SteveM

The title is a nice thing to have. If you are from a lineage that has traditionally used the title, it is very important for you (and your succeeding generations) to continue to maintain and use this brand. It adds an aura of prestige. It is a kind of marketing tool. But it doesn't open any doors into the aristocracy. The smith just wants it because, in a way, it validates his position as a master swordsmith (even though the "validation" aspect was continually devalued by the bakufu selling these titles). Sukehiro's mentor did not have a title, so maybe Sukehiro or some patron felt Sukehiro's skill had surpassed that of his mentor, and was worthy of a title. Whether or not he can charge more for his swords after receiving the title is just speculation on my part. If you are a swordsmith from a province with dwindling need for swords, you probably don't have much leverage to raise your prices, even with a fancy title. If you are a swordsmith from a province that has great demand for swords, maybe you can use the title to justify raising your prices above those of your non-"accredited" peers. As others have noted, Suketaka was genuinely a master of his craft, as you can see from his several Jūyō-rated blades. So in his case, the title was well-deserved. The date on this sword is interesting because it comes from the period just prior to receiving the title, but that's about all we can say. If there are any flaws or blemishes on the sword, it greatly devalues the sword regardless of the date (and/or any title that might be on the blade). I don't think there is anything else missing. I mean, Fujishiro's swordsmith index notes that Suketaka received the title "Kami" on Dec. 19th, Kansei 10 (1798). There may also be some primary source documents in the Imperial Archives, etc... which also note the date on which he received his title. It really is just a title, something like Esquire. I doubt that Suketaka would have considered himself to be a revolutionary swordsmith. His lineage goes back to the Bingo Mihara smiths (spiritually, not by direct bloodline). He was able to consistently replicate the dynamic toranba style of temper pattern that Tsuda Sukehiro was well-known for in the mid-1600s. This toranba style of hamon was also admired and replicated by Suishinshi Masahide, so somehow the timing of these two smiths, Masahide and Suketaka, converged, and due to their admiration of, and ability to consistently forge, blades with toranba, the sword world considers them as part of a new era. But I don't think Suketaka would have felt he was making a break from the past. Edit to clarify: the complete title is Nagato no Kami (Lord of Nagato). Nagato was the province on the southern tip of Honshū. Present day Yamaguchi, or thereabouts. This is one of many cases where the location of the "lordship" has absolutely no relation to the smith. It's just used for convenience. And I don't mean to imply that Suishinshi Masahide's only contribution was an ability to replicate toranba. He was a smith who may have seen himself as advancing, or "restoring" the direction of swordsmithing in Japan.

源市太　MINAMOTO Ichita Minamoto Ichita was a swordsmith from the 1600s. No idea if the signature is genuine or not.

If you show the whole script we might be able to make an educated guess. It's tough to tell from just the signature part. @MauroP is a pretty keen collector/admirer/student of Kanzan's writing, so he might be able to give you an opinion also.

I'm pretty sure its 昭和未年新春 (spring, year of the sheep) = 1967 Edit: corrected

Yes, 寒山誌（花押）　Kanzan shirusu (it means "written/recorded by Kanzan" with his monogram at the bottom). I don't know if its authentic or not. There are a lot of fakes out there.

To be honest I've never heard that smiths had to submit samples of their work to the bakufu or to the court in order to receive the title. I think they had to make a formal application, or have one made on their behalf by someone of status (the actual daimyo of the fief, for example). But I am not a deep scholar in this area. I have read Markus Sesko's article here, which I think you will find very interesting if you haven't already read it. It provided the basis of what I know. https://markussesko.com/2013/02/19/how-honorary-titles-were-conferred/ Whether this particular sword is one of his best examples or not; I think there are too many variables. The biggest one is condition. It could well have been one of his best examples, but you'd need a deeper inspection and you'd need to compare against his other known works to make that call. And I don't think one can even make a sweeping generalization about swords produced before/after receiving the title. For some smiths it may be true that their best work was toward the end of their productive life. For other smiths they may have become lazy, lost their vitality, lost access to good quality tamahagane, or some may have allowed their apprentices/students to produce under the smith's name, and so there may be some variance in quality. Other smiths may be "average" smiths, yet had the funds to acquire the title, so...too many variables to generalize.

Uwe is correct. Yasuchika saku.

Date on the sword is Kansei 10, August. Bear in mind, in the shintō period the dates inscribed are almost always either August or February (well, strictly speaking its "Eighth Month" and "Second Month" - there is a discrepancy between the traditional Japanese months and those of the Gregorian calendar). These two months are used regardless (almost) of when the sword was actually forged. So best not to take that date too literally. I wouldn't place too much significance on the title, or the privileges it conferred, or the deference paid to the swordsmith upon receiving the title. It's not representative of admission into the nobility. "Lord" or "Governor", "Protector", etc. are just honorific titles, so the smith isn't in any kind of professional limbo until he receives the paperwork. The title just allows him to inscribe his swords with that title, and of course it is an honor for him to do so, but otherwise his life and status doesn't change. Maybe it allows him to increase the prices of his swords slightly. Also the granting of titles was, to some extent, a revenue-generating scheme for the bakufu. So the standards for granting of titles may fluctuate depending on the finances of the bakufu and/or those of the officers in charge of granting titles.

My guess is 安秋作　（Made by Yasuaki). But I can find no such metalworker in the Wakayama index.

Very strange. Illegible to me. The 怍 (saku) is fine, but the character (or characters?) above that are a mystery. An attempt to fake a mei? An addition of some chisel strokes to deliberately obscure the Mei? Unusual.

Hi John, I saw one just like it on Japanese Yahoo for sale. It's described as a commemorative paperweight. It's not uncommon for these to have a loop and cord on them. So I think it started life as a commemorative souvenir for cultured folks.

It's a paper weight - 文鎮 - the kind used when doing calligraphy.

Other side is 潜龍 "Hidden Dragon" 源義制 佩劔 Owned/Worn by MINAMOTO Yoshinori. Hidden Dragon would be the name given to the sword. I think Minamoto Yoshinori was a hatamoto in the Tokugawa Bakufu Government.

One correction 竪丸形 Tatemarugata Nengō is correct. Edit 型→形 (had to correct my own correction)

Hello Kirk, I was just commenting that this sword has been popping up on this board frequently. I meant no insult to the sword. I haven't looked closely at the sword, so I have no strong feeling about it, but yes I presume it is an arsenal blade.