Rivkin

Very hard to say anything without seeing details of the work and overall shape (its too distorted when photographed from one of the ends, the camera needs to be in the middle). Fittings are good. Habaki is quality end of Edo or Meiji, kozuka is upper grade (waki Goto?) end of Edo.

Congrats! Sorry I had to work and missed on fun.

There are quite a few long ware here some of which clearly touch hamon's upper portion. I think light from a side significantly exaggerates how deep those are compared to angled image. The rounded darkening I would hope is hand caused.

Its unclear if there was a generation before Nyudo Kunimitsu so in reality he might be the first one. Takes about 5 years to find a blade attributed to directly him, about 20 to find a signed one.

Very good hamon, very coarse jigane.

You can get first rate mumei Muromachi daito for this price. Signed pieces, yes there are probably will be significant demerits involved. Shinto is easier to appreciate though.

Its not bad and has a number of positives about it.

Its hard to be certain but I would doubt koto attribution, though its a possibility. Wide, heavy looking blade with very uniform curvature and no taper does not sit well with early Muromachi. Jigane is relatively featureless, hamon is plasticky as if drawn by hand and more or less the same when shot from every angle... I would vote for Ishido, early shinto and not the top name in the school.

No idea about the signature, but I don't like the horimono. Show it to someone who knows the signature and chances are you'll get a good advice whether to invest in it any further.

Thank you very much, I am probably going to be there for a day or two without a table...

The Art of uncovering what NBTHK really meant is arcane indeed, but my take is by monitoring how setsumei and publications changed in the past 60 years one can guess, though one can be very wrong when doing so. First, with blades like this usually one submits to TH directly. If it gets TH its Nambokucho, if its H - Muromachi. This one is just H. Second, I think Tomotsugu and Kunifusa are two most common attributions. Kunifusa generally means jigane is itame and can be rather fine, and most likely its pre 1500, post 1500 fine itame samples tend to go Kaga etc.. Tomotsugu means jigane is rougher, more Yamato styled and possibly has masame. I don't think there is anything more definitive in those attributions, there is nothing overly distinctive about Tomotsugu's work, its sort of just average Muromachi Uda. Dealers always bring into picture that Tomotsugu, Kunifusa and other Uda names have published Nambokucho generations and therefore they Always write its Nambokucho (and ko Hoki, Naminohira and Senjuin are Heian) and admit maybe its MAYBE a bit later, but those are as generic Muromachi attributions as they come. In kantei all these names are counted as atari to each other, and NBTHK simplifies its job by using two-three names instead of dozen. There is an argument that Uda was relatively conservative sugata-wise in Nambokucho and thus in the absense of dated examples it could be that some of those are Nambokucho, but its quite optimistic since there are many dated or signed Muromachi examples and its clear this style's popularity went up considerably at the time. Ko Uda in dealer's speak implies Kamakura, and in 1970s that could have been true as many believed there are quite a few signed Kamakura blades and maybe even something dated. Today most of those went way forward in time, and what remains is basically Nyudo Kunimitsu so if setsumei says its him, better if its also signed, then the attribution is Kamakura specific. There are blades with generic judgement ko Uda and attribution to Kamakura in setsumei, but those also tend to be somewhat weak and often reclassified as Senjuin, Tegai or Shikkake on resubmission.

Its a rough blade maybe pre 1500 but certainly Muromachi.

Yes the style of hamon is typical shinto. Weird size/sugata, suspect it had a major crack and was shortened considerably. There are couple of things which I really good - entire hamon is composed from well distinguishable nie particles and there are "gaps" within it where nie is less dense. These are difficult things. Unfortunately this smith's ambition resulted also in multiple ware, so its not the top class work by far. Also - better smiths in almost every school practiced this kind of style. Can be Kyoto, Osaka etc. etc. Maybe 1650-1660 or about. Seeing boshi might help.

Overall view is usually important, but it looks like late Muromachi Bizen work.

Love the piece! I would think this is some generation around 1640 when Bungo produced quite a few blades in Hizen style.

Attributed to sue hosho and it does look Muromachi but the quality is Impressive.

It would paper, but if its post Nambokucho, its a Problem.

Muromachi pieces, probably 70% kantei can't be done with certainty. Too many similarities, any new submission will yield a new name. Green papers, Kanzan and Nishu sayagaki - got to see if its something that can or can't be definitively kanteied. If it says Yamato Tegai or Naminohira, chances are good it will stand the test of time. If it says Shizu Kaneuji its probably Muromachi Mino or Sue Soshu.

... And now I feel really stupid

You need to show the nakago and to the lesser extent the boshi. It may be signed; most people would reserve their opinions since they are likely to look stupid when the signature is uncovered. So far however there appears to be a pronounced koshi-zori combined with a periodic relatively wide and uniform hamon which is formed by groups of two. This hints towards late Muromachi Bizen from 1520-1550 or so, possibly Sukesada.

The nakago is long, patina is not too deep, yasurime is clear and well spaced. Even though its suriage it hints towards shinshinto. Consistent with wide mihaba, long, uniformly curved blade. Wide gunome chouji with nie "foam" remind me of Chounsai Tsunatoshi and his school.

Hamon seems to be in gunome and there is some evidence (how crack propagates etc.) there is masame hada in shinogi ji, so its likely to be Mino type, but taking nakago into account I would say Echizen seki, end of Muromachi. Frankly its a big stretch for a blade in this condition, but I see nothing so far to dispel this attribution.

Can we see the boshi? Its outline, hamon line is very important.

The pictures are not great, but a good guess would be late Muromachi, uchi-gatana. If there will be a good photo showing activity on the blade one can venture further in the attribution. Or possibly date it earlier.

The blade is very straight with some taper - Kambun shinto comes to mind.