SteveM

It says: Genshirō. Family of Mizuno. Extant works of fuchi/kashira signed "Mizuno Genshirō, Kinpu-jū". From Kanazawa city in Kaga. Mid-Edo.

There are three Genshirō smiths in Wakayama. The smith in this thread is the second listing (page 139 in the Japanese edition). Mid-Edo.

Yes, that information from John Slough's book is the same information that you've shown before and its just a repeat of the information available from Japanese sources. It just tells us what we already know: Yoshikane was awarded 5th Seat (Rising Swordsmith) in 1941. It doesn't tell us anything about how large the field was, or how many entries Yoshikane had to submit to get that rank.

Hello Steve, You are asking for information that isn't available to us, as far as I know. There is no resource that tells us how many swords or how many smiths entered into the 1941 competition. The "tosho banzuke" ranking published by Kurihara Hikosaburo in 1942 is a list he himself devised whereby he groups the swordsmiths into general rankings which mirror the sumo wrestler rankings. (The word "banzuke" is taken from the sumo rankings). Its like ranking the swordsmiths in terms of "heavyweight", "middleweight", etc... Only instead of weight, the criteria is "quality", so already you can see it is a subjective ranking system. I couldn't find Yoshikane anywhere in this list. https://www.tsuruginoya.com/infomation/data/iretsu-seidai The "6th Shinsaku Nihonto Danrenkai" in 1941 is something completely separate from the banzuke mentioned above. Again, no idea how many smiths or how many swords were entered. You've got a nice Yoshikane sword from the WW2 era, maybe worth around $1k, as that is what a lot of these swords tend to sell for. This value really doesn't change if we discover 300 or 500 people entered the 1941 contest. The things that will influence its value are its quality, its condition, and the condition of any fittings it comes with. As Geraint says above, trying to pin down the specifics of this 5th Seat is indeed "chasing the wrong rabbit".

The sword is inscribed with the maker's name and location. This means the sword is older than WW2, perhaps by a few centuries. The inscription says 豊州高田住- （藤原行長） Hōshū Takada-jū　(Fujiwara Yuki naga?) the bits in the parenthesis are mostly illegible, but we can make an educated guess based on the preceding bits. In this case it is a really wild guess. The last character may be cut off completely, but that would be a bit weird. Hōshū is a province name in old Japan, corresponding to Fukuoka and Oita in present-day Japan.Takada is a city/location name. The smith's name is illegible, but Fujiwara Yukinaga was a representative smith from this region, and the inscribed name on this sword looks something like Fujiwara Yukinaga. The scabbard and fittings are vintage WW2. The soldier may have refitted an antique family sword with a ww2 scabbard (rather than use a mass-produced arsenal sword).

The sword in the original post is a gassaku with his son also. Aoi really ought to hire a proofreader or editor for his English posts.

Nice sword. I agree with Kirill that the hamon isn't much of a toranba. Other than that, its a decent sword and there is no need to spend too much time worrying about the minor imperfections on this. A sword of this size without any imperfections would surely be twice the price.

Hello Jason, The envelopes are standard NBTHK envelopes. The writing on the envelope just states that the envelope contains a "Tokubetsu Hozon" certificate, and they give the address of the NBTHK on the reverse side. In pencil it notes Esshū Mitsuyuki. (Its common for dealers and collectors to write the smith's name on the outside of the envelope). The paper inside is the explanatory notes for a Mitsuyuki tantō that received a Jūyō classification in Shōwa 54 (1979). It notes that Mitsuyuki blades with inscriptions on them are rare, and that this particular tantō (the one submitted in 1979) was an important reference work since it was signed and had a date inscribed on it. The date on the tantō was Kakei-era (the exact year is illegible). However, the Kakei era was only three years long, from 1387-1389, so that tantō was very likely either 1388 or 1389. My guess is that the smith is so obscure, the person included a copy of this entry from the 1979 Jūyō classification as a reference. Note that Esshū is the proper way to translate what Aoi calls "Etsushu". Aoi Art knows a lot about swords, but their translations are often very bad.

OK, I'm doing a crappy job of this. Let me try another way: The blade in the original post could be Kansei, and therefore could plausibly be shōshin Masahide (1st generation). The blade in the original post could be Bunsei, and therefore could plausibly be shōshin Masahide 2nd. I'm not clever enough to proclaim it gimei based on the few photos posted here. It would be best to look at the blade itself rather than the signature. But I suspect Sebastien has already given up on this sword and moved on.

OK - try this one. From Markus's site. Anyway, now the possibility exists that the sword in the original post could be from either 1st or 2nd generation Masahide. I'm not arguing that the possibility of this being shōshin Masahide is high, I'm arguing that the sword ought to be judged rather than the signature.

↑ Yes that is what we are talking about. Specifically I was speculating that Masahide may have continued to use "Masahide" even after he began to use Amahide. In other words, I was suggesting that he could have used both signatures for a while, and that (as always) we ought to try judge the sword first and not the signature. In my example above, I was attempting to show that there were extant, verified signatures of "Masahide" after Bunsei 2, but Piers was right and the sword I linked to was actually "Amahide". But it didn't take me too long to find another Masahide exampe (this time from Bunsei 5). https://toyuukai.com/2012/05/水心子白熊入道正秀（刻印）　文政五年二月日/

The inscription is top picture 昭和十四年九月吉日 Shōwa jyūyonnen kugatsu kichijitu (a lucky day in September, 1939). The first character is unreadable, but we can infer it from the context. bottom picture 越後住貞清 Echigo-jū Sadakiyo (Made by "Sadakiyo" of Echigo province). Here too, the first characters are almost illegible, but we can infer them from the name of the swordmaker. It's a sword made for Japan's imperial army.

Sorry for the necropost, I was looking at various Jakushi signatures for that other, recent post, and I came across this one. Not a lot of new info, just wanted to fill in the missing blanks. 長崎若芝作 Nagasaki Jakushi-saku 鐵雲龍鐔 Tetsu Unryū tsuba 鉄地丸形角耳 Tetsu-ji, maru gata, kado mimi 雲龍肉彫 Unryū nikubori 金布目象嵌 Kin nuno-me zōgan 銘若芝享保頃　Mei "Jakushi" Kyōhō-koro (1716-1736) 昭和三十七年七月川口陟識 July, 1962, Kawaguchi Noboru (shirusu)

When I saw the signature I first thought of Jakushi, but this isn't Jakushi. However, the second kanji looks amazingly like the sōsho version of Jaku (若). I can't read the first character. I'm wondering if anyone knows of a smith whose second syllable/character is jaku/waka? 囗若　（花押）

It says 贈相京大佐殿 大西上等兵 To Colonel Aikyō From Ōnishi PVC There actually was a Colonel Masao Aikyō in Borneo at the end of WW2.

Jean is right 1. 濃州関住服部正廣作 Nōshū Seki-jū Hattori Masahiro Saku. 2. 濃州住三品義明 Nōshū-jū Mishina Yoshiaki. David beat me to it. (And David is right also).

I think this smith is Ittōsai Masakiyo (一刀斎正清) whose real name was Kobayashi Kiyoharu (小林清晴). In Shōwa 17 he entered the Nihontō Tōshin Seiren-jo (日本刀東神精錬所). My guess is that he used the name Masaharu during this time, but later changed to Masakiyo. https://tokka.biz/sword/masakiyo.html

Deja Vu

光山　Kōzan (light mountain, not to be confused with Kinkōzan, who is another, unrelated maker) Maybe Meiji? https://gotheborg.com/marks/satsuma.shtml

And yet, we have papered examples of the Masahide mei from Bunsei 3. Anyway, I'm just interesting in seeing more of the year, and not very keen on going down into the rabbit hole of authentication. Not yet, anyway.

It looks very much like a typical shinto wakizashi to me. I don't think that hamon is strong evidence of it being an older sword, particularly when the shape and curve are both very suggestive of a shinto wakizashi.

I would like to see a full shot of the year. I'm guessing Bunsei 2 (文政二年), but I can't quite see the whole thing. This would put the date of the sword's manufacture at 1819.

If you are talking about the other side, the inscription is 伊豫松山住靖献造之 祈栄高田本家 Iyo Matsuyama-jū Yasutate tsukuru kore Kiei Takada Honke The translation of that is Made by Yasutate of Matsuyama in Iyo Province / With prayers for the prosperity of the Takada family The front side is just 靖献作 (Made by Yasutate) You can find some more information about Yasutate in Markus Sesko's Index of Swordsmiths.

The kanji was right, the reading was wrong. 献, and almost every other kanji in the lexicon of several tens of thousands of kanji, has multiple readings. Ken is the most natural reading for 献, but not the only one. Actually, I think many Japanese people may misread this one. This well-known dealer has misread it https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords4/NT328989.htm As has this one https://www.tsuruginoya.com/items/a00514.html

Yasutate real name: Gōda Toshiyuki