SteveM

I think you got it right. Looks like Seijō to me, too. (There are at least 4 different Seijōs... my reference doesn't show examples, so I can't help you there.)

I may have some of the English terminology wrong, but it should be close enough. 左右餌畚鐔　無銘肥後 Bag-shaped openings on left and right, openwork tsuba. Mumei Higo 竪丸形鉄篠鑢地 Circular shape, file-marked 左右大透金布目象嵌丸耳 Large openwork (sukashi) on left and right, gold-inlay shading, rounded edge

Hello James, If you are getting into nihonto, I would suggest checking out some of the links in this site (especially under the "research" button). You can get a ton of good information from browsing around there. Also, its a good idea to invest in some reference books. There is a list of recommended reading in one of the links. These will help you get acquainted with some of the things you usually find on swords, and the terminology associated with it. Otherwise, we're just tossing you fish instead of teaching you how to fish for yourself. I'll give you a push to get you started. The first one is; 備前住則光 Bizen jū Norimitsu. Bizen is an old province name in Japan, and one of the most important swordmaking regions. 住 (jū) means reside/live and is often seen after location names. So basically it would translate as Norimitsu from Bizen or Norimitsu who resides in Bizen, if you want a literal translation Typically signatures include location and the smith's name - and usually in that order. Depending on the era or the fashion of the time, the inscription may include more information or less information. So, this is the long way of saying, yes these inscriptions point to a specific region and smith (which usually makes the school obvious). The reverse side of the tang on the bottom sword has the date, which I've given in my post #5 above. The top one doesn't have a date inscribed on it, but you know the smith and the location, and if you do a bit of searching around on the internet you should be able to come up with a date for it based on the signature. Good Luck!

You are welcome Bruno, I hope its a match, but I can't guarantee that your 春秋 is the same one mentioned in the reference (and of course, as always, the signature could be faked), Having said that...here you go

I think the bottom one is 備州長船勝光 Bishu Osafune Katsumitsu The reverse side is is 明応二年八月日 Meiō 2 (1493) August. The old kanji "應" is being used in place of 応. Here is another signature of the same for comparison http://www.touken-sato.com/event/katana/2014/05/W-katsumitsu-02.html

On page 274 of Wakayama's 刀装金工事典 there is a 春秋 (my guess is the pronunciation is Haruaki). Says he is a student of Yanagawa Naoharu, was allowed the use of the Yanagawa name, and that he sometimes signed 柳川春秋.

Yes - Hidetoshi is the smith, and Showa 17 (1942) is the date of manufacture. With these WW2 blades you have to understand that the smith may not have actually hand-forged the sword. He may have just overseen the machine production of it. I think the presence of the Seki arsenal stamp virtually guarantees this one is a mass-produced sword. Still, it is an interesting artifact and I would refrain from scratching it up with a piece of steel wool. There are a lot of threads here that discuss the dos and donts of blade cleaning. Search a few threads to see what the guys here say.

丸に篠笹　or 丸に根笹 Maru ni shinozasa Maru ni ne sasa #05 on the list below http://homepage3.nifty.com/omaturinotakahasi/kamon.sasa37.htm

Found this one on the web, if it helps. http://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1510-1085.htm

Yes, this last round totally stumped me. This piece, the ura-mei of the signature on the WWI sword in the other thread, and the art name on the tsuba. Morita-san hit all three out of the park. That ura-mei particularly stumped me. I couldn't pick out anything but the final 作

秀俊　Hidetoshi Reverse side says 昭和十七年　Shōwa 17 Seki arsenal stamp on the tang. Ignore the painted on numbers. They say "1726", but they are of no importance to determining the sword's value. You ought to get those fingerprints off the sword asap. Hopefully they are not rusted on to the blade.

国英 Kunihide Kuniteru is another possible reading, but I saw Kunihide on Jinsoo Kim's site (for WWII blades) so I think this is probably Kunihide. Enjoy as is. Polish it only if you have money to burn.

算経 Sankei

I think those couple of characters in that line are 小反 (kozori). Also, the 伝 (den) at the front is worth mentioning.

No, I think John's was the right answer. 越州住兼植 Esshū jū Kanetane. A few smiths used that name.

The steel looks almost featureless, except for the white hamon, which in the very top pictures looks like the edge ends in a foamy, bright white line. In the second group of photos the white line isn't to be seen, so maybe its a trick of the lighting used for photography, but the second group reveals the hamon to be free from any activity. It is just a bright area, a consistently pale wavy strip, on the steel. So the clues point to a WWII-era Seki blade with no characteristics of hand-forged steel, and that is why I assume its a mass-produced oil-quenched sword. Looking at it positively, I would say its a nice piece for collectors of militaria.

Actually, that 石井 looks to me like 研 (maybe 上研 uwamigaki?)

Family crest is called 菱に二つ引き　(hishi ni futatsu biki), meaning just as you would assume: two lines in a diamond shape. Related crests, such as two bars in a circle, are associated with the Ashikaga family, so this could be an offshoot from that family. Bear in mind that the association has become diluted with the passage of time. https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%BC%95%E4%B8%A1%E7%B4%8B

Well, now that would really piss me off! I think probably your assumption is correct. I would definitely ask about that. But what a disappointment - after going through the trouble to translate something, then having it get buggered up in the final step. I'm feeling your pain, Piers!

The odd English is a pet peeve of mine. In short, my guess is that the curators were cutting costs on the exhibition, and opted for someone who may have relied heavily on machine translation, and/or skipped proofreading.

The one on the bottom is 南　(Minami, or more likely the on'yomi of ~nan when combined with the kanji on top). The top one, however, is a mystery to me.

The reverse side is: 慶應二丙寅仲秋 Mid-Autumn, Keiō 2 (1866)

Morita-san has already done the hard work for us. Take a look at this post from earlier last year from the same smith, and an identical inscription. http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/17291-mei-probablement-showa-me-ch/

I think the writing indicates the sword was presented from the Governor-General (not a present to the Governor-General). The recipient is unnamed.

I agree with Jean above regarding the blade. Perhaps it was created in a Seki foundry. Seki is an important sword-making region in Japan, and there was a foundry there making swords for the army under the supervision of some smiths who then sometimes put their names to their swords. Kanehisa was from Gifu-prefecture, which is where Seki is located. So if I had to judge from your photos (which is often a dodgy proposition) I would say yours is an oil-quenched Seki blade. This doesn't mean it is trash, by any means. It has value as an historical artifact, and there are a lot of collectors of Japanese WWII swords no matter what quality of steel or how it was forged. Unfortunately for you, your sword furnishings (scabbard, tassel, menuki, etc..) look like they've all had a rough life. I think it will probably be too much effort to try to restore the sword and the furnishings to museum quality. And because there were so many of these items produced, it means there are still a great number of high quality pieces intact, or reconstituted from surplus parts, which makes restoring or replacing damaged pieces a labor of love that will cost more than the end product will be worth on the open market. I think you should take care that any rust doesn't spread, and read up on this site how to store the sword, and you should have a very interesting keepsake