Rivkin

Had nearly identical one, papers to Mino.

Premier koto collections tend to focus either on early Soshu or on Kamakura period's Bizen/Yamashiro/possibly Aoe. Between Yamashiro and Bizen, Bizen offers by far larger number of blades so Bizen oriented collectors are more common, though Yamashiro names such as Munechika, Hisakuni or Yoshimitsu carry exceptional resonance. I personally like Aoe a lot, but it does not have the same level celebrity names and it is also associated with a number of mediocre works, though frankly Bizen and Yamashiro also have quite a few.

You guys have the fancy stuff, mine comes with a bit of tekkotsu...

Needs a macro picture with a light source on the side, but... Suguha is unusual for [Odawara] Soshu, except Tensho, plus sometime around 1460, and possibly 1370 where some believe in Kamakura Yukimitsu/Yamato looking pieces were produced by the related lineage. This being said Hirotsugu work in 80% cases is very wide gunome midare, sometimes hitatsura, sometimes other, but not pure suguha. Its exceptionally unusual for this family. So far the nakago shape and yasurime looks ok for Odawara Soshu, strong masame in shinogi ji is also common, suguha seems to include some uncommon activity which is ok for the school... It well maybe 1560-1570 Odawara Soshu blade. But Hirotsugu is a bit of a stretch for this type of work. I am sceptical. Maybe macro photo will reveal something else.

my kanji reading is quite bad, but it looks like Hirotsugu. Entire blade is needed, otherwise so far it has a chance of being real, but don't like the "tsugu" writing at all. Typically all signed pieces are from 1500s, though 1460- generation is verifiably known, and son of Hiromitsu-founder generation (1360) is sometimes used as an attribution with mumei pieces. He is one of a few Soshu smiths who made considerable number of katanas rather than being tanto-waki dominated.

Congrats! Interesting!

About 70% of pre Heian iron blades have two piece construction. Its universal to the early iron age - since steel was very hard to produce, its often was but a narrow strip around the edge. One of the reasons they can be hoso-suguha: heat treating pure iron is unsound. Also it seems to be one of the reasons asymmetric blades (cutting edge on one side) were popular - one basically inserts a steel element on one side to larger iron plate. However, almost none of these early blades can have shintetsu - precise and careful wrapping of steel around iron is indeed a later technology (Heian).

The influence of kizu on high level papers is always school specific. At TJ level, Sumigane or Rai shintetsu are not seen as strictly negative. Ware can be tolerated with ko Hoki or Sairen or Hiromitsu. Fukure with Masamune. Bizen blades with almost any kizu generally can't get Juyo.

I think its circa 1520. It does have some koshi zori which tends to be earlier, but this sugata has been used well into 1500s. The forging is coarse and rough. Few laminations, which very much stand out. By contrast early Muromachi Uda smiths were very careful with jigane, one line opting for tight itame and overall rather refined appearance, another having more Soshu-Yamato feeling but still being very careful about their forging. Even Sanekage-like work from Oei period tends to have more "smooth" appearance. This in no way a precise statement, but the tendency is observable. Good thing is that it looks like the work is relatively clean compared to other period examples, its a bright work which is easy to appreciate. Photographs taken from above greatly exaggerate the roughness of masame laminations making them all look like ware.

Actually if one is to judge the blade by what papers it is likely to receive, than its more simple. Bring it to NTHK (non NPO) shinsa. I'll bet 100$ it papers to Echizen Seki.

Personal opinion: The difference between the shinogi ji and ji hada is indeed Mino kantei point, but its interpreted in a sense that strong masame is not a characteristic ji hada for Muromachi Mino. The most Yamato-looking, Zenjo school, can have some nagare here and there, but generally one is going to see some widely spaced itame and mokume. The hue is going to be black. Here the steel is bright. Most importantly, hotsure and nijuba are uncharacteristic for Mino works in suguha. Their hamon is mostly devoid of activity - often nioi-deki, sometimes with some ko nie and ashi in the upper portion. Nioi-guchi can be rather bright. In Zenjo school one often encounters bo utsuri. Also, Zenjo hamon tends to be a bit more narrow, even with later generations. The closest one gets is early Kanemoto/Kanetomo lineage, which has a bit of hotsure and nagare close to the ha. Still, presence of packed long parallel masame lines in the ji is uncharacteristic, and rather than long lines in ko nie within hamon one expects shorter but more nie based activity. Darker hue, hada lines are more sparse. I don't get a feeling its a good match for this blade.

1520, shimada.

Not my cup of tea. Smith who is difficult to repaper with Fujishiro papers. Average quality.

Broad, curved wakizashi with takanoha yasurime and visible large gunome... Sounds like end of Muromachi to kanei shinto, Mino school. Sue Seki or alike.

Dimensions-based guessing is a bit difficult for me, as is guessing based on photos, but I was generally aiming at four, somewhat competitive statements as massive: 1. Relatively wide mihaba for the length. I did not realize that nagasa is very short, so I assumed its more in katana range. 2. Tegai blades tend to be in 6.5mm range motokasane, a solid number. Tapering to 4mm is a good thing - for Edo swords it often stays in 6-7.5mm range. 3. It does not feel like it has very high shinogi? Getting this from photographs can be hard, it definitely not low, but I wonder if its actually high. 4. Its overall quite healthy. I am not concerned about scuffs here and there. If its koto, its expected. Average Tegai will have ware and sometimes long one. If its shinto than yes, small things are still kizu that affect the value.

I think with tsukare utsuri the hada disappears or is subdued in the dark section. Its also tends to be associated with Muromachi blades. It also tends to be spotty and uneven.

Yes, this is heavily Yamato blade with a strong presence of masame. Massive blade, almost straight, decent quality work. Its something interesting to look at hand. It looks like jigane is very consistent, quite bright, long masame, seen everywhere, no clear kizu. At the same time it does not convey a feeling of strong ji nie, its a bit less bright. Hamon shows good separation into lines, good flow but again it is not made from bright and large nie, but more ko nie. I suspect its kambun shinto Sendai or comparable smith. That would be my 50% bet. If not, its a high grade Tegai work... maybe 1380s. 20%. Kai Mihara... 30% probability. Shikkake needs periodic gunome. Mokume with sharp angles is usually shinto work in koto style.

My bad! This is obviously a shinto sword, as indicated by posters above. Should have checked the books. I did remember the smiths, but have forgotten that Nagayoshi was Muromachi and Nobuyoshi - shinto, just remembered that Nobuyoshi was shinto looking.

Without checking the books: Nagayoshi and Nobuyoshi are sometimes good blades. They are at transition from koto to shinto - hamon usually not exactly gokaden/koto, and later Nobuyoshi will be shinto with denser hada. Still looks like a nice blade, though an auction link to AOI would be more appropriate. P.S. The smith is not jo-jo-saku, its AOI way of saying its a good, attractive blade. I don't remember Nobuyoshi's rating it was either chu-jo or jo saku.

Unfortunately when it comes to blades, there is not much to see in Europe as a whole on display.

I think they are discussing the "common thing", which is nie-utsuri found on better Taima and Senjuin or somewhat faint shirake utsuri on Tegai. I have not seen shikkake with a well defined nie utsuri (?), but there are examples of papered shikkake blades with shirake utsuri. one can search (shikkake or norinaga, utsuri) in english or Japanese, almost every large dealer's site has some. It can be they all don't know what they see or someone else is pushing his school's peculiar definition of utsuri. Such things do happen. Its still uncommon, but there is arguably a better example at AOI used in their kantei session. Utsuri by itself very seldom disproves or proves kantei, we don't have a perfect grasp why the same smith working in the same style would generally have a preference for specific utsuri (there are correlations with hada etc.), but even when his preferences are well established, exceptions would be known. One seldom disqualifies Rai blade only because it has no utsuri or it looks a bit wrong. Kantei to shikkake is usually very solid. Its the only school, for example, for small periodic gunome in nie deki with nijuba. Generally at least somewhat periodic gunome is required, size and midare qualities can vary. Unfortunately the polish is heavy on hadori so figuring this one from photo is difficult to say the least. It can be backed by a distinctive hada with dense masame above the ha (as many Yamato and Soshu), then large burls whose other end touches the shinogi. The key: We don't really know what was the exact thinking in making utsuri. We don't know the decision process why some blades with the same hada and school have utsuri, others don't and probably never had. P.S. Its not the blade I've seen - the other one had very well defined gunome.

By default hira zukuri katana with coarse uneven hada and many forging issues is equal to late Muromachi. Can be a later work - unfortunately acid polish does not allow to appreciate steel's native reaction to light, it makes shinshinto steel and Kamakura steel look the same. Sugata can help. But by default - late Muromachi, generic work which can be thrown to many lineages.

Looks like classic shirake utsuri. Yes, unusual for the school but definitely not unknown. Generally in Yamato utsuri is not too common and if present it tends to be Senjuin, Hosho or at least Tegai. For Shikkake and to some extent Taima shirake utsuri by itself can throw kantei to things like Uda or Hokke but the blade here has strong mainline Yamato feel.

Its hard to argue against such assessment but generally the current shinsa atmosphere is hard and shikkake is both not a famous school, i.e. the attribution does not advance Juyo chances, but its also highly competitive. They did good work and very seldom one encounters mass items like with Tegai. In 1970s this would be easily a Juyo.

I think its a good sword. Shikkake is overall a good school, jigane is nice, utsuri is nice. Hamon is not too active but also the light angle is kind of difficult (i.e. wrong) for this type of work - its best to photograph shikkake hamon in "white light", i.e. light source directly above the blade. It shows whether nie is fine grained, coarse, how long are nijuba lines etc. P.S. I think I know this blade. It was sold at auction in Japan about three years ago.