Jussi Ekholm

My guess was based on the length and shape alone, and reason for my guess is that Saburō Kunimune has relatively high number of 75cm+ tachi remaining. To me the sword looks to be a good bit longer than others that I would guess being c. 65-70 cm in length. Would be very interesting to know the measurements and more information of that Rai Kunitoshi tachi, as I was not aware of that sword and it could be the longest tachi by Rai Kunitoshi remaining, as the ōdachi (蛍丸) Hotarumaru is missing. Also the provenance on it is remarkable Toyotomi Hideyoshi - Tokugawa Family - Maeda Family. For the Muramasa the signature can be seen in your pictures, however based on the blade I would not have guessed Muramasa. Without your original listing of names I don't think I would have gotten any correctly. I would be very grateful on info about that particular Rai Kunitoshi tachi if anyone has it, or even more than that the ōdachi that was featured in Daihouden exhibition. I believe this might have been the ōdachi as I believe this is in the collection of the temple? Picture is from Twitter. https://x.com/honnou...495691476992/photo/1

While I do not know the fine inner workings of NBTHK, I would not think specifics of hi in general would stop swords. There are actual cases where the sword has been altered between Jūyō and Tokubetsu Jūyō shinsa and the sword has passed Tokubetsu Jūyō. Of course for that specific sword it might have been that something particular on that hi threw off the judging panel. NBTHK sometimes seems to be flexible on their standards and sometimes very strict. For examples some saiha (rehardened) blades have passed Jūyō. Latest example that is have good info on is the named sword Hachiman Masamune 八幡正宗 in session 68. However the sword has huge background info and provenance. That historical provenance is something I am just now starting to get into and it is super fascinating. I actually spent 14 hours last weekend researching background of some shrine & museum swords. The famous Kōsetsu Samonji has been in Japanese experts opinion shortened c. 10 cm from original length. It is very famous sword I just checked I have it featured in 24 different reference books/magazines. I believe the Catawiki sword would be in original length. To me it looks like the tachi mei it had has been removed. NBTHK passed it as Kōdai Hōju - Later Hōju (後代宝寿). While Hōju can be seen as Kamakura - Nanbokuchō work, when NBTHK puts 後代宝寿 in brackets they put it towards Muromachi period work. So it would most likely not be the Kamakura period sword that was advertised. Still I am bit puzzled why NBTHK did not pass it as mumei tachi but went for mumei katana.

Thank you for very throughout reply Tumi. It was very enjoyable to read and gave us a lot of background information. Was also nice to read the article the Lewis B mentioned, to get to know you bit better. I think one "free" thing to add might be an activity corner of some kind. Of course having never been into your museum I do not know the layout, just looking at the pictures online it seems your sword displays are top notch. I think some kind of activity area might appeal to general people, for example at Atsuta-Jingū you could try to lift up the replicas of their famous ōdachi, Tarōtachi and Jirōtachi, and average katana in comparison. In the new Nagoya Tōken World there is also section for holding a sword & gun. Perhaps you could feel different tsukamaki types/bare rayskin handle etc. As I believe you have craftsmen working in the premises, there might be lot of things you could do, that might appeal to general public. I am far too deep in this hobby to really understand what general public wants to see and learn.

My guess for N.6 would have been Bizen Saburō Kunimune but I know that is wrong answer, now that I know what the sword actually is.

I got the book last year that features this sword. If I read correctly NBTHK just states that there is bo-hi & soe-hi carved on both sides. Now one thing to consider that as the sword is judged as ō-suriage and no ana in the lower portion of the tang, I feel that would indicate that it would have been at least 15+ cm longer originally. As the sword is now 69,3 cm katana with 17,8 cm nakago it would in my assumption have been 85+ cm tachi. For me it is often difficult trying to grasp the original shape of shortened items. I believe the Jūyō Bunkazai Norishige I posted above has been shortened c. 13 cm which would made it around 85 cm tachi originally as the current length is 71,5 cm. The longest ubu Norishige tachi I have found is mumei attributed to Norishige and it is 79,1 cm.

My thoughts might be bit all over the place but I am super happy you are looking for feedback from international members. Unfortunately I have not yet visited Bizen Osafune Sword Museum but I will in the future. My biggest wish to all museums, shrines etc. in Japan would be that they would list all the items in their collection on their website. Of course that is a huge task but I feel even us not able to visit the museum could enjoy the items. I would be perfectly happy with all Japanese short listings and basic picture of item. Of course this is just my own personal preference as I am addicted in researching items. I feel that way people could enjoy the items. I can take an example of Bizen Osafune Sword Museum, unfortunately so far I only have info of 3 of your swords, 山鳥毛, 78,9 cm Kanemitsu 兼光, and 69,1 cm Yoshioka Ichimonji tachi SukeX 一備□吉岡住助. You have amazing current exhibition going on: https://www.city.set...site/token/1315.html I would want info on items 16-29 and 38 & 36-2 37-2. However unfortunately I only have info on 18, 24, 36-2, 37-2 so far. Also I appreciate greatly that you have info on old exhibitions available https://www.city.setouchi.lg.jp/site/token/list7-251.html Would it be possible to include the listings of items similarily to the current exhibition? I am very happy you have the Morimitsu ōnaginata on loan for the latter part of the exhibition. I love ōdachi and ōnaginata and I hope museums could display them if possible. Of course they do take up a lot of space and I suppose majority would rather see something else as they are not that popular. Personally I don't care about the descriptions that much, just to be able to view the amazing items is my goal. Some shrines for example have sometimes extremely limited info on items, descriptions put to wrong item etc. However they house some amazing items that you cannot see anywhere else. Of course I admit I fall into fanatic category and I feel what I enjoy is not enjoyable to general public. I feel other members have given excellent advice above.

I hope you can get better pictures of the sword. I think it could possibly be fairly nice late Muromachi period blade.

It is a nice sword. I will PM you info on the sword when it was listed in Japan 10 years ago. You are right that koshirae has been made/fitted to the sword more recently.

My condolences to family & friends.

1st pick would be N.3 - as I just appreciate big blades. 4th pick would be N.1 - to me it could pass as average size Edo period katana by shape and size on first glance.

That is very interesting research you are doing. Here are the 5 dated Norishige pieces that I have in my references so far. 1314: NBTHK - Jūyō 31, Tokubetsu Jūyō 9 1319: NBTHK - Jūyō 33, Tokubetsu Jūyō 24 1320: NBTHK - Jūyō 31 1325: Naginata of Ōyamazumi-jinja 1326-28: NBTHK - Jūyō 68 (This was featured in the huge Masamune and his disciples exhibition this spring)

So far I have found 6 tachi by Norishige and only 1 of them has hi. This is Jūyō Bunkazai that is owned by Agency for Cultural Affairs. Then for comparison so far I have documented 74 suriage katana that are attributed to Norishige and 43 of them have hi. Unfortunately I cannot dig deep into the reasons why it is like this as it is beyond my expertise. However data on items would suggest that hi on Norishige tachi is quite rare thing, while it is actually quite common on suriage katana attributed towards Norishige.

35, feels crazy that after being in the hobby for ages I am still in "youngish" group.

That Morisuke is an amazing sword Thomas I am happy it is in good hands. It will be amazing opportunity for people to see it in San Fran show.

Brano is amazing seller, I can recommend him. It is quite rare to find Jūyō books in Europe.

Very nice gift and it is good to enjoy and research it.

It was Jūyō sword but in current state with hagire I don't think it would pass even Hozon shinsa. I checked the Jūyō 23 book and the item is featured there. One or two times from shady sellers from Japan there have been faked Jūyō book entries with the items. Japanese swords are not too tough in general so someone might have dropped it to the floor etc. and that might have resulted in hagire. Even though there has been lots of criticism by some towards the few sessions in 2X Jūyō shinsa where lots of items passed, I am pretty sure they would not let this sword pass with hagire like that. I feel the item in current state would be extremely low value, what keeps the price so high is the old Jūyō paper. I remember Darcy and few others were forming a theory you can find some good older posts about it. In short it would generally be summarized that a Jūyō sword would have minimum price of X - just because it is a Jūyō, regardless of the actual quality of the item. So even though the item in eBay post in current state to me would be almost worthless, the seller still is asking for Jūyō price for it.

I struggle in understanding kodachi, as to me they are a peculiar type of swords. So far I have documented 158 kodachi from late Heian - early Muromachi periods. There is a lot of variety in them in shape and size. Some are short and fairly wide while some are long and narrow, and there will be an item for most of the possible varieties in between. I saw several kodachi this summer in Japan, including the Rai Kunitoshi kodachi that is one of the national treasures of Futarasan-jinja. I just don't seem to grasp these where as I do love their opposite, ōdachi. For Norimune I currently have documented only 8 signed tachi by him. Only 1 of them is in private ownership, others are in various museums, shrines etc. in Japan.

So far I have documented 3 dated items by Aoe Ietsugu. 1357 dated tantō 1367 dated ōnaginata 1386 dated tachi I am not personally a fan of mumei attribution towards specific smiths but that is often the traditional way.

Oh sorry if it came out that way. I do feel your sword could have a legitimate signature. By timeline I would think it could be potentially one of many Tomoshige smiths working during the late Muromachi period. I just don't think it would be work of the early & famous Fujishima Tomoshige smiths. I do think there were some Tomoshige smiths unrelated to Fujishima school too working during that period in time.

I would feel similarily to Kirill that late Muromachi is a plausible time guess. I have been tracking signed items by early generations of Fujishima Tomoshige (Nanbokuchō - Early / early midish Muromachi). I believe I so far have 45 signature references, and only 1 tachi is signed 友重作 Tomoshige saku, and that signature is bit different to my eye .

Unfortunately I cannot find this particular smith in any of the swordsmith indexes. I cannot find a Yasuhiro smith who would sign like this. One thing to consider is also the very long length and lack of curvature. As the sword has been shortened by considerable amount it would likely be 85cm+ in original form. I feel my thought might wander towards kinnōtō, however that is just total speculation and the nakago looks fair bit older than I would think for them. Of course there were some long and straightish katana produced in multiple periods, just that they were bit outside of the norm.

While bit difficult to say from pictures alone, I would think the sword is ubu, original length. To me it just looks like the most logical thing, I would feel it is a Muromachi period sword, I cannot pinpoint mid, late etc as even the experts at NBTHK gave Uda attribution, which in my books puts it to mid-late Muromachi. I think swords are very often stated to be ō-suriage by dealers, however I am having hard time wrapping my head how some of those swords would be ō-suriage. Even though Nobuo Nakahara might have some bit controversial thoughts I like that he points out how ubu vs. ō-suriage should be studied as some are made to look like they were shortened. That however is not problem with your sword. I do think it is an honest sword in original form. Of course I could be wrong and the dealers correct but I would feel this is original shape. No faking or shady business going, I would just feel there was misinformation by dealers.

Thanks for looking it up, unfortunately I made an error in the index that I now corrected. The item in session 46 is actually a tantō. Unfortunately I don't yet have the book for 65 session but indeed there seems to be a second tantō with earlier 1398 date but I don't yet have good info about it. I believe both would be works of the 2nd generation if the historical timeline would be correct. For working times of the smiths Seskos index gives Eiwa (永和, 1375-1379) and Nihontō Meikan gives Shōhei (正平, 1346-1370) for the first generation. And both give Ōei for 2nd generation.

I believe Enju Kunifusa in general is a quite new attribution that NBTHK uses for mumei items. So far this is the only sword I have seen feature it. I needed to check the background of Enju Kunifusa as I was not that aware of him. It seems there were 2 generations. I only have 1 single signed item on record, a tantō dated 1418. So the smith is extremely rare.