Jussi Ekholm

There are several nice items on the site. I am liking especially this one: https://www.owazamon...-tanto-with-koshirae The Tsuneie wakizashi was actually the kantei item of Tōken Bijutsu magazine 267, and was also featured in the kantei session of magazine 426. I think in overall this is a splendid package, signed, dated, papered, sayagaki, in publication, and also with koshirae.

Great article Peter

In my opinion Kozori as a group is hard to judge as it is generally an outlier attribution. The history etc. of Kozori group is quite uncertain as well which smiths are seen as Kozori smiths (not fitting the other groups at the time). There are some wonderful items made by Kozori smiths but as Japanese "ranking system" is bit difficult to grasp but very high quality and mumei Kozori attribution rarely go hand in hand. As Kozori is lesser desirable group in eyes of high end collectors you can actually find signed works within a reasonable budget. I do think the sword is reasonably good condition for mumei suriage sword around this time. The shape is nice although I personally would even prefer more massive shape. However looking at the signed tachi I have on record it seems Kozori tachi in general were more on the narrower side compared to many peers during that time. There is even an ubu mumei ōdachi at Futarasan-jinja that has been attributed towards Kozori and regardless of 98,2cm length it has narrow shape. Of course there can be bias in attributing suriage mumei and that might steer wide blades away from Kozori. The koshirae is nice, however one thing to note is I don't think it was made for this particular sword. When you look at the close pictures of the tsuka, you can see there has been another round hole that has been plugged with circular piece of rayskin. I personally see that as the original hole for the sword this koshirae was originally made for. Japanese dealers often combine things to make them more marketable. I know many are 50/50 on this dealer, some like them a lot, some dislike. I am personally quite neutral. I must note that this koshirae fix was NOT made by the dealer that has the sword now. The same item has been with another dealer previously and it had the koshirae even back then. Having a nice koshirae and combining it with a nice blade probably adds more value to potential buyers. Of course you can see the exact opposite too where nice koshirae is stripped from a sword. Here for reference I will link few Kozori tachi these are on the small side in general as it is bit common for Kozori tachi The smith name is unlegible attributed as Kozori: https://toyuukai.jp/products/太刀-太刀銘-備州長船-小反り-保存刀剣鑑定書-tachi-bisyu-osafune-kozori-nbthk-hozon-品番-ｋａ０５８ Dated 1391 (the smith mei most likely removed) attributed as Kozori work: https://www.Japanese...i-no-dachi-koshirae/ Mumei Kozori: https://www.e-sword....1410_1125syousai.htm Mumei Kozori: https://ginza.choshu...ale/gj/h30/06/13.htm Then it gets even more interesting with signed works by Kozori smiths and their reference items... I feel the price is reasonable and if it feels good for you then it might be good one for you. However in the 1,5M - 2M yen range there starts to be lots and lots of very interesting items depending on what kind of items you are looking for.

Jone you can message them, as I believe there at least used to be some members that are only members in Sweden but not in NBTHK, and they have very small fee. Unfortunately it has been many years since my last visit to Sweden. And I think you can attend a meeting without any commitments to see if it feels interesting.

Yes the Scandinavian branch is active with multiple meetings per year. Unfortunately like with many groups in this hobby keeping public up to date with activity is bit lacking The last meeting was held on 30.9.

That Ichimonji wakizashi and Tsugunao wakizashi were both really nice items. However I would advice being very cautious with the auction houses. For example the "premium" sword in upcoming Zacke auction seems to be extremely questionable tachi with attribution to Rai Kunimitsu and 15,000€ estimate (+ 30% buyers premium etc.): https://www.zacke.at...&sd=0&pp=96&pn=1&g=1 Well that same sword sold at Yahoo JP this february for 537,000 yen (3,500€): https://buyee.jp/ite...auction/j1081148557/ Seems like habaki was switched for possibly cheaper one too for the Zacke sale. When something passes at Yahoo JP at very cheap price it would be highly unlikely it would be hidden gem as there are many eyes with knowledge scouting there as well as multiple sword dealers probably keep checking items in there too.

Welcome to the forum Jone. I think we have few Norwegian members in here. The problem is similar in all Nordic countries, geographically quite large countries with sparse population. So it can be difficult to get together with local collectors. For us here in the north I will always recommend NBTHK Scandinavian branch: https://nbthkebscandinavia.wordpress.com/ if you are able to get to a meeting you'll meet fine folk and see nice items in the meetings. And they most likely know Nordic collectors the best in overall so they might know people around your area too.

I think Robert Hughes @Keichodo could get the stuff done for you. I think price range will vary a lot depending on what type of tachi koshirae you are going for. I am really not well versed in koshirae especially commissioning one but I would think for high grade mount and mounting you would be looking 5,000€+.

I am not sure if many are aware but NBTHK is starting to limit the number of shinsa applications, you can read more in the link: https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/Important Announcement.pdf The new upper limit for Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon swords will be 1,600 applications per shinsa session. I remember I tried to do some calculations about shinsa submissions few years ago. Then discussed these with Darcy, amounts of H/TH & Jūyō submission. Now with the new system there will be 4 H/TH sword shinsa per year, so there would be 6,400 sword submissions yearly.

Thank you for your efforts in arranging this Yurie. Now I will need to start asking my boss if she can allow starting my summer holiday in late May

The paper seems to be JTK instead of NTHK. Unfortunately I wouldn't put much faith in JTK papers. I am not that well versed in Edo period smiths but 2nd gen Kunisada became Inoue Shinkai, and I am not aware of 3rd gen Kunisada. The sword itself seems to be in quite nice shape. I would be cautious of the signature and would not invest money into the sword and would try to enjoy it as it is.

I think the question might possibly have bit of a flaw within it. As item quality often correlates with the papers it has. This is not always true and you can find very good Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon swords but it is very difficult to find bad Jūyō sword and pretty much impossible to find a bad Tokubetsu Jūyō. For very high quality items you can pretty much ask what you want, as there won't be that much competition. I don't have that much knowledge about prices at super high level as they are often private and for asking only. However as I am bit obsessive about keeping sword records I remember 2 times when the sword has been listed initially as Jūyō and then it has passed the Tokubetsu Jūyō shinsa and listing was upgraded. Funnily enough they were with different Japanese dealers but on both times the price increase was exactly 2X, 10M -> 20M and 14M -> 28M. It kind of shows what kind of prestige dealers and market show towards Tokubetsu Jūyō, on case number 1 nothing else changed but on the case number 2 the smith was actually changed for a lot earlier one, and this was signed very long tachi! For lower level upgrade steps in papers the difference can be from 0 to very small. I have recorded multiple cases where the dealer has upgraded the sword from Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon without any change in price, and some with small change in price. For Tokubetsu Hozon to Jūyō there have been some changes in prices but actually quite small ones. Now one has to consider that Tokubetsu Hozon swords with potential to pass Jūyō are high quality items to begin with and dealers wont sell them for cheap prices. I might be super strict but NBTHK attribution papers would be only ones I count having market value. Personally I wouldn't put any market value to other papers NTHK, NHTK-NPO, JASMK, JTK, ETC. For me they might be something nice to have but I don't see financial value to them. Now authentic sayagaki from the likes of Tanobe, Kanzan, Kunzan or Hon'ami lineage would be totally opposite. For example I would gladly have a sword without any papers but Tanobe-sensei sayagaki. Of course the optimal package for me would be NBTHK papers + Tanobe or Kunzan or Kanzan sayagaki. Now as I have love for peculiar old items that high level collectors mostly wont chase, I feel that if I will find an item that I would have strong desire I wouldn't stress about papers etc.

I think dealers and sellers will probably hate me... but it is so easy to track down items that peak my interest This is the Yasuie wakizashi: https://tokka.biz/sword/yasuie.html and after Tokka it has at least once appeared on eBay too. Interesting thing is that when you look at the item it now the koshirae has been tweaked since when it was sold in Japan. You can see that it has been rewrapped and kozuka has been changed. This is the Yasumitsu wakizashi: http://nihonto.us/YASUMITSU HIRAZUKURE TANTO DS.htm not much more to add to that The Gassan katana has been sold twice quite recently in Japan by different dealers. I think the estimate for this one is super wishful thinking. Personally I would not put much faith in the Shinsoku sword. Smith is kind of like an unicorn and I would at least add 0 and most likely more than that to the item if genuine by that smith. I think the Ōmiya sword could be plausible to the old NBTHK attribution. Would need better pictures and dimensions of the item to guess more.

What would be your approximate budget?

I am not qualified to judge polishing but I would guess that was polished after Hon'ami Nisshū attribution and NBTHK Jūyō shinsa. In my opinion that polishing style does not fit what is common style for Niō or Mihara work, the polishing should be more subtle. Our members who know more about polishing would be able to comment better what possible enhancements or peculiar style might have been used in that polish etc.. This item has been around this year a lot. First it was at Winners in April: https://www.winners-.../productDetail/97648 Then it was at Yahoo JP in August: https://buyee.jp/ite.../auction/b1100893218 And now it is at Aoi. You can see the valuation of it goes from 1,3M -> 1,8M and now it is starting at 2,2M. To me this is a problematic item that I would not want. Yes it has passed Jūyō but for me personally it does not seem interesting at all. I think Darcy used a term "Jūyō in name only" and I see this sword fitting that term. I would think this sword would not pass modern Jūyō shinsa at the moment. I might be bit harsh in my comments for once

Great stuff Okan

It is very interesting item and I think the price will (should) get higher than starting price. However there are some small things in Aoi Arts listing that might not been explained. The actual founder of Mihara school is considered to be Masaie (正家) during late Kamakura period. There was actually late Kamakura - Early Nanbokuchō period Masahiro (正広) in Mihara province. He is the famous Masahiro smith from Mihara. This tachi that is at Aoi is actually by 2nd generation Mihara Masahiro, he was working around late Nanbokuchō - Ōei. Now even though he is not valued as high as the 1st generation, he is still good smith and many works by him have achieved Jūyō status. And I personally cannot really identify the difference between Mihara Masahiro generations. I have just put down many signed tachi as Nanbokuchō works in general. Here on Aoi Art item NBTHK has specified in brackets that this is work of the 2nd generation. For comparison the Masahiro tachi from Tokubetsu Jūyō 2 is seen as work of 1st generation as late Kamakura period has been specified for it, and Masahiro tachi from Tokubetsu Jūyō 23 is seen as 2nd generation work as late Nanbokuchō has been specified for that one by NBTHK. I counted items I have info on so far and only got 25 Mihara Masahiro tachi in total. Then there are some signed naoshi, katana, and shorter blades.

Here the date is 1690 元禄三 after that comes the 60 year cycle 庚午 and you can verify from here that it actually hits the correct year: https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/庚午 For the second silver inlayed cutting test there is no specific date mentioned. I think important thing on both of the cutting tests is notation in brackets (と...がある) to ... ga aru. Which in both cases notes that there is gold / silver inlayed cutting test on these blades but as NBTHK makes a remark like this then the cutting tests kinda need bit further research etc. It is kind of tricky to try to explain the remark as it kind of just mentions the is a signature etc. However the remark in brackets can also be verified in time with more information on resubmission or going for higher level submission. I think short explanation could be that there is some speculation on the signature / addons when there is this in brackets. Like in the two examples you posted, NBTHK has verified the signature of the smith being genuine and the speculation just considers gold / silver addons.

You are actually lucky as the Netherlands has lot of activity for swords. You can check http://www.to-ken.nl/ for starters. For the first Kiyomitsu sword I think NBTHK had specified (後代) late generation in brackets. At least that is what I am seeing in small picture. Kaga Kiyomitsu smith lineage started around Early Muromachi period. There were multiple generations during Muromachi period. Then the Kiyomitsu name continued in Kaga throughout the Edo period. Unfortunately I cannot really identify the smith and the character for mitsu (光) looks to be done in bit "special" style. That could help in identifying the smith. The Muromachi Kiyomitsu smiths that I have mei examples of, wrote in more traditional style mitsu. Also I think more typical longer Muromachi Kiyomitsu signature would be (加州住清光) Kashū jū Kiyomitsu. I can be wrong here but I would guess NBTHK meant later generation of Muromachi Kaga Kiyomitsu, instead of Kaga Kiyomitsu smiths in general. That is why for me it can be difficult when there is little addon information, as it specifies a bit but you also need to understand what NBTHK wants to specify. Fujishima is actually a school founded by (Fujishima) Tomoshige during Nanbokuchō period. The school originates in Echizen but moved to Kaga province during late Nanbokuchō period. Generally the school is considered as Muromachi period school even though some earliest smiths forged during Nanbokuchō period and some continued working into Edo period. It is fairly common to find work of this school just signed Fujishima. However the signature Fujishima (藤島) on your sword does not match any of the signed examples I have in my references. However I feel the style of hamon could be plausible for the work of this school.

Mr. Hoppen has wonderful items I have seen few of them in person and they were great. He also has one dream item of mine but unfortunately it is financially 15-20 years too early for me to try to get it

I see Markus and Michael have given awesome insight and hopefully you can get together with Michael in Amsterdam I do think your sword is Kamakura period and not later than that, when during Kamakura it was made, that I unfortunately cant say. It might have been bit unclear in my first message, as I was just pointing out that Ko-Naminohira as an attribution spans for a long time, from Late Heian period to Nanbokuchō. And I do believe majority of surviving Ko-Naminohira works are from c. Late Kamakura. There are many where just Kamakura is mentioned and for me personally accurate dating would be impossible. I am just lucky to have collected lots of books, and I have had fascination for Naminohira school, so I have good references. Here are 7 swords as reference that are among the earliest Naminohira school works. 1. Tachi by Yukimasa (行正) dated 1159 (this is earliest date on tang on a Japanese sword I have found so far), Jūyō Bijutsuhin 2. Tachi by Yukiyasu (行安), Jūyō Bunkazai in the collection of Sanage jinja (Late Heian - Early Kamakura) 3. Tachi by Yukiyasu (行安), Jūyō Bunkazai in the collection of Kyoto National Museum (Late Heian - Early Kamakura), Michael posted this Sasanuki earlier 4. Tachi by Yukiyasu (行安), Tokubetsu Jūyō 8, (Early Kamakura) 5. Ko-Naminohira Tachi, Jūyō 42 (Early Kamakura) (Michael posted this earlier, I did not know there has been mei discovery on this as I don't yet have all the Jūyō books) 6. Ko-Naminohira Tachi, Jūyō 19 (Early Kamakura) 7. Ko-Naminohira Tachi, Tokubetsu Hozon, Tanobe Sayagaki (Early Kamakura is mentioned in sayagaki) This was wonderful item and I really hoped I could have gotten this one years ago when it was sold. https://www.aoijapan...mei-ko-naminohira-2/ Here are comparison stats for above items, and I will put your sword as Y in the list Sword - Length - Curvature - Width at base - Width at tip - Tang length 1. 82,3 cm - 3,0 cm - 3,0 cm - 1,8 cm - 20,5 cm 2. 70,9 cm - 3,0 cm - 2,9 cm - 1,6 cm - 17,7 cm 3. 73,4 cm - 2,4 cm - 3,0 cm - 1,8 cm - 23,6 cm 4. 75,1 cm - 2,4 cm - 2,8 cm - 1,4 cm - 19,5 cm 5. 81,1 cm - 2,2 cm - 2,9 cm - 1,3 cm - 19,2 cm 6. 77,2 cm - 2,6 cm - 2,9 cm - 1,6 cm - 19,8 cm 7. 87,8 cm - 2,6 cm - 3,1 cm - 2,1 cm - XX Y 77,2 cm - 2,1 cm - 3,2 cm - 1,7 cm - 22,0 cm

Congratulations on a fine sword. I remember eyeing at the Japanese dealer but it was way above my level of collecting. I do have it saved as Kamakura period work in my files. Unfortunately I am not a home during this weekend so I don't have access to all of my data. Ko-Naminohira attribution spans from late Heian into late Nanbokucho period. Late Heian - early Kamakura Ko-Naminohira work is very rare (as so early swords usually are). The Japanese dealer who had it online is often quite optimistic in age attributions. Also I believe the sayagaki would be by Honami Nisshū (本阿弥日洲) and to me the date would be Heisei 2 (平成二) 1990. I am bit curious who told 1952 to you? I am not well versed in Nisshū sayagaki but I would compare it to other examples. You do have very nice tachi and I hope you will enjoy it. I can write better post next week when I am at home. I have c. 100 Ko-Naminohira swords recorded so I think I can dig up few similarish ones.

With just the paper as information, I would think this to be around mid-late Muromachi Uda Kunimitsu. The sword is a katana and has a short length of c.65 cm.

You guys have good eyes, I think you are correct with Ujifusa. However as Matt wrote I don't think there was ever an Ujifusa who got the title Sagami no Kami. I feel the same as originally that sword would be late Muromachi Bizen work and a signature has been added to it. To me the signature does not seem to be of good quality. Do you have overall pictures of the sword and measurements for it?

I believe Jan is correct with the translation. Now as the last two are bit obscured I cannot say anything for sure but my gut feeling is it would be a false signature of Sagami no Kami Fujiwara Masatsune 相模守藤原政常 I would guess the second last character would be 政 and I will link 3 authenticated examples of signatures to show how 政 looks on them. https://sword-auction.com/ja/product/5698/as21061-薙刀相模守藤原政常/ https://www.touken-world.jp/search/78076/ https://sword-auction.com/ja/product/5766/as17261-脇差相模守政常初代/ To me it seems the sword itself would be possibly late Muromachi Bizen sword. As it has that style of nakago, wide and non-tapering nakago were not too common outside late Muromachi Bizen (and few others). Of course all that I wrote in this post is just speculative based on few not too clear pictures.