SteveM

Yes, you got it: 若芝 (Jakushi)

Can't get anything except the obvious ones... 囗戸大人 囗囗 Slim pickings. I don't even know if the first line is a name or a theme. (If its a name, its an unusual name.　漆戸大人?)

Part of the mei might read 八幡宮 (Hachimangū). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hachiman_shrine

1. Gomabashi　＝護摩箸 Bōhi = 棒樋 2. 中心　壱　　＝After nakago is the alternative kanji for the number "1". I'm sure this refers to the number of mekugi-ana on the sword. 3. 彫刻 ＝chōkoku (engraving, carving) 4. 明応頃 = Meiō-koro

Same story. 友光 Tomomitsu

Deja vu?

Should be OK...It isn't the first time an item has appeared on multiple auction sites, as you noted. Nice piece, by the way. Good luck with it.

出羽守法橋源光平 Dewa-no-kami Hokkyō Minamoto Mitsuhira Dewa Province was a province in the far north of the main island of Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewa_Province "Kami", as Jean says, is an honorary title granted to some swordsmiths. It usually translates into English as "Governor" or "Lord", but its really just an honorific. The title comes from far back in Japan's history, when it was actually applied to generals and warlords and administrative officials. By the time this sword was made, it had lost any administrative meaning. Hokkyō is a kind of rank given to people who are studying buddhism. It means the swordsmith was an aspiring buddhist priest. Minamoto is a historical clan name. A name associated with a long, distinguished heritage. Whether or not this smith was actually related to the Minamoto clan is probably unknowable at this point. A lot of people, even powerful Daimyo, claimed to be related to the Minamoto clan so they could add some respectability to their own origin story, even if the evidence for such a connection was very thin. So, "Lord of Dewa Province, Hokkyō Minamoto Mitsuhira".

Now available in Japan (apparently) from Yahoo Auctions https://page.auctions.yahoo.co.jp/jp/auction/b489701022 Anyway, I would think the correct reading is Tomoyoshi, art name of Shōgetsu-dō

I think its probably 友光 Tomomitsu

Two-piece habaki are common. Don't worry about a habaki moving 1mm in a shirasaya as long the sword is stable.

Hmm. Not much to go on. I can't find the "hana" in that tsuba. I'm not quite sure about the Suruga attribution either. May be that the box is for a different tsuba, but there are people more qualified than I am to make this call.

無銘 因州駿河 花文透鐔 Mumei Inshū Suruga Hanamon sukashi tsuba I'm not confident about mon (文) 丸形鉄地?? 耳透無銘 因州駿河 昭和壬子年師走 寒山誌（花押） Marugata tetsu-ji ?? (nawa-zu?) Mimi sukashi mumei Inshū Suruga Showa mizunoene (1972) nen, shiwasu (December) Kanzan shirusu + kaō I can't get the last two on the first line (far right of the inside of the box). Usually this would describe the design. If you could show the tsuba it might fall into place. I'm not confident about mimi-sukashi either. "Mimi kaeshi" 耳返し would make sense, but this seems clearly to be 耳透かし (mimi sukashi), which is a term I've never heard of. This too might be clarified if we saw the tsuba itself.

Zuihō tsukuru 瑞峯造 I think you are right about the date. See also

Horimono could have been a later addition. Could have been contemporary. I don't think it makes an enormous difference either way. I don't think its a 20th century addition, if that is what you are wondering. Its losing some definition in the scales, which usually means its been through a few polishings, something that is corroborated by the shallow bo-hi on the other side. I'd be cautious about trying to make a judgment on the authenticity by comparing signatures over the internet. Much better to look at the sword itself and see if it has the characteristics of a Kunimichi, but this is quite hard for casual sword enthusiasts to do. Also, your friend's sword is in need of a polish, which would (hopefully) show off the activities in the hamon, and would thus help identifying it. So, it is the classical dilemma of trying to decide whether it is worth investing a couple thousand into polishing a sword that may turn out to be worth much less than the cost of the polish.

Good one... Yes I agree, Kunitsugu rather than Kanetoshi.

濃州関住村山兼俊 Nōshū Seki-jū Murayama Kanetoshi

Right side: 元里亭 Ganri-tei Left side: 宗隆（花押） Munetaka (kaō) I'm away from my books, so I can't verify the readings, but they seem pretty straightforward. Right side is the artists "art name" as you may know. Left side is the artists name.

Price for an authenticated Muramasa... probably north of $30,000 nowadays.

Written at the top 近江八景図鐔 おうみはっけいのずつば Tsuba showing the Eight Views of Ōmi Under this are written the names of the places where you can see the Eight Views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Views_of_Ōmi

I agree with John; well done. A few corrections and hints. 1. Take a look at where you've written "gomabashi", and the kanji to which you are pointing. There is a mistake there, and it may give you a clue as to one of your question marks. 2. I think the part after "Nakago" is referring to the number of mekugi-ana. It may be a typo in the original, or it may just be an abbreviationn that is well understood by sword afficionados. (Again, this may also give a hint at one of the question marks). 3. "Horimono" isn't the correct reading of this compound word. 4. "Nengo" is incorrect. Other than these minor errors, it looks good.

The caption just says Yoshimune surrounded by his students/apprentices. (Yoshimune would indeed be the person who is seated).

Or 為岡氏鍛之 Made for Mr. Oka

As John says, Inshū Nagakuni 因州長國　(using a variant of 州 on the paper). https://glyphwiki.org/wiki/u5dde Pricing is dicey because we can't see much from these photos. Having older papers may also turn away some prospective buyers. Also, I don't know anything about Nagakuni from Inshū.

Don't forget the "Den" in front of Kashū Kiyomitsu (in parenthesis) 伝（加州清光） It's hard to say for sure what the shinsa team was trying to say, but my guess is that the sword came with some provenance pointing to Kashū Kiyomitsu, and the shinsa team agreed that it could plausibly be Kashū Kiyomitsu, but that there were also other qualities in the sword that perhaps pointed away from Kashū Kiyomitsu. So the Den (Kashū Kiyomitsu) attribution seems to say, "we note the provenance of the sword, and we don't necessarily disagree, but we can't quite sign up unanimously to that judgment". Worth reading the following: https://blog.yuhindo.com/den/