Jussi Ekholm

I can recommend taking Japanese lessons at the cultural center. I hope you will enjoy it. However it will not give much assistance to certificate/sword translating etc. this is such specialized field that your normal every day Japanese language studies do not often help quickly. But thumbs up for language study

As others above I would not think this to be Magoroku work but I would think it could be some late Muromachi to early Edo period Kanemoto.

吉政 - Yoshimasa

I am not too well versed in the pricing of top quality items as they are highly specialized field but I would believe that genuine signed tachi by Osafune Nagamitsu might start around 70,000$'s? I don't think I have seen one listed under that. Of course the high quality Nagamitsu are in totally different ballpark.

Now I am not sure if my assumption is correct but I thought for those cutting tests on Koyama Munetsugu swords NBTHK did not add Kiritsuke-mei in brackets, so I assumed they were originally signed like that. Just noticed my error as I had by mistake added the 2 Kiyomaro swords in Jūyō 25 in wrong order. The one with cutting test was made in 1854 and not 1849, sorry for my mistake. So the correct line would be - Katana – Kiyomaro (1854) - 源清麿 / 嘉永七年正月日 [Kiritsuke 切手山田源蔵 / 安政三年十月廿三日於千住太々土壇払, I will attach the picture of it. Unfortunately I don't have the knowledge to judge cutting tests so I would see what NBTHK states in the Tokubetsu Hozon paper and if they have (Kiritsuke) in regards the cutting test. I think Markus Sesko has probably done the most research about Yamada family in the West and he would know the best what documentation has survived to this day.

Ian

Here is some info that I have and Yamada tester info is from Markus Seskos Tameshigiri book. Yamada Gosaburō was Yamada Yoshitoshi, and apparently he used Gosaburō early in his life. He was born 1813. You can find more info about him from the book. Yamada family promoted the smith Koyama Munetsugu and all custom made blades by Koyama Munetsugu were sold via Yamada family. Now how this connects to Gosaburō, I was able to find 4 cutting tests by Gosaburō from Jūyō items. All of these 4 were on Koyama Munetsugu blades, and (I believe) made at the same time or very close when the sword was made. I looked at Kiyomaro (45) and Masayuki (25) swords that have made Jūyō and out of those 70 I found only 1 with cutting test. That is a kiritsuke-mei (later addon). It is on Kiyomaro katana made in 1848, and the cutting test is by Yamada Genzō and performed in 1856. Genzō was born in 1839. From Jūyō 25 - Katana – Kiyomaro (1849) - 源清麿 / 嘉永二年二月日 [Kiritsuke 切手山田源蔵 / 安政三年十月廿三日於千住太々土壇払] Unfortunately I don't have any books specifically on Kiyomaro as I don't focus on swords of this period. There can be other cutting tests on Kiyomaro blades that are not Jūyō. I do believe if NBTHK would be uncertain about kiritsuke-mei they will put addon kiritsuke-mei ga aru for it (kinda meaning there is signature XX).

Here are few Jūyō Naotane with pretty wild hamon.

This has been interesting thread. I was under the impression like Jacques that there would not be Shinano no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi mei, as previously I have only seen Echizen no Kami Rai Nobuyoshi. So I thought that Shinano no Kami Nobuyoshi did not use Rai in their signatures. However now there are at least 3 verified mei by NBTHK. I was looking at the example at Tōken Sakata and I believe their description points it to 2nd generation, and there is also mention that he first signed with Fujiwara (藤原) and later with Minamoto (源).

I would think like Kirill above that most likely it would be some unknown Muromachi period Yoshikuni, or gimei signature that was added a long time ago. As you are in Georgia (I assume in the US Georgia?), you have NTHK shinsa at some US shows. So you might want to wait for a chance to put it through NTHK shinsa in the US. Unfortunately economically I would not see sending this to Japan for shinsa as cost efficient option. Then again should we always do everything from monetary view? Personally I would run this through NTHK just for fun too to get their opinion, and also if you have local sword clubs, organizations etc. I would also ask opinions from their members. For reference here is how Yoshikuni looks in Onizuka Yoshikuni signatures. Unfortunately I don't have reference examples of the lesser known late Muromachi Yoshikuni smiths.

Here is quick translation of the picture. I should have have all the smiths correctly but there might be some errors on the romanization of lamination styles. 高橋俊光 - Takahashi Toshimitsu / 三善長道 - Miyoshi Nagamichi / 秋広 - Akihiro / 折り返し三枚 – Orikaeshi Sanmai / 八枚合わせ - Hachimai Awase / 三枚合わせ – Sanmai Awase / 割り鋼 – Wari ? (I believe this is Wariha tetsu) / 無垢 (丸鍛之) – Muku (Maru kitae) 肥前忠吉 – Hizen Tadayoshi / 備前祐永 – Bizen Sukenaga / 信国 – Nobukuni / 四方詰め – Shihozume / 九枚合わせ – Kyūmai Awase / 五枚合わせ – Gomai Awase / まくり – Makuri 金剛兵衛盛高 – Kongōbyoe Moritaka / 備前景光 – Bizen Kagemitsu / 備前春光 – Bizen Harumitsu / 関兼先 – Seki Kanesaki / 本三枚 – Honsanmai / 七枚合わせ – Nanamai Awase / 甲伏せ (かぶせ) - Kōbuse

This is just for fun, not intended to be too educational although it might end up to be, depending on the answers that hopefully follow. Aoi Art has very recently listed 2 blades that are attributed to Sa Yoshisada (2nd one came up today), I just thought to put them up side by side and see which one forum members will like better. I immidiately knew my personal choice but I won't post it here in the first post. I'll post it in few days. Would be nice to hear the reasons why someone would choose one over the other. Both are priced at quite similar level, both are Jūyō items (65 & 15). Left: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeiunsigned-attributed-as-sa-yoshisada/ Right: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-den-sa-yoshisada/

I think it would be 武州下原住盛(重) - Bushū Shitahara jū Mori(shige). The last kanji is partial but I have seen top of few Shitahara smiths shige kanji look like this.

About the Unshō 雲生 ken. I have about 30+ mei of Unshō in my sources and unfortunately this is slightly different to the verified examples, would still run it through the experts rather than just my look on it. I cannot see & read the other side of the signature from the picture. So far I have not encountered a ken by this school (Ukai).

Han Bing Siong was an amazing scholar, I would have liked very much to meet him. His article might be the first time I ever see mentions of Shintō and Shinshintō Hoshō. I tend to think Kunikane and Norikatsu individual smiths rather than part of the Hoshō lineage. Of course workmanship for both shares characteristics commonly associated with Hoshō school work. There are different ways to "group" up smiths and schools under larger categories. Gokaden is one of them. I will add a quote about gokaden from Nihon Kotō-shi by Honma Junji Personally I like to go with regional groupings. To me it just seems most logical approach going by geography, although when for example smith changes residence it can make things difficult. For Kotō swords there is kinda logical approach in going through the provinces in a certain way, you can see this for example in NBTHK Jūyō results (similar approach applies to later items as well). Now if you take Yamato from Gokaden as an example. Generally there are the five main lines of Yamato that worked within the province, Senju'in, Taima, Tegai, Shikkake and Hoshō. However there are many schools that are heavily influenced by this tradition. For example in his Gokaden no Tabi Yamato book Tanobe-sensei includes Uda (宇多) [Etchū province], Naminohira (波平) [Satsuma province], Fujishima (藤島) & Asago-Taima (浅古当麻) [Echizen and Kaga provinces], Mihara (三原) [Bingo province] and Niō (二王) [Suō province]. Now for example as I go with regions I would approach these by the province and would group them by those but someone going with traditions/work style might group them together like this. I just listed the provinces in [] brackets as these schools worked in various parts of Japan. I think it is quite interesting subject as people will have different types of approach into things. So it is fun to see various views on things.