xiayang

濃州住森俊治作 = Nōshū-jū Mori Toshiharu saku

Second blade: 氏房 = Ujifusa 昭和十六年 = Shōwa 16 (1941 CE) Third blade: 西部宗命 = Seibu Munenaga

Hi Michael, The blade is signed 豊州住藤原正行 = Hōshū-jū Fujiwara Masayuki

Hi Rob, Yep, that's pretty much it. You can find more information about the smith in this thread:

濃州住塚原兼次謹作 = Nōshū-jū Tsukahara Kanetsugu kinsaku

That‘s correct: 豊後住藤原實行 = Bungo-jū Fujiwara Saneyuki

Have a close look at the placement of the mei the proportions of the individual characters the proportions of the characters relative to each other the execution of the characters (e.g., depth, width and shape of strokes) One of them is consistent with a master craftsman putting the final touch on a work of art that took hundreds of hours to create. The other one is sloppily executed with poor calligraphic aesthetics...

皇紀二千六百一年 = year 2601 of the Imperial calendar (1941 CE) 出征詔念應永田千弘代需 = in commemoration of Nagata Chihiro answering the Imperial command to go to war

The mei and nakago look rather dodgy, if you ask me... Compare to these examples of the smith's work: https://kako.nipponto.co.jp/swords2/KT214504.htm https://ikedaart.net/?pid=180628778 https://aucview.aucfan.com/yahoo/w454764826/

The answer to that question depends on what you mean by gimei in this context. So let's break it down, in order of increasing speculativeness: Was it created in 1919? By shortening an older blade? Was it Hiraga Morikuni who shortened it? Was there an original signature, and was it 安則? If it had indeed been signed 安則, was it actually made by Yasunori of the Ichimonji school, or perhaps by some later smith who used the same characters? I guess it may not be possible to answer all of these questions with certainty, but perhaps you could start with the last point: does the blade actually have the characteristics one would expect from a Kamakura era work by the Ichimonji school? Here's Yasunori's entry in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan:

大正[己?]未歲八月 = August of Taishō, year of the [Earth?] Goat (that would correspond to 1919 CE) 平賀守國上之 = shortened by Hiraga Morikuni 古銘 一文安則 = old mei: Ichimon Yasunori

継利以南蠻鐵作 = made by Tsugutoshi using nanban-tetsu

貞繼 = Sadatsugu Probably this entry in Markus Sesko's Swordsmiths of Japan:

The signature appears to be 若狭守源廣政 = Wakasa no Kami Minamoto Hiromasa Whether the blade is restorable at all I cannot say. Probably best to get a polisher to look at it.

土肥真了 = Doi Shinryō

備前國横山上野大掾祐定 = Bizen no Kuni Yokoyama Kōzuke Daijō Sukesada

美濃國住人小川兼先作 = Mino no Kuni-jūnin Ogawa Kanesaki saku The smith appears to be listed with the (erroneous?) reading "Ogawa Kanemitsu" on this list: https://japaneseswordindex.com/tosho.htm

You've correctly identified the first character (宗), but it has a different reading here. 江刕彦根住宗典= Gōshū Hikone-jū Sōten

渡島國住人泰國作 = Oshima no Kuni-jūnin Yasukuni saku

According to the torokusho, the blade bears the inscriptions 津田越前守助広 = Tsuda Echizen no Kami Sukehiro, 延宝五年二月日 = on a day in the second month of Enpō 5 (1677 CE).

濃州関住正行作 = Nōshū Seki-jū Masayuki saku 昭和十八年 = Shōwa 18 (1943 CE)

防州國龍軒昭邦造之 = Bōshū no Kuni Ryūken Akikuni made this 防州五龍軒昭邦造之 = Bōshū Goryūken Akikuni made this 皇紀弍千六百五年 = Kōki 2605 (1945 CE)

龍之図 = design of a dragon

濃州住長村清宣之作 = made by Nagamura Kiyonobu, resident of Nōshū See also this thread (same name, different handwriting):

Indeed. For completeness, the transcript: 明治四十一年十一月吉日 The lower bit reads: 吉本氏寄進 = donated by the Yoshimoto clan/Mr Yoshimoto