHI KAN-BUN 1661 MINO SHINTO YASUSADA KEI-CHO 1596 EDO SHINTO YASUTSUGU KAN-BUN 1661 ECHIZEN SHINTO YASUTSUGU (same as YASUTSUGU) YOSHIMICHI(1) MAN-JI 1658 OSAKA SHINTO YOSHIMICHI(2) EN-PO 1673 OSAKA SHINTO YOSHIMICHI(3) GEN-ROKU 1688 OSAKA SHINTO YOSHINOBU KAN-EI 1624 YAMASHIRO SHINTO YUKINAGA TEI-KYO 1684 BUNGO SHINTO YUKIYASU GEN-JI 1864 SATSUMA SHIN-SHINTO

This is where the problem lies, we are only interested in the mei if the work is comparable to that of the smith being copied, and we have a very good example with Kajihei who was talented enough to imitate the work (hada, hamon etc.) of high-level swordsmiths, only a thorough study of the mei could allow to see that this sword was gimei.

You need to buy some books like this one https://www.amazon.com/Genealogies-Schools-Japanese-Swordsmiths-Markus/dp/3839183472

It was a way of recognizing who had done the work and this practice is almost universal, with the possible exception of the Mishina school. . If you're referring to genealogies, it's well documented.

Kirill@ The thickness of the kasane depends on the nagasa; 0.7cm kasane on a blade of 75 cm or more is a thin kasane and is a strong kasane on a blade of 65 or less

Dai-mei or dai saku mei are considered shoshin by the NBTHK, and they know how to detect them The daimei of the Tadayoshi sandai can be recognized by the yasurime, which are slightly katte-agari, and the left tagane of the Hiro kanji square, which is engraved in the opposite direction.

Kasane is always mesured at the mune; when the kasane is thin with a substantial difference between the kasane and the distance between the 2 shinogi, the shinogi is said to be high.

It gets even more complicated when it comes to daimei, and there are more of them than you might think.

I'd also like to point out another feature of Tadahiro's nidai mei: the size of the kanji decreases as you go down from Hizen towards the hiro kanji (requires a trained eye).

Kikumon is not the right one . https://world-seiyudo.com/product/ka-050121/

Gimei, the space between the kanji is not correct

No, the style of the Gassan family's mei is very particular and has nothing to do with the one discussed here; the same goes for the horimono. I must apologise as i'm wrong with the Sanmei's Tanto it's one of Sadaichi, not Sadakazu... ps Sadakazu was an adopted son of Gassan Sadayoshi....

Obviously gimei https://sanmei.com/contents/media/N16160_T5801_PUP_E.html

Unfortunately gimei https://www.touken-sato.com/event/katana/2013/11/W-kaneyasu-01.html

"Les sabres Shinto" written by Serge Degore. All oshigata in this book are from NBTHK.

Tachibana Yasuhiro worked in the Ichimonji style, the hamon seen on this sword does not correspond to this style. example: https://www.token-net.com/juyotoken/tachibana_yasuhiro.html

Are you sure you can read a hamon correctly? I'd like to know what makes you think of Yasuhiro The upper part of the hamon comprises the mono-uchi; the lower part extends from the yakidashi to approximately halfway up the blade.

On this photo, the difference is quite visible

If the upper part of the hamon is different from the lower part (which I think it is) we are in sue Seki or sue Bizen.

With a tokubetsu hozon, i doubt it can be a kazu uchimono. In any case, you can't judge the real quality of a sword without having some knowledge of it, and without having it in your hand...

Wakizashi. From what i can see hamon seems notare based.

This is where the study of the mei comes into its own. On the sword disussed here, all is wrong, let's just talk about nakago, we can't talk about the workmanship based on photo. The sugata of the nakago is wrong, Kagemitsu's tachi with an ubu nakago are rare (I know of only 2) and their nakago is long. Mei is inscribed the wrong side, location of the mei should be close to the mune and above the mekugi ana, size of the kanji are wrong (must be smaller)

No, there are some very well-made gimei

Gimei at 100%.

Every sword in Japan must have a torokusho. If the sword is exported it is de-registered and if it is later re-imported to Japan (for sale or polishing) it must be registered again.