Jussi Ekholm

I would think both of the blades are by the same smith, 高橋長信 Takahashi Naganobu. The tachi blade is signed and dated 長信造 / 弘化三年八月吉日, Naganobu tsukuru, 1846 Wakizashi is signed 於東都雲州住長信造, Tōto ni oite Unshū jū Naganobu tsukuru I haven't used Hawley in very long time so I am not sure what is written there. However I would think never signed same way twice is just an absurd exaggeration. There are plenty of his known signature variants. Nihontō Meikan seems to have 17 various signatures listed, so he did a lot of variations but it is obvious that he did use the same signature variation multiple times. Here you can see the same signature variation on a katana that is on your wakizashi: https://iidakoendo.com/1572/ Unfortunately Shinshintō swords are not really on my scope of interest so I can't offer much help, other than saying that both of your blades look nice based on the last picture.

I wrote my opinion on that particular Tametsugu on another platform recently, my opinion might be bit controversial. Personally I am seeing obvious signs of mei removal and nakago seems to be repatinated, I would think this was originally a later katana. Of course for my data I will accept this as Tametsugu as NBTHK says so (I'll add note to myself though) but I would personally steer clear on a sword like this that I see as altered and problematic.

The attribution is to Sue-Sa 末左. NBTHK started adding 大左一門 in brackets around latter part of 2016 I believe. I think this was possibly done because people did not understand what Sue-Sa meant as an attribution and had misconceptions and thinking it was meaning Muromachi. Now perhaps in this style people will understand it better as a Nanbokuchō attribution.

It is wonderful item and as Nicholas wrote very rare to see them in this length. During late Edo few of these larger and straighter "battle-oriented" naginata were done as revival pieces, I think there was a strong desire for older days during that time. I would not expect that it would stay in the market for too long as it is a rare item. Unfortunately I am not in buying position but I would believe someone will be very happy with this one.

It is difficult to see the details in pictures. To me it would seem like it is hira-zukuri (flat sides with no ridgeline) in form? That would make me think it would be original size hira-zukuri wakizashi. Hira-zukuri geometry is pretty rare in naginata and katana, there are few examples but they are more common in wakizashi length. Some of the longer ones are 50 to 60 cm in length.

This is awesome news Ray! I might have said it before but you have so good voice and presentation it is a pleasure to watch the videos.

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