Rivkin

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.

Its signed Akihiro but not papered to him. Nevertheless this is really rare to see katana in hitatsura, even though its Muromachi period. For someone interested in the style this can be quite a find.

In things like this its often best to wait at least couple of weeks to a month seeing what is being offered, since "right here right now" might be too random.

Sugata is a bit too straight for Muromachi, and boshi is suguha (which does happen in Muromachi, but is way more typical for shinto), so it can be kambun shinto. And its not in a professional polish, to the point that not much is going to be seen here.

At TNM temporary exhibits usually ban photography, but permanent collection is mostly allowed. Yasukuni if I remember correctly is the opposite - temp usually allows photography, while permanent mostly not.

Personal opinion: Its blind at H/TH level, though sometimes it does happen that shinsa members know the blade beforehand. For example, many of NTHK (non NPO) judges are higher end dealers. Not trying to state anything bad about such practice. At TJ you are allowed to even submit supportive documentation like Edo period's judgements, sayagaki etc. They don't want it to be blind. Rebranding Enju into Awataguchi at least stays in the same "inclusive" school and time period, plus TJ Enju is something very rare, TJ Awataguchi is far less so, considering one sees one Awataguchi blade for 10 or so Enjus.

The sinister thing is top Juyo Enju today costs 3.5mil, unless one does Tokyo super-retail prices. Awataguchi Juyo like that - I would say 5-7. The blade is exactly the same.

I can only speak to my personal experience: I've papered >100 blades, probably closer to 200 swords (did not count in any formal way). Of those re-papered (with different or same organization) something between 40 and 60. It has to be admitted that in all repapering cases I had doubts about the original attribution. These were with very few exceptions mumei blades, so I'll talk about those, with fully readable signature its just a whole different game. NONE papered to the same name. Exactly zero out of 50 or so. Including blades with half intact signatures. Most papered to the same school (i.e. Bizen, Soshu, Yamato etc.) if one accepts a more inclusive definition (i.e. Nio is Yamato, Unju is either Bizen or Yamato etc. etc.). There was no clear preference in terms of any particular shinsa team giving more favorable judgements. I had two decent Juyo repapered by NTHK-NPO to lesser names and with respective scores of 75 and 76, i.e. just "average-good" in their opinion. There was a significant spread in terms of name recognition. O-Kanemitsu and a much lesser name, almost Kozori-class - but in all honesty not that different in terms of either time or work style. The worst game is Soshu. Basically every high class tanto with late Muromachi/also late Nambokucho sugata had 50% chance to draw Shimada Yoshisuke or other Shimada name or actually something quite recognizable from Nambokucho times. i.e. if you buy really good mumei Shimada tanto and resubmit you have reasonable chance to get TH Masahiro. Uda tanto is another all-too-often notoriously weak attribution. Pre-Nambokucho blades were often messed up. Had one papered to Aoe, Bizen, Rai and Ryumon Nobuyoshi. And if I remember correctly both Rai and Bizen attributions also had smith names. True, the papers were from different time periods, but I'll just repeat myself - green papers are by far more often Kanzan Sato rather than Yakuza papers. I think all the four judgements were neither crazy nor done in bad faith - but one was definitely weak. So I am a sceptic who thinks the ability to pinpoint an exact smith name, unless one deals with an ultra-stereotypical blade by someone famous, is basically Japanese appraisers showing off. They have to do it, since their competition does it and collectors expect the name and not just (less valued) generic school attribution. If you want to stay in business you have to follow suit, even when there is honestly very little justification to be that specific. Its a small community which lives by its own rules. The problem comes when generations of appraisers change and suddenly the name you secured can be "legitemally" contested.

In this condition its unlikely one can state anything definitive, but judging by really coarse large featured hada its the end of Muromachi. Lots of masame and mokume, something Yamato related, possibly provincial, but hard to say without seeing the hamon.

For almost a decade I struggled to photograph Ichimonji. I could do the shallow angles technique; the results are bright and can show some details, but are difficult for kantei or to publish. But other techniques were just giving me watery images with little substance. Yet finally I think I am getting to point where I am personally comfortable with the results.

Aaaah. Yes.

Ok, if we are told its not that old, then its Shinto Bungo.

Sorry, can't see the boshi's shape clearly, but my guess is ko maru. Still go for Enju, the end of Kamakura.

Late Muromachi Mihara. I would argue for 1530-1570 period, though in the latter portion larger kissaki is more common, so probably 1530. Somewhat earlier shinogi zukuri waki would tend to be somewhat less chubby and more slender,

Yasurime can be shinto. Regarding the price, the issue is the same as bringing a dealer's sword to a sword club - what are the chances of getting an honest opinion? I've sold a dozen pieces to Eric over the years, I obviously not going to badmouth his goods. And vice versa - if you bring up a sword from an unknown dealer, chances are people will badmouth it simply because its a competition they don't want. So in questions like that, one is mostly on his own. I would certainly take all opinions with a lot of salt. This sword will paper, and its pretty much known how it will paper, so the risks are probably minimal on this front. The price is not really high in terms of nihonto prices.

I can't kantei shinto (don't know much about it), but I can throw couple of guesses. Its mostly straight with taper - its unlikely to be earlier than 1650. Would love to see yasurime and coloration of the nakago in detail, because nakago shape is something along the lines of what became more popular from 1665-1700 onwards - long, with pronounced taper. I would even think about shinshinto, but kissaki is a tad small to be characteristic to the period. Hamon is sort of typical for the period, jigane is too tight, nie is too large to be the first tier work, but it is something that can be easily appreciated. Looks like it has a long Edo [??] yakidashi, which is not too common and an unusual hakikake boshi, so I would go through references trying to find such specific combination. Chances are you'll get an exact name out of it. P.S. I personally would not call this hamon doranba, its almost more like somebody copying Kotetsu or his circle rather than Sukehiro.

I am very sorry to hear that. Bill did a very good job running the show; not in the least because he had a capacity for seemingly effortless dealing with a bunch of otherwise problematic people, myself included. He will be missed; when the temporary measures we all endure now are over the world of sword shows will still never be the same.

Ara nie is something quite uncommon in Kamakura period; there were some smiths who forged in nie, but none with such hamon, so I would say its safe to say its Muromachi. Nice blade, lots of ware, signature is poorly photographed to the point that its difficult to resolve first kanji. If its Mino Kanemitsu, it probably has decent chance to paper. Otherwise - may be not.

Unfortunately cameras can greatly distort things like taper. The first picture in the thread looks like Kambun shinto. The last one less so. If it has no taper, it can be late Nambokucho, probably Tegai school. There is an additional issue of it being suriage, so one does not 100% know how much the curvature/tapering is affected by that.

Usually organizers of shinsa in the US do accept mail in swords for an additional 100 or 150$ per item. That's the easiest way. Alternatively you can send a blade to an agent in Japan who will paper it for you. 99% of what people think is really important turns out to be fake junk. Unfortunately. Regarding confiscation worries, I would avoid sending chokuto and chokuto koshirae. With the rest, few have the relevant experience. Maaaaybe there is an issue if its something along the lines of the earliest known signed and dated Bizen or signed ubu Munechika. Everything else is of little concern.

Pre-Muromachi fumbari is indeed lost when the blade is shortened, since it concentrates right next to nakago. Basically in continental chokuto you sometime see an extremely rapid (over the space of 1cm) tapering, and in Kamakura Japanese blade it can taper over something like 15cm. In Kambun period tapering is much more gradual, and it should involve the entire lower half of the blade. Some argue it can't be called "fumbari", but then again on earlier pieces tapering can also be somewhat more gradual. If one goes by sugata here, I would say its Kambun Owari in Yamato style. But occasionally one does see similarly shaped blades in Muromachi times, they are just very uncommon.

Forging does look like Yamato and Koto. Sugata is unusual, with such unusual fumbari (no, not the Kamakura one) which continues all the way to kissaki. This unfortunately most likely excludes pre-Muromachi examples, and the hamon is a tad too wide and rough for earlier work. Kambun shinto would be a good fit, but with such forging I would argue its from about 1500. Can be Shikkake, but I would argue for Sue Tegai. Or maybe even Mino Kanenobu, they forged in Yamato style at the time. Its in more than enough polish to paper. Polishing expenses... Up to 4-7k depending on exact length, the need for new shirasaya, habaki etc. Price of such sword in full polish - below investment. I also would be concerning that it can very well be Edo Kambun Owari school, which forged at times very similar to Yamato, and had rather rough (un-shinto) jigane. http://sanmei.com/contents/media/S19795_S2068_PUP_E.html

Hirazukuri, late Muromachi... It can paper, its just not a pricy item. After Oei Nobukuni's are not that important. P.S. I had better names from this smith papering. But what he sells is usually not in polish and has forging flaws.