SteveM

Right side is 龍池軒 Ryūchiken Left side (as Curran has already pointed out) is 新井英隋 Arai Hideyuki

Hello Michael, None of us can say for sure. It looks to me like it is older than Showa. It looks like it is of the kanmuri-otoshi type of construction. The signature on the tang of your blade appears to be 兼元 (Kanemoto), or possibly 兼光 (Kanemitsu), but I am leaning towards 兼元. I cannot tell if it is an authentic signature or not. An interesting feature on your blade is the groove on one side. Actually it appears to have a double-groove, but the smaller bottom groove looks like it has been almost completely polished out. It is just visible above the habaki (the copper-ish collar). If you have been studying Japanese swords for a couple of years you probably know that there is a huge quantity of counterfeit swords and reproductions, particularly on the auction sites. So I am always suspicious of auction sites. I don't think your sword is Showa. The hamon appears to be genuine (from looking at the photos on ebay). I think the groove on one side is curious, but it doesn't strike me as being fake. The tang certainly looks very old.

My guess: the top mei (the one in-between the nakago-ana and the square kōgai-ana) reads 君萬歳 (kimi banzai). It's a phrase showing reverence for the emperor. The bottom right mei reads 東龍斎 (Tōryūsai). I can't make out the final kanji (or is it two kanji?). The bottom left mei is 囗文（丈？）花押 There were at least four artisans who signed as 東龍斎. This particular signature doesn't check off all the boxes on any of the candidates in my reference, but 清寿 (Kiyotoshi) might be a strong candidate as he used several a variety of names, often variations of 東龍斎, and added on extra signatures throughout his life.

Also, Ohmura's site was (is) useful for me in understanding military swords. http://ohmura-study.net/934.html

Same as Ed above, I haven't had the malware warning pop-up recently. No problems loading or viewing. Using Firefox and Chrome.

I think Tomita, as John mentioned in his post above.

正二 or possibly Shōji?

祐久　Sukehisa is my guess. There is a Sukehisa from Bizen Osafune, but the characters are very different from this. The signature from Bizen's Sukehisa is here http://bizenya-katana.com/?thoken=%E5%82%99%E5%B7%9E%E9%95%B7%E8%88%B9%E7%A5%90%E4%B9%85 The characters on the right side of the tang in the sword of this post are a bit of a puzzle.

I meant to add, there are Buddhist invocations such as 南無阿弥陀 or 南無妙法蓮華経, and those would not be so unusual (maybe a bit unusual to see one on the tang). The Fudō motif itself is common, and it just came up in another thread recently where there were kurikata and sanko carvings in a blade, which are motifs of Fudō Myō-ō. In this case, its the exhortation to believe in Fudō Myō-ō that I find strange. He is one of those quasi mythical characters that serve more as representations of something rather than a god that requires our faith. So while I might expect a pictorial representation of Fudō, or some image of him (chains, or chain-cutting sword, etc...), I think its unusual to find a sentence inviting (who, the reader, the owner?) to believe in Fudō. That is what makes me a bit suspicious. Now that I see the screw in there, I'm wondering about that as well, but that may be a later addition. And, like I said I think the way ヲ is offset to the left, and is crowding the space where the 信 is, is a bit rough and shows poor balance. (Why not put them all in a straight vertical line? There seems to be enough space. Or better yet, do away with the ヲ all together and just write 不動明王信仰. ) But I don't hesitate to say that my unfamiliarity with something is no guarantee that the thing is fake. I've seen a lot of funny things lately that turned out weren't funny at all, but were in fact legitimate things. The invocation above could definitely be an outlier, or maybe from a family that is particularly devoted to Fudō? Some more observations; I think Peter said in another post that this was O-suriage koto, but this tang doesn't look very koto. Maybe I am mixing up two different posts. (If a koto family heirloom, I think that reduces the chance that the family would have an unskilled engraver make an alteration to the tang). Maybe more and closer pictures of the sword and fittings can shed some more light. Anyway, hopefully George's comments above and mine will give Peter and the owner some food for thought.

Yes, the translation is correct Ōmi (no) kami, Takagi-jū, Sukenao On the reverse side 延宝八年二月日 Enpō Hachi-nen, Nigatsu nichi 1680, February Compare with another Sukenao of the same year with the same inscription http://www.shoubudou.co.jp/sukenao.html

Edit: Following Markus's post, 枩埜 is a definite candidate. It would certainly account for the 土 under 林. The 枩 looks like a bit of a stretch (its a very odd rendition of 公 under the 木), but it fits with 埜 for sure.

正阿弥 本乙材土作之 ?? 己卯 年睦月 I don't think that's 乙 under the first kanji. I think it's just an errant stroke (or a mistake that the person tried to obscure). It looks to me like the first two kanji are just supposed to be a typical Japanese last name, 木林 or maybe 本林. Or, perhaps 木村 or 本村. Similarly, the 土 below that doesn't seem to fit either. Opposite side 己卯年睦月 Tsuchiinotō Mutsuki Tsuchinotō (Year), January . The list of possible candidates for Tsuchinotō are as below https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%B7%B1%E5%8D%AF The scribble to the right of the above kanji I think is a failed attempt at a kanji. Or maybe a failed attempt at a kao. Directly above it, something has been deliberate removed by scratching it out. It looks like someone started writing something, then realized it was wrong or bad, and then deliberately obscured the whole thing. Perhaps the bottom part was an attempt at 事 or 筆. It also looks like it has elements of 兼 (as is often found in mei).

不動明王ヲ信仰 Believe (have faith in) Fudō Myō-ō Sounds (and looks) rather dodgy. Fudō is one of the Japanese Buddhist gods. See more here http://www.Japanese-buddhism.com/fudo-myo-o.html I've never seen any slogan exhorting soldiers to profess or entrust their faith to any Buddhist god. I've seen bonji and buddhist images, but no textual invocations like this on the tang. It kind of sounds like a westerner's clumsy attempt at writing something he thinks might be plausible on a Japanese sword. Together with the clumsy squeezing of ヲ right next to the 信 makes me very suspicious.

I would be really interested to know what happened to this sword. There is nothing in the signature that screams fake to me. But that might just mean some clever scribe really knew how to fake a Shinkai signature (which, given the brevity and the simplicity of the kanji, is probably easy to do). Moving beyond the signature and the deplorable state of polish, I am really intrigued by the hamon. If I'm not mistaken, the hamon is Osaka Yakidashi, which is associated with Shinkai. Actually the hamon on the opposite side to the Osaka Yakidashi looks almost completely suguha. The boshi looks OK for Shinkai. Unfortunately the lousy condition of the polish makes everything look rather lifeless. Would love to see what kind of jihada is hiding under the crappy polish.

Hello Jamie, Allow me to give you a somewhat contrarian opinion on this sword. First, forget about the back story for a minute. Also, forget about the fittings and just worry about the sword. I know these are bothering you as they raise the possibility you got cheated, but put these deadweights down for a second and look at the sword as objectively as possible. As a WW2 artifact, the sword you have seems to be a fine, Yoshikuni-inscribed, Seki-stamped sword. It is no medieval masterpiece, but then again it isn't masquerading as one. It is an imperial Japanese arsenal sword with an arsenal stamp, and with the signature of a recognized-smith who oversaw its manufacture sometime between 1942 and 1945. If you were looking to buy a vintage WW2 artifact, it looks to me like you got the real deal. Many unscrupulous people are flogging their drop-forged and counterfeited crap as authentic war relics, and there is no shortage of people who get suckered in by this and end up losing a lot of money buying garbage. I think you have dodged that bullet. Now for the fittings: these parts are factory-made and meant to be replaceable. In fact, they often are replaced during the process of restoration. A vintage WW2-era sword with a damaged tsuba shouldn't freak anyone out too much. Replacement tsubas are fairly easy to come by, and the tsuba on this piece can be replaced with another Type 98 tsuba if the rough filing job bothers you. If the fit of the tsuba is so poor that there is a huge gap between the tang and tsuba (causing the tsuba to clank around loosely), or if the grinding job is visible even when the tsuba is in place, you can get rid of the tsuba and search the internet for a replacement. Actually I think the bigger worry is ending up with a cheaply made copy of a WW2 tsuba - whereas yours looks authentic to me. The locking clasp can also be easily replaced. There is one on ebay for about $20. If the sword, tsuba, seppa, habaki and scabbard all fit together, you have a decent artifact on your hands, even if the parts may have been assembled separately. The only problem is overcoming the fact that the auction house may have ripped you off. I have to agree with Geraint above - they are selling the sword and the mounts, and overall the sword and the mounts seem fine. The story is prefaced by "Believed to have been..." which gives them a legal escape hatch concerning the provenance. Be that as it may, I dug around for some information on this mysterious General Shimoto. It's an odd name, and the English spelling doesn't suggest how it might be spelled in Japanese. -moto leaves me thinking maybe it was a misspelling of Hashimoto, but there is no General Hashimoto from the 8th Area Army. To make a long story short, it turns out that Mr. Shimoto isn't a General, but a Captain. Captain Kōtarō Shimotō (下遠甲太郎大佐), who was in charge of the 7th Field Heavy Artillery Regiment, which was part of the 9th Artillery Command, which was part of the 8th Area Army under Lieutenant General Imamura. The 8th Army was sent to the South Pacific after the start of World War 2. The 8th Army, and presumably Captain Shimotō and his sword, surrendered at Rabaul, Papua New Guinea, in September 1945. I would be keen to see the surrender tag, if there is one.

Both the dragon (kurikata) and the sanko (tsuruta-san is calling it a dokko) are esoteric buddhist images.

Hello Iain, It doesn't look to me like they were made last week. My guess is vintage mid-to-late 19th century. They just aren't particularly skillfully made (says the anonymous critic). Fans are a common theme in tōsōgu, and there are plenty of examples of very fine work on this theme. The spokes of the fans on these pieces here, for example, don't look to be inlaid. I don't know if they are painted on, as you speculated on the menuki, but it definitely seems to be some simplified method for achieving the inlay effect (on all the pieces, fuchi, kashira, menuki). But I don't think this means they were pumped out in somebody's garage last week. Maybe they were just cheap pieces produced for the tourist trade in Meiji times. Or maybe just inferior work of a minor craftsman or his students. I've seen much, much worse, if that's any consolation.

米澤住宗慶作 Yes, you are right - Muneyoshi. The location is Yonezawa. Compare with this signature here http://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/A74513_S7855_PUP.html

Horimono could be a votive decoration, could be a carving that was done to hide or eliminate a flaw in the steel, and there is a slight chance it could have been done to balance the weight of the sword. While a carving doesn't automatically render a sword "ornamental", it does reduce the structural integrity of the sword (albeit slightly). However for some reason I cringe at the thought of "ornamental" swords - except for exceptional cases. I think the higher the quality of the blade, the less likely it would be for someone to consider taking it with them on the dusty road to a muddy battlefield. But I find it hard to think about ornamental blades vs functional blades. Even in relatively peaceful times (Edo period), there were peasant revolts and civil unrest and banditry, etc... So I think "purely decorational" is a concept that ought to be handled with care. I mean, I would be surprised if gendaitō smiths, who are virtually assured the swords they made this year will never be used in battle, would consider their works as ornamental or decorational. Koshirae and sword furniture are a different story. Common themes of horimono are bonji (sanskrit characters) and kurikara (dragon wrapped around swords, a Buddhist motif), Kanon (Bodhisattva).

Thanks to John above, I think I have the rest figured out right line 天保九歳十月一日於千住山田朝衛吉昌世焠同苗五三郎吉利 Tempō Kyū Nen (using toshi instead of 年)　jū-gatsu tsuitachi Oite Senjū Yamada Asae Yoshimasa niragu/namasu, dōmyō Gosaburō Yoshitoshi 1st October, 1838. Yamada Asae Yoshikichi tempered, same name Gosaburō Yoshitoshi If I'm right about the word niragu/namasu above, then this seems like a collaboration where Yoshikichi performed the cutting test, and Yoshitoshi re-tempered the sword. I'm curious as to why the name is just Yamada Asae without the final 門 (mon) on the end. Note that the date could also be the 2nd of October - I can't exactly tell if the kanji is 一 or 二. I suspect it's October 1st as that seems to me to be a more auspicious day. left line 太々試之速裁断穿土尺余會陽臣浦川氏親負大森氏勝負明察 I will forgo the layman's attempt at translating the kanbun style, but John is correct in that this is a Tai-tai cutting. 速裁断 would be "instantly cut". The others are opaque to me, except for the two names at the end Urakawa and Ōmori, and the final four kanji 勝負明察 (victory judgment). Perhaps there was some wager on this sword between the Urakawas and the Ōmoris, with the Ōmoris winning? Anyway, pure speculation from me. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of saidanmei will chime in. Edit: note that 6th and 7th generation Yamadas (Yoshimasa and Yoshitoshi) used 朝右衛門 instead of 浅右衛門. Both would be pronounced Asaemon. In any event, the mei on this sword is missing the 右 as well as the 門. I think its slightly strange, but considering the length of the saidanmei it seems highly unlikely that someone would go to the trouble to fabricate such an elaborate engraving, and then forget to include two crucial kanji. More likely there is some other explanation for the truncated name.

As Alan said above, it is a tameshigiri mei, or cutting test inscription, dated from Tempō 9 - 1838. This test was carried out in the Senjū area of Tokyo. Sometimes these are also called saidan-mei. The test cutter looks to be from the Yamada lineage, which is the celebrated family line of test cutters. You can find a list of the Yamada group and others at the link here http://www.jssus.org/nkp/tameshigiri.pdf (thanks to Guido). The first/given name of this particular test cutter seems slightly unusual because it has some extra kanji that I wouldn't expect, but this isn't really surprising or particularly suspicious. right line 天保九歳囗囗囗於千住山田朝衛囗囗囗囗囗五三郎吉利 Tempō Kyū Nen (using toshi instead of 年) ? ? ? Oite Senjū Yamada Asae ? ? ? ? ? Gosaburō Yoshitoshi left line There are too many illegible kanji in there for me to make an attempt at translation, but I'll throw this here and perhaps it will inspire somebody to fill in the rest. 囗囗誠次連囗囗断囗土尺人會？陽臣？浦川氏親負人囗氏勝負明察 For the sword itself, I think this is the son, in other words, this would be Inoue Shinkai's mei before he started inscribing as Inoue Shinkai. If I'm not mistaken, the father didn't use 井上 in his mei. So, if genuine, this is a sword from one of the big names of the Shinto Era. Alas, as John says, the more attractive the artist, the greater the temptation to fake the name. If it is a genuine Inoue Shinkai, and the cutting test is genuine, it ought to be a very, very nice artifact to say the least. Would need pics of the sword to tell. It is possible that the sword signature is forged, but the cutting test signature is genuine. I highly doubt it would be the reverse (i.e. a real sword signature with a faked cutting test signature). You can read more about Inoue Shinkai and his father and their signatures here http://www.nihontocraft.com/Izumi_no_Kami_Kunisada_mei.html

Well, I can recognize the "31" The mark on the bottom looks like the kanji 下 (lower, bottom, down, etc..) only it has been reversed. Maybe the photo is reversed? Edit: Actually, I guess if the photo were reversed the numerals would be in reverse also... Hmmm. Maybe just a manufacturing anomaly?

現代日本刀の精華 Gendai Nihontō no Seika The Quintessence of the Gendai (Modern) Japanese Sword

I would say yes, it could very well be. Of the many Masamitsus, Hayashi Masamitsu was from the Aizu area. He seems to be the most likely candidate for the artist of this piece in therms of location and subject matter. There are about twelve other Masamitsus. Four or five of them are from Tokyo, but only Hayashi is from the Aizu region specifically (Iwashiro), and he produced works of nature in high relief. So I'd say yes - but I'm just going from the reference book. I am not a tsuba expert.

Yes, Rōgetsutei works for me. The rest remains an enigma. I would expect that the line ending in 住 represents the location of the artist, but 加（か）義川遥住 doesn't sound like any location one usually sees on swords or fittings. The kanji on the opposite site are equally (or perhaps even more) of a mystery. Perhaps a kanbun poem? I don't think any of this points to a date. Edit: Must be 加（賀）茂川 (Kamogawa) The name of the upper part of the 鴨川 (Kamogawa) river, which is the river that runs through Kyoto.