Jussi Ekholm

Peter, unfortunately my Japanese is not good enough to read the article in full but I think the picture shows very well how broken tachi could be salvaged into a working weapon of (in this case) tantō length. I think the sword study has progressed a lot in Western world in the 30 year time frame that you mentioned. Sure there were really knowledgeable collectors and connoisseurs back then too but the easily accessible amount of information makes it a lot easier to modern collectors. Or at least it should, we have incredible amount of information available to us in many languages. Likewise you can access thousands of swords being sold around the world at any moment if you start to browse through the various sellers. That would have been really difficult to achieve before the Internet. And I'll try to be politically correct when describing that some Japanese sellers are using platforms used by many in the Western world to unload stuff that would be difficult to move inside Japan for profit while they are taking advantage of the intrest towards Japanese sword in the West and in many cases ignorant buyers. There might be some "shenanigans" going on but I don't think it is anything major that would be of concern.

Greg your sword seems to be made in 甲申 (2004). It is most likely in it's original polish if it hasn't been used for cutting.

Well not really Christmas present, but about 30 kilos of books I got at auctions from Japan arrived just before Christmas.

Some Chinese replica swords have imitation panels, as do some mogitō. Panels are pretty much only thing that make sense at least on the imitations that I've seen as they do not offer added strength in full wrap (at least I'd think so). There are various quality of imitations, I've seen very bad plastic panels on replicas and on some mogitō the imitation has been quite nice, recognizable but still decent. I think the fact that you will go for black might help a bit as lacquering will hide the base a bit. What kind of sword are you planning to work on? What type of tsukamaki are you planning on the project (if any)?

Big thanks to Piers and Peter in two threads giving info about this project.

I chuckled at Guidos comment about drill bits but with more serious tone I can say it might be a decent Chinese made sword. I haven't followed the Chinese made replica market too closely in many years now, but I do remember back in mid 2000's there used to be company called Zhisword. They produced decent quality replicas and I remember they had customization options (as I planned to buy one). By looking at the tsuka (handle) it seems to me that this sword is better than your average replica. Of course I cannot see any details in the blade, might be just the picture or it might be through hardened. It is Chinese made sword but depending on the price you might get a decent sword for martial arts practice.

Some swords were of course shortened many times during their lives but the most common remaining size for shortened swords made pre Onin wars seem to be around 67 to 71 cm blade length and 17 to 20 cm nakago length. Sure there are of course some shortened outliers with 80+ cm blades or 25+ cm nakago but the vast majority falls in that bracket above. Yuhindo happens to have one such rare outlier at the moment: https://yuhindo.com/hatakeda-sanemori-katana/ While I am no swordsman I'd tend to agree with others that blade size would commonly be dictated by your physical attributes. You can tune the balance with tsuba, as thet range from featherly very open sukashi to thick and bulky ones. Being no tsuba guy either I'd roughly guess the range going from 50 grams to 250 grams in between the extremes. I think one of the reason for sword hunts & length bans etc. in the period Japan were to control that potential opponents do not have access to large amounts of battlefield weapons. Here in the end a funny pic to show difference in somewhat "stereotypical" Enbun-Jōji vs. Eishō (unfortunately both are replicas) that makes it easy to understand why large battlefield swords needed to be shortened.

@Chris I've heard through the grapevine that you can ask NBTHK to check in a paper from their archives. I don't think it will cost anything. Haven't felt the need to ever pursue that myself so I cannot say how well it actually works. Blue papers were around from 1973 to 1982. I don't really stress about the old papers as I wasn't even alive back when they were a thing and the system change happened. I feel bit strange how unforgiving people still seem to be about mistakes that happened over 30 years ago. I feel major companies or even countries can make huge mistakes that are soon forgotten by most (and they might not even make anything to handle their errors). I felt that NBTHK even handled the situation back then extremely well by offering free reattribution for swords with old papers. Of course all I've read and heard are just old tales and I do not know exactly what happened. And a tongue in cheek comment could be that swords that really matter by NBTHK standards and are worth collecting are documented in Nado Zufus. I think the new data information laws in Europe (maybe in world too?) made member information gathering more difficult in Europe. As a regular guy I do not understand all that need for secrecy etc. maybe it's because I'm a nobody I don't feel stressed about companies or groups having my name, email, address etc. I remember NBTHK-EB posting about there being few problems for people missing their cards etc. I am at least super happy that NBTHK has European branch and various sub-groups around Europe. The chances to see Japanese swords in Finland are close to none and I do not have finances to make multiple trips to Japan yearly. The presence of the organization in Europe makes it possible to get a chance to view quality items with like minded folks. I haven't had too much contact with the Japanese main branch but here in Europe I really do not see business at all. In my mind it is the opposite, members are bringing in items to meetings, giving lectures, educating new folks all free of charge. I do agree on the fact the NBTHK is bit like a dinosaur in many ways. I've understood that it might be bit common in old organizations in Japan and change is a slow thing. Hopefully future years might bring some more innovative winds. Of course Nihontomessageboard is an amazing place. This is great platform with lots of good guys as members and you'll get lots of information and peers in here all free of charge too. Many members here are also members of various sword groups and some are involved in none. I think this is among the best places on the Internet.

I was doing some pixel analysis by photos and in general the measurements seem to be pretty close to Jūyō papers by pictures of some sellers. However I noticed that Aoi Art generally enhances the mune way too much in their pictures. As I have purchased one tachi from them and did pixel analysis on their picture, it didn't match and I have the accurate measurement as I can take it by caliper. Every other measurement about matched the Aoi picture except the measurements which included the mune. For example for my tachi the mune in reality is very small I had about 1mm difference at motohaba and at sakihaba the difference is so small that I cannot properly measure it. Mune height at that point is most likely under 0,5 mm, as I couldn't get really measurable difference trying to measure on top of mune or without mune. However when I did pixel analysis on the Aoi picture they have greatly enhanced the mune. The mune alone at sakihaba is 15 pixels in their picture which will alter the actual measuments of the sword. I measured the sakihaba being 1,9 cm as that point the sword will fit between the caliper. But from the pixel measurement from Aoi Art picture it would give me about 2,1 cm sakihaba. Aoi Art had exactly correct measurements in their sales description for my sword though 3,0 cm motohaba and 1,9 cm sakihaba. But I wouldn't trust their pictures for fine measurements by pixels as they do enhance the mune of their swords for pictures.

For Kinmichi I think Jūyō paper states: Nagasa: 41,65 cm Sori 0,9 cm Motohaba 3,3 cm Nakago 12,0 cm Aoi art gives these measurements: Nagasa: 41,6 cm Sori 0,4 cm Motohaba 3,4 cm In these the 0,5 cm difference in sori measurement is troubling me. For Munetsugu the difference between sakihaba measurements is a mystery to me. In NBTHK measurements there is 0,9 cm change between moto & saki where as Aoi's measurement only show 0,7 cm change? Motohaba measurement being lot closer to each other than sakihaba measurement. Aoi measured this sword 74,1 cm while NBTHK paper states 73,6 cm. https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeisa-hiroyuki62nd-nbthk-juyo-paper/ 0,5 cm difference in length is a lot but moto & saki on this one are just slightly different from the paper. Here there are only minor differences in sori and length but motohaba & sakihaba match by Nipponto measures (yet in some of their measurements there might be 1mm difference in width which I think is just tiny measuring difference) http://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords3/JT327224.htm http://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords3/KT326740.htm(I am pretty sure the sori is supposed to be 1,3 cm but they mistyped in 2,3) Taiseido tends to have exact measurements that are in papers http://taiseido.biz/cn11/cn22/pg585.html http://taiseido.biz/cn11/cn22/pg564.html Samurai-Nippon only has under 1mm differences to papers usually https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1719.html https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1713.html https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1726.html(except for this one) I cannot really explain why there are so big differences in measurements, my gut feeling is that either the sellers or the NBTHK are not stressing the millimeter accuracy of their measurements (even though it really seems like they are as NBTHK can give 0,05 cm accuracy and some dealers give 0,01 cm accuracy measurements).

Thanks for corrections Michael & Darcy. I corrected them in the list. That Sadatsugu was a brain skip like the missing naginata-naoshi-katana for Jitsua. I needed to check the Gō as I was expecting to see 郷 but when reading up more, it is often replaced by 江. I wasn't aware of this type of red lacquer attribution that was the case here, thanks for explaining it. In general going through NBTHK listings is somewhat easy as they follow general format. For Kotō swords I kinda know the order of provinces they list them in so it should ease up the reading (aside from missing the Gō ). As I have interests in these both schools I found two exciting swords that made it. Hōjū tachi with mei and mumei tachi attributed to Naminohira Yukiyasu. And being the small packrat information collector that I am, I have NBTHK magazines back to 1996 with Jūyō results up to this date. I decided to check how Hōjū and Naminohira have been since Jūyō 42. Hōjū has had 9 swords pass since 1996. 64 Tachi (mei) 62 Tachi (mumei) 62 Tantō (mei & date) 58 Naginata-naoshi-katana (mei) 49 Katana (mei) 46 Wakizashi (mei & date) 45 Wakizashi (mei & date) 44 Katana (kinpun) 44 Tachi (mei) Naminohira has had 10 swords pass since 1996. 64 Tachi (mumei) Yukiyasu 59 Tachi (mei) Yukiyasu 58 Tachi (mei) Yasutsugu 57 Katana (mumei) Ko-Naminohira 51 Tachi (mei) Yukiyasu 47 Tachi (mumei) Ko-Naminohira 46 Tachi (mumei) Ko-Naminohira 42 Tachi (mumei) Ko-Naminohira 42 Katana (mumei) Ko-Naminohira 42 Tantō (mei) Yoshiyasu (Muromachi)

I kinda did promise I'd give romanjinized version of the results when I get them and as George posted the link I thought I'd give it a go. I was bit tired after working 2 jobs today so there might be an error or two amongst those. I didn't add ō-ū etc. for correct pronounciation as I kinda did this fast and on the fly, and I only picked up some easy details in brackets. I just hope this is of assistance for those interested. 1. Tachi (mei) Sanjo (tomei ga aru) 2. Tachi (mei) Kuninaga (Gojo) 3. Katana (kiritsuke-mei) Norikuni 4. Katana (mumei) Awataguchi 5. Tachi (mei) Sadatsugu (den Ayanokoji) 6. Katana (mumei) Ayanokoji 7. Katana (mumei) Rai Kuniyuki 8. Tachi (mumei) Niji Kunitoshi 9. Tanto (mei) Rai Kunitoshi 10. Katana (mumei) Ryokai 11. Tanto (mei) Rai Kunimitsu 12. Katana (mumei) Rai Kuninaga 13. Katana (mumei) Nakajima Rai 14. Katana (mumei) Nakajima Rai 15. Katana (mumei) Nakajima Rai 16. Katana (mumei) Rai Kunizane 17. Katana (mumei) Rai Kunizane 18. Wakizashi (mumei) Rai Tomokuni 19. Katana (mumei) den Hasebe 20. Naginata (mei) Nobukuni (Nanbokucho – Oei) 21. Tanto (mei) Nobusada (Yamashiro : Oei) 22. Tachi (mei) Kuniharu (Senjuin) 23. Katana (mumei) Senjuin 24. Katana (mumei) Ryumon 25. Katana (mumei) Ryumon 26. Katana (mumei) Taima 27. Katana (mumei) Taima 28. Katana (mumei) den Yamato Aritoshi 29. Katana (kinzogan-mei) Kanenaga (Nanbokucho) 30. Tanto (mei & date) Kanetsugu 31. Katana (mumei) Tegai 32. Tanto (mei) Sadamitsu 33. Katana (mumei) Hosho 34. Katana (mumei) den Hosho 35. Katana (mumei) Shikkake 36. Katana (mumei) Shikkake 37. Katana (kinpun-mei) Kaneuji 38. Katana (mumei) Yamato Shizu 39. Wakizashi (mumei) Yamato Shizu 40. Ken (mumei) Yamato Shizu 41. Katana (mumei) den Yukimitsu 42. Katana (kinpun-mei) Hitachi Masamune Honami 43. Katana (mumei) den Sadamune (Meibutsu) 44. Katana (mumei) den Sadamune 45. Katana (mumei) den Shizu 46. Naginata-naoshi-wakizashi (mumei) den Shizu 47. Katana (mumei) den Naoe Shizu 48. Naginata-naoshi-wakizashi (mumei) Naoe Shizu 49. Katana (mumei) Kinju 50. Katana (mumei) Kaneyuki 51. Tanto (mei & date) Morikatsu (Shimotsuke) 52. Tachi (mei) Hoju (Eitoku) 53. Katana (mei & date) Fuyuhiro 54. Katana (mumei) Tametsugu 55. Wakizashi (mumei) Tametsugu 56. Katana (mumei) Kashu Sanekage 57. Katana (mumei) den Kashu Sanekage 58. Katana (mumei) den Go 59. Katana (mumei) Norishige 60. Katana (mumei) Ko-Uda 61. Tanto (mei) Uda Kunihisa 62. Tachi (mei) Ohara Sanemori 63. Kodachi (mei) Ohara Sanemori 64. Katana (kiritsuke-mei) Hoki Motoshige 65. Tachi (mei) Nagakane (Ko-Bizen) 66. Tachi (mei) Yoshizane (Ko-Bizen) 67. Katana (mumei) Ko-Bizen 68. Tachi (mei) Yoshifusa 69. Katana (mumei) Ichimonji 70. Naginata-naoshi-wakizashi (mumei) Ichimonji 71. Katana (kinzogan-mei) Yoshioka Ichimonji 72. Katana (mumei) Yoshioka Ichimonji 73. Naginata-naoshi-katana (mumei) Katayama Ichimonji 74. Naginata-naoshi-wakizashi (mumei) Katayama Ichimonji 75. Katana (mumei) den Iwato Ichimonji 76. Katana (mumei) Mitsutada 77. Katana (mumei) Sanenaga 78. Tachi (mei) Kagemitsu 79. Tachi (mei) Chikakage 80. Wakizashi (mumei) Chikakage 81. Tachi (mumei) Moriie 82. Wakizashi (mumei) Sanemori 83. Katana (mumei) den Unsho 84. Tachi (mumei) Wake Shigesuke 85. Wakizashi (mumei) Masamitsu 86. Tachi (mei & date) Moromitsu 87. Tachi (mei) Yasumoto (Nanbokucho – Oei) 88. Katana (shuso fumei) Chogi 89. Katana (mumei) den Chogi 90. Katana (mumei) Kanenaga 91. Katana (mumei) Kanenaga 92. Katana (mumei) Nagamori 93. Wakizashi (mei & date) Morikage 94. Naginata (mei & date) Katsumitsu & Sadamitsu 95. Wakizashi (mei & date) Munemitsu 96. Katana (mei & date) Harumitsu 97. Tachi (mei) Sukezane (Bitchu Senoo) 98. Tanto (mei & date) Sadatsugu 99. Katana (mumei) Aoe 100. Naginata-naoshi-katana (mumei) Aoe 101. Katana (mumei) Ko-Mihara 102. Katana (mumei) Ko-Mihara 103. Katana (mumei) Nio 104. Katana (mumei) Jitsua 105. Naginata-naoshi-katana (mumei) Jitsua 106. Katana (mumei) Sa Sadayoshi 107. Katana (mumei) Sa Hiroyasu 108. Katana (mumei) Sa Hiroyuki 109. Katana (mumei) Sa Hiroyuki 110. Katana (mumei) Sa Hiroyuki 111. Katana (mumei) Sue-Sa 112. Katana (mumei) Miike 113. Katana (mumei) Enju Kunimura 114. Katana (kinpun-mei) Enju Kunisuke 115. Katana (mumei) Enju 116. Katana (mumei) Enju 117. Katana (mumei) Enju 118. Tachi (mumei) Naminohira Yukiyasu (Kamakura – Nanbokucho) Late swords 119. Katana (mei) Kunitomo 120. Wakizashi (mei) Kunisada 121. Wakizashi (mei) Sukehiro (nidai) 122. Katana (mei & date) Sukenao 123. Wakizashi (mei & date) Ikkanshi Tadatsuna 124. Wakizashi (mei) Masatsune 125. Wakizashi (mei) Kotetsu 126. Wakizashi (mei) Kotetsu 127. Katana (mei) Kunimasa 128. Daisho (mei & date) Suishinshi Masahide 129. Katana (mei & date) Taikei Naotane 130. Katana (mei & date) Koyama Munetsugu 131. Katana (mei & date) Minamoto Masayuki 132. Katana (mei & date) Nobuhide 133. Katana (mei & date) Nobuhide 134. Katana (mei & date) Nobuhide 135. Katana (mei) Tadakuni

I have that tanto also in the Tantō book and it is listed with following dimensions there Nagasa 22,0 cm, motohaba 1,9 cm, motokasane 0,6 cm, nakago 9,0 cm And Sho-shin website seems to have Nagasa 22,1 cm, motohaba 1,8 cm. nakago 9,4 cm While these are miniscule differences in the big picture they are troubling me a lot.

I guess I can nod in agreement Darcy. I know I shouldn't argue with people with far more knowledge, especially when I have to look up several words from dictionary. What you say about commercial side makes sense too. But I do personally think that buyer needs to gather knowledge and take responsibility of his/hers buys. I like how detailed and thorough your own descriptions about items are and I wish more dealers might take bit more time with descriptions but at the same time I think person buying should be researching as much as possible (it should not be dealers responsibility to provide every minute background info). I've felt many times lately that discussion tends to hover around commercial values (papers, prices etc.) So, guess I'll try to bring the discussion back to the actual item. I confess that I do not know much about Kiyomaro. I have only few books left about Shinshintō but I read about Kiyomaros life. This daishō might be among the last ones with Masayuki mei as I look at the dating. The pair is dated 1845, 弘化二年二月日 and his father died at the end of third month of Kōka 2, so possibly this was made month or two earlier. Then the earliest dating for Kiyomaro mei is Jūyō Bijutsuhin 1846, 弘化丙午年八月日. I've found other Masayuki signatures that have same dating but not one later than that (granted my Shinshintō mei references are very limited). I am not sure if Kiyomaro made swords between his fathers death and the Jūbi he made for Kubota Sugane, as he moved with Masao to Edo during that time.

Do you have certain examples to share Manuel? I have been documenting the swords from NBTHK magazine issues as well as from other written sources I have and I have noticed there is often a slight differences in the measurements between sources. It gets difficult when multiple sources have some millimeters of gap between each other. I have used NBTHK's measurements as the ones I trust as on some occasion sword might have slightly different stats in 5 references for example... And there has been few times when NBTHK's monthly kantei sword has had slightly differing measurements on a second appearance. For example one such example that has varying measurements by NBTHK is Jūyō Bijutsuhin tachi by Ohara Sanemori. So far I have documented this sword appearing 6 times in Tōken Bijutsu magazine in the last bit over 20 years. When it was the famous sword (issue 706) it had following measurements. Nagasa 70,2 cm / sori 2,2 cm / motohaba 2,55 cm / sakihaba 1,65 cm / motokasane 0,45 cm / sakikasane 0,3 cm / kissaki 2,4 cm / nakago 21,95 cm / sori 0,3 cm When it was up for kantei (issues 590 & 628) the measurements were. Nagasa 70,3 cm / sori 2,12 cm / motohaba 2,6 cm / sakihaba 1,6 cm / motokasane 0,65 cm / sakikasane 0,25 cm / kissaki 2,4 cm / nakago 21,97 cm / sori 0,3 cm Then the same tachi is in Meihin Katanaezu Shusei with measurements. Nagasa 70,3 cm / sori 2,3 cm / motohaba 2,6 cm / sakihaba 1,7 cm / motokasane 0,5 cm / kissaki 2,4 cm / nakago 22,6 cm / sori 0,3 cm Another tricky one would be famous Kokuhō Meitō Koryu Kagemitsu. It is featured in several references that have slightly differing measurements. Tōken Bijutsu 487 has Nagasa 73,9 cm / sori 3,0 cm / motohaba 2,9 cm / sakihaba 2,0 cm / motokasane 0,7 cm / sakikasane 0,5 cm / kissaki 3,0 cm / nakago 17,5 cm / sori 0,3 cm Meihin Katanaezu Shusei has Nagasa 73,9 cm / sori 3,0 cm / motohaba 2,9 cm / sakihaba 2,0 cm / motokasane 0,7 cm / sakikasane 0,5 cm / kissaki 3,0 cm / nakago 17,5 cm / sori 0,3 cm Nihon no Bi by Gakken has Nagasa 73,6 cm / sori 3,0 cm / motohaba 3,0 cm / sakihaba 2,0 cm / kissaki 3,2 cm / nakago 17,3 cm eKokuho database has Nagasa 80,6 cm / sori 2,7 cm Most other references I have this in have Nagasa 73,9 cm / sori 3,0 cm While the differences are minor it is really frustrating when trying to document the measurements of the sword. I am not exactly sure how the experts actually measure the swords but few millimeters might be easily mistaken. There have been many times I've seen that measurements on a Jūyō paper and measurements of the website selling the sword are different sometimes on all measurements. On those occasions I have trusted the Jūyō paper over dealers measurements.

I think it's a different view of semantics Darcy. For example I see that it is best to use the most common name used by the smith regardless if he used many names. Kiyomaro is the common name this smith goes by in discussions. If there is a signature of other name he used, that should tell you what you need to know. Yamato Shizu - Shizu debate is problematic because there are no signed Yamato Shizu swords. For Yamato Shizu all are attributions which while made by experts can be problematic as proving them to be a fact is pretty much impossible. I am not (yet) sure how many surviving true pairs of swords there are for Kiyomaro (with any of his signatures) but I'd think this is a pretty rare pair. Might be a long wait before another one pops up for sale as I think at this level of rarity there are multiple other factors than money involved too.

What Michael says is true once you go "down" in level from Cultral assets - Tokubetsu Jūyō - Jūyō, then there are starting to be many more attributed long swords to every famous smith. Maybe it has been written that there might be only 2 signed tachi by Sa? Here is one Jūyō Bijutsuhin that can be found online as it was sold by Iida Koendo (I forgot it was named sword too but fixed that): https://web.archive.org/web/20120322134554/http:/www.iidakoendo.com:80/info/item/a369.htm I've noticed I've started to have a personal preference for Sa school swords. In general they pretty much always have the strong Nanbokuchō sugata and wide profile even having been through suriage. Perhaps I might someday have a mid-late Sa school work in my collection (at least I can dream). I think your sword would fit better to Etchū & Uda like NTHK attributed it to. There seems to be lot of activity going on in the blade, and the hada seems "rustic" to my eye. Could you post measurements for motohaba and sakihaba. Getting an idea of the width would help. I am also try to get an idea how much the sword has been shortened. If all of the original nakago has been lost it has been a long tachi.

I checked the long swords I have listed for Sa, I have 2 signed tachi both Meitō and one is Kokuhō. I have 4 mumei katana attributed to Sa, 2 of them Meitō and 1 Jūbu & 1 Jūbi.

I think it would be 2 shaku 2 sun 4 bu (4 rin if you want to be really exact but rin is rarely used when measuring nagasa) as 2 shaku 2 sun 4 bu is 67,88 cm. 二尺二寸四分 (四厘)

Can you get better pic of the smith in signature as your clear pic cuts off too early. I have the Bungo book and I can post you reference after seeing the signature on this one.

Your site is very nice Yurie.

@Jeremiah, there is the book Jūyō Tōken Tobun Rui Mokuroku which has listing of Jūyō swords from 1956 to 1999. I am not sure about more modern Jūyō listings after that. I thought about buying it for many years but decided that it does not have enough information for me to use on my own database and learning. I'm building a database on swords that are roughly from Heian to 1450. I'll give 1st prototype of it to NMB members once I pass 5000 sword mark (it will take time), I'm bit over 2500 swords at the moment (all Kokuhō, 298 JūBu, 193 JuBi etc. listed so far). That time frame is my own interest and I did have to narrow it to that as otherwise the information amount would be completely overwhelming as there are just so many swords around. Rayhan, Michael and Matt gave some insight about the Sukeyori. I know for a fact that this was listed earlier on Aoi Art too, I think it might have been for sale in 2015 (asking price 4M then), and also possibly another time too, that sword seems so familiar. Also the origin of this blade is bit uncertain for me (which is no surprise as it might be for far more experienced ones too). I put this to Ko-Bizen Sukeyori in my database. Like Michael said above the Sukeyori smiths in general seem to be not too known or highly thought of. I have listed 2 signed tachi by Ko-Aoe Sukeyori that are also Tokubetsu Hozon. While a sword like that would be a crown jewel of my own collection it is somewhat problematic sword. Still I'd rather take it over many mumei Jūyō blades.

I'm guessing Rayhan means this Japanese Gallery (Kensington and they have 2nd location too)? http://japanesegallery.com/ I met Eddy at Samurai Art Expo and he seemed really nice when I changed few words. Didn't take much of his time as he was busy being one of the organizers. Not sure what kind of swords they have in their regular inventory.

I can post the translated results when the issue with results arrives to Finland (if someone hasn't provided them before that). Here are some thoughts, these are all pretty much just theory as Jūyō is way out of my league. Hasebe - I have to backup Darcys opinion on this, looks like a spectacular sword. Hasebe Daitō are relatively rare, usually you'll encounter Wakizashi and Tanto. Enju - I am pretty sure your Enju is a nice sword. Mumei Enju tend to have decent track record going from Tokuho to Jūyō. As there was talk about signatures earlier, if you have a legitimate signed Enju I'd think it is an instant Jūyō. And while length in general might not be defining anything I can easily note that the is higher number of 70+ cm blades that passed compared to blades under 70 cm. There is also one mumei Enju JūBi at 72 cms. Niō - While it sounds harsh to say that Niō is third tier school, it is actually quite the reality. As I've been documenting the good swords from famous references, I've found out that in Niō school after Kiyotsuna there is nobody of note. Sure Kiyotsuna has couple of JūBu and JūBi and he is appraised very highly the drop after him is rough. To give an idea of Niō Jūyō rates I can put out some statistics. I have 24 Niō swords listed, 7 of those are Kiyotsuna and the 1 mumei attributed to Kiyotsuna is Jūyō 48. I have 2 mumei tachi and 13 mumei katana for Niō (yours is the longest one). Out of those 15 there are 2 Jūyō swords and both are quite short katana, 69,4 cm and 64,7 cm. And to be perfectly honest I'm remembering both of those two might have been "weak" Jūyō, not too spectacular. Wake Shigenori - While I tend to really like some obscure schools, their importance in big picture is very miniscule. There have been some Jūyō Wake swords (even mumei) and I'd think yours having hari-mei it would be on the "upper bracket" of Wake swords. In general - There is a preference for some smiths and schools and it is understandable as those smiths are important. You'll find the same thing when you browse sword books and magazines, good smiths get most space and once in a while you might find some lesser known smiths in books and having high rankings (usually when that happens the work is probably among of the best from that smith or among the few remaining signed for example). I think Tokubetsu Hozon has fallen a bit in the gap and does not get enough recognition. They are already judged to be good swords, not everyone can be on the top. And it is unfortunate fact that for many good swords Tokubetsu Hozon attribution is as far as they will go in the NBTHK ranking system.

I must say it is really exciting in my opinion. I did not understand the original purpose of the thread as the picture in Yumoto's book just seemed black but now that you revealed the answer it got me extremely curious. What did the NBTHK answer to you? Did you try to put this tachi on shinsa by some organization? 1 tachi & 1 naginata by Yoshioka Sukemitsu are National treasures of Japan (for those intrested about the smith).