Ray Singer

A skilled sayashi can craft a rough tsunagi based on the shape of the koshirae and then adjust to fit by seeing where the tsunagi has contact points. I have done this process myself. It is achievable without the original blade to work from.

Agreed, thanks for the correction Steve.

The blade is signed Nagayoshi. The tsuba is signed Shoami Sadashige.

Asano Kanezane https://www.Japanese...dex.com/kanezane.htm

Please see below for information on this swordsmith. https://www.google.c...=mobile-gws-wiz-serp

Echizen ju Kinai saku

In 'terms' of Koto. Simply a typo.

And for a blade, it is typical to have had many mountings over time (shirasaya and koshirae). In almost no cases would a blade of this age have its original shirasaya or koshirae from the time it was made during the Muromachi period.

I'm terms of Koto, this refers to a time period. Please see below. https://www.touken-w...through-the-ages-en/

A sword with a gimei (fake inscription) will not receive kanteisho (certification papers). I would enjoy the sword as it is.

Hi Gus, it may be easiest to keep all the photos in one post rather than managing several parallel posts for the same sword. These papers attribute to a koto Sukesada working in the late Muromachi period, circa Tensho era. Bizen Osafune school.

Bizen no kuni Osafune Yasumitsu.

Kanekage

Signed Tanba (no) kami Yoshimichi. Unfortunately though this does not appear to be an authentic example of his inscription. The blade looks to be Showa era, and it is not uncommon to see gimei ( false inscriptions) purporting to be famous Shinto swordsmiths produced at that time.

While this article does not specifically refer to tsuba, the truth holds. https://web.archive..../20-go-80-norishige/

The last thing that I would want to do is discourage an incoming new enthusiast, so please don't take this in a discouraging way, however there is no final authority who can give an answer that conveys absolute truth. If a piece is not signed, then there is always some degree of uncertainty on an attribution. In the sword world, there are attributions which change from one level of paperwork to another. With fittings and swords both, there is some degree of bucketing where an item may receive a safe attribution if the answer is not entirely clear. Collecting Japanese swords and fittings needs to come with some acceptance of the fact that there may be no absolutes and that sometimes it's enough to own a masterfully made object even if you'll never know with certainty who made it.

Here are two books which give insight into the process and timelines. The latter for WWII production. https://www.amazon.c...n-Kapp/dp/1568364318 https://www.Japanese...auty-by-tom-kishida/

That said, saiha blades can pass shinsa if they are very important examples. Typically the blade has a notation of (saiha) on the kanteisho in these cases.

Likely it was papered because the shinsa team did not know it was saiha. If the smith is very skillful, it's saiha is not always evident.

Yoshimasa. This appears to be a WWII era Seki blade. A showato arsenal blade, not traditionally made.

Naminohira Yasumoto

As far as your question about value, giving price estimates based on photos online for swords that I have not seen in hand is not something that I am comfortable with. I'm sorry that I can't help further.

Kinzogan-mei for named swords are typically not original. They are most often added to blades that are osuriage mumei like the one you shared. And the fact that they have been added later is in no way something that detracts from the value of the sword or it's kinzogan-mei.

And yes it is osuriage mumei (greatly shortened, and the original inscription has been lost if it was ever signed originally). You can read more about below. https://www.google.c...mobile&ie=UTF-8#ip=1

As I replied above it appears to be a name for the sword. Kinzogan-mei are gold inlaid inscriptions. At some point the sword was given a name, and that name was inscribed in inlaid in gold.