Jussi Ekholm

This is extremely complicated signature and I am missing lot of key information, however I think I have a grasp of the general idea about the smiths. 越前国□広□□為三十七歳□内□□□守 / 行年七十有二 同子 高柳加賀守藤原貞広 / 国継相共□正□ other side I would believe starts with 正徳二壬辰□三月上日 and there is a lot lot more to translate. This would be made by Kaga no Kami Sadahiro (signed as Takayanagi Kaga no Kami Fujiwara Sadahiro) at the age of 72 with his son Aritsugu while he was signing with Kunitsugu (国継) and the year would be 1712 as that matches the zodiac. I was able to find a reference piece that can be seen on page 11 here (unfortunately the pic is very blurry): https://www.yamasaki-bunka.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/kyodokaiho_063.pdf Both the item in this thread and the one above link, seem to be signed as at age 72 with son Kunitsugu and year is 1712. Markus Seskos swordsmith index and Nihontō Meikan both mention that there is a item signed as at 71 with son Kunitsugu (who was signing 27 year old to that sword) and year is 1711. I think it is extremely interesting item and I hope that you can get correct and proper translation on it, as there is so much that I fail to understand. I would feel the signature would be legitimate as it is such a peculiar one and extremely long.

At 1.00 you can see the Yoshikane tachi and Tametsugu katana they have. By quick glance both would seem to be very nicely viewable. I hope it draws in big crowds and gets people excited about Japanese swords

As I am not connected to art world in any way I am curious how this Catalogue Raisonne works. Is it a free publication open to everyone to view? For the Japanese swords I would dare to think that people and organizations are very protective of their items. I have read many stories how even the best Japanese experts have had difficulties to get to even view some items. One hurdle would also be who would be the ones authenticating the items, as I know there are items for which some of the experts have varying views. Would already designated items get a free pass or would they also require lot of study and some might perhaps even fail at passing modern panel. What Piers wrote sounds like the absolute horror story and it isn't the only one like that I have heard, well of course this is the most extreme one as the smith would be Sadamune and actual proof was discovered too. I just cannot understand why the mei needs to be removed, I am absolutely against a mei removal regardless if it would be even an obvious gimei. Of course people see things differently and there are different opinions. Uwe provided absolutely amazing complilation of information about the National Treasure Uraku Kunimitsu, that is wonderful and shows how important it is to have multiple references. Also the text portions give an insight of the history of the sword and it is understandable how the quality and history combined make this sword a National Treasure. Item like this require very high level of understanding of history and appreciation of quality, unfortunately I am still lacking in both of them. I have seen this sword in 2024 and 2025 at Nagoya Tōken World, to me it was very well made sword of obviously very high quality but my level of appreciation is not enough for an item like this. On their top floor there are always just so many other items that are way more to my personal liking and I appreciate them a lot more even if they would be way below this amazing item in quality and historical value.

Huge thanks for the Sacramento Japanese Sword Club in doing this, and for you Brett to posting it up here. I remember I used to have the Yamanaka books years ago as the red cover variants. I try to avoid the Sōshū timeline as I cannot really figure it out and to me it is not that important. There is just so much contrasting information it is difficult to know what to believe. For example if Kunimitsu died at that time there are still 1315, 1316, 1319, 1320, 1322 and 1324 dated blades. For me it is also very difficult to grasp that Shintōgo Kunimitsu pretty much always signed and sometimes dated blades, yet for Yukimitsu and Masamune it is quite rare and for Sadamune I am not sure if experts accept the extremely few signed and dated swords by him as legitimate. Then Hiromitsu and Akihiro and onwards the blades are pretty much always signed again. The sword in question might be Kotegiri Gō? It is in collection of Kurokawa Research Institute Some info on it can be found here> https://www.tsuruginoya.net/stories/kotegirigou/ Sometimes it is important how things are written out as meaning can be understood in various ways. To my understanding there is a one single Ōhara Sanemori blade that has the character 勝 on it, likewise there is one single signed item by Norishige that has the character. To me drawing connection to these to smiths and two items 150+ years apart would feel like extremely optimistic. Now if the character would appear on the majority of Ōhara Sanemori blades I might feel differently but as it is on a single blade by both smiths I would think it has a different meaning and does not connect the smiths. I do think it is good and interesting that theories are researched and suggested but sometimes it can be difficult to find reference examples to support the theories as this is especially problematic with Sōshū due to lack of signed works by some smiths.

I must say I am very single minded person when it comes to museums. I do focus only on weapons and little bit on armor and skip majority of amazing items in general. I do think the British Museum might have many European swords that would be to my liking even more than their Japanese items. In overall I do think the exhibition will be nice and if you live in UK or visit London during that time I might recommend visiting. I believe you can see the items in the exhibition grouped in here: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/AUTH242520 for some reason it keeps loading and loading for me so I have had to search the swords 1 by 1 from their database. It is very unfortunate how few swords of their collection have pictures online (I would assume they would be the best items) and some do have only the koshirae pictured. I cannot understand why in this modern day and age museums around the world do not document their items to their online databases. That blows my mind as they do have personnel in departments and you can take decent pictures with any 10 year old phone. The factual errors and the information about items is not told on Youtube video are some things that I do dislike a lot. It may not be on the curator but rather on the format itself as it is very fast paced. As I do think it is easy to get the feeling from the video that for example the naginata is presented as Kamakura period item while it actually is from early-mid Edo period depending on the generation of Shigetaka. Likewise it is totally absurd that this koshirae and sword is being presented as Kamakura work: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1958-0730-56-a_1 Even the museum page clearly states that the blade is suriage Kanesada and for the Koshirae individual makers are identified and the koshirae as whole has been classified as Meiji period work. I do believe there are nice items in the exhibition like this Taikei Naotane wakizashi for example: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-19-a-d This daishō with Yoshioka Ichimonji and Yasumitsu blades: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-16-a-d , https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1952-1028-17-a-e This might be the Sukesada that Piers mentioned, unfortunately no blade pictures: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1958-0730-3-a-d

The tachi in the video is by Ko-Bizen Yoshikane, it is from Jūyō 23: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1992-0523-1 in my opinion this is the most interesting item at the British Museum. They also have Aoe Sueyuki that passed Jūyō 26: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_2002-0508-1 And tachi by Kageyasu: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_1984-0723-1 Unfortunately those three tachi are pretty much the only items I find interesting in whole collection of The British Museum from what pictures I can see online. This is the naginata in the video by Shigetaka: https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/A_JA-66 I would think it is their best naginata but it is just an average item. I do believe they do have several hundred swords as they are listed in the online database but majority of them are just not interesting at all to me personally. They have few nice swords that will be featured in this 2026 exhibition. Of course I might be overly critical about the items but I don't think they have better stuff hidden in the warehouse, I do think their several of their best items are featured in this 2026 display.

That large Masahiro blade would be a nice one to see. The Yukimitsu tantō was featured in NBTHK 2024 exhibition. I have the book and I recall seeing some images of it in private. It is historically very important item, just that personally I don't have huge love for late Kamakura Sōshū. I personally prefer Nanbokuchō Sōshū with Sadamune, Hiromitsu and Akihiro. Very controversial opinion perhaps but I like what I like

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

Here are some bit lesser known and smaller groups that could maybe added, although some might be too insignificant, and some of these might already featured under some other classification. For me it is bit difficult to draw lines, and lineages can vary. File was view only for me. School - Province Daruma - Yamashiro Heianjō - Yamashiro Kanabō - Yamato Shiga-Seki - Owari Inuyama - Owari Odawara-Sōshū - Sagami Fuyuhiro - Wakasa Asago-Taima - Echizen Yamamura - Echigo Iruka - Kii Kaifu - Awa Tosa Yoshimitsu - Tosa Wake - Bizen Ishidō - Ōmi (later spread) Zenjō - Mino San'ami - Mino Mizuta - Bitchū Tatsubō - Bingo Kai-Mihara - Bingo Goami - Bingo Dōtanuki - Higo

Well I am tad early with the answer but as I am not sure about my day tomorrow, I think I will post it today. Thanks for everyone participating and I hope it was fun. The sword is indeed now mine and I knew the attribution when getting the sword. I did not care about the attribution at all, I just wanted the sword because of size & shape. NBTHK attributed the sword to 伯耆守信高 Hōki no Kami Nobutaka. I would assume that they see this as 1st gen Nobutaka and possibly a Keichō-Shintō sword from very end of Muromachi to early Edo period. Nobutaka is seen as one of Owari sansaku, one of three Owari masters, so he is well regarded smith. However when such a mumei sword gets attributed to Edo smith it kinda demolishes the value. I have seen few nice mumei swords that I thought were Nanbokuchō swords that got NBTHK papers to Hizen Tadayoshi. I happened to see Owari special exhibition at Nagoya Tōken World last summer, back then I didn't know much about Owari smiths, and to be honest I don't know too much now either. I have found few Edo period wakizashi by Nobutaka smiths that have very wide sugata but so far I have not been able to find a reference long sword with very wide sugata. Most of the katana by Nobutaka smiths I have been able to find are just normal early Edo sugata. This was the sword at Nagoya exhibition, by 3rd Nobutaka: https://www.touken-world.jp/search/13753/ I do admit the hada and bit "featureless" hamon might be actually quite close to work on some of Nobutaka line items I found online and in books. However I think 1st Nobutaka work would be better than on this mumei sword. I personally would think like many did in this thread that this would be late Nanbokuchō to Early Muromachi sword. Naoe Shizu would of course be maybe the most optimistic outcome that I can think of and something like Mino Senjuin I could easily see, however it seems I am way off in time. This sword was sent to NBTHK by a small sword dealer at the end of 2024, and I would believe they were not too happy with the attribution that was given out. You get attribution like Naoe Shizu you are very happy and it is a valuable sword, you get Edo smith attribution and the value sinks really hard. I know this was bit of a curveball as it has been for me too. I think all discussion is welcomed and would be also fun to have some discussion, as unfortunately we cannot view and discuss the items in person.

That is correct or how I think currently. I feel the Kongōbyōe school is bit problematic as there are extremely few signed old items and dated old items are like unicorns. There are the Moritaka tantō that is Jūyō 23 and it is In my opinion most likely dated either 1359 or 1369 but one crucial character is missing, and there is the 1370 dated Reisen Sadamori tantō that is Jūyō Bijutsuhin. I know there can be different opinions about the origins and timelines etc. However for me Ko-Kongōbyōe = Nanbokuchō as that is where I see the school starting, and Kongōbyōe = Muromachi. So far in my search I have not been able to find a signed tachi by Kongōbyōe smith that would be Nanbokuchō period. NBTHK does not often specify the generations of Moritaka smiths in the appraisal paper, to me that is huge bummer... I do feel this particular Moritaka could be an Early Muromachi one possibly from Ōei. I might have been too critical for many of the signed Moritaka katana I have seen online as to me they have seemed like later Muromachi work, so I haven't included them. Of course I am no authority at all but I needed to draw a line somewhere when I gather items, as there are lots of lineages that continue during Muromachi period. I would have to include so many more items by those smiths. And as NBTHK or other organizations might not identify the generations on appraisals it does not make it any easier. Sometimes it is problematic for schools or lineages that used same signatures over a long period of time. One of my personal favorites 宝寿 (Hōju) gets very often described as late Heian period by sword dealers. However in my opinion there are only very few Early Kamakura period items by the school and majority of old works are from late Kamakura - Nanbokuchō periods. Now as the school continued into Muromachi period using the same 2 characters it can be tricky to identify the age. So I mostly just refer to expert opinions.