Jussi Ekholm

Ujikumo seems to be very rare smith. Unfortunately I can only find this one from my books fast, this is in the collection of Atsuta Jingū and it is Aichi Prefecture Bunkazai. It was dedicated to Atsuta Jingū in 1608. I believe Owari province is written with 尾張 and it turns as Bishū 尾州. Personally I would be cautious about the signature of the blade in the opening post.

Nagato no Kami is a very rare title. I would assume the smith here should have been Owari province smith Ujikumo (氏雲), as he is one of the very few smiths that had this title.

I believe the research paper is correct. I am away from my books and while I dont have that many on koshirae I think they have the same information that most pre-Edo koshirae will have black lacquered samekawa, on top of my head I remember that it was stated that it also offered extra protection against elements as it was lacquered. There are few historical koshirae with red lacquered samekawa if I remember correctly. I can check the info from my books in few days time.

As it is dated it is extremely rare item. I did a presentation on Kamakura & Nanbokuchō naginata few years ago. Back then I had found 38 dated Kamakura & Nanbokuchō naginata & naoshi. Now I assume I have found few more since then but I think the number still remains under 50 in total. There are actually many old naginata that are around 40 - 50 cm in blade length. It is perfectly legitimate length and I personally own one dated Nanbokuchō naginata in this length range. However this is not my preferred size and shape range. And for Aoi Art blade the fact that the nakago has been cut makes this particular piece not that desirable for myself. Naginata in general are not really appreciated in traditional Japanese collecting/appreciation lore, which will explain the lower price they usually go for. As Steve said earlier NBTHK terminology has changed over the years. As the nakago has been cut so severely I personally would see this more as naoshi than a naginata even though the blade portion would be unaltered. For example I own another Nanbokuchō naginata that I believe to be suriage, the current blade length is 49,4 cm but the nakago is still 42,5 cm, so the sword still remains as a naginata. I just checked old naginata that I have data for and I have quite a lot of them. I found only 3 Kamakura & Nanbokuchō naginata with nakago under 20 cm, they were all NBTHK Jūyō and originally with much longer nakago (personally I would question if they are still naginata with such a short tang). Also found 2 early Edo naginata with similarily short nakago. Here you can see another Naginata (this one is naoshi) by Unjū that is made around the same time. This one is much larger and appealing to me a lot more personally. By somewhat funny coincidence it was also sold by Aoi almost 15 years ago. https://web.archive.org/web/20110408142928/http:/www.aoi-art.com:80/sword/sale/10599.html One thing that I can try to figure out by looking at these two very differently sized naginata (they are only signed naginata by Unjū I have seen so far), is the fact that it seems Unjū started his signature on naginata very high up on the tang. So in case of shortening the tang lot of the mei can still be preserved.

I can also recommend Isshindo. Last summer I had bit similar experience as Thomas above, I tried to find few very rare books that were supposedly in inventory of few other book stores in area (as I had checked that online). Of course my Japanese is limited but I had book titles in Japanese on my phone, and the store address, always the answer was that they pointed me to Isshindo.

I do have quite a few naginata tsuba from Muromachi period and some even possibly Nanbokuchō period in my books. As said before they are mostly very plain in design. However I do not think the purpose of tsuba in general is to stop the hand from sliding to the blade. I am not sure where this narrative comes from originally.

I would agree with Ray and Kirill that this is in my opinion a later ubu ōdachi, it is 99,3 cm so quite a big blade. I believe nakago has been artificially aged there have been items like this on Yahoo JP before. As ōdachi are my main research thing, it is fairly common for them to have another hole near the bottom of the tang. I feel there is a possibility the sword might have had a legitimate mei before the nakago reworking & patinating shenanigans. They are just trying to market it as Nanbokuchō ōdachi, where I see a lot of value for it even as a more modern blade.

Bumping this up as I am still looking for these 2 magazines. I have gotten some more duplicates and older ones for potential trade. Of course straight buy would be the easiest option.

I would think like Kirill that blade could be a legitimate Bungo blade but I would be cautious about the signature. Yours is signed 高田住人友行 - Takada jūnin Tomoyuki. I have the book Bungo Taikan and it seems like Takada jūnin was not used in Bungo signatures. It would either be Takada or Takada jū.

It depends what will be considered as first Hokke blades. Personally I think it starts at late Nanbokuchō. I see Kokubunji Sukekuni (助国) not as Hokke smith in general but I see him as Kokubunji smith. For him I have found dated swords from 1323 to 1329. There are few other smiths in area during this late Kamakura period that I connect to Kokubunji, as well as one huge Nanbokuchō ōdachi. Chikatsugu (親次) is seen as ancestor of Hokke smiths, for him I have only found 1 tachi dated 1352. Kaneyasu (兼安) I believe would be among the first Hokke smiths. For him I have found several 1369 and 1370 dated swords. Futarasan Jinja has an awesome late Nanbokuchō ōdachi by smith Kaneshige (兼重), while his lineage is bit unclear I have grouped him as Hokke smith. I have seen the sword several times and it is amazing. For Ichijō (一乗) I believe there is the 1411 one as only dated sword remaining. Then there are few Hokke smiths whose dated work is found between 1367 to 1390. Not to make things too clear I believe Tatsubō school originated about the same time in relatively nearby area. So for me it is difficult to understand which smith belongs to which school. For Tatsubō smiths I have dated items from 1365 to 1373. In general I would assume if NBTHK attributes sword as Hokke, it would be quite plain work from late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi. I personally have a very wide blade with old NBTHK papers to Hokke Ichijō.

This is very interesting and super rare item. However personally I would go for totally different direction with that budget. I have been trying to track down locations of the swords, and it is tricky. Especially for NBTHK designated blades as pretty much the only possibility is if owner is mentioned on book or magazine, or display case. As Hoshi mentioned seeing a signed Mitsutada for sale is super rare thing, as the possible blades to own are very few. However it seems like DTI24 last november there were 2 signed Mitsutada tachi. Still I am very surprised this wasn't sold, and I would assume this has been offered to the major Japanese collectors in private with first dips. Still could be few years until another one pops up for sale, could be 10 years, who knows. The opportunity for these is not always available. From books and various sources I have found that at least 2 of the gigantic Japanese collectors own a mumei Mitsutada katana, and I have seen 1 in the museum of the person. However I haven't so far found out if any of the signed tachi are owned by these massive collectors. Of course that is very private information, so I understand the ownership details are not brought out that often. Many books for example just note Private collection.

So far I have found 6 signed tantō by Kinjū. 2 of them are dated, both share same date of Ōan 2 (1369). However the tantō that was also posted above that is featured in Kantō Hibishō by Kunzan in Tōken Bijutsu 274. I just checked the magazine and I believe in there Kunzan raises questions about the authencity of the mei and date, and states that if genuine it is work of 2nd generation. The 2nd one is in the collection of Kyoto National Museum https://knmdb.kyohaku.go.jp/29675.html I agree with Jacques that I personally don't consider only old oshigata as very reliable info. They can be very nice supplement but I require modern information to satisfy my data needs.

I think short answer is that they are extremely rare.

Thank you for all of the info Claus. I feel ubu wakizashi from late Muromachi is a plausible guess I would go for. It is a cool looking item.

It depends on the item. But I am a historical guy opposed to an art appreciator. As my main interest in the hobby are ōdachi and old naginata, I am filled with joy seeing them. Last summer I saw several rusty and blemished ones at various shrines and other places. To me they were much more exciting than most of the National Treasures I saw in several museums. Of course if they have been restored to full glory then they are absolutely amazing. Still purely from my heart I would most likely choose a historical ōdachi over extremely amazing sword regardless of their status, or perceived difference in the skill of smiths etc.. It is quite extreme view and I am fully aware of that. Even for regular sized swords I have noticed I am starting to have extremely quirky things that I am looking for or avoiding.