Rivkin

I can check the literature but I most commonly encountered 1317. Possibly because of the partial date signature blade? Or because Kunihiro starting to date his blades in 1318, the assumption he was a student of Kunimitsu until then and not an independent master? The earliest dated blade (1293?) makes it a plausible 30 year run. But then there are so many blades of his even at TH level, its probably was a larger school. Two generations? Kunihiro and others(?) working under Kunimitsu's patronage?

Its an interesting question and there are a few things to consider. First, Japanese have extensive records on battle casualties from Nanbokucho to late Muromachi, from various sources. In Nanbokucho for example after sometime in service you would write a letter detailing your wounds, lost equipment, kills, tropheys taken. Which today produces many Ph.Ds dealing with these letters. By memory swords in their most effective periods go to like 35% of total casualties, but generally oscillate between 5 and 20%. The rest are bows, later yari etc.. In Nambokucho there is surprising percentage of stones, axes and other tools that are seldom imagined. Also, most surviving swordsmen (i.e. capable of leaving a record) even in Nambokucho would have zero kills, and people with five+ claimed kills would be around 5% of the fighting force. Second, swords overall are not made to survive battles. European sword some people estimate to survives 3 active engagements on average. Japanese are generally much more prone to hagire and catastrophic chipping so it is comparable at best. However, we are dealing with survivors - so either blades which never killed and thus were preserved, or the blades which somehow killed successfully. So Edo period sword obviously probably never killed. Muromachi - we are talking about huge supply of swords, yet 5-10% sword casualty rates and most sword construction being cheap and iffy enough to be smelted if it kills and chips rather than being repolished. Its probably sub 1% chance it killed. Nanbokucho - there is actually a solid chance it did.

What can I say, I also suffer from the temptation to discovery once in a lifetime treasure and it can be hard to accept I miss more often than land a score.

I don't know why they come out as exceptionally low resolution. 40MP image, external link if needed - something we can work with. Unfortunately cell phone lenses also distort a lot so sugata is best photographed with the phone exactly in the middle - as an example sori in the first image and the last are different because the phone positioning is different. In the same way - high res photograph of the <activities>. Otherwise its a guess, especially since its suriage. I think there is yokote and your measurement was probably correct. Can be Muromachi can be something else, with better pictures one can try to estimate.

Unfortunately it is very hard to kantei using just this. It looks like a late Muromachi blade. Possibly Bizen in a poor polish. I would not discover frankly many other things from Fuyuhiro etc.. Its a broad range.

Its a pity kissaki is 2.7cm, would it be 1.5cm there would be a stronger potential. It has a rather graceful koshi-zori and prominent fumbari, so its either early Muromachi or Kamakura, unfortunately first is more likely. There seems to be bo utsuri. suguha hamon with possibly some nie activity. It would be nice to try absolute best to capture the details. If its pure suguha - Mihara, Mino Zenjo-Kaneyoshi, Tegai Kanetoshi can be an option. There is also Nobukuni and Ryokai to consider.

WOW! That's great.

Really bad Japanese images but it is most likely a real shinshinto blade. The rest is a cute story.

I think second kanji is different, but it is Soshu, it can be Meiji/Showa, or it can be like end of Muromachi with a cleaned nakago. Light from above is the worst, usually photography is done in dark room with light on a side.

Unfortunately it is a dark sword... in a dark room. I would add to photography suggestions - dark room but light source on a side. Sufficient size light source to highlight the blade.

This is unfortunately what happens when one tries to use "diplomatic language", i.e. "yes, some descriptions might be better than others, but it does not need to be interpreted as dealer's fault or ill intent", blah-blah. Then you read this stuff and wonder whether the "description issue" is not well understood, or ... ? Lets be specific. Mandarin Mansion trades in many different fields. Question was - how reliable are the descriptions? I obviously like Caucasus, for example. Mandarin Mansion has three items labeled as such. Consider each one of them: its not pick and choose. https://www.mandarinmansion.com/item/caucasian-silver-niello-miquelet-pistol Yes, its a Kubachi pistol, named after the place where they were decorated. The site states its 1800-1849. To understand the issue: similar pistols dating 1800-1835 are rare and worth a fortune. 95% of existing ones are from 1840-1870. Because many are signed and dated one can try to be a bit more specific with dating. Somewhat diminished skill, shallow surface... Probably 1852-1867? One could choose to be optimistic and argue for a slightly earlier date - but while there is a subjective element here, it only goes so far. The site states "Not all plating is the same shade or finish; some appear to be working life replacements.". Referring most likely to the silver panels at the barrel's end. Well, this "replacement piece" shows more simple work, shallower carving, niello which is relatively unstable, steady yellow tint of the silver itself, background zigzags which are lined up rather than appear as individual "dots", unlike the other pieces. This is similar to 1900-1915 style, probably the subset associated with "souvenirs" made by Zhitomir Jews traveling around and doing small pieces here and there. Unlikely a "working life replacement", more likely early XXth century collector replacing the lost portions. Next piece: https://www.mandarinmansion.com/item/dagestani-shashka-dated-1912 The site describes it as "Dagestani shashka dated 1912" with "Romanov monogram" Presence of Imperial cipher on the hilt usually simple means it was an officer's sidearm and per regulations carries the cipher of the Emperor during whose reign the first officer rank has been bestowed. Coupled with the use of flowers on the back and the fact that the shashka hilt stacks with the scabbard rather than goes partially inside it - suggests it was made for an officer market. Which usually (but not always) means Vladikavkaz or other similar places, not Dagestan proper, though the style and very likely the maker are connected with Dagestan. The site states the piece is signed and dated as "1912". The date however clearly looks like 1919. I can guess it was read as 1912 because then it would "match" the Imperial cipher. However, the signature is clearly non-traditional (i.e. done by a typical city engraver working with watches and canes, not weapons), different and later compared to the rest of work. Classic Civil War case when weapons in silver originally belonging to officers were given around as awards, pay, or simply traded, and signed to new owners. Was "A.M. Melnikov, 1919" Red or White is a good question and I would argue the signature does answer it. https://www.mandarinmansion.com/item/transcaucasian-kindjal Not much to say here since not much is stated, and more importantly there are very few dated pieces. The site's opinions are fully plausible, though (subjectively) differ from mine. I can work in the same way with other sections (Persian, Ottoman, Chinese, Japanese), forcing myself to very diplomatic language like "better photographs would help to ascertain whether the blade is not a XXth century replacement". More importantly, wasting considerable time. Instead: short summary of my very personal, subjective opinion. Chinese items - I am aware of the attribution/dating philosophy used, it has been around argued for and against, remains plausible. It comes with an interesting selection of items offered, some descriptions are really good, there is more or less nothing absolutely-horribly-wrong. I can guess who are the people the author talks to. I can't state the same about the other sections of Mandarin Mansion site and offerings. In the end its buyer's responsibility to make a choice. With Japanese at least there are papers, so there are substantially fewer unknowns. For both buyer and seller. You are not going to get a completely bogus attribution, but the information presented while generally matching the name in papers might not be 100% applicable to the specific blade or 100% reflect the most modern thinking on the subject. Rules of the genre.

Specific list where I think descriptions are significantly diverging from what I believe to be the right description? It would be a rather large one, and the end result would still be "no, I don't think so, yes I think so" and back to square one - my opinion very often diverges significantly from the one expressed by the site. I can even assume in some cases it is the site description which is correct, and I am not. It is what it is.

If a Ford dealer said - well, in truth, Honda has fewer breakdowns and our service hours are twice as expensive, but we have higher fuel consumption - he probably wouldn't be successful in selling If a seller doesn't include misleading information, but emphasizes sales arguments in a positive light, then he is just applying the right sales strategy Yeap. To me, there is a way dealer's descriptions are written, the rule of the genre. It is seldom the right place to wonder out loud if "jutetsu" is real or ponder if XVIth century Tulwar does have a chance to come out as XVIIth century one. Buying or selling, sometimes its just hard to be truly cynical and skeptical. Ciceron "On honor" re: why one should not sell antiques. But then his solution was to teach a slave to sell them. Then someone forwards the description and asks if its really XVIth century. And then I wonder if I am being overly skeptical when responding simply because I want to feel superior to "those dealers who say things that suit them"... Can't trust people who suggest dealer's description "is wrong and self-serving". Can't trust dealer's descriptions either. Can't trust myself, this one I learned many times. Unfortunately the only way to make really good money in antique business is to catch a wave. In 2000s it was Gulf, Russians, to an extent Chinese. Were these collectors educated? Back then nobody was in the respective fields. Often big trades and investments happen when the field is young and emotions are high. Then comes the knowledge, except now there is little to buy, most of the great mysteries are solved and you've seen most of the things to be seen. No, I would not rate the top 1% collectors in most fields as top 1% educated. "institutional" investors who believe in forced diversification of their portfolio and buy antiques as outliers because of their reduced correlation with stocks/property. The dream of every antique dealer since they buy the most expensive items in what they believe to be a growing valuation field.

As a seller at times, I have to attest many do prefer this demographic. And it happens on autopilot when you sell you catch yourself pushing "the positive image".

At times when I look at the site I tend to disagree with much of what is posted as item's descriptions, but some (or much?) of it is subjective, can be purely a matter of preference or personal opinion.

Intriguing! It has been a while but if I manage to find photos of papers I'll post them to figure out how the registration was done.

I had the registration done for couple of shamshirs and flintlock pistols I owned while in Japan and having to deal with local collectors of non-Japanese items they all had torokusho as well. I did not study the system but the registration did look like ordinary torokusho. I however also encountered a number of western swords with sawed off blades the argument being we could not get a torokusho since its non-Japanese. I saw Japanese katanas mounted with European blades (probably ubu mount) with torokusho as well.

Torokusho is a bizarre system. USMC sword from 1960s will probably not pass. XIXth century smallsword probably will. WWI German saber - a bit of a gamble. Its the same with Japanese swords. They are on a lookout for stamped showato, but if its suriage they are not high grade sword experts. They can refuse or they can issue papers. Its always subjective, I look at pictures and don't know for certain if its modern or just non-traditional thingy from shinshinto or Showa or whatever, and even having the blade in hands it will be more or less a guess. There are "traditional" shinshinto or gendai blades which if suriage will look showato. Student work of Keith Austin was frankly bland and indistinctive to the point you wondered if its a souvenir rather than nihonto. His late California work - there are impressive pieces. Plus there is some market in Japan for martial arts grade suriage blades which do not appear to be fully kosher.

Its non traditional to the point I would avoid using any proper nihonto terminology for the sake of preventing confusion. What is also troubling that this definitely new hamon comes with a crudely shaped "suriage" nakago with rather deep patination... purposefully patinated I would say.

Probably that's the guy. Very often such judgements come down to a specific senior shinsa team member seeing an actual blade signed this way (Dosao Morihiro) and now introducing this attribution to mumei examples. I do not think this attribution has been used before, or at least it was used exceptionally seldom. Because it is based on knowing something exceptionally rare, it is hard to comment, understand (how similar is the work? what are the key kantei factors?) or relate... Unfortunately all Horiyoshi I've seen were Soshu styled, some had very coarse and simplistic jigane, though I heard there are some with tight itame. I only heard about Bizen styled Horiyoshi, as is the case here.

It is a decent blade, but I would also say Takada Munekage. I would even consider it more or less a typical work. For Hiroyoshi I've never seen their work in this style, but I heard the early ones (first generations) or actually shinto generations can look like this.

"Terminology wars never change". In passing conversation, a dealer in Japan mentions "oh, young people using the term ..., they don't know it really means ...". Someone hears that and eager to look smart and cool, puts it on the forum - you are all stupid, in reality it means that ..., everyone in the know knows that. But alas even seasoned collectors are yet to reach my level. Or an "academic" starts to "enforce" the definition saying that those who use it differently are "unscientific". ... The historical literature very often uses whatever suits the moment. Their goal was to make a description for a specific situation not the general set of precise definitions for all times. In Japan at least the general culture and language remained more or less consistent with a strong reflection in literature sources. Elsewhere outside European weapons which are also reasonably documented, terminology wars are just pointless and endless bickering for prestige. In "wootz" there are plenty people believing they know "the proper, historic way to call these steels", except historic sources are actually unclear what to call what. There are dozens of sword names that are "contested" because someone traveled as a tourist and discovered "the natives do not understand the name we collectors use". Ofcoarse they don't - the original word was used centuries ago, and in the XVIIIth century was copied rather half-efforted into English and other languages.

I would be more interested in the blade's style. Is it Soshu with strong nie deki hamon but coarse and featureless jigane or something else? From this a specific view of which side of this family it is, may become apparent.

Writing is more consistent with Edo period, in particular Odawara and other Soshu groups did not sign like this around Tembun. They did do on occasion large nijimei with center-right positioning, but the signature will not have deep cut triangular strikes, and the kanji would have a tad more "writing, cursive" rather than "printed, stamped" appearance. There are some schools which began to sign this way especially around 1550-1570. Yasurime - the depth and coloration and not super typical for shinshinto, but while it is not typical kesho type but at the top it does come at two different angles: its not gyaku takanoha where it comes at two angles all the way, it is just the top. This is more consistent with shinshinto (?). If we assume its Edo period, the work, while little is shown, is definitely not shinto type. So I would seriously consider shinshinto as an option.

Can't say anything without better pictures. It does look like very Yamato-ish Yamato Shizu, the key question is jigane any good.