SteveM

Brilliant. Anonymous poem from the Han dynasty https://eastasiastudent.net/china/classical/%E5%86%89%E5%86%89%E5%AD%A4%E7%94%9F%E7%AB%B9-bamboo-alone/

舟囗囗生竹 or 再々囗生竹 The first one feels close to 舟 (fune) but the top line continues down the left side, and on the kozuka it looks to be right in the middle and continues down the middle. This is closer to how you write 再, but obviously the top horizontal line is missing from the kozuka, so again I'm stuck. No idea what the whole text represents. Normally one would expect a tanka or haiku poem, but doesn't look like a poem to me.

Wow - schooled again. Well done Morita-san and Curran.

That hiro is 弘, which in grass script looks a bit different. https://moji.tekkai.com/zoom/%E5%BC%98/page.html I'm thinking the kanji on the box is something with gonben or koromo-hen, which both start off with that one strong brush stroke (almost a dot) on top, followed by a strong horizontal line before breaking down in to an abbreviated version of the following strokes. 言 衣 Anyway, that is what I'm thinking. Waiting for the masters to come in and teach us all what this is about.

As Curren says, the writing on the box is looks like 囗ろやん囗, but I can't imagine what the first one character would be, so that the following ya-ro-n would make sense. Maybe knowing what the box holds would help? I would think the right side is the description, the left side the date, and the two on the bottom are perhaps the mei?

Left side is (maybe) 廿年文月 20th year, July Bottom is 囗実 Said with low confidence. I will be happy if I correctly read the left side.

笠間焼　Kasama-yaki (Kasama is a city in Ibaraki Prefecture) 陶香作 Tōkō (or Tōka) saku the red seal is 柏陶窯之印　Kashiwa tōyō no in (seal of Kashiwa kiln)

Wow - I was going to say how much it resembled one of the "Night Scenes"....!

The image of the lone woman holding a lantern in Sebastien's post is fabulous. The signature is Hiroshige, but I haven't found any details about it.

And just to fill out the blank spots, Ray the last two pieces on your post #102 are: Kiyonaga, as you mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torii_Kiyonaga c.1784 https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/268825/3 and Eizan 英山 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikukawa_Eizan c1810 according to the below https://ja.ukiyo-e.org/image/chazen/1980_673

A lot of question marks for me, too. My attempts 1. 光玉 Kōgyoku 2. 不？太郎 or 不太郎一　Fu(?) taro. Could also be -taroichi, but I couldn't tell if that last bit was a border or an "ichi". 3. ?山 - I couldn't tell if the first one was 水, 氷, or 杉, or something completely different. 4. 成田　Narita 5. 法玉 Hōgyoku 6. 南柳 Nanryū 7. 吉? Yoshi-something 8. 法玉　Hōgyoku 9. 五勝 Gokatsu　I'm not 100% sure of the 五. Considering 玉 is a popular kanji in these names, I am tempted to say 玉 is a possibility as well. However it is missing the loop in the center, which seems to be a hallmark of 玉 in grass script. 正 , as George suggests, is a distant candidate, but I felt the one on the netsuke was a step too far away from 正 in grass script. Anyway, I'm reasonably confident in 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (with some reservation). The rest, not so confident.

The second column is a name 松山囗七 Matsuyama ?-shichi The third one is a bit too abbreviated for me.

Here are the other bits. 長貮尺貮寸五分磨上無銘也 - Length: 2 shaku, 2 sun, 5 bu. Suriage mumei 代金百枚 - 100 mai 明治二十二年己丑十二月磨研成番定記之 - 1889 December, polished (and appraised?) nb. I don't quite understand the last 4 kanji, but I think it means appraised. 本阿弥長識 - Honami Chōshoku Honami Chōshoku was a sword appraiser in the late 19th century. The writing and the sayagaki seem to be in exceptionally good shape for something that is presumably 130 years old. So I would be skeptical of the attribution and even of the sayagaki itself. If you bought it knowing the attribution was suspicious, you have probably done well depending on what you paid for it. It is a real, antique Japanese sword. And it looks to be in decent shape for what it is. We see fakes here almost daily, so already you are through that minefield.

Turns out that those bits that I asked you to post were actually the actors' names , but the publisher info in the pale blue box was enough to sort it out. Here you go

The last (far left) line is the name of a temple in Kyōto 智恵光院 ちえこういん Chiekō-in https://kyotofukoh.jp/report1053.html

Second from the left is: And a sharper picture of the one on the right would help figure it out. I can't read any of the kanji on it. The box on the far left side of the left picture contains the actors' names, so that probably won't be as helpful as the writing in the middle picture or the far right picture.

Yes, you are right! Katsura Nanzan. Page 518 in Wakayama (Japanese version). Younger brother of Rōshū. End of Edo period. Also used the name "Hokushi", so this is the same guy that is in the thread you linked to.

備前国雲生摺上無銘時代文保頃　－　Bizen-no-kuni Unshō suriage mumei. Jidai: Bunpō-koro 長貮尺貮寸七寸有之　－　Nagasa: nishaku nisun nanabu (ari kore) 代金子参百五拾枚　－　Daikinshi sanbyaku gojū mai As Ray says, attributed to Unshō of Bizen, around Bunpō era (1317-1319). The rest is kind of self explanatory with a little searching - it describes the length and the value.

An unusual mei. It is not listed in the Wakayama compliation. 頭鷺洲 - Zurozu?? 桂南山 - Keinanzan??

This is the only one that bothers me, but as everyone above says, its all in the context of how much you paid for the sword, and what you expected out of the transaction.

Hello Adam Yes, this is what I was trying to say with my post. It is impossible to reckon the financial value of the authentication papers on a sword like this (or indeed, maybe on any sword). The paper is a form of insurance. I imagine the majority of collectors lack the knowledge and experience required to attribute a sword to its maker/school with any confidence. Hobbyists (like me) can offer their opinion, but the opinion of a hobbyist is not worth a lot on the open market. On the buyer's end, even if you have the verbal assurance or guarantee of a well-known collector, it still presents a problem for you (or your heirs) when the time comes to sell the sword. People like to see the opinion of experts. In the low-end of the market, swords trade among the new enthusiasts, the curious history buffs, Japanophiles, and of course the treasure-hunters, and $1000 for a mumei sword that looks decent is not an outrageous price to pay regardless of whether or not there are any authentication papers. In the case of your example sword, it is a good-looking sword, it has a full koshirae, and it has NBTHK papers: who could ask for more at that price? So in short, the papers are a form of insurance, and people like insurance. It makes them feel better. It makes them feel as if they are not being cheated. For some people it validates what they already see in the sword. It enables newbies to say with confidence that the sword is an authentic nihontō. But I think its a waste of time to try to figure out the monetary value added by the paper.

In your example sword, the Japanese authentication paper describes the sword as "unsigned" but attributed to Kashū Iehira. This is different from the English description which makes the inaccurate claim that the blade is actually signed by Kashū Iehira. At the low end of the market its a bit tough to place a monetary value on this paper, but as Jussi says, it should be easier to resell if you have the NBTHK papers. And, the low end of the sword market is almost by definition crowded with beginners, so these are the people are most likely to benefit from having the paper. (Conversely, they are the most likely people to get burnt by fakes). The paper is a way of saying, "some respected people who know a lot about swords looked at this one and judged it to be authentic". (It looks like a fine, entry level sword, to me. For $1800, I think a first time buyer would have done well to have bought this sword.)

Yes, that's right.

I offer this one also as a possible candidate 正阿弥重僖 - not sure of how to pronounce this one. Shoami Shigeki? See the item below. https://webarchives.tnm.jp/imgsearch/show/E0023851

護謹作 go kinsaku? mori kinsaku morichika saku?