Jussi Ekholm

There are lots of mistakes in their descriptions Juan, so it is not too bad to point them out. I think some of the pictures are bit blurred by purpose, I tried to zoom in the old NBTHK paper for that katana. I would assume there is (越前後代) Echizen Kōdai in brackets, which would mean it was put as work of some late generation by Echizen Yasutsugu line. I am not too well versed in Shintō smiths and lineages but I would believe the Edo Yasutsugu lineage is more prestigeous one as I believe they split after 2nd generation and both Edo and Echizen lineages have 3rd generation Yasutsugu. There are multiple mentions of Ieyasu in the sales pitch but if it work by late Echizen gen, there is very slight connection to Ieyasu.

The tachi by Aoe Yoshitsugu is very interesting and I feel it would need lots of further studying. The signature of it seems to be slightly different from what was written in description, and I see it as 備中国青江住右衛門尉平吉次作 - Bitchū no Kuni Aoe jū Uemon no Jō Taira Yoshitsugu saku. The Uemon no Jō signature is extremely rare in tachi, I have only found 3 tachi signatures signed in this form (The Hie Jinja sword signature is listed as Saemon no Jō in some sources but Hie Jinja book has it as Uemon no Jō as well as several other sources too). The 3 swords that I have with this signature are Jūyō Bunkazai of Hie Jinja, Jūyō Bunkazai that is owned by Tokyo National Museum, and tachi from Jūyō 14 that I guess might be still in private ownership as I havent seen it anywhere else than that book. Here are the swords in order, Hie Jinja / Tokyo National Museum / Jūyō 14 / This auction sword. I cannot really comment on the pricing stuff as I just love the research aspect of collecting and not the financial side. And unfortunately it is above my skill to make guesses about the genuinity of the signature based on available factors. I do think it could be plausible with the pictorial evidence, the coloration of nakago in the auction pics might be bit different (older looking) in real life. I think also the Provenance of auction sword might attract hunters as it has been in Europe for a long time, and presumably avoiding being checked in Japan so far.

As Jacques said above, could you post high quality pictures of both blade & nakago (full). I have quite a few references for Yamato Senjuin, and I should also have some for the later offshoot Mino-Senjuin / Akasaka-Senjuin. I feel it is interesting item worth looking into. The short length is throwing me off a bit.

I have the book, are you looking for some specific information from it? The book itself is focused on 24 swords owned by Hie Jinja. (there are actually only 21 numbered entries but there are two Ichimonji tachi, two Nagamitsu tachi and 2 Yasutsugu katana that share an entry number. Hie Jinja owns a number of splendid swords and in this publication, 1 Kokuhō, 14 Jūyō Bunkazai and 1 Jūyō Bijutsuhin are presented along with some very interesting non-designated items. It is highly specialized book and I might recommend aiming for getting item(s) that are the most fascinating to you translated if you go with that route, as full translations can get quite expensive, even though this book doesn't have too much text in it.

I think the Atakigiri that Christian mentioned eariler is Jūyō Bunkazai as the mountings are classified as such and the sword is attached to them (However it is the koshirae that has achieved the rank, not the sword). I think also the signifigance is also mostly due to the history associated with that particular sword not because of the smith in question that made the sword. Also to be noted that the sword signed Bishū Osafune Sukesada and Eishō 6 (1509) [Jūyō 28] is of very good craftsmanship and has very well preserved horimono. I was looking at the entry and I do not think they point it towards any specific Sukesada just note the period, but my Japanese is still too weak for good readings (I did not see any of the famous Sukesada names in the text entry). Like Jacques I do think David Pepin is perhaps too optimistic in his signature valuation guide. His #3 above average quality are in my opinion often very basic Sukesada signature styles.

I remember I was trying to let Paul (SBG owner) know what seems to be wrong with this project but the response was not too notable. There was a thread of it in SBG forum when the project was released. I genuinely believe there would be a market (in the western world too) for modern Japanese blades made and fitted for martial arts sold at reasonable prices. Which is where I think they should have aimed for instead of many questionable items. If I remember correctly, there were actually few that I might consider as decent deals for modern swords. The antiques on the other hand...

I know there have been discussions on the topic and I hope my example here is not taken wrongly. I was thinking what type of title I would choose, decided to go with this one. As there was a good attribution thread that featured Yamashiro and it's influences I thought I could post this. This gets into very high level territory and I am not nearly proficient enough to say anything of note regards it. As a disclaimer do not think similar thing will happen to you if are submitting/resubmitting an item. I just thought this would be fun to post and possibly create some discussion in positive sense. Here in left the mumei sword passed Jūyō 21 and was attributed as Enju (延寿) then later on the mumei sword passed Tokubetsu Jūyō 6 and the attribution was now den Awataguchi Kuniyoshi (伝粟田口国吉) Of course this is very complicated matter and there are no easy answers. I know we often talk about Enju being close to Rai but on great pieces the gap is most likely quite small. I must confess I am not a quality oriented nihontō enthusiast but I do feel it is important try to understand the quality. This most likely very nice sword got first attributed as Enju and then with more throughout Tokujū shinsa it got "upgraded" to den Awataguchi Kuniyoshi. Note that I am using the word upgrade bit tongue in cheeck in here. I know many people think Enju as maybe lower high tier - upper mid tier attribution below Awataguchi & Rai. While not as prestegious as the others mentioned Enju school had multiple historically important smiths that produced high level work. Also to be noted in the end it is the same sword... Regardless of the attribution it must be very nice mumei sword. I guess what I was kind of aiming at is that there is much more to the items that just the attribution. While commercially some attributions are very desirable, I feel they carry slightly less weight when trying to just study. Still I have to bow my own head down as I feel I am very easily influenced by attributions as my own level of understanding is lacking. At first I had trouble locating the counterpart for this TokuJū from the Jūyō items. So I had to go what I considered as logical Yamashiro route, first all of mumei Awataguchi -> mumei Rai -> mumei Enju. Unfortunately I cannot really put the few thoughts I have on this subject in easy to understand form but I was kinda just aiming to kick off a conversation starter.

Even though Paul has good pictures I think swords like this are hard to appreciate from pictures. I believe this one was on display at Samurai Art Expo 2018, very fine sword.

Thanks for the writeup, will be waiting for the video + the temple maidens...

Maybe an utopic idea but would it be possible to offer some guidance to those interested in seeking the way of polishing? Who to contact in Japan (or internationally), what basic requirements you must meet even to consider this etc.?

Yep, I remember Stockholm better and I know few very special items will be coming up I agree with the time issue in live meeting, that was definately happening at Utrecht, so many things to see and people to meet and greet. I do think slow approach like this is good for us not too knowledgeable with fittings. I can take time and slowly research the item, vs. live I cannot understand all the details and background info in a short time I have viewing the item.

I have been lucky and seen some of Bobs items live in two different meetings in Europe. I think this is a great idea and gives many of us a chance to experience items.

I can recommend taking Japanese lessons at the cultural center. I hope you will enjoy it. However it will not give much assistance to certificate/sword translating etc. this is such specialized field that your normal every day Japanese language studies do not often help quickly. But thumbs up for language study

As others above I would not think this to be Magoroku work but I would think it could be some late Muromachi to early Edo period Kanemoto.

吉政 - Yoshimasa

I am not too well versed in the pricing of top quality items as they are highly specialized field but I would believe that genuine signed tachi by Osafune Nagamitsu might start around 70,000$'s? I don't think I have seen one listed under that. Of course the high quality Nagamitsu are in totally different ballpark.

Now I am not sure if my assumption is correct but I thought for those cutting tests on Koyama Munetsugu swords NBTHK did not add Kiritsuke-mei in brackets, so I assumed they were originally signed like that. Just noticed my error as I had by mistake added the 2 Kiyomaro swords in Jūyō 25 in wrong order. The one with cutting test was made in 1854 and not 1849, sorry for my mistake. So the correct line would be - Katana – Kiyomaro (1854) - 源清麿 / 嘉永七年正月日 [Kiritsuke 切手山田源蔵 / 安政三年十月廿三日於千住太々土壇払, I will attach the picture of it. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to judge cutting tests so I would see what NBTHK states in the Tokubetsu Hozon paper and if they have (Kiritsuke) in regards the cutting test. I think Markus Sesko has probably done the most research about Yamada family in the West and he would know the best what documentation has survived to this day.

Ian

Here is some info that I have and Yamada tester info is from Markus Seskos Tameshigiri book. Yamada Gosaburō was Yamada Yoshitoshi, and apparently he used Gosaburō early in his life. He was born 1813. You can find more info about him from the book. Yamada family promoted the smith Koyama Munetsugu and all custom made blades by Koyama Munetsugu were sold via Yamada family. Now how this connects to Gosaburō, I was able to find 4 cutting tests by Gosaburō from Jūyō items. All of these 4 were on Koyama Munetsugu blades, and (I believe) made at the same time or very close when the sword was made. I looked at Kiyomaro (45) and Masayuki (25) swords that have made Jūyō and out of those 70 I found only 1 with cutting test. That is a kiritsuke-mei (later addon). It is on Kiyomaro katana made in 1848, and the cutting test is by Yamada Genzō and performed in 1856. Genzō was born in 1839. From Jūyō 25 - Katana – Kiyomaro (1849) - 源清麿 / 嘉永二年二月日 [Kiritsuke 切手山田源蔵 / 安政三年十月廿三日於千住太々土壇払] Unfortunately I don't have any books specifically on Kiyomaro as I don't focus on swords of this period. There can be other cutting tests on Kiyomaro blades that are not Jūyō. I do believe if NBTHK would be uncertain about kiritsuke-mei they will put addon kiritsuke-mei ga aru for it (kinda meaning there is signature XX).

Here are few Jūyō Naotane with pretty wild hamon.

This has been interesting thread. I was under the impression like Jacques that there would not be Shinano no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi mei, as previously I have only seen Echizen no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi. So I thought that Shinano no Kami Nobuyoshi did not use Rai in their signatures. However now there are at least 3 verified mei by NBTHK. I was looking at the example at Tōken Sakata and I believe their description points it to 2nd generation, and there is also mention that he first signed with Fujiwara (藤原) and later with Minamoto (源).

I would think like Kirill above that most likely it would be some unknown Muromachi period Yoshikuni, or gimei signature that was added a long time ago. As you are in Georgia (I assume in the US Georgia?), you have NTHK shinsa at some US shows. So you might want to wait for a chance to put it through NTHK shinsa in the US. Unfortunately economically I would not see sending this to Japan for shinsa as cost efficient option. Then again should we always do everything from monetary view? Personally I would run this through NTHK just for fun too to get their opinion, and also if you have local sword clubs, organizations etc. I would also ask opinions from their members. For reference here is how Yoshikuni looks in Onizuka Yoshikuni signatures. Unfortunately I don't have reference examples of the lesser known late Muromachi Yoshikuni smiths.

Here is quick translation of the picture. I should have have all the smiths correctly but there might be some errors on the romanization of lamination styles. 高橋俊光 - Takahashi Toshimitsu / 三善長道 - Miyoshi Nagamichi / 秋広 - Akihiro / 折り返し三枚 – Orikaeshi Sanmai / 八枚合わせ - Hachimai Awase / 三枚合わせ – Sanmai Awase / 割り鋼 – Wari ? (I believe this is Wariha tetsu) / 無垢 (丸鍛之) – Muku (Maru kitae) 肥前忠吉 – Hizen Tadayoshi / 備前祐永 – Bizen Sukenaga / 信国 – Nobukuni / 四方詰め – Shihozume / 九枚合わせ – Kyūmai Awase / 五枚合わせ – Gomai Awase / まくり – Makuri 金剛兵衛盛高 – Kongōbyoe Moritaka / 備前景光 – Bizen Kagemitsu / 備前春光 – Bizen Harumitsu / 関兼先 – Seki Kanesaki / 本三枚 – Honsanmai / 七枚合わせ – Nanamai Awase / 甲伏せ (かぶせ) - Kōbuse

This is just for fun, not intended to be too educational although it might end up to be, depending on the answers that hopefully follow. Aoi Art has very recently listed 2 blades that are attributed to Sa Yoshisada (2nd one came up today), I just thought to put them up side by side and see which one forum members will like better. I immidiately knew my personal choice but I won't post it here in the first post. I'll post it in few days. Would be nice to hear the reasons why someone would choose one over the other. Both are priced at quite similar level, both are Jūyō items (65 & 15). Left: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeiunsigned-attributed-as-sa-yoshisada/ Right: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-den-sa-yoshisada/

I think it would be 武州下原住盛(重) - Bushū Shitahara jū Mori(shige). The last kanji is partial but I have seen top of few Shitahara smiths shige kanji look like this.