Rivkin

Darcy's is admittedly a clever approach which is supposed to address one of the main problems of "value by TJ counts", which is different smiths have very different number of blades assigned to them. So you normalize the number of TJ with respect to number of Juyos, and this supposedly puts smiths "large" and "small" on equal footing. Clever. The problems are obvious. You basically disregard everything post-Nambokucho. And then with Kamakura and Heian blades you have an issue that if its signed the signature itself is a very strong argument for both TJ and definitive attribution. So signed smiths like Bizen Osafune will get a huge boost, unsigned Kamakura smiths will get a downgrade. And then there are dozens of very high (maybe sky high) quality Awataguchi, Aoe and other smiths who are not represented by a large number of surviving, signed blades. And everything unsigned will always have the attribution oscillating between generic one to the school and that to the personal name. You can be a great Awataguchi smith but a natural uncertainty with attributions of your suriage daito (and that's what you made all your life) puts a hard cap on your "pass ratio". The cap which cannot ever be disregarded and which makes your "pass ratio" just "above average". You can further constraint the "pass ratio" theory to account for only the signed blades - but then the selection becomes so small its irrelevant.

How many participants in this thread own (present tense) two Juyo or more?

Ranking by TJ numbers is a popular dealer thing. Simple, intuitive... First you write "this is the greatest smith - he has 50 TJ", the next day "this smith is so rare and precious, there is only one known TJ". Then you praise one Ichimonji guy for 10 TJ, forgetting the only reason he has the whole ten because unlike everyone else he signed and dated - a lot. Then one day Awataguchi Kuniyoshi Juyo makes TJ as Awataguchi. My goodness, Kuniyoshi's pass factor just went to hell! All these years, we must have overvalued this smith, but now the math has finally spoken its truth. And do not forget to spread nasty rumors about anyone commenting like Honma's, Sato's and post-Sato Juyo and even TJ are well, a bit different bag of things. I was told in religious school that doubt is number one tool of Mr. Satan. Nihonto dealers second that.

I don't know and my experience with Japanese collectors is very limited, but there are certainly some with advanced and very specialized interests, including those outside the first tier names if only because some collect items from their home province or city. There are Juyo sessions where you get a flood of blades from the same school, and they came from one person. I think every collector with substantial experience and investment begins to specialize, even if he does not have such goal and buys at random, you just find the same topic over and over in his stuff. I always argued against the advice to specialize for nihonto since its not that easy nor as required as with coins or stamps, but there tends to be at least a certain "look" a person goes after.

I don't know if "museum quality" defines it... There are quite a few people owning pieces from the disbanded what it was called sword fittings museum or something. There are quite a few with pieces which were exhibited at Bizen museum or NBTHK, and some were exhibited at TNM. Any TJ can be said to be "the best of the best", its a tiny sliver which is unexportable and unownable outside of Japan. American collections today are lacking, that's probably an accurate statement, but individual pieces owned can still be the best in their grade.

Well, its a stick. With fumbari which we should not call fumbari. Possibly Kambun shinto. Being more precise requires substantial effort.

Its not worthless - the nakago is in poor condition but not enough to kill it. Regarding the signature, its a difficult question. Overall appraisers are very reluctant to callout any late Muromachi signature as gimei. Handed many a paper with a spoken comment "we suspect the signature was added later" or even one of the phrases suggesting such on the paper itself. There is no guarantee against someone really taking a smith name Sadamune around 1540 and forging in some crazy style. Sometimes they'll note that the work is Muromachi and will issue a paper. The basic reasoning is if the signature matches the style somewhat and if the signature does not directly copy something extremely well known, it will paper. If it says "Rai Kunitoshi" they'll probably not paper it, if its something in suguha and signed "Kunitoshi" - it will paper to Kunitoshi (Muromachi). Even if its an obvious Muromachi ripoff from Kunitoshi and ugly as hell. Sa is one of the most difficult schools to study because they kept forging in Kyushu style until the end. The "dealer speak" is to always involve Masamune jitetsu but the truth is almost everything Sa branches produced in Muromachi is Kyushu-pedestrian. Were this just some ugly work in suguha with something Sa signature, it might have just paper with a note its Muromachi. Here the work is just "too Gassan" to ignore this fact, and there is a conflict - you want to paper it to Gassan, but there is this strange signature in the way.

1. Sadamune. 2. Shintogo Kunimitsu and any top Awataguchi. 3. Sa and school. 4. Norishige and school. 5. Rai Kuniyuki. 6. The best of Aoe. 7. The best of Yamato Senjuin. 8. Soshu Hiromitsu and Akihiro.

Connection between Bizen and Kaga is not accepted per se, but I personally believe there was one. Not only the names like Norimitsu, Kiyomitsu etc. which might have something behind them, but Kaga (as some others) at times produced full blown Bizen imitations, with crab claws and what's not. One of the problems of Kaga appreciation is difficulty determining "Kaga style" per se - yes there is Tomoshige which are consistent with the first generation, but they are not too common. Yes, it goes back to Sanekage, but you almost never see full blown Norishige school imitation, Tomoshige tends to look a bit more Kinju then anything Norishige-based per se. They are sort of eclectic Muromachi phenomenon through and through, even during the late Nambokucho, with no solid "roots".

For what its worth: Kyushu schools have it quite often, as well as Houju. But it looks different - you have a very prominent line of masame somewhat above the hamon which does a bit of a sinusoid. Its not strictly periodic and also the sinusoid tends to be quite wide with respect to its amplitude. When sinusoid is strictly periodic, high amplitude but rather narrow I personally take this as Gassan.

Longish hirazukuri waki with large sori - Muromachi, likely 1530. The work looks classic Gassan. No comment on the signature I guess.

Still don't see it. I see hadori shaped as crab claws, but hamon remains maybe. Unfortunately the blade is improperly polished. Hadori is heavy and hada is void. It can be sue Bizen, but what comes out from behind this polish in this pictures does raise some questions. Just a personal opinion

Its really hard to say... Tight featureless itame is not Muromachi thing, sugu boshi is suspicious, hamon lacks Muromachi features like crab claws. I don't want to study the mei, sorry, but Muromachi is not something that comes to mind looking at the blade. Can be the polish though.

For some reason kissaki are often burned even if the rest of the blade looks intact. If hamon is visible, even if its close to yokote - ichimai. If its not visible at all - likely burned.

On smartphone it looks legit with no utsuri and the signature is right but it's tembun generation or about. Shinsa yes but I would do budget version on this one

thanks a lot and congrats to Jussi!

Looking at it once again I feel the nie is a bit too ill defined for Yamato... Echizen Rai?

I think its kind of those cases which turn out to be deeper than expected. In tosogu narrow specialists are common, plenty of early iron or Goto folks out there. In swords they are rare and they tend to be more experienced and quite wealthy. With hizento you'll be dealing essentially with the subject where almost everything is known and can be determined from signature alone. Plenty of information. Not too great a variety even if you include Munetsugu and sideline followers of Masahiro, both standing a bit aside from the "mainstream". Yamato on the other hand is a huge topix where much is unknown and many attributions are uncertain. They have a poor rep thanks to huge quantities supposedly churned out by Tegai around 1350s, but both Senjuin and Hosho are first rate schools. They are not 10k swords, more often than not at least. Senjuin in particular is a matter of convention, since it sort of attributed in a negative fashion - its something Yamato related that is Kamakura (except when its Nambokucho... or Muromachi but then its best to be signed) and lacks features specific to ko-hoki for example. So you get any jigane from tight itame to full masame, you get almost any hamon... There are Senjuin blades in ko choji or even weird creatures that have Ichimonji like choji with wide stripes of nie. You can have midare utsuri in Senjuin. Even excluding Ryumon who is a kind of stand alone person(s) in Senjuin, but his case is not that atypical for this school. So Senjuin alone (and the rest frankly are quite narrow and well defined kantei-wise) is a tremendous subject where not much is certain. I would argue the rest of Yamato is sort of very predictable. Shikkake can be upper grade work but is seldom first class, was active for like 40 years, a few smiths, definee as Tegai with some gunome but not Shizu... Tegai, Taima are both narrowly defined, Hosho is great but even more so presents a very consistent work by a small, determined school. So 95% of "study" per se would be Senjuin. But can one be a narrow Senjuin specialist? A tad difficult. A negative attribution presumes one has to know why its not Hoki or Hokke or Kyushu or Houju (and surprisingly it tends to be more refined! Not something one often says about Yamato).

Would love to see nakago and definitely boshi on this one. Suspect its shinto but can be a decent piece. Yes, a lot of Tokugawa mon are very late creations, yet it was also one of the most common mons in Edo period. Matsudaira used it and also Tokugawa did send their children for adoption to other Daimyo, and you then see this adopting lineage at times using some manner of Aoi mon as well. There are some arcane methods to determining aoi's age and attribution, like whether the rays are parallel or converging, whether the stems are completely separated as here (which I think tend to be Matsudaira) or not etc.. Hell knows where my book on Aoi versions is though.... but yes this can be a much later creation as well hard to guess without full resolution photo of the mon and makie around it. Makie in most products did change noticably towards the later years of Meiji.

Yep, I would bet on Muromachi Mino. The nakago seems cleaned.

Ugh! I wanted to say right away a Nambokucho Yamato off-shoot Tegai/Mihara type but the hamon is a bit too intricate... Sue Sa?

Agh, I see what you mean. No its not Mishina boshi for certain with the new pictures, I don't remember at the top of my head who specifically changed to sugu-boshi like that - it is unusual I agree.

I don't think it follows the line exactly like that, but yes. Typically - Shinto. One can even try calling it Mishina boshi, but its not too reliable. Just a thought.

Could be real. Hamon seems to be suguha. Can be Yamato Shizu, can be lesser northern name like Kashu Fujishima (small gunome expected) or Uda... With such sugata shinshinto is always a risk, but the work does have this feeling. However there were some people like Kaifu Ujiyoshi who being Yamato trained (Naminohira lineage) did very convincing suguha-Yamato-Soshu in Momoyama times with Nambokucho sugata. P.S. I own Hosho (Hozon) with o-kissaki Nambokucho. They are just even more rare than their tanto.

Well somebody was trying to cook up a ko-bizen kissaki with a fake Ichimonji signature. Also sugata suggests Muromachi period.