Ray Singer

You can see an extended discussion below which deals with the evaluation of a tanto mei, and range of variation across the smith's atelier (the students working together in his shop, assisting and sometimes signing on behalf of the master).

Yes, swordsmith mei did vary from one sword to another and there is an acceptable range of variation within authentic examples. Some swordsmiths are known for this, for example shodai Tadayoshi. And also yes, evaluating the workmanship is a part of the shinsa process, in addition to judging the mei (inscription). However, you would not expect to see a legitimate Naotane mei so radically different from the juyo example above with an identical date. And there is a crudeness in the execution of the mei that raises doubts compared with legitimate examples from Naotane and his students.

This is what I provided for the date. 嘉永五壬子年 - Kaei 5, mizunoe-ne (zodiac date for 1852)

It is possible the next kanji is Tsune. Bishu Osafune Tsune__. Several smiths used this kanji including Tsunehiro and Tsunenao. https://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=All&mei_op=contains&mei=備前長船恒

I replied to you on reddit. My comment there is repeated below. Wonderful find. This appears to be a Nanbokucho period or earlier tachi, signed Bishu Osafune __ (the remainder of the inscription is not readable in the photos, however please do not do anything at all to try to improve the visibility of the inscription). There may have been a date on the other side of the nakago, not presently readable. Do not try to remove rust on the nakago (tang), or to clean or polish the blade in any way. It has every indication of being a valuable sword. Best regards, Ray

Hopefully no one here will bid on this. It is certainly not an authentic Yasukuni-to. At best, it is a showato arsenal blade, doctored up with a gimei and frankenstein'd koshirae. i'm sorry to be so blunt, and I don't like to comment on active auctions, but this is one of the worst things that I've seen posted to the group.

Ishihara Yoshisada. A WWII era showato smith. This one has a Seki arsenal stamp. It is not traditionally made.

Jay: Bishu in the inscription indicates the smith worked in Owari. Masayasu is his art name.

Bishu ju Masayasu saku, dated 1942. https://www.google.com/search?q=mano+masayasu+site%3Amilitaria.co.za&rlz=1C1YTUH_enUS1164US1164&oq=mano+masayasu+site%3Amilitaria.co.za&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRiPAjIHCAIQIRiPAjIHCAMQIRiPAtIBCDYwNDVqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I looked on a different screen, and it does look like 兼常 (Kanetsune). 武州神田住藤原兼常 (Bushū Kanda ju Kanetsune)

The nakago itself is slightly suriage (the end has been reduced) however the mei is fully present. There appear to be two kanji after 'ju'. The first is definitely 'Kane'. The last kanji is unclear as it is been washed out with the light. I would suggest trying different lighting conditions so that the glare is not so intense in that area.

The kanji with three horizontal strokes is ju (住), which wouid typically be followed by the swordsmith artname, clan + artname, etc. The name itself is not shown here, but unless it is an unlisted smith this is likely Bushu Kanenaga or Bushu Kanetsune (one of two generations). Even if the inscription is corroded , it is still worthwhile to try and show us a photo of the entire inscription top to bottom in one vertical image. Sometimes just a couple of strokes can distinguish between one or another possible craftsmen (in this case, determining if it may be Kanenaga or Kanetsune). Not making any guarantees, but as you are asking for assistance with a translation it is helpful for us to try and evaluate everything. And one additional note, please don't do anything on your own to try to make the inscription more readable (no chalk or cleaning). This may seem obvious and I am sorry to mention it, however I've seen a number of cases where new collectors have tried some amount of cleaning to improve readability on an inscription that was already readable, removing the natural patina and destroying the originality of the mei in the process.

Please show the entire mei in one vertical image (not closeup photos of individual sections). Perhaps: 武州神田住__ Bushū Kanda ju ___ (remainder cut off, or not shown). https://nihontoclub.com/view/smiths/meisearch?type=All&mei_op=starts&mei=武州神田住

Please see below. This is the same Tenpo 8 date as on your sword. https://iidakoendo.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/naotaneall.jpg Best regards, Ray

As mentioned above, this is an extremely famous swordsmith. If you search online you will find a great deal of information. Search 'Taikei Naotane' and go from there.

Musashi Daijo Shitahara Yasushige Bushu Shitahara school. Shinto.

The blade is proposing to be by Chikuzen Daijo Taikei Naotane and dated Tenpo 8. This is a very famous late Edo period swordsmith and there are many gimei (fake inscriptions) purporting to be his work. Compare with authenticated examples.

Appears to read: Munechika. Best regards Ray

By Kanemune, dated August 1944.

The mei is 義重 not 嘉重. AI search is not a good tool for researching Japanese swordsmiths. These tools will hallucinate and give you the information that they think you want (correct or not). I would recommend Markus Sesko's swordsmith compendium for researching swordsmith bios. https://www.lulu.com/shop/markus-sesko/e-swordsmiths-of-Japan/ebook/product-1zk9mrzq.html?page=1&pageSize=4

I am seeing exactly the opposite. One side appears to be ichimai-boshi. If you have access to a better primer like the Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords, you will see an example of this.

Hizen (no) kuni Tadayoshi.

Yoshishige.

@wakiboy

This is a rokkasen kogatana. Please see below. https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/21264-inherited-kozuka/