Rivkin

Yes - you type the correct guess in google and the blade is right there.

Seriously, owned plenty of those. In a reasonably good case today it gets papers to something like Shizu Kaneuji... 12-17k. In a bad case - worth nothing. H, TH Masamune - starts with 60k Juyo Masamune - 400+. Sky's the limit but heavily depends on quality, who owned etc. They are just not that awfully rare, compared to say quality original Scythian gold mounts, which you see once or twice a lifetime.

I have/had a few Bungo wakizashi datable 1580-1620 with o-kissaki and active hamon. Not all of them were not fast enough adopting suguha I think, though I might be wrong. But same goes for other remote schools - there are Kaga waki for example which are 1620 but have active hamon. Or it could be argued that Kunitsuna worked as early as 1580. I don't think there is any chance here of Kamakura, the issue is this a real Bungo smith from late Muromachi/early shinto or its fake? I believe its a real smith. They used Bungo Yukuhira calling now and then.

My dai hard belief - once you don't actively collect, sell everything above what you really like to have. Zero evidence nihonto ever managed to beat stock market. At any level. All discussions about it being good investment long term are dealer speak.

It feels like pretty authentic Kunitsuna 国綱 circa 1620, matches work. While there is the Bungo Yukihira, this one is not very common shinto Bungo smith.

Second that! The rest of swords, sorry to say, not that impressive at the first glance.

Tapering is very characteristic, but I can't help myself but make a personal punt. I remember sometime ago someone stating that third generation Tadayoshi is generally accepted as superior to the first. At the moment I thought the statement to be unusual. Unless that someone owns something from the third generation.

Very interesting and unorthodox blade.

The ides comes from a dealer who has a nickname "one way ticket".

Can be Nobukuni, though very many accept his Soshu peak as somewhat later. I am not sure about Sa school, I thought their mokume is very distinctively smaller in size and isolated, you have like a pack of mokume between really fine itame. Maybe others can correct me on this one.

Wow, these pictures show quite a lot of ji nie. I would guess something like the first generation Uda Tomotsugu.

I would say my opinion, which has a high chance of coming up wrong: a) Really o-kissaki. Surprisingly uncommon choice historically, which boxes it to either 1355-1395 or 1570-1620 (very few makers) or shinshinto. b) Matsukawa-class hada. Pretty obvious which school was being copied. b) High contrast well forged hada but hamon is very smudged and does not show standing out nie or even well grouped ko nie. It barely shows anything when looking from up down. Also the mokume has very high contrast but not so much ji nie. It does not have the nie substructure one typically sees on early Etchu work. So its someone who mixed up the steels in mokume, hardened in nie and the creation literally blew up into his face. Now he tempers in nioi, maybe allowing for ara nie in couple of areas. There were some Norishige imitators in Nambokucho period who came close, Yamamura Masanobu - would have strong nie in hamon. One would see more choji-gunome in Naotsuna's school, more sunagashi in Nobukuni. Sanekage, Tametsugu - strongly nie based hamon. Uda Kunifusa - possible. He also typically makes very Yamato-like hamon without much gunome or togari, like here. So my third choice would be him. He is seldom found with o-kissaki and hamon has strong visible "belts". Either tired/did not photograph well or its not Uda. There were also good Norishige reenactors in Momoyama-Kanei and even Kambun period (Noritoshi), but I don't remember any of them doing such long kissaki. Some are a bit similar to this style though. Then, in shinshinto mixed up steel and tempering to pure nioi was a trademark of the entire Norishige rediscovery movement, though they often referenced Go rather than Norishige per se. Ikkansai Yoshihiro was likely style's founder, than it went into Naotane's remote lineage through quite a few of his "grandstudents".

High resolution version changes a lot for me... Shinshinto, Ikkansai Yoshihiro or someone close to him, like Naotane's lineage Naotsugu.

Either Kaga Sanekage or Etchu Tametsugu.

Anybody can receive sword via mail in Japan, and then register and submit it. In about two months after submission deadline I think you'll get the blade back with a judgement slip telling you what you got. In about four months you'll get papers in the mail. Juyo session I think starts like November. NTHK NPO does shinsa every month, gives you the sheet the same day with your sword and mails out the papers strictly within one month.

Its best to ask someone else, since I don't like Tadayoshi and don't collect him. But the general problem is that things are not comparable when you talk about sessions 1-20, 20-something, 31-50 and 50 and up. They all have somewhat different standards. Early on a lot of Hizen Tadayoshi were passed. Recently I think once in a while someone well recognized presents a few and they pass, but generally its difficult. It used to be every session would have dozens Ryokai, Mihara what else yamato-derived. Not by a long shot today.

Hard to tell. Shinto Juyo is a thing of its own. Ordinary Tadayoshi most likely will not pass.

Signed Shizu is automatic TJ, but there was a dozen or so later Kaneuji's which are common. I will be more direct than most - 99% chance all six blades you have are mid grade blades far removed from Juyo. Its just the way it works. Shizu Kaneuji are also relatively easy to kantei, so there should be half a dozen people in the US who can look at it and say whether its in the ball park or nowhere close to it.

Sword gifts were common for Meiji and there are plenty of examples with solid provenance in museums. Most have the mounts similar to the one shown, the blades are usually average. There are frankly almost no western collections formed in Meiji period with good blades, Boston MFA being an exception. Period collectors and dignitaries also had aversion to shirasaya, so such pieces were usually not gifted at any level.

For some reason every discussion like that turns to Masamune. Very personal and nonsense opinion - the idea that "it is the same as other three or four judgements" demonstrates the best how political these judgements are. Never saw Norishige which slided back and forth in attribution between Masamune and Norishige. The only reason why its stated that those two are "the same" so that one could ignore abundance of early Norishige's and scarcity of similarly datable Masamune's and claim Masamune to be among the earliest Soshu's smiths. Such "sliders" probably do exist, but are extraordinary rare since Norishige is very distinctive - in both styles, though there are some rare and very late copies (1360-1380) or/and the second generation. For Sadamune, his tanto tend to be highly distinguishable in terms of hada and to some extent hamon. They sometimes slide to Yukimitsu or Masamune but not too common. His daito are often poorly defined and can slide anywhere, including Shizu, Hasebe etc. etc. Yukimitsu tends to slide to Taima but far less often to Masamune. Flamboyant and wild are not terms that tend to be associated with him. Masamune's weaker daito can slide anywhere. Shizu, Yukimitsu, whatever. They are traditionally attributed and are not great to begin with. Masamune's best and most flamboyant pieces are supposed to be comparable to Yukimitsu or Norishige - except they display a much more sofisticated nie control and wider ha. Realistically O-Sa or Go, sometimes Sadamune tend to be alternative judgements, but not Yukimitsu. Why its never stated - because they are all late artists, and aknowladging them as alternatives would throw doubt on Masamune's status of the earliest of them all. Finally, there is often an order of magnitude valuation difference between the pieces which are apparently "one and the same".

"Professional polisher" is a weird thing. One can polish full daito in Japan starting with 60,000, and quite a few offering such service for 120,000 yen. Is it professional polish? Sort of. A lot of dealers also do this level of polish. Yes, they do have some polisher training, but some substantially more than others. The results typically are not in the same ballpark as those of the top level specialists. But frankly neither they are for a number of polishers that are among those most recommended on this board. So on my side, those comfortable with using uchiko should use it. One should not begin with uchiko (oil dripping from blades mixed with uchiko powder is unfortunately a tell of a beginner), nor today its probably a priority to learn to work with it. I don't use uchiko, but there are many who do, those who respect it and those who gain results with it. The problem with hadori is that first its more scratchable (hamon starts looking washed up etc.), second it varies in quality greatly. Its often done in a way which highlights hadori's problems, but making any general statement like "hadori is ..." is inviting misinterpretations. Top class Soshu typically likes top class Hadori, Bizen - maybe not so much. Sashikomi in 90% of cases is semi-skilled (often gaijin) togishi trying to explain why their products look bad - you've been poisoned by the outside prettyness of hadori and incapable or recognizng the steel's true beauty! But there are unfortunately only handful of people who can do it. The results on wild Bizen blades are something to behold. They also photograph great, Fujishiro-style, while heavy hadori makes working with a Bizen blade a major challenge. But I would also be fearful bringing uchiko to such masterpieces.

Then I would go Yamato Shizu, Naoe Shizu or Sue Sa.

Judging by dimensions this is mid-late Muromachi piece from Akasaka Senjuin school.

At first I thought I would argue for Yamato Shizu. The tobiyaki though hints towards tanba no kami yoshimichi I guess.. And if it has osaka-yukidashi then its certainly him.

I am probably the last person to ask about Japanese kanji, but I would start with the era attribution - 康正 The rest is to an extent immaterial, since Soshu makers of the time are not that well known. There are books and judges who believe in Muromachi generations of Akihiro and those who don't. If you resubmit chances are you get Masahiro or Hiromasa, maybe even first generation Shimada (again some don't believe he was that early, so its judge dependent). It will remain a rare Soshu hitatsura katana from Muromachi period, and likely preceding Tsunahiro's time. Its a good piece.