Jussi Ekholm

I am bit ashmed that I haven't participated in the online kantei yet (nor sending the card either for a long time)... However I got the TB magazine on friday and got my guess in on saturday. Like Ted said above in the spring this online form is a nice modern step by NBTHK.

I would look towards Chōunsai Toshimune as you have gone for

Darcy has this posted at Yuhindo blog (and has the info on Jūyō+ items you seek) some time ago, gives you clue about how rare really old swords are even at top level. https://blog.yuhindo.com/visualization/ In my own research I have so far encountered around 420 swords from Heian period (although some might be difficult to pinpoint if they are late Heian/early Kamakura, and I might be wrong in some of them). However mine is still a work in progress and still missing lot of the Jūyō but in turn have lot of swords outside NBTHK evaluations. Also would be helpful to know who/what is the maker or attribution on your sword. Then giving some more detailed info about that specific school etc. would be possible.

長村兼清作

Looks high quality and very interesting item. I do not focus on items of this period but I do know Korekazu and he is highly appreciated smith in general. Like Jacques I don't in general like discussing price all that much as the items are worth different amounts to various people. I can put in links to few Korekazu blades currently listed for sale in Japan so you can look them as a reference. http://hyozaemon.jp/product/korekazu/ https://www.seiyudo.com/ka-070420.htm

I believe the signature is 兼俊作 and the swordsmith Kanetoshi. I am not well versed in later smiths but Seskos Index lists two Shōwa period smiths. Based on the few signature examples I found from Japanese dealer sites I would lean more towards Murayama Kanetoshi. Reference example: http://www.giheiya.com/shouhin_list/japanese_sword/iaiyoushinken/01-1430.html

Naminohira is not generally too highly regarded school in Japan. While they do have few historically very remarkable swords their work is in general maybe quite basic/practical. Therefore the Naminohira attribution kind of lacks "prestige" in my view. Now the following might be wrong view but personally I think many basic/practical swords will get low prestige attributions by NBTHK as the workmanship is not easily defined and is maybe not of high quality. In general I think the lower prestige schools like Naminohira are quite reasonably priced, as they have lower desirability by majority of collectors. However there are some good mumei tachi with Ko-Naminohira attributions that are bit more expensive.

Unfortunately I cannot see the tsuba signature very well but my best guess from that picture might be Kiyohisa - 清久

It is a statistical outlier and I was surprised when I saw it first time. I have been following Naminohira swords (pre-Edo). In general old Naminohira swords tend to have relatively large curvature on average. For 14 signed old Naminohira Tachi I have tracked down they average the following Nagasa: 73,6 cm (some of them are suriage) - Sori: 2,6 cm - Motohaba: 2,9 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For 14 Mumei tachi with Ko-Naminohira attribution they average Nagasa: 76,8 cm (some of the are slight suriage) - Sori: 2,4 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For 11 Mumei katana with Ko-Naminohira attribution they average Nagasa: 68,7 cm (all suriage) - Sori: 2,0 cm - Motohaba: 2,7 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For the 4 Mumei tachi with Naminohira attribution (most likely made after Nanbokuchō) they average Nagasa: 78,1 cm (all ubu) - Sori: 3,2 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,7 cm For the 19 Mumei katana with Naminohira attribution (most likely made after Nanbokuchō) they average Nagasa: 71,6 cm (most suriage) - Sori: 2,2 cm - Motohaba: 3,0 cm - Sakihaba: 1,9 cm Of course this is not in any means definitive analysis but based on available examples that I have for data it is easy to see that in general pre-Edo period Naminohira swords are quite long and with strong curvature and average width. For comparison I do have a mumei tachi attributed to Naminohira and Early Muromachi period, it is 77,2 cm with 3,7 cm curvature. Quite the opposite in shape to this example in the opening.

Can you post some measurements of it lenght & nakago length and full sized picture of blade & nakago. I can write better reply next week when I am back home and have all my sources at home. I do think calling Shintō period naginata in general as "womens weapons" might be just association that is not totally accurate. Also while Knutsen has lots and lots of good information on his book, some like the above posted diagram on proportions are bit skewed. I do understand that he used examples of his own collection for it but in general it does not show early naginata like they should be featured.

I think you got a good blade there Brano, I like that one too. It has nice wide shape. And seemed to be good package in overall. Here is a bit more to continue: 大磨上無銘也雄勁ナル延文貞治 - ō-suriage mumei XXX Enbun Jōji Unfortunately I am limited to phone now and long sayagaki like this surpass my current abilities.

I am among the artistically challenged folks, haven't even tried doing oshigata for a long while now. Should definately do some in future again. I did this 7 years ago of Shimada Sukemune tanto I used to own back then. Horimono on that blade is quite worn and my skills are lacking in bringing justice to the sword, some things are definately wrong in that oshigata too but it is what it is...

I believe it was made by Ikkansai Shigetoshi - 一貫斎繁寿 It is tiny tanto dated to 1905 and stating he was 68 when he made it - 明治三十八年二月日六十八翁作 , and I believe seller describes it never being polished. He also hints it might be among the last blades produced by the smith (if I understood that part correctly). I checked the smith died January 25th 1906 at the age of 69.

It is very cool item. It is late Muromachi though, Aoi has had lots of mistakes in the few of their English item descriptions that I have looked lately.

Here is a fuchi & kashira made by him. I have at least 3 other F&K by him in books. As I am not a fittings guy I am surprised he is so highly rated as his work seem quite scarce at top level, maybe they are really rare? When going through books I thought he was just a good maker but I didn't think him in same league as makers you mentioned in OP. Of course I have never seen his work in real life so cannot say much.