Rivkin

The size looks about right for the period. There are many who will argue for me being quartered alive for such guesses, but most of the things appear to match.

Its really hard to see, but looks like a nice Bizen style blade that was roughly cut down. Could you measure kissaki's dimensions? By default something along the lines of Ishido , 1640-1690.

I am sure many will frown for posting here something unpapered, but I am a dumpster diver and too many of my items are like this. Not being an expert, I do suspect its the earliest portion of Kaga Goto lineage.

My understanding is that there are only two known dated tsuba which are on the basis of date can be accepted as the first generation's work. For the rest whether its first generation or not is a conjecture. There is an opinion that certain subjects, including kinko works in Mino style, are the ones that should be attributed specifically to the first generation. I am not knowledgeable enough to fully understand the details of such arguments. There are hundreds of Soten tsubas in western museum collections, as his works were quite popular during the early collecting (1880-1920) days. For a simple person like myself, Kanenori is quite likely the best signature within this school, as his works tend to be extremely well executed. Otherwise, there are later Soten signed pieces which are of top quality and likely were made for Hikone's best. Some of those are kinko, and they tend to have more complicated and uncommon scenes compared to "average" examples.

Its definitely real and of upper grade for such items. The problem is thus signed tsuba were produced for about a century and in quantity, mostly for II daimyo retainers. Almost all are most likely not the works of the "first generation", and frankly which are attributable to the fist generation constitutes a somewhat ambiguous topic, there are conflicting opinions on that. So most are judged strictly based on their quality. This one has really advanced detail and good depth to the figures, so its in the top 5-10% for the style. I think you could actually get 1,200$ if you were to consider selling it. Unless your hands are extremely miniature, its a large enough example, in good condition. Please don't clean it aside from simple paper towel or such.

I guess here is another generalization - Kambun period's smith were in general a step above their immideate predecessors. Quite an unusual phenomenon in Japanese history, but it was a short period of unparalleled economic prosperity and possibly it took smiths some time to get used to shinto steel.

I grew up with a few blades at home (nothing a discerning collector would be excited about) plus there was a very good exhibit of medieval European arms and armor closeby, which impressed me greatly. However, I suspected the European subject to be relatively well understood, and thus with somewhat limited excitement or opportunity to come up with something new and instinctively went into a different direction. It was a difficult trip nevertheless, but one thing I am still amazed about is how much of everything I got to see along the way. For some reason passion, history, money, art, politics and much else converged on the path. I've seen the humanity at its basic worst, but met a few talented people who taught me a lot in fields that have nothing to do with swords. Dozens of emails sent over many years spent trying to get inside some prestigious museum only to find out it only owns garbage, while having a friend who would bring out dozens of Durers anytime I visited. Death sentence in one country, a personal conflict with a leading terrorist in another one, protection offered by terrorists in the third one. And all of that because of a few blades!!! Who would have thought.

Unfortunately I am not aware of who exactly are the experts pointing it down to a specific generation... NBTHK tends to do first generation versus later generations, or even just Muromachi versus pre-Muromachi. Their papers to specifically second or third generation are exceptionally rare and usually concern very specific smiths where such generations are very distinctive (Nosada) or blades that are fully signed. Must be NTHK then, but they also as a rule do not write the generation. They write specific time period; if asked in person they can qualify whether the attribution means most likely the later work of the second or the early one of the third generation, but they very seldom write it in the paper itself. Regarding Masamune, what we have today is a long term reverbation from the times when thousands of blades were attributed to him. After many back and forth movements the only blades papering to this name are apparently those that were in the past considered to be his work. The arguments that are being maid for such attributions can be traced through recent NBTHK journal issues. They tend to heavily emphasize quality rather than any specific kantei features. There is an opinion that Masamune is like Samonji, in a sense that hamon can be a tad nioi and nie activity is sort of shifted upwards towards the ji, and compared to Sa there is really lots of nie but it has to be noted that most of works accepted as those of Masamune do not fit this specific description. Masamune is a great example where traditional+quality replaces the role of specific kantei features. Otherwise, personal attributions to the founder are nearly always suggestive of higher quality than those to the school in general; those to the second generation tend to be less coveted than those of the first. There are exceptions, but these are the apparent rules.

Yes, to me its an additional motivator to collect later things - plenty of deals even for ubu signed swords, as long as one does not subscribe to a standard high class Japanese collector preferences (Kotetsu and Kiyomaro). Which ofcoarse has its dangers of the blades in question unlikely to be ever "officially" appreciated above certain level, but if one wants to have fun its definitely an opportunity. There are some stunning Oei period makers with poor ratings, since everything connected to Ashikaga was officially despised for the entirety of Edo period, and plenty of Edo swordsmiths who never made it aside from being someone's apprentice, even if this someone was saijosaku and known to sign the blades made by his students. For Koto the deals are hard to find. Gets even harder with pre-Nambokucho with their distinctive sugata, where everything in Japan is papered. Some people at the upper end are searching for "slam dank Juyo" among Hozon blades and then paper them at higher level. Something I never really appreciated since have little interest in blades whose main accomplishment is being ubu and Kamakura. But there I would say still a few names where the deals are possible. For example, better works of Etchu Tametsugu will not go to Norishige, because Norishige is way too distinctive in his style. By the same token attributions to Norishige are seldom challenged or changed compared to most other smiths. There are also cases where the work is so unusual, they can't attribute it to anyone famous and it gets some weird attribution to really not well known contemporary. But its amazing how name-based Japanese sword collecting is. You get something attributed to a good name based on sugata and features, and its boring like hell with shingane throughout and its still sells in a day.

One has to add that "decreasing quality of later generations" with respect to pre-Muromachi items has a tint of self-fulfilling prophecy. While attributions to different lineages are (hopefully) based on kantei features, within the same linage quality plays a significant role. So we can find shinto signed chu-jo-saku with a first class blade, but in the world of early mumei blades such attribution cannot happen in principle. If its first class work it will be attributed to the founder. This also prevents one from objectively appreciating the second generation's real quality level - something which is quite possible in shinto and shinshinto.

Apologies for very personal and unnessesary pontification, they are just to help me organize my thoughts. In Nihonto there are many periods where everyone is doing sort of the same. In 1360s every provincial smith wanted to be Soshu. So you look at Bungo Takayuki and Echizen Mitsuyuki and they are from opposite corners of Japan, but can be quite similar. And you see mumei blades precisely attributed to a specific name, and you think shinsa people are so smart and so experienced, they must be seeing something secret that allows them to be so precise - except when you bring it for another appraisal you get another 1360s Soshu name. 1520-1550 is also one of those periods. You either forge in togari that look like choji (and vice versa) and some are Bizen and some are Mino, but others like Kaga are copying those as well. Distinguishable by shape of togari, how they are grouped, how similar they are etc. This one is not it. Or you forge in some style worthy of bastard child of Mino-Soshu. This is not Ise, I don't think its mainstream Mino, its someone who practiced notare-gunome with large wide belts of nie. Rough o-mokume sandwiched between masame (all Soshu bastard children like that). If jigane is really black and the belts dominate I would strongly vote Uda (as per the photograph attached). If its calmer notare can be Dotanuki but also can be a few other schools. I am sorry to say I don't think the style here is typical for the period, not really extremely school-specific.

There is definitely expected reduction in quality compared to the founder's passion, and overall East Asian perception of history is the one where you have ancient Golden Age (Yellow Emperor or Kamakura Bakufu) and then morals decay and things get worse. I think its quite amazing that the ratings in the good book are actually quite predictive of real life's quality; this being said, I feel they can be also misleading. Quite a few supposedly chu-jo-saku smiths are just not well known or churned up too many average blades, but could still do a masterpiece on special order. I would not place much hope on different books treating the rankings independently, since they all essentially cross-referenced either each other or the same earlier sources. With Hizen I personally never felt awed by Hizen Tadayoshi. If you do Rai, you have to show impressive utsuri. I don't feel he is at the same level as others of the same style. Actually I even prefer somewhat earlier Hizen Masatsugu, who was heavily Soshu-leaning so his suguha has more of Soshu Yukimitsu, with lots of nie and Yamato-like formations. Masahiro first generation believed by some, myself included, to be one of the greatest of shinto. On par with Shinkai and Sukehiro. But he can be extremely flamboyant. Tons of ara nie and tobiyaki. Second generation to my eyes is a tad more balanced. There is also Yukihiro who is very interesting, but he does not have the same level of nie size control. Instead of sunagashi and clouds of nie you get "belts". There is also Kunihiro who is worse. To me cases like this are good because you can still buy something excellent without bearing the full weight of signature premium.

I think it could very well be Dotanuki. With blacker steel and longer "nie belts" I would go for Uda. Otherwise - maybe Dotanuki or Mizuta. I don't think its Kaga, Bizen or Bungo personally.

The issue of papers respectability is greatly debatable to the point few actually being troll enough to fully wonder there. Here is my very personal list, in decreasing order of my very personal, erroneous and ignorant trust: Tanobe Sayagaki Honma Sayagaki. Pricewise I would say its the best in a sense that he did very few sayagaki while essentially he was the founder of modern kantei. Published by Fujishiro. Modern NBTHK (note - very conservative). Fujishiro papers. Note - most put them below NBTHK, but in my personal experience Fujishiro papers that NBTHK "gimeis" have a solid chance to get sayagaki by Tanobe san. NTHK. NPO is disliked by those convinced its a group completely dominated by one person, Miyano san. Non NPO is disliked by those having issues with almost 100% of this shinsa being active dealers (rather than polishers etc.). The groups also had a very ugly divorce with a lot of interesting accusations. Kanzan Sato Sayagaki. Things like this: https://sword-auction.com/en/product/2908/as20415-%E8%84%87%E5%B7%AE%E7%84%A1%E9%8A%98%E9%95%B7%E8%88%B9%E5%B8%AB%E6%99%AF/' Are too common to ignore. It gets worse further towards 1976 or so. But it has to be noted - its an absolutely stunning blade and apparently his sayagaki sometimes have a tendency to reflect quality or provenance more than precise kantei per se. So it can be an indicator of those qualities and plus to have, but I would not bet on any of his attributions being 100% accurate. JASMK. Its one dealer operation. This being said, they are not bad but almost never cover upper grade items. Green papers NBTHK. 90% are completely ok, 9% are optimistic by a whole grade (Taima being called Soshu Yukimitsu) 0.1% were born to be absolutely fake. Note - there are whole groups of things that do not repaper by NBTHK modern like Muramasa with a calm hamon because the standards change. Honami Nishu Sayagaki. They did like Sayagaki in 1970s and apparently this person was a second choice. Very large percentage of problematic blades. Almost everything else - for reference only. It might be right, and then it sort of boosts the value, especially if its some early Honami judgement, but has a large chance to be wrong, fake or both or either.

I have not been very successful with kantei recently, but for whatever its worth - late Muromachi, Uda. Or Mizuta. If its more choji-gunome based than Mizuta, if there is stronger masame and the nie belts are very long - Uda. Just personal opinion.

Interestingly enough that seems to be more Indian than Chinese inspired to me. I am not sure how to take it, but there is a bizarre fact that according to PhDs analyzing Nambokucho period casualty reports, which are very detailed - there are almost no cases of anyone ever being killed by a naginata, but axes are a very common cause.

Most likely Jojo to kambun, Mino derived, but can be earlier than that.

Its much easier to run kantei than to answer it, and for me its also tougher to kantei Edo period blades. Kambun to Genroku shinto. I want to say second generation Hizen Masahiro, but the work is clearly a bit different, have to look more for who was similar to him in style. But then kissaki hints is a bit more towards shinshinto... need to think more.

I know I keep kicking the nihonto community, but what can I do, I simply don't like it. The way it tends to work is if you ever to sell anything you really want to do it with papers. If you have papers people look at them and say "oh, its obvious this is what it is. The kitae has this special swirl, yes, yes, can't be anything else". You sell the same item without papers and two months later you have a scandal because somebody said its gimei or it has hagire. If its out of polish there is always somebody who will say its saiha. I would not invest in NBTHK here but if there is going to be NTHK shinsa in the US, can't hurt to get it papered.

I have to admit gentlemen you are probably right. Later generation Tamba no kami Yoshimichi is a good match.

Hard to vote without hedging. My first choice would be late Muromachi Soshu influenced. Most likely Uda Kunimune. Distant second is shinshinto, somebody slightly junior, like second generation Naokatsu or lesser Satsuma smith. Would appreciate seeing sugata though.

That's a part where I have to scratch my head. At first I thought maybe for some bizarre and probably mounts related reason the nakago was narrowed down, especially with some kanji going all the way to the edge, but then looking at his other signatures he apparently did sign this way. The rundown of hamon looks very natural. Maybe he felt like adding this highly unusual and antiquated feature to this work. Maybe its indeed utsushi of something well known, which I don't know of.

I have to admit to being provoked by this: Yokoyama Bizen Katana - Suō (no) kuni Nagahiro - 周防國永弘 - SWORDSOFJAPAN.COM - Nihonto Message Board (militaria.co.za) Yokoyama Bizen usually worked in a very distinctive fashion, but most of them from time to time tried to do suguha. Those have strong Rai flavor with tight itame hada, but always tend to fail in utsuri. With one exception. This one is: 備前長船横山祐宗作 元治元年二月 Apparently Yokoyama Sukemune is not even listed in Sesko's monumental catalogue of swordsmith names. He probably started as Yokoyama Sukenaga's student, but his own active period was so late he managed to make just a few swords before Meiji took its toll. Yet in talent I should argue he stood at the level of was one of the best in shinshinto. His utsuri is second to none for the period or frankly for any later Rai influenced works, Tadayoshi, Nosada etc., a multi-layered structure of black and white stripes. The forging is exceptional. There are some Enju and early Rai blades I would value a bit more, but it stands above Nosada in quality and above much of what Rai Kunitoshi did. But I have to admit not being personally enamoured with average Kunitoshi's pieces.

Interestingly enough, it is part of Bizen production, but the time is different. I have to admit to never have guessed Bizen myself. Personally I would pick something like Rai imitators, maybe Nosada. But its indeed Bizen.

It's been a while, so here is a kantei challenge. Its one of my favorite blades. Nakago has been photoshopped to cover the writing (obviously). I can also add that unfortunately its one of those cases you bring to a club if you want to gravely embarass the experts, because this particular school is not well known for this style. Frankly speaking, atari is not expected here. But dozen in principle can be guessed.