Is this katana Koto ?

[Francis Wick]

33 minutes ago, Rivkin said:

Well, the sugata is ok for Muromachi say 1500 and the nakago is consistent with sue-Bizen. The signature is in the right place and I don't want to check the books on whether its written ok, the steel feels Muromachi (though its hard to be sure based on these photographs) and they did suguha like this at the time.

On the negative the patination towards the upper portion of the nakago is highly uneven suggesting something was done rather recently and the signature written is a bit too deep in my opinion. I would prefer the strikes to be a bit more shallow and not to stand out nearly as much with respect to yasurime...

So yes on koto, hard to say on whether its Bizen original or the signature was added a bit later.

Dear Rivkin

 

thank you so much for the thoughts. I am left wondering if it’s worth sending off for a polish and papers but am thinking it’s probably not worth it 

[Rivkin]

9 minutes ago, Francis Wick said:

Dear Rivkin

 

thank you so much for the thoughts. I am left wondering if it’s worth sending off for a polish and papers but am thinking it’s probably not worth it 

 

You will not get much more improvement with the polish since the blade itself it likely about "ok"... I would send it for papers. Chicago shinsa as an example.

[Francis Wick]

2 hours ago, Rivkin said:

 

You will not get much more improvement with the polish since the blade itself it likely about "ok"... I would send it for papers. Chicago shinsa as an example.

Ok good advice will do 

[DoTanuki yokai]

With the new pictures the Mitsu kanji looks much better then on the dark old picture and I think Kirill is on the right track. 

[Francis Wick]

13 hours ago, Rivkin said:

Well, the sugata is ok for Muromachi say 1500 and the nakago is consistent with sue-Bizen. The signature is in the right place and I don't want to check the books on whether its written ok, the steel feels Muromachi (though its hard to be sure based on these photographs) and they did suguha like this at the time.

On the negative the patination towards the upper portion of the nakago is highly uneven suggesting something was done rather recently and the signature written is a bit too deep in my opinion. I would prefer the strikes to be a bit more shallow and not to stand out nearly as much with respect to yasurime...

So yes on koto, hard to say on whether its Bizen original or the signature was added a bit later.

Ok thank you so much great advice and a good eye on detail. I’ll submit it to a U.S. shinsa as is and see what they say

[Francis Wick]

9 hours ago, DoTanuki yokai said:

With the new pictures the Mitsu kanji looks much better then on the dark old picture and I think Kirill is on the right track. 

Thank you so you also feel it is perhaps Koto then and that the mei was added later and that the blade is suriage or machi okuri ?

[Ken-Hawaii]

The term "Koto" means any period prior to Edo. Within that era, you have Azuchi-Momoyama (1573-1599), Muromachi (1392-1572), Nanbokucho (1333-1391), Kamakura (1185-1332), & Heian (782-1184). Take a look at NMB member Yurie's timeline (https://studyingjapaneseswords.com/2017/07/16/2-time-line/) to see how the pieces tie together. Now take a closer look at ypur blade's sugata, & see if you can time it a bit closer than just Koto. Kirill is giving you some strong hints.

 

Please ignore the mei, unless it has been authenticated by shinsa. The vast majority of signed blades are gimei.