Jussi Ekholm

To my eye signature seems to be 和泉守兼定作 Izumi no Kami Kanesada saku. I would dare to say it is not "the" Mino Kanesada. However there seem to be 4 other Kanesada (兼定) smiths who had the title Izumi no Kami. Unfortunately I am on my phone and away from my references for the weekend so I cannot check if I have a signature example for any of the lesser known ones.

Congratulations on getting a nice sword. In the book Osafune Chōshi, history of Osafune smiths there is actual data on 1,040 dated Osafune swords from 1232 to 1595. While 2nd and 8th month have always had the auspicious aura, there is actually big shift when Ōei ended in 1428. After Ōei Osafune smiths pretty much dated only to to 2nd or 8th month. In the 4th bracket of the table that is late Muromachi period from 1504 to 1595, there are 323 dated swords. From all of those 174 swords (54%) are dated to 8th month and 140 swords (43,3%) are dated to 2nd month. So there are only 9 swords that are dated to other months. Now for comparison during Nanbokuchō period 1334 to 1393, 19,2% of swords were dated to 8th month and 15,6% were dated to 2nd month.

Congratulations on getting a very nice looking sword. I do like the horimono a lot, even though it is worn down. I do have huge respect for NBTHK and NTHK shinsa, however there are always limitations in play when they are processing hundreds of swords at fast pace in a shinsa session. I think most important thing is that they would see this as late Muromachi Sōshū Masahiro. Japanese way of giving extremely specific attributions is something I don't personally like all that much. They most likely cannot spend hours on researching a single normal sword so they shoot out a reasonable attribution they can agree on. Granted late Muromachi Sōshū is out of my comfort zone and I don't track them in my books, however I don't think I can easily find a reference sword by this smith from the huge amount of references I have at home, that is how rare this smith is. This is pretty obscure smith and very specific attribution, my guess would be that NBTHK would give out a lot more broad and general attribution. I think this entry from Nihontō Meikan is the only info I can dig up about this particular smith.

I don't know that much about koshirae as I focus on the blades. However to me in this case the sword blade is pretty uninspiring and the fittings are very high quality. I would dare to think that there would be extremely few daishō sets with full Miboku fittings, so I would think they are very precious. Yokoyama Sukesada blades in this case would not be that interesting considering the fittings. The interesting part to me is that it seems they were given to museum in 1936 so they were in the US before WWII. I am not sure who this Howard Mansfield was but he seems to have had a huge collection of extraordinary Japanese Fittings, including another daishō set this time full Konkan fittings, several Natsuo work etc. top tier artists. Just write his name into MET search and enjoy some spectacular sword fittings.

For NBTHK I think they are doing great job and it does support the organization financially. My only worry is the large amount of items that they do process through every year. I think the organization realized the problem and they did put a item number limit to Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa quite recently, and it is now limited to 1,600 swords per session. Now as they do 4 sessions per year that would be 6,400 swords, then you add the Jūyō submitted swords and it would be 7,000+ swords. Here are NBTHK numbers I digged from magazines 5+ years ago (I had actually forgotten I did this ): NTHK (including both branches) is much smaller organization, however I do know for their international shinsa they have the minimum item requirements for shinsa team to attend. I know NTHK is not preferred by market but I still value their opinion highly too. As the item submission numbers are quite large for shinsa sessions I am left wondering how many minutes each blade gets? Now the time invested will of course vary from item to item. I do understand that experts can see fine details in swords very fast and in few minutes can tell interesting things about the item, I have seen this in European NBTHK meetings for example.

There is a timeline problem with the attribution of item number 4. Kozori is actually quite specific attribution time wise and it is for late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi. So if the sword would be late Muromachi as it would maybe seem to be, then it couldn't be considered as Kozori work. For mumei unremarkable Bizen stuff from late Muromachi I would feel Sue-Bizen would be the grouping I would be most comfortable with.

That picture of yours is stunning Kirill. When you combine high quality sword and high quality photography the result is amazing. I've been on a good roll on NBTHK monthly kantei but I must admit my real kantei skills suck. As I've been doing it for several years it is easy to catch some pointers that they sometimes use, had to check that I got that one correct. For example "The hada is visible and is a unique hada" in their English description points to zanguri. Usually that is pushing it to Horikawa and for 2 character signature I think Kunihiro is the logical answer. For me this is book knowledge that I have, in real life I could not say what is zanguri hada, as I don't have too high real life kantei skills. I saw this ōdachi at Nagoya Tōken World last summer, and it is my favorite Owari sword: https://www.touken-world.jp/search/127485/ maybe massive kissaki and strong width might hint that sword in OP could have been originally a big one like this one. Of course as I like ōdachi that would be my wishful thinking. I have seen the even larger 1620 dated Kanetake ōdachi at Atsuta Jingū few times but I don't like that much maybe as much. So far I have not yet seen the shorter Kanetake ōdachi of Atsuta Jingū, maybe some day I will. Of course NBTHK might have more than likely the most probable outcome. I just personally would wish they might have had more general attribution, like mumei Owari - Keichō-Shintō etc. Of course that is their style to go for direct attributions for specific smiths, I don't personally like that but I understand how that is what people actually want. Most would be probably very disappointed in just general attributions that would state roughly province and time period. Big thanks of all the comments and discussion, it is really much more fun to have discussion than just think about all the things alone.

It seems to be a nice sword with very strong masame. If trying for Tokubetsu Hozon, I would submit without the old paper from blank beginning. As the NBTHK has attributed it to Sue-Hoshō they see it as a Muromachi era sword. By default it would be that mumei Sue-Hoshō can only achieve Hozon level. There might always be an exception but so far all 17 NBTHK attributed mumei Sue-Hoshō that I have data on are all Hozon, even though some of would be good quality. Please send us pictures after Woody has worked on it.

Should be this item https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/24617

Here are some bit lesser known and smaller groups that could maybe added, although some might be too insignificant, and some of these might already featured under some other classification. For me it is bit difficult to draw lines, and lineages can vary. File was view only for me. School - Province Daruma - Yamashiro Heianjō - Yamashiro Kanabō - Yamato Shiga-Seki - Owari Inuyama - Owari Odawara-Sōshū - Sagami Fuyuhiro - Wakasa Asago-Taima - Echizen Yamamura - Echigo Iruka - Kii Kaifu - Awa Tosa Yoshimitsu - Tosa Wake - Bizen Ishidō - Ōmi (later spread) Zenjō - Mino San'ami - Mino Mizuta - Bitchū Tatsubō - Bingo Kai-Mihara - Bingo Goami - Bingo Dōtanuki - Higo

Well I am tad early with the answer but as I am not sure about my day tomorrow, I think I will post it today. Thanks for everyone participating and I hope it was fun. The sword is indeed now mine and I knew the attribution when getting the sword. I did not care about the attribution at all, I just wanted the sword because of size & shape. NBTHK attributed the sword to 伯耆守信高 Hōki no Kami Nobutaka. I would assume that they see this as 1st gen Nobutaka and possibly a Keichō-Shintō sword from very end of Muromachi to early Edo period. Nobutaka is seen as one of Owari sansaku, one of three Owari masters, so he is well regarded smith. However when such a mumei sword gets attributed to Edo smith it kinda demolishes the value. I have seen few nice mumei swords that I thought were Nanbokuchō swords that got NBTHK papers to Hizen Tadayoshi. I happened to see Owari special exhibition at Nagoya Tōken World last summer, back then I didn't know much about Owari smiths, and to be honest I don't know too much now either. I have found few Edo period wakizashi by Nobutaka smiths that have very wide sugata but so far I have not been able to find a reference long sword with very wide sugata. Most of the katana by Nobutaka smiths I have been able to find are just normal early Edo sugata. This was the sword at Nagoya exhibition, by 3rd Nobutaka: https://www.touken-world.jp/search/13753/ I do admit the hada and bit "featureless" hamon might be actually quite close to work on some of Nobutaka line items I found online and in books. However I think 1st Nobutaka work would be better than on this mumei sword. I personally would think like many did in this thread that this would be late Nanbokuchō to Early Muromachi sword. Naoe Shizu would of course be maybe the most optimistic outcome that I can think of and something like Mino Senjuin I could easily see, however it seems I am way off in time. This sword was sent to NBTHK by a small sword dealer at the end of 2024, and I would believe they were not too happy with the attribution that was given out. You get attribution like Naoe Shizu you are very happy and it is a valuable sword, you get Edo smith attribution and the value sinks really hard. I know this was bit of a curveball as it has been for me too. I think all discussion is welcomed and would be also fun to have some discussion, as unfortunately we cannot view and discuss the items in person.

That is correct or how I think currently. I feel the Kongōbyōe school is bit problematic as there are extremely few signed old items and dated old items are like unicorns. There are the Moritaka tantō that is Jūyō 23 and it is In my opinion most likely dated either 1359 or 1369 but one crucial character is missing, and there is the 1370 dated Reisen Sadamori tantō that is Jūyō Bijutsuhin. I know there can be different opinions about the origins and timelines etc. However for me Ko-Kongōbyōe = Nanbokuchō as that is where I see the school starting, and Kongōbyōe = Muromachi. So far in my search I have not been able to find a signed tachi by Kongōbyōe smith that would be Nanbokuchō period. NBTHK does not often specify the generations of Moritaka smiths in the appraisal paper, to me that is huge bummer... I do feel this particular Moritaka could be an Early Muromachi one possibly from Ōei. I might have been too critical for many of the signed Moritaka katana I have seen online as to me they have seemed like later Muromachi work, so I haven't included them. Of course I am no authority at all but I needed to draw a line somewhere when I gather items, as there are lots of lineages that continue during Muromachi period. I would have to include so many more items by those smiths. And as NBTHK or other organizations might not identify the generations on appraisals it does not make it any easier. Sometimes it is problematic for schools or lineages that used same signatures over a long period of time. One of my personal favorites 宝寿 (Hōju) gets very often described as late Heian period by sword dealers. However in my opinion there are only very few Early Kamakura period items by the school and majority of old works are from late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō periods. Now as the school continued into Muromachi period using the same 2 characters it can be tricky to identify the age. So I mostly just refer to expert opinions.

I have posted some of them but credit of this file goes to @Wim V as he posted this amazing file few years ago

As others said above it would seem to be very promising sword for possible restoration. I like the shape of your sword and I believe it has potential to be very good sword after proper restoration.

I am appreciating even the older papers for regular items. If you have extremely high level mumei sword or signed item by famous smith it is of course advisable to upgrade them. I do think most of the shinsa attributions have always been made with good intentions. However the knowledge has evolved with time and some things are maybe seen differently in current study. I do love my sword books and magazines, however as was said that in 50 years knowledge advances. I have some 50 year old books that have some errors, I think I have some about c.100 year old books that might have even more incorrect information but that information was of course thought to be correct at that time it was written. I think sword in the first post could likely be a katana by Muromachi Kongōbyōe Moritaka. I could very easily see the modern NBTHK papering it with just the signature mentioned in the paper. To me personally this would not add too much value. However if NBTHK would specify the period in paper in brackets, that would be a huge plus. Unfortunately it is not guaranteed that they will specify anything in the paper. As I believe Kongōbyōe Moritaka lineage goes from Nanbokuchō up to early Edo, having some specification in paper would be preferable, instead of them just awarding the paper and stating there is a signature Minamoto Moritaka. Just a personal feeling that NBTHK papers have become hugely impactful to the market, their opinion is pretty much the only organization that carries weight and there can be huge spikes in prices for attributions that market wants. I don't think it was like that back in the day. I cannot really read all the articles at Tōken Bijutsu magazines with my language level but I have used translators for some to get decent results. I have heard the Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa are fully booked now that they put on limits for items accepted and there is nothing written out on the results. Some of the early magazines feature full lists of items that passed the early Kicho shinsa, like you see modern Jūyō results featured in the magazine. And on some occasions in some articles even some of the items were mentioned what had possibly been the interesting items of the session. I just wish there would be few more swords featured in the monthly magazine, of course they do probably run a very strict standard and rules for their articles etc.