Hoshi

Hi, I am bothered by this blade and I am not too keen comment, but I will do it to honor Darcy's memory. A newcomer to this hobby will inevitably have his perception shaped by Aoi's offerings, which as one comes to learn, are arbitrage opportunities for blades that do not make it in Japan, with few exceptions. One must learn from great blades first and foremost, and such a sword is an experience that teaches the wrong things. Some context: I find it irresponsible of Shinsa to make a call to "Den Masamune" on such a sword. One could argue that they've hedged it with "Den" - and unfortunately this is a misrepresentation. All Masamune without Kinzogan or Kiwame by the best Hon'ami judges or featured as Meibutsu are "Den" with only very few calls diverging from this pattern historically. Some of the Masamune blades without "Den" are shakier than the ones with Den, and so forth. It is not a simple attribution, and calls for deep contextualization. Then inevitably comes the unorthodox positions that Masamune doesn't exist, that he's unneeded, that this is evidence that his work is not that great, and so on, and so forth. I don't want to go there, I find it silly. Then there is the absurd claim by Aoi that "Choshiki was one of the most respected judges..." - Darcy used to say that an attribution by Choshiki means anything but. Since Tanobe sensei's departure from the Shinsa panel, the NBHTK is more swayed by Choshiki judgements than in the past. If you are really deep into this field, you know that since 2022, it is a good time to target blades with Choshiki attributions for Shinsa. There is only one "Den Masamune" in the Juyo record with a Choshiki attribution, and the setsumei states that this is the work of Shizu. Now, when faced with such a TH blade, there is no context on the attribution, and this absence of context is damaging. This absence of context is why Den Yukimitsu, Den Norishige, or Den Shizu are much safer harbors at TH and have been traditionally preferred before going so far as to calling it Masamune. Back to the blade in question. It is tired and has been extensively repaired. This sword has suffered a tragic accident in the past: it was twisted. Someone repaired it, and by untwisting it created a plethora of shinae, or bend marks. These shinae appear as ware/fukure along the ji. Some of these ugly openings have been filled with umegane. Choshiki calls attention to this fact in his Sayagaki, which has conveniently been left untranslated. While it is true that the extensive jinie of the blade, and the angular chickei and inazuma are characteristics of Masamune, this is all there is to it. And before people bring up "Ogiba" and other arcane Hon'ami things, just don't bother, no, this is not relevant anymore since the mid-20th century and the great cleanup of inflated Edo attribution. The sword is missing Masamune's defining trait: the highest class of nie executed in a nie kuzure that leaves no visible nioiguchi demarcation line. Masamune's nie unfolds in layer to the light, with different nie sizes reflecting light at different angles, leading to a kaleidoscopic effect which can only truly be experienced in hand. Unaffected Yubashiri emerge from the interplay at the hamon, fading in and out of existence when swiveling the blade. The deposits of nie form clouds of diamond dust. The contrast between ji and the ha is the brightest amongst all the Soshu Joko. The hamon is formed out of overlapping clouds of nie. It's unlike anything else. What "Masamune" means We don't have a time machine. At the end of the day, "who made it" remains an open question. While we know that Masamune existed historically (it is proven by pre-edo sources), we can never be sure that a particular hand made a particular swords, especially when the corpus of blades contains such a paucity of signed examples. Are the best works of Yukimitsu, Norishige, and others, likely to be absorbed in the Masamune attribution? Certainly, but this is true elsewhere as well. Within the Masamune attribution group, there is indeed great variety. Some have a distinct Ko-Bizen flair, others are veritable storms of inazuma crossing in and out of the ji with violent angular formations, and the last group are masterworks of such virtuosity that they truly defy understanding and fit absolutely nowhere else in the Soshu corpus due to the quality of their nie. All these blades have in common nie kuzure, unaffected yubashiri, and the feeling that the nie diffuses out into the ji as china ink spreading on paper. Masamune is a snowstorm over the ocean painted in sumi-e ink. Blades that leave you wondering if a human could have made it. Swords that stand in pure defiance to the laws of metallurgy. Masamune means perfection of nie-deki. Best, Hoshi

Hello, I realize that my previous post may have been too theoretically-slanted. For the benefit of the broader readership, it's worth clearing things up. Claim: Prices are down on the items I found online. Your sample is not representative. On a representative industry price survey, DTI24 -> DTI25, top TJ prices are up ~+25%+, Juyo+ were mostly absent (TJ coming up 2026), Juyo- items are stable. Claim: Auction house all time high has not been exceeded since the Compton sales Auction house ATH has been broken (see Mikazuki Kanemitsu) 418'000$ -> 1'300'000$ (although, I caution that this is a perfectly meaningless measure) Claim: 50% of items went unsold, therefore the market is down because seller's reserve on a per-item basis has not been met What matters for the seller and auction house are the total sale proceeds, not the item clearance rate. Total sales proceed is driven by crown-jewel items (power-law distribution) and it has been a resounding success from this perspective. And finally, are you sure you want more transparency, liquidity, and participants? It would be relatively simple to "pump prices" in this field, as such a market is extremely sensitive to new whales joining. Do we want more speculation-minded deep pockets with no education? At your risk and perils. The center cannot hold. Be careful what you wish for. Hoshi

Hi Brett, I appreciate the effort you've put into this. Let me offer some insights. First, it's important to understand the structural difference of the markets you are comparing. Western collectible markets strive to minimize knowledge asymmetries and maximize price transparency, which in turns increases market activity, liquidity, and trust. You see this with numismatic, comics, Tolkien and Harry Potter, fine watches, Baseball cards, etc. These objects are commodities: aside from an objectively-gradable condition, they do not differ for a specific item type. A black lotus is a black lotus, minus the crooked corner. Furthermore, they are extensively catalogued, and their their rarity is a matter of common-knowledge for market participants. This legibility combined with immediate liquidity provides reassurance to buyers. When COVID hit, and enthusiasts in their 40's with disposable income are suddenly carried by nostalgia, the collectible market's inherent transparency gives an easy way to park money in confidence. In other words, collectibles are commodities, and commodities due to their transparency are friendly to new market participants. Nihonto, on the other hand, are not commodities, and they follow the opposite market structure. Knowledge asymmetry is sky high and price transparency is almost non-existent. The items themselves are not legible. You simply do not know what you get, and it is exceedingly difficult to situate it within the broader spectrum of rarity or desirability. This lack of transparency increases transaction costs and risks for new market participants. You can't go wrong buying a graded Black Lotus, but at a similar price point, you can be very, very wrong buying a Juyo mumei Rai Kunimitsu if you use Aoi's past prices alone as your guiding function. If you go into Nihonto with a comic book collecting mindset, you will commit costly mistakes. What does the Compton Collection have in common with the magnificent Kanemitsu tachi that sold for over 200 million yen? What would the top items sold during the legendary "Museum of Sword Fittings" auction sell for today? Now, we are talking about comparable. I will leave it to you as an intellectual exercise to disentangle the structural difference from the items you've been following that have cycled through other auction houses which form the foundation of your analysis on price decline. Add to this a cultural layer that differs from our own in terms of values (Japan vs the West) - as well as different tax policies that create their own class of structural incentives, and you will begin to understand that the foundational data you use to support your analysis only translates to a specific class of items. As others have wisely pointed out, the vast majority of Nihonto transactions that would matter for such an analysis simply go unrecorded, and are carried out between trusted parties in total secrecy. There, million $+ exchanges are not uncommon. The more precious and rare the item, the greater the shroud of secrecy. So, you are left with the tip of the iceberg, and doesn't translate to the vast mass hidden under the sea. Would greater transparency increase the Nihonto market's liquidity, prices, and reduce transaction costs? Absolutely. Are current market participants motivated to do so? Not at all, knowledge is jealously guarded in this field, because it is hard earned. If you know that an item is the best Tokubetsu Juyo piece from a given master, would you be keen on others knowing it? Only if you are on the sell-side. And how hard is it to obtain this knowledge? Well, it is remarkably difficult and requires building a library worth ten's of thousands of dollars of rare and out of print books, hours of study, translation work, and in-hand experience sampling across a wide range of comparable. You're looking at a decade of serious study. What does this information asymmetry mean in the end? It leads to a much slower rate of maturation in the market, the "bid/ask spread" is noisy, and adjusts slowly. From the lowest grade to the highest grade of Nihonto, the price differential is about 100x-500x, which is a complete anomaly when compared to other Art or collectible markets. There are ~2.5 million registered Nihonto with Torokusho, ~1'100 Tokubetsu Juyo, and ~110 Uber Tokuju. If you apply the price-to-rarity mapping of the collectibles or Art market, you will quickly realize that something is completely off. There are economic forces keeping it this way, enabled by the lack of transparency, which benefit, in fine, high-end buyers who spent decades in gathering knowledge, and reputable dealers who have nurtured their reputation and relationships over generations. Markets are markets, in the end, and even the most obfuscating of market practices cannot stop all top items from finding their price. The Kanemitsu really ruffled some feathers. Finally, let us pause for a moment and remember that we have 700 years of collecting praxis in this field. Unlike nostalgia items, which fade in and out of consciousness through a single generation, the Nihonto is a foundational cultural artifact that resonates deeply with the soul an entire civilization. For these reasons, I invite you to be optimistic. But also realistic. It is not an easy field. Best, Hoshi

Hi, Yes, I agree. Gimei or obscure unskilled smith tend to be discarded the same. This is understandable for Art, but it is unjust to history. I would always err on the side of preserving signatures when there is even the slightest doubt that it can be genuine. Here, there is some small degree of doubt. As others have mentioned, it may be some obscure Muromachi-era Kanemitsu. In which case, it is not an artful blade, but a utilitarian object. The flaws, the hastily forged hada, all point towards a sword made with an intention of expedite production. The sugata, however, points to an earlier, or much later era - and combined with the dry O-hada, the uncertain strokes of the signatures, the stroke tagane style which deviates from Muromacho-era Bizen, and its gross misalignment to the shinogi line, form cues that lead me down the path of a deceptive intent. But these are just cues, and the overall picture is murky. If it is genuine, then it is a historical artifact as it may one be one of the few pieces left by by forgotten smith, and this at the end of the day is interesting from a historical perspective. And there it is, a study piece. Good for learning, which in the end is the goal. Best, Hoshi

Hello, These are indeed lovely pics of a magnificent nie-deki. We are lucky to live in a time where high-grade digital cameras can take incredible pictures to immortalize experiences, even behind museum glass. There is a point in life where collecting is not feasible anymore. Inevitably, taste outgrow wallets - and if not - the supply wall inevitably hits. The reality is that after some time, as the mind habituates, one comes to realize that there are only very few swords that truly feel otherworldly, and possess this mysterious grace that makes you question if a human could have made it. This is why collecting experiences is the more sustainable path to growth, and through the skillful use of photography, to preserve them and share them with others is a noble pursuit. Best, Hoshi

Hello, Sorry to hear about your misadventures. It is indeed a "cursed" sword. The inscription is not genuine. Regarding age, difficult to tell. The hada has been acid etched and deviates completely from what you would expect from the Bizen Osafune school. It could be anything - Given the sugata and the hada, my guess is probably Shinshinto during the phase where they experimented with rather unseemly forms of O-hada, but it is not a high confidence call. Most likely, this is a shinshinto blade made to deceive, or later. You see these types of swords frequently, appearing without papers, on sites such as YJP. The gamblers that are fooled by of these swords on YJP, or elsewhere, often then seek out auction houses to flush away their mistakes to the next person. For "Big name" smiths, it's best to work with reputable dealers. Sometimes they'll appear on the NA market. You win a few, you lose a few, such is life. Good luck in your pursuits, Hoshi

Hi, A blessing for the forum would be to ruthlessly filter out the low-effort "I found this on EBAY is it good should I buy it?" These posts are polluting general and nihonto section. Some visitors just throw crap at the wall to see what sticks and abuse the kindness of people here. And these people don't contribute anything of value, not even a gold badge. I would in fact make a section called "identification" and limit posts to 1 sword per visitor, and after that it's a 200$/year. That will keep the noise the down.

Hello, A good question and a chance at learning. Remember that there is a component of intra-smith competition at Juyo, this means that in addition to appreciating the overall quality, one must assess the relative quality. That said, it is possible to design such an exercise without traps (e.g., not taking a chu-saku JINO or mumei shinshinto in koto style). Moreover, ideally, we would have more picture than this: unfortunately our eyes are prone to errors in appraising the nioiguchi from these photos, due to hadori, poor polish, or other visual artifact. It's a game of statistics and it relies on picking archetypes and not outliers for this exercise to be meaningful. All of this to say that the heuristics I'm about to produce only work if there are no traps: Hope this helps, Hoshi

Hi Kevin, Great question. There is a tradition of attribution that goes back to the 17th century where respected appraisers wrote the name of the maker in gold inlay on the tang of the blade (Kinzogan). Some of the shortening were performed by this group, called the Hon'ami, and as a result they had access to many more signatures than we do today. The attribution "Go Yoshihiro" has a number of canonical traits (e.g., Ichimai boshi, first class nie, shallow sori, habuchi that increases towards the kissaki...) that have been studied since the Momoyama period. There is, of course, a substantial degree of uncertainty with attributed blades. Attributions on mumei works are best understood as "this is the most likely maker given what we know today" - and even more conservatively as a way to state that a sword expresses certain traits and a certain level of quality that is in line with reputation of a certain master smith. In this sense, there is a tradition of attribution that has been honed over generation of competent judges, based on ancient literature and oral transmission. I would advise caution on mumei Soshu blades to big names that are without Ko-Kiwame (old appraisal by the reputable judges) or established provenance from Daimyo collection with a high-level record of gift-giving. Makers during the Shinto era, such as Nanki Shigekuni or Shinkai came very close to Go, and one should always examine the sword critically. Best, Hoshi

Hi, I can chime in. Swords from the Golden Age are indeed much more likely to pass Juyo/TJ. There can indeed be some back and forth between Enju and Awataguchi, but it is exceedingly rare. This has happened only twice on 220+ Juyo Enju blades. In this day and age, Awataguchi Yoshimasa is not a rational attribution, there is no extant tradition of attributing blades to this smith, and he is absent from the record. As such, the attribution needs to be taken into a allegorical Japanese context of someone marketing the blade is "almost as good as Awataguchi". The Kiwame that can shift the NBHTK's opinion are restricted to old judges (Hon'ami Kuchu, Kojo, up to Koyu to some degree), and of course Honma and Tanobe. The kitae of your sword, while beautiful and full of chickei, is not commensurate with Awataguchi. The policy on Juyo today has a very high bar, with pass rates of 7-8%, and everyone sending their best pieces. Ask yourself if this particular sword sits into the elite ranks of Enju. I cannot tell from the picture, but there are factors that help which you can ascertain for yourself: wide motohaba (2.9cm+), good size (70cm+). Factors that are harder to appreciate without experience is the Niku (e.g., try to feel if the yokote is slightly curvilinear), Bright and clear habuchi (for this you need to see maybe a hundred swords with textbook bright and clear habuchi to get a feel for it), and a healthy boshi (this is harder than it seems as polisher needlework can be difficult to differentiate from a genuine boshi). In the 70's it was much easier to pass Juyo, and your sword is probably superior to certain Juyo blades attributed to Enju during these liberal times. Take solace in this. Today the situation is different as Juyo is so much harder to achieve. My appraisal is that for an Enju blade to pass in this day and age, it would need to be in great health, and probably signed or sufficiently differentiated to be attributed to a specific master of the school - I would not go to through the trouble myself otherwise. There are of course freak occurrences and head-scratcher, but It doesn't make for rational bets. Today, the competition for the promising TH blades is very high, and they are unlikely to be acquired by westerners shopping online. In the rare occasions when these blades are presented online because a dealer needs cashflow and his retinue of preferred clients chatting on LINE are not taking the bait, they will be priced at 2/3+ of the way to Juyo and hence discarded as "too expensive for TH" compared to the ones at 1/3 the price with the same attribution from another dealer. The later has, of course, no chance of Juyo and above, and big problems. But to the collectors who have little to no exposure to great blades, the price-to-paper ratio is most often the deciding factor. The day one sends a batch of "good deal TH" to Juyo will be the day of a brutal reality check. Ignorance is bliss, in a way. At the end of the day, Juyo or not Juyo, the blade is the same. Remember that one can build a very sensible and enjoyable collection that tells an interesting story without a single Juyo blade. Hope this helps, Hoshi

Hello, While the primary function of Hon'ami valuation was indeed for gift-giving purposes, there are extant records of masterworks trading for large amounts. This also surprised me, as I used to believe that these valuations were symbolic. It is an interesting topic and does confirm that beyond land and estates, swords were the most highly valued objects of their time. This is, of course, the tip of the iceberg. We can assume that vast majority of transactions went unrecorded for obvious reasons. The table below compiles from reliable sources recorded transfers of properties. # Meibutsu (English) Type / smith Approx. date of transaction (Edo) Buyer / recipient Seller / previous holder Nature of transaction Stated price Brief note on the deal Primary Japanese online source 1 Shinmi Rai Kunimitsu (新身来国光) Tantō, Rai Kunimitsu Mid-17th c. (Aizu Hoshina Masayuki’s time) Aizu lord Hoshina Masayuki (Hosokawa Masayuki / 保科正之) Unspecified (sword already famous) Purchase, later献上 to shogun 3,000 kan (purchase); later 200 mai as shogunal valuation Aizu lord buys the oversized Rai Kunimitsu tantō for 3,000 kan (“三千貫にて…お求め”) and later presents it to the Tokugawa shogun; the shogunal house then attaches a 200-mai valuation. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「新身来国光」 2 Ikeda Masamune (池田正宗) – purchase 1 Katana, Masamune attribution Late Momoyama / very early Edo (Toyotomi–early Tokugawa) Date Masamune (伊達政宗) Earlier, unspecified owner Purchase 1,000 kan Meibutsuchō excerpt: “伊達政宗卿千貫にて御求め” – Date Masamune buys the blade outright for 1,000 kan. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「池田正宗」 3 Ikeda Masamune – purchase 2 Same sword Same generation as above Ikeda Bitchū-no-kami (池田備中守輝政) Date Masamune Purchase (re-sale) Implied 1,000 kan (“同代にて御払ひ…御求め”) The text records that Date disposes of the sword in the same generation and Ikeda Bitchū-no-kami “御求め” (buys it), at what is clearly understood as the same 1,000-kan level. meitou.info 同上 4 Ikeda Masamune – shogunal acquisition Same sword Early Edo (2nd shōgun Hidetada) Tokugawa Hidetada, later Owari Tokugawa Ikeda Bitchū-no-kami Confiscation / purchase with price noted, then gift to Owari 1,000 kan “秀忠公また千貫に召上られ尾張殿拝領” – Hidetada “summons up” the sword at 1,000 kan and then grants it to the Owari house. Financially a shogunal buy-back followed by a gift. meitou.info+1 同上 5 Asai Ichimonji (浅井一文字) Tachi, Fukuoka/Ko-Ichimonji school c. late 17th–early 18th c. (after princess Matsu’s marriage, Hōei era) Matsudaira Mino-no-kami (Yanagisawa family) “Saishō-dono” (Maeda / courtier acting as sender from Kaga house) Paid transfer (“被遣”) 1,000 kan for that transfer (later 1,500 kan valuation in Yanagisawa hands) Meibutsuchō text: after Matsuhime’s marriage, “right blade was sent to Matsudaira Mino-no-kami at 1,000 kan” (“右刀千貫にて松平美濃守殿へ宰相殿より被遣”). Later in Yanagisawa ownership it rises to 1,500 kan. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「浅井一文字」 6 Kanze Masamune (観世正宗) – Ietsuna confiscation Wakizashi, Masamune attribution Kanbun era – Kansei 3–4 (1663–64) and later Shōgun Tokugawa Ietsuna (as acquirer) Echigo lord Sakai Mitsunaga line, via Honda Nakatsukasa-no-kami Forced re-acquisition with compensation 400 koban (“黄金四百枚拝領”) Long transmission note records multiple re-valuations (1,000, then 3,000 kan etc.). Eventually, in Kanbun/Kan’ei years, the shogunate seizes it back and the holder receives 400 koban in gold as compensation – a de facto compulsory purchase. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「観世正宗」 7 Nara-ya Sadamune (奈良屋貞宗) – merchant sale Tantō, Sadamune Bunroku era (1592–96, Toyotomi rule; technically very early Edo contextually) Toyotomi Hidenaga (“Kōmon Hidetoshi-kyō”) Merchant Naraya Sōetsu of Sakai (堺・奈良屋宗悦) Purchase, then献上 to Hideyoshi 500 kan Meibutsuchō citation: Sakai merchant Naraya owns the blade; in the Bunroku years “右貞宗を五百貫に黄門秀俊卿求め秀吉公へ上る” – Hidenaga buys it for 500 kan, then presents it to Hideyoshi; it later passes Hideyori → Hidetada → Owari, with documentary evidence of the original price still attached in Keian 3. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「奈良屋貞宗」 8 Togawa Shizu (戸川志津) – Maeda purchase Tantō, Shizu (志津兼氏) Early Edo (Keichō–Kan’ei; Maeda Toshinaga’s time) Maeda Toshinaga (利長卿) of Kaga Togawa Higo-no-kami (戸川肥後守) Purchase “Gold 130 coins or 1,000 ryō” (two alternative figures) The entry explains that Togawa Higo-no-kami once owned the piece; Maeda Toshinaga later “求む” (buys it) at “黄金百三十枚歟小判千両歟両様の中にて” – either 130 gold pieces or ca. 1,000 ryō. It is subsequently presented to Hidetada and re-valued at 100 mai, then moves via Kii Tokugawa and back to Owari. meitou.info+1 名刀幻想辞典「戸川志津」 9 Sayo Samonji (Sayo no Sayo-monji) (小夜左文字) – famine sale Tantō, Samonji (左文字) Kan’ei 4 (1627), Kokura famine Unspecified external purchasers (via intermediaries such as Doi Toshikatsu, according to later traditions) Hosokawa Tadatoshi (忠利), 2nd Kokura / later Kumamoto lord Emergency sale to raise famine relief funds Price not explicitly recorded in Meitou Gensō Jiten The meitou article notes that in Kan’ei 4, during the great famine in Kokura, Hosokawa Tadatoshi, to relieve his starving subjects, sold off the celebrated tantō “Sayo Samonji” together with the daimyō-grade tea caddy “Ariake / Ankokuji Katatsuki”. This is one of the clearest cases of a great meibutsu sword being liquidated in early Edo. meitou.info+1 名刀幻想辞典「小夜左文字」 10 Sayo Samonji – Yamauchi acquisition Same sword Late Azuchi–Momoyama / very early Edo Yamauchi Kazutoyo, lord of Kakegawa A local polisher (togishi) who had received/kept the blade Purchase (“買い上げて所有”) Price not given Before the Edo-period daimyō circulation, the same article relates that Yamauchi Kazutoyo bought the tantō from the sword-polisher in Kakegawa who had used it in the famous revenge episode; this is described explicitly as “研師から山内一豊が買い上げて所有”. meitou.info 同上 11 Ikoma Samonji (生駒左文字) – exchange & resale Katana, Samonji attribution Mid-17th c. (after transfer to Ogasawara) Honami house, then various daimyō Ogasawara clan finds it ill-omened Exchange (道具替え) and later resale (売買) No explicit price for the exchange; later 1,000 kan valuation in Honami origami The Ikoma Samonji is eventually considered unlucky; the Ogasawara family has Honami take it in exchange for another sword (“本阿弥家に渡し別の刀と交換した”), and the Honami house later sells it onward (“その後本阿弥家から他家に売買され”). This is a documented secondary-market transaction, even though the exact sum is not recorded. meitou.info 名刀幻想辞典「生駒左文字」 12 Kodama Masamune (小玉正宗) – transfer with prior purchase Tantō, Masamune attribution Early Edo (Keian era) Owari Tokugawa (Yoshinao), later Takasu-Matsudaira branch Naruse Hayato-no-shō family, earlier holder Gift / transfer “received from Naruse” with earlier 1,000-kan purchase on record 1,000 kan (折紙), earlier price 130 mai Entry gives “小玉正宗 無銘長八寸三分半 代千貫 尾張殿… 是ハ右兵衛督様御拝領 成瀬隼人正より請取”. The sword is in Owari hands with a 1,000-kan origami; it is explicitly said that Yoshinao received it from Naruse Hayato-no-shō. The earlier price of 130 mai is preserved in documents, making this a well-documented transfer, though the act from Naruse to Yoshinao is framed as “拝領” rather than a straight commercial sale. meitou.info+1 名刀幻想辞典「小玉正宗」

Hi Robert, That's an interesting source. Funny that he collected so many Tsuba. I think that these were still "off the peg" swords in a sense, though. On the high-end, there are recorded transactions in the thousands of Kan (string of copper coins) and hundreds of Mai (Oban). There are also battles triggered over swords (one famous Kanemitsu comes to mind) and orders of gift giving by the Shogun rejected with stern words such as "I would rather surrender a province than part with this blade" (the blade was, as a result, named after the province). These are fascinating recorded events that demonstrate that at the Daimyo-level and above, there was a fierce competition for high-class masterpieces. Below, a Hon'ami Koyu origami for a blade attributed to Masamune with a value of 500 Mai, this is equivalent to 82.5 kg of pure gold (~165 gr per Oban), worth ~7-11M$ today depending on debasement. Best, Hoshi

Hi, I can chime in. Prices for Tokuju swords climbed by ~25% compared to 2023, beating the depreciation of the yen against the USD/EUR. 30M, 35M, 38M, 60M, 60M, 35M, with one mumei Aoe outlier at 25M (up from 20M in 2023) The most expensive sword of the show was Jubi zaimei Kuniyuki tachi listed at 150M yen. Entry market and low Juyo felt stable in yen terms, so lower in USD/EUR terms. High potential Juyo were absent, due to the approaching Tokuju Shinsa and the dealers preferring to defer cashflow for a chance at increasing value. A mysterious influx of Nobuie tsuba, I counted seven - some have counted more. The Nobuie market enters oversupply and prices are expected to drop as a result. Overall, a combination of factor have deterred sellers from placing high-value pieces on the market, contributing to high prices. It's getting harder for collectors on the buy-side. Best, Hoshi

Hi, I'm soft-closing this inquiry. I think it's a fun quest best handled in person, where I can carefully appraise low-quality in-hand. I believe that when a sword is so bad that it defies understanding - it becomes good again. A bit like Turkish Star Wars, or other such movies for the hall of fame of bad. You can still PM me your contender but please be a little more selective. Good polish, Shirasaya, and so awful that it's special. Best, Cheers

Hi, I can help. The Mikazuki Kanemitsu sold for over 1.5M$, with the final amount unknown. It was purchased by the wonderful Nagoya Museum "Token World". Not bad, given that it was found in a restaurant in Florida as a wall-hanger. In general, swords of this calibre do not make it to the open market. In the private market, however, such transactions (and above) are not uncommon. Best, Hoshi