Jussi Ekholm

I got a surprise, didn't think I'd manage to get this close while I was checking koshirae examples for you. This sword was featured in Tokyo National Museum Uchigatana-goshirae exhibition which I think is the best resource for uchigatana koshirae of this time period. This sword is actually recorded in records of Katakura family (片倉). It seems they became Date retainers in 1532. This particular sword was actually wielded by Katakura Shigetsuna in Osaka summer campaign in 1615. And in the book it is written that this koshirae dates not older than 1615 but the tsuba is actually older piece that was fitted to this sword. However it is mentioned that the koshirae might be made in later years of Shigetsunas life and not in 1615. It is also mentioned that kurikata and kaerizuno are different and probably show local style. One problem with very old complete koshirae is that usually the ones that have been preserved have been owned by high level people and might not be comparable what your average person would wield. Or they might be very plain battlefield koshirae which I personally like.

Mark is correct it is indeed Nagamitsu 長光. I was guessing it would be from the lower portion of first kanji.

Koshirae Taikan by Markus Sesko is the best one you can get in my opinion. You are looking quite specific stuff if it is late Muromachi / early Edo koshirae from Sendai area. I think the best bet would be looking surviving late Muromachi koshirae in general. Actual koshirae before Edo period are quite rare to find in general even in Japan. The problem is that they are not often featured in a single book or article. That is why Markus Sesko has provided incredible work. I should have info on at least few hundred authentic pre-Edo koshirae but they are scattered in various books that are unfortunately only in Japanese. Polearm koshirae is even more niche field than sword koshirae. I have some very interesting info on polearm koshirae too in Japanese language books. Unfortunately I am not a koshirae collector or researcher, I just love old battlefield items, hence I have also done some digging on old battle item koshirae.

Can you please take off all the fittings and post a clear picture of the signature. You cannot see the first character well, I have my guess on it but I would rather see a good picture where it can be actually seen.

I admit even after checking and documenting thousands and thousands mumei attributions by NBTHK I am often very clueless as they give so little information to anything below Jūyō level. I believe as Robert mentioned you can ask directly from NBTHK, however as I have never sent anything to NBTHK I am bit clueless about that process. The amount of time they spend for items at Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa is to my understanding quite short (due to huge number of submissions) so they must give out the attributions at quite fast pace. Personally I would prefer they would give more general attributions but specify the time in brackets for the items. I have been under the impression that if there is a mumei attribution to specific smith without any addons it would often mean "the famous one". Of course there are in my eyes times when that attribution would not maybe mean the famous one... it is very complicated, as sometimes the famous generation can be specified in brackets for items with mei, sometimes it is not but it is still seen as the work of the famous one. And as mentioned in another thread lately there are even some attributions where I am not sure if it is narrowed down to a single smith or if it refers to a group of smiths. One thing would be also to know when the papers have been issued? NBTHK has been issuing papers for quite long time and there can be slight variations depending on issue dates. And with more modern information they have switched some smiths to different schools for example, or they have added more information for few schools as there has been misunderstandings by collectors so NBTHK has decided to add information to specific groups.

I was just about to write I have never even heard of Kongōbyōe Morihide but it seems I have a reference blade by one of the smiths. Still I actually have zero knowledge about these smiths, and even though I have the reference item, they are completely unknown to me. I have put it to early Muromachi period as both Sesko and Nihontō Meikan have only the same two smiths featured. Unfortunately the item is now gone from online but here is the NBTHK paper, the info is quite scarce as is pretty much the norm by them. I would call in @flemming as he knows a lot about this school.

Thank you for the extremely interesting information Hiro.

Thank you for the pictures it does seem to be a very nice sword. To me judging the polish is extremely difficult. Final result by Moses looks stunning in pictures. I think the old polish seemed good to my eye too. Of course the higher up you go in item quality I believe the higher your standards will get.

Just to be noted those are my personal take on things and the correctness of it is up to debate. Just that lot of sources have slightly varying information. I have been wondering about the Mihara smiths too, as it is very rare to encounter one that would have been attributed to late Kamakura by authorities. Of course dealers will tout Ko-Mihara attributed blades as late Kamakura items, and I admit for many mumei swords I have personally late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō as the range. The different generations might be bit varying from book to book. For example for Ko-Mihara Masaie there are 7 different one in Nihontō Meikan and 5 in Sesko Index. For Ko-Mihara Masahiro there are 3 different ones in Nihontō Meikan and 2 in Seskos. Here the notable difference is that Meikan has 1st Masahiro working roughly 1320s to 1330s while in Seskos the first gen is listed c 1360's. There are actually few items that are attributed to late Kamakura Mihara Masahiro by authorities. However all dated items I have found by Ko-Mihara smiths so far are from Nanbokuchō to Ōei. Range is 1353 to 1415 among 15 dated blades. Then you have Kokubunji Sukekuni at late Kamakura, for him there are few dated blades ranging 1323 to 1329. Then for Hokke Chikatsugu has 1352 dated blade Kaneyasu has several blades 1369 and 1370 There are 5 other dated Hokke blades by various smiths ranging 1367 to 1390 For Ichijō I have only found 1411 dated blade And one 1459 dated ōdachi by 2 Hokke smiths Then there is Tatsubō school in Bingo province And for them I have 4 dated blades ranging 1365 to 1373 Here is one problem that I am not sure about, I am not sure if the attribution Hokke Ichijō (法華一乗) is referring to one smith/lineage or a larger group among Hokke smiths. And of course attributions are attributions they need to throw out some fitting classification bracket.

Here you can see them side by side so it is the same sword. Attributions can change when NBTHK evaluates the item again. There has been actually quite large shifts in attributions few times when the item has been sent in for re-evaluation. I feel in general mumei attribution Hokke Ichijō by NBTHK would usually indicate the sword is late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi. That is how I see things personally. As a general rule NBTHK does not award Tokubetsu Hozon to mumei swords made after early Muromachi (yes I have seen few exceptions but I believe that is their norm). There might be different views on Ichijō generations I checked Meikan and there 1st Ichijō is listed around Ōan (1368-1375). However so far I have only managed to find 3 signed Ichijō short swords and so far I haven't been able to find a single signed tachi remaining by specifically attributed to Ichijō as the Ichi signed tachi and katana have general Hokke attributions.

The blade at Aoi used to have just Hokke attribution at Hozon, so they specified it a bit more at Tokubetsu Hozon shinsa. I admit if I would look at that blade from pictures without attributions I would not pin that to Nanbokuchō nor early Muromachi.

Thank you from the pictures Mark. I always get quite comfy vibe about the US shows, they would seem like cool places to hang out even without intending to get anything.

Thank you for the pictures and report Gerry.

Unfortunately I have never seen the Ayanokōji ōdachi in person, and I know that Tanobe sensei wrote the sayagaki for it, and his expertise in undeniable. However as an ōdachi researcher I cannot understand that particular sword at all. It is just too different to all other historical ōdachi I have seen, and I have seen fairly large number of them in various shrines in Japan. The huge number of holes makes 0 sense to me. I know that Tanobe sensei wrote that it is slightly shortened, that further makes it more puzzling why it would have 8 holes (yes I count the partial hole at bottom too).

Someone got a very nice item