Jussi Ekholm

You have 2 very nice blades. And will be awesome if it will have sayagaki, and will be nice to see the paper too. Now on for the discussion about Ōmiya school and Morishige. This is just a personal view and might not be correct but I have tried to follow multiple sources. The Sukemori (助盛) tachi that was featured in Nihontō Kōza that Jacques posted earlier was attributed to Bizen Ōmiya in Jūyō 11 but has been further researched and reattributed as Ko-Bizen Sukemori from Early Kamakura period at Tokubetsu Jūyō 14. For Moritsugu (盛継) I have so far found 3 items. There are Jūyō Bijutsuhin tachi and naoshi that are both signed, and I believe he is generally thought as late Kamakura smith. There is also signed naginata in Jūyō 21, he is identified as Ko-Ōmiya Moritsugu in the entry. Morisuke (盛助) is most likely also a late Kamakura to early Nanbokuchō smith. I do have only tachi and 1 orikaeshi-mei for him. I know there is second Jūyō orikaeshi-mei in session 43 but I don't yet have the book, the item comes with specification Ōmiya & late Kamakura. The tachi I have only found in very old Tōken Bijutsu magazine, and it states Late Kamakura to Nanbokuchō in the text. Similar as it does for the orikaeshi-mei in Jūyō 21. Then for the Morikage (盛景) there are tons of items to research. So far I have found range from 1360 to 1402 in dated items. As we come to Morishige (盛重) I do believe it would be Late Nanbokuchō to Ōei for him. I do know there are most likely dated pieces by 1st gen from Ōan to Kakyō (1368 - 1389) as that information is listed in many sources, yet so far I haven't personally seen such a date on a Morishige item. So far the range for dated pieces I've found and have references for are from 1414 to 1433. For mumei pieces that NBTHK attribute to Morishige I have seen Ōmiya Morishige (大宮盛重) and Osafune Morishige (長船盛重). The tachi currently at Aoi Art that John posted earlier has been so far the only NBTHK verified item for him I have seen that has specification for late Nanbokuchō in brackets (granted I do not have too many signed non dated items for him as reference). Lastly for Morokage (師景) I have found so far date range of 1415 to 1442 for dated items. There are some very less known Ōmiya smiths by whom I might have so far found only a single sword or two so I don't include them here. And of course my own research is always evolving if I do uncover items previously unknown to me but those above are based on the items I currently have information on.

I think if you have specific design in mind you could message forum member MauroP, I've seen him having nice collection of saved items for research purposes as he has posted interesting examples on this board. If you have the design or type in Japanese you can try typing it into the Jūyō index I compiled. Unfortunately I didn't feel qualified to translate them in English but I did type in all of the kanji in fitting designs that was featured in item header.

For the naginata I feel I am not qualified to identify details of it. Is it a full length naginata or a shortened one? I would think there is a possibility that portion of hada is just standing out and picture enhances it. You can see some standing out hada in this remarkable Yamato naginata attributed to Senjuin. For me this could be a single item collection, I know I've had friendly banter on this with other collectors, I can overlook the condition. https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords/JT988980.htm

I would think like Steve that it is a very nice sword. However 2,5M is a good chunk of money and for that there are lots and lots of items that I find personally more interesting. It comes down to what you want to focus on.

I might have by mistake (or used an incorrect English word) said something like that about Chōgi but I do think he is/has always been regarded very highly in Japan. I do however stand by my personal view that Kaneyuki (金行) is somewhat underappreciated but I do think it can also be due to there being no surviving signed blades by him remaining. Unfortunately I don't think I have ever seen a signature of Nara Gorō Kaneyuki (兼行) For his assumed father (or older brother) Kanetomo (兼友) I know few signed pieces but incredibly rare too. In general I feel signed Nanbokuchō period Mino stuff is very rare. I think sometimes when using only English for smiths it can be bit difficult to follow up. For example when I just write Kaneyuki, in general I would be referring to this (金行) Nanbokuchō Mino smith. Still I believe at least following different Kaneyuki smiths or lineages worked in Mino before Edo period 兼行, 兼幸, 兼之, 包行. At the moment I do not have a book specialized in Mino smiths so there could have been even some more Kaneyuki smiths.

Here is the info on signed Kaneuji pieces that I am aware of so far. with 兼氏 2x Jūyō Bunkazai tachi - One of these was at Jūyō 12 session but afterwards it has been elevated as Jūyō Bunkazai 3x Jūyō Bijutsuhin tachi 1x Gifu Prefecture Bunkazai tachi 1x Jūyō Bunkazai katana 1x katana at Itsukushima Jinja (Muromachi period) 1x Jūyō Bunkazai tanto 1x Jūyō Bijutsuhin tanto 1x Jūyō tanto (2nd generation) 1x Nonpapered tanto with well reknown ownership history and provenance in Private collection in Japan 1x Tanto with (so far unknown provenance to me) published by NBTHK With 包氏 1x Jūyō wakizashi (dated) 3x Jūyō tanto - one has went to Tokubetsu Jūyō

I do believe the gap between Tokubetsu Hozon to Jūyō is exponentially more difficult than achieving Tokubetsu Hozon from Hozon. A while back I did run some potential statistics about the numbers of swords that had passed any given level by modern NBTHK classification. While they are not 100% correct it can give some idea about the numbers of swords with each level of classification. Can you post details on the signed Kaneuji? The potential Shizu naginata you posted a picture of, is it a naginata or a naginata-naoshi? I would love to hear more details about the Uda tachi.

What is also very interesting is that NBTHK has provided quite accurate dating on the sword in paper even though it is not dated. In the brackets there is (天保十年頃) so they would seem to note it was made around 1839.

Thank you Sebastien for providing very interesting info. I did indeed make a mistake with number, and it is the 34 as you said. To me it looks like signature & work would seem appropriate to the smith.

I think that spacing of 備中国 located bit above rest of the signature is a good sign. Although it has shorter signature without Aoe or Uemon no Jō, the Jūyō Bunkazai tachi of Fujishima Jinja also has similar spacing with even much longer gap in between. I feel that if the auction tachi will be verified by NBTHK, just by Hozon paper it will be incredibly valuable. If there are no condition issues I feel the paper level shouldn't affect the pricing of this too radically. It should be very expensive even with "just" Hozon verifying the authencity. However if it would fail to be recognized by NBTHK then it will be problematic... In general I don't like discussing pricing of items too much but I do feel every item went for lot more than I would have prepared to pay. I think only the Yoshitsugu tachi fell within my own preferences and I do not follow these later items that actively. Of course I am not an auction buyer in general as I don't like taking big risks and making fast decisions. If I had to choose an item it would probably be N.24 Kunishige katana in koshirae. Unfortunately I couldn't find any reference mei for this smith. In my opinion in Europe c. 4000 € for a katana in koshirae in reasonable polish is not unreasonable, yet in this case it would be more than I would be willing to go for this item. https://www.tessier-sarrou.com/lot/113434/14911307? I think Austin described pretty well above that some "ifs" that could be but will they?

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