Rivkin

I am biased because its mine, but this is what I would be looking in good Omiya. Strong nie presence, sunagashi throughout (even if mostly in ko nie), bright and reasonably consistent nioi guchi, good jigane. Its really an under-appreciated school because a lot of work like this is not associated with a super-jo-jo-name-saku. It also benefits a lot from good sashikomi polish. By comparison I would suspect Aoi art is a notch lower. But it needs to be seen in hand.

I feel bad giving an honest opinion about items of Japanese sellers if it is interpreted as an endorsement Art Fair dealers... something I would prefer to avoid. Omiya can be very attractive. They seldom have good utsuri, but can have very nice hamon. Here the jigane is a bit rough, nioi-guchi does not seem to be consistent (which good Omiya is expected to have), overall its not the top Omiya for the price, but also photography and polish make it difficult to ascertain by photos alone. Maybe hamon plays hundreds of shades of blue, and its really beautiful.

Its a rare case where I would ask someone to show this blade to Tanobe sensei before doing anything else. The forging might be good quality also.

My Japanese skills are meager, but both postings are great examples of obfuscation. Eirakudo sword is papered to Seki Kaneuji. Very indirect relation to Nambokucho Kaneuji, who dominates the description. Late Muromachi work, its ok but a bit bland and ambitious. Fuyuhiro - nowhere it says this is the first generation. Yes, its probably Tensho period work. Again its not real quality, but beginner friendly in terms of being easy to appreciate, showy.

Nakago shape is a bit more late Muromachi, but at the same time its strong Mino influence with rather tight jigane... Echizen Seki would be a decent guess.

Unfortunately it is not the Rai Kuniyuki. The work has distinctive, harsh nie, very large featured hamon, very chaotic and non-traditional. Edo period work most likely. But can be still attractive.

Very personal thoughts: The blade is Muromachi. The style is "Soshu Nobukuni". The polish and condition are poor. The signature is in line with Muromachi style Nobukuni (large, centered, equal height characters, the strikes themselves are a good match for depth/etc.), but it is not an obvious match the personally recognized Nobukuni generations (at least my guess). Yes, green papers, with such condition repapering might be jeopardized even though nothing here is obviously fake, at least to me.

Personally I think its late, as in late Meiji period most likely. Many elements are not very traditional, but rather a mixture with western art and decorative techniques of the period. Interesting, attractive, but Goto Ichijo - I don't know.

Auction house will send photos to a friend who will do B- job on translating signatures... and that's about it. You'll get better information going through a trouble of good photography and posting it here.

Jigane appears to be tight, not very distinctive itame, nioi-guchi is broad, hamon is relatively broad suguha, there is some ko nie foaming and overall forging is kind of crisp. I would vote for Edo period, Hizen or about. Hizen itself we would expect more prominent jigane, but it could be out of polish.... Other schools also have tried their hand in such style, even Yokoyama Bizen.

Unfortunately each one has to be photographed individually, or at least no more than 3 per frame, front and back, strictly from above - no angles, no lazy smartphone shots. Sorry, but this is the only way to appraise those by photo, which is possible to do. There are some nice pieces here, couple for which I would offer 1500 as is, and I am sure you'll get a very decent description of what you have with better pictures.

There is a lesser known group of smiths from Yamato province, Sue Tegai and then Kanabo.

Away from books, but the mei does seem off.

Nakago has a Mino feel to it, and Kane kaji is common in Yamato-descending Mino lineages, which is a lot... So Mino smiths, late mid to late Muromachi is a possibility. Its easier to be sure seeing the blade. Is I a person of knowledge is arguably a more difficult and esoteric question.

It would be nice to see closeup of hamon… otherwise so far looks ok

Hiring a competent curator makes department head look dumb with little to no practical benefits.

With such low resolution I can't really see much.

You are doing it wrong, Jacques. You are supposed to say "I am but an eternal student of the sword, humble in knowledge". You friend is then supposed to chime in with "Jacques is a Scholarly Scholar! Celestial star, who shines over the True Path", etc. etc..

Little is seen regarding the blade but this particular narrow wide periodic gunome with visible yet uneven "nioiguchi" can be XXth century lower grade work. Japanese. Strange that it still needed very drastic nakago work, and there are other things which are a tad off. So yes, original Japanese parts, but how did they come together is something I am puzzled to say.

Its traditionally made and probably late Muromachi or early Shinto. The school... I don't know, the elements look like Bizen, but the arrangement is Mino. Probably late Muromachi Mino Kanetomo or maybe someone (other) from Senjuin lineage. Some of them did do Bizen-like chouji.

Thank you very much, that helps!

They are all from one collector. I've picked up couple of blades, and he rolled out quite a few okimono and netsuke...

This one is for ninja.

This one - less so I guess. but its signed...

This one does feel old.