Jacques

Hi http://www.nihontokanjipages.com/meiboku/index.htm

Hi, shan please read correctly I said : And some posts further I say this blade can be a Kamakura one and needs to be seen by an expert, that's all.

Hi, Five samples of mei, all different. As i'm far from an expert, on this one i will shut up. Sugata of a shoshin Kuniyoshi (nagasa 72,6cm):

Hi, Yes, it seems gimei.

Hi, Quote Fujishiro, He is the son of Awataguchi Norikuni, the father of Norimitsu, and was called Sahyôenojô. Viewed from the fact that there is a work of his with "KÔAN SHICHINEN JÛNIGATSU JÛROKU HI" in the nengo, it can be confirmed that he was a smith of around this period. However, it is thought that his works extend beyond Kôan, and that he was a contemporary of Rai Kunitoshi. His works include tachi, and there are also many tantô. Hamon is sugu ashi iri, and there are also some with nijûba. Koza places him around Kencho (1249/1256). Some samples of his mei:

Hi, I think this blade merits some attention; maybe a shoshin Awataguchi Kuniyoshi? That would be "miraculous", but its sugata with a ko kissaki and funbari (for what i can see) lets me think it could be a kamakura one (not like yours possibly Heian/Kamakura Shan )

Hi, These signing in this way and with these ji are not so numerous

Hi, this blade is signed Kuniyoshi, Awataguchi Kuniyoshi worked in kamakura period (koan 1278) and was a very big name (saijo saku) if this signature is genuine you own a treasure. More pics (whole nakago and close-up of the blade) should be helpful.

Hi, The fiist straight tachi in kihira-zukuri were slightly uchi-zori (reverse). It's the only one that i know.

Hi, Kitae ware, not hagire

Hi, Kagemasa would have made 2 blades with such a difference of sugata strictly at the same date? I find this very odd. Below an oshigata of the blade of which you have shown the nakago.

Hi, Joe, I think the oshigata you link is a sandai one (or yondai). Nihon kaji sosho 日本鍜冶惣匠 is engraved with the ji 宗 (for so) and this one was used by the sandai and the yondai. The nidai used the ji 惣 (for the same so). the center of the kikumon seems different too. Ps i wonder which is really correct, this one 日本鍜冶惣匠, or this one 日本鍜冶宗匠? personally, i would lean to the second.

Hi, It is a Yoshimichi from Osaka branch, I'm not sure it is a shodai blade.

Hi, A little correct; it is dated Bunpo gannen Jugatsu hi 文保元年十月日 (a day in the 10th month of 1317). Nagasa, motohaba and motokasane should be helpful. Personally, i've a bad feeling with this blade. sugata does not match Kagemasa/mitsu's. Nakago seems a little too wide and without any sori. Boshi seems too pointed. The mei is slightly dislocated and, among others, i don't like the ji kage 景 But i'm not an expert

Hi, Darcy, it works fine for me (IE7) . :D

Hi, whow, i thought Bugyotsuji was this one

Hi, there are incoherences in the description of this blade. Seller says: The famous Kanenaga worked in Shoo (1288) and some lines further: It should be this one: (Fujishiro) He also says there is a nie utsuri on this blade; i have never heard nie utsuri can be seen on tegai swords.

Hi, i can't see anymore the pictures of this blade, but i dont' think that it's about the kanenaga (kamakura). there was another in Oei (1394) and not so talented, if my memory is good.

Hi, It is not the case. NTHK or NTHK NPO? that's the question

Hi, At this time (after haitorei), swordsmiths are scarce

Hi, 99$ for this blade is cheap. After checking the signature, i think it could be gimei but yasurime and nakagojiri match and Masakiyo seems to have not been rigorous with his mei engraving.

Hi, It is the Ichiyo Aoi (Single Hollyhock Leaf). the mei reads Mondo no sho Masakiyo 主水正正清. looks genuine at first sight.

Hi, Huumm... Polish are never good for umegane, they often fall during the polish process.

Hi, I bet on this one (parge2) viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3970&start=15

Hi, Sorry for my confusion, the story of Munetsugu/Masatsugu is a little complicated Quote Fujishiro shinto jiten: Nihonto koza(picture below):