Jussi Ekholm

With just seeing that one picture without any other info I would guess Hankei (繁慶) and Early Edo period. However as I am not that skilled in technical details it would be very hard for me to describe the features that are actually seen in the picture.

I would guess Tosa Yoshimitsu (吉光) would be the first direction that I would look into and later part of Muromachi smiths of the lineage. When you search you should be able to find several tiny reference tantō like the one you have.

Unfortunately I have stopped using Instagram so going through the photos there is impossible but I believe this should be the smith who made this sword. https://www.instagram.com/yoh.miyairi/

Unfortunately I cannot identify a masterpiece amongst very good quality swords. I understand my limitations and as Reinhard wrote out so well about Japanese taste and appreciation points, I cannot achieve that understanding. I am limited to my own quite biased appreciation of swords. Just looked out my sword diaries and it seems I have seen 21 National Treasures, and to me it puzzled me as I couldn't even faintly remember all of them. Out of them only 3 swords were items that I immidiately thought that I personally see as masterpieces in my personal taste. Of course I think all National Treasures are masterpieces it is just that I lack understanding and judgement to understand them fully. And many might think that of course they will the 3 ōdachi... well yes an no. I do think the mumei ōdachi attributed to Bungo Tomoyuki is extremely well made for such a huge sword but is it unique when compared to other historical ōdachi. So the 3 most remarkable National Treasures that I have personally seen so far are Tomomitsu ōdachi, Nagayoshi ōdachi and Tokuzenin Sadamune wakizashi. I was also thinking about Kosetsu Samonji tachi but when I spent a lot more time looking at Jūyō Bunkazai tachi by Kanemitsu in the same room, I don't think personally I would classify it as high as the other 3 on my personal list. Fukuyama Art Museum is a crazy place, they had lent 2 of their National Treasures to another museum when I visited but they still had 5 National Treasures on display in their sword room. Now the crazy thing is that I spent about 50% of my time looking at the wonderful Kanemitsu tachi that they have in their collection, to me it was much more interesting than any of their National Treasures. Another difficult thing is to judge the work among the other works of that particular smith. I saw the Daihannya Nagamitsu tachi at Tokyo National Museum this summer. It is a very good sword and definately a masterpiece but I personally cannot really judge it in comparison to other Nagamitsu tachi that I have seen. Same thing with Kanemitsu tachi that I was mentioning there above. Last summer I saw 3 Jūyō Bunkazai tachi, and in my personal appeal they were Fukuyama Art Museum item, Tokyo National Museum item, Mitsui Memorial Museum item. Even though as I said I lack understanding to differentiate items at this very high level but Mitsui Museum one might have been the best one in quality. However for me there is no comparision as the shape of Fukuyama Art Museum sword blew the other 2 JūBu Kanemitsu out of comparison for me. It is also fun to see swords many years after seeing them for the first time and see if perhaps the opinion has changed. Funny thing is that I am not a big fan of Awataguchi work in general (I think it takes much higher level to appreciate), however I still remember seeing the Nakigitsune in Tokyo National Museum many years ago. I don't even remember Masamune etc. that were in the same room, just the Kuniyoshi and Kagemitsu naginata that was in their naginata spot upstairs. For fun thing at the end we can take Yoshifusa (吉房) as the smith. I have found 41 tachi by him and 4 of those are National Treasures. I have seen 5 of his tachi and 2 of the National Treasures but there is no way I could really make a meaningful point about their relative quality amongst each other. Also human perception is a funny thing and at least for me I would optimally need to see the swords side by side, as I have found out that even seeing wonderful swords by the same smith in different location during the same day my memory already fails me. Also from someone with extremely heavy focus on books I can say the swords can look very different in real life at museums/shrines etc. I can even imagine how much more you could some cases see if you would have the opportunity to view the item in hand. Very valuable occasion would be to also look at the items with someone with very good eye. I was fortunate to visit few museums in Tokyo with a fellow member with very good eye for swords, I was so happy he could teach me parts where to specifically look and could offer so valuable insight I could not have gotten just viewing the swords alone. I really struggle with the high art aspect but threads like these are really valuable to learn and broaden the understanding.

Unfortunately metallurgical stuff is my weak point, I am pretty clueless about that. While some signed Hōju swords do feature more standing out pattern and bit rougher appearance they are still quite nice nice worksmanship, some really nice. Then you get these quite rough looking mumei ones that get the attribution. I do think the sword in OP has that "enhanced" look and would look much nicer in more toned down polish. I think the larger hada swirls etc.that can be common in Hōju work style look just so in your face in this current polish. I think it is sometimes difficult to say if the sword has been reworked naginata, shortened tachi/katana or and original shaped item. For me the two possibilities for this one are that this is reworked large shobu-zukuri naginata or an original form shobu-zukuri tachi. The sales description mentions original nakago, which to me might indictate that this would be more like large tachi blade rather than a naginata. I was doing some calculating from the picture and it seems the sword has roughly 30 cm nakago. I could easily seem that this would be fitted with something like 40-60 cm handle, making this tachi/ōdachi/nagamaki hybrid item. I spent quite long time trying to search such reference item from my books as the ōdachi and naginata are my thing. I'm trying to think items I've seen at shrines alongside books and I think perhaps closest fit would be short ōdachi from Itsukushima Jinja, unfortunately I have not yet seen this in person as it was not on display when I visited there. 92 cm blade with c. 26 cm nakago and it has c. 54 cm tsuka. Nakago and tsuka are my estimates from the picture as none of my books with this item have cm value for them. Mostly the ōdachi with 50cm+ tsuka also have 100cm+ blades. Generally naginata & nagamaki tend to have roughly similar sized blade and nakago lengths. And they are often fitted with 80 - 140 cm shafts/handles. There are some naginata with fairly short tangs. So it is somewhat gradual progression from ōdachi to nagamaki/naginata. I would think when it gets close to 50/50 ratio with blade and tsuka/shaft then it starts to be a naginata. Also the ōdachi tsuka in general tend to have varying amounts of curvature while nagamaki shafts/handles tend to be straight or almost straight. Here is interesting Hōju naginata (I was also wishing in 2018-19 I could have bought this). This was also polished when it appeared to another dealer several years later so we can look if we can see difference in some spots This one has blade length of 57,7 cm and 33,6 cm nakago, so nakago is quite a bit shorter bit similar sized to this OP sword but the blade is 20 cm shorter. https://web.archive.org/web/20190308105620/https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords3/WK327697.htm https://eirakudo.shop/token/wakizashi/detail/799101

As I try to keep track of high level Japanese swords just for my own enjoyment, it is also nice to see that sometimes high end items get donated to various museums and on few occasions also to shrines and other places. To me as a sword enjoyer that is something I adore, as in my travels in Japan I have been able to see several donated items in various museums. Maybe one day I might follow this route too. Of course I understand for sword collectors this might not be seen as wonderful thing as the item is pretty much permanently out of circulation once it lands to a museum.

I would dare to guess that your sword might have been shortened around 8 cm or so. As I believe it is currently bit under 50 cm in blade length it would by my guess originally been bit under 60 cm in length. Of course that is just my speculation but would fit well within the Ōei-Eikyō Bizen size range for borderline wakizashi/katana. With my skills making guesses about individual smiths would be pretty much impossible, as so many smiths worked in very similar style. Here is a Sanemitsu (実光) wakizashi that is 58 cm in length for reference.

I do think the timeline in Sagami province is bit complicated as there are some signed and dated items that are earlier than Shintōgo Kunimitsu work. However I would not maybe consider them as Sōshū tradition swords as the mainline tradition started after active period of these smiths. But personally I tend to go by provinces instead of traditions. There is 1271 dated tachi by Yukimitsu (行光) (not "the" Yukimitsu but an earlier smith) https://bunka.nii.ac.jp/heritages/detail/242413 Also a 1280 dated tachi by Mitsufusa (光房) https://bunkazai.pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp/bunkazai/detail.asp?mid=70066&pid=bl Unfortunately I have not seen either of these swords in real life.

It is right up my alley. NBTHK judged it as den Hōju and awarded Tokubetsu Hozon for it. I am personally a big fan of Hōju but it also tends to be an attribution bucket for items of "rougher" side like this one. Bit similar way how I think about Uda attribution is used. Some of the signed Hōju and Uda swords I have seen in museums feature quite nice workmanship, while some mumei work that gets attributed towards them is on rough side. Here are two similar very big naginata-naoshi attributed to Hōju as reference. I was actually hoping there would be a chance I could buy this one. Unfortunately not... this one is now in Funassyi collection and it was just on display at Osafune Sword Museum. Unfortunately they dont feature this sword at 2nd part of the exhibition that starts next week. https://web.archive.org/web/20220920221746/https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumeijudged-as-hojunbthk-tokubetsu-hozon-token/ https://www.city.setouchi.lg.jp/site/token/1315.html Here is a second one, these are not the most beautiful items in general but I like them. https://kako.nipponto.co.jp/swords2/KT218307.htm

I think Ray is correct, I would dare to guess the mei would read 談議所西蓮 - Dangisho Sairen, and in your picture the last 4 kanji are seen. So far I have only 3 tachi with Dangisho mei in my references, I know there might be few more but those are the surviving ones I have been able to find.

My opinion might not be popular one but I think often the bit rougher or plainer mumei blades just get an attribution thrown at them as they need to do it fast in shinsa session. I think Yamamura is an unfortunate attribution that for me personally feels that NBTHK sees the sword as lower quality in overall. I tend to think that even the school founder Masanobu is not seen as high quality smith, and very few signed works remain. One funny thing that supports the attribution bucket a bit is that I don't think I have ever seen a long sword with Yamamura attribution, they are always short swords. Good thing about Yamamura attributed blades is that you can touch late Nanbokuchō to early Muromachi blades for relatively low price. Sure they don't win any beauty contests but like this particular one we are only talking about 400,000 yen. As the prices have gone up a bit, it is getting harder to find anything decent and that old for affordable price. It is getting difficult finding anything interesting under 500,000 yen nowdays. I understand the appeal for these hira-zukuri blades of relatively long length, as I too am liking them.

I don't think Rayhan is saying anything that he couldn't reasonably explain where he stands for with good explanations. I wouldn't personally invest money on this sword. In my opinion the vast majority of Japanese swords can be polished, however it is another thing if it is economically reasonable at all to get them polished. Unfortunately I don't know the correct terminology for such horimono placement if there is a specific term. I do think I have seen it done few times, as if there is bo-hi present there is really no other space for carving. Unfortunately I have too many references and I cannot easily find them as I don't remember them well. Here is one historically important naginata-naoshi attributed as work of Yoshioka Ichimonji Sukemitsu, it is signed and dated. However I cannot personally stand the horimono... https://web.archive.org/web/20220112040404/https:/www.aoijapan.com/wakizashi-ichi-bishu-yoshioka-jyu-saecut-after-that/ I was actually thinking/dreaming about buying this one when it was 1,500,000 yen. It has passed through 4 dealers and was 3,500,000 yen at highest asking price I've seen, and latest one was the 2,200,000 yen it was listed at Aoi. It is historically super important item but for my personal collection I would rather have unimportant item that I personally love. Here is a Jūyō sword that I personally dislike because of the carving. It is a signed tachi by Bizen Nagamitsu and most likely a good sword but I cannot get myself to like the sword. https://web.archive.org/web/20230203101526/https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1979.html This one has also passed through at least 4 different dealers with fluctuation in price, latest one being 11,000,000 yen.

I think it is totally understandable that there are several different forums and closed groups floating around various places. In my ideal world there would be just 1 huge meeting place where everyone would get together and share info freely. Of course real life doesn't work like that... People are people and not everyone will get along, and there are probably studies on why certain groups will form etc. Just checked that my membership here at NMB is closing in 18 years, and to be honest this is one of my favorite places online and has been for a long time. I hope to be a member in here as long as the forum is up. I have met so many amazing people through this forum online and some I have even met in person in various places. I admit that I am too grown into the forum that I feel quite puzzled how people are not joining in for gold membership at such cheap overall price. For me it is about the community in here, maybe the difficult thing is getting the new folks feeling welcome in the community.

The dragon horimono style is called 珠追龍 - Tamaoi Ryū.

My best guess might be 法師 hōshi - priest.

I believe the end of mei is Buddist name Kōshin 法名光心

Here is the item, I believe the actual date is Shōwa 4 正和二二 judged with current research, the old book just has a small error on the date. Unfortunately cannot say anything with real substance about the signatures.

The blue one is Jūyō Bijutsuhin that is currently owned by Kurokawa Research Institute.

My guess would be 正和二 & 正和三 Shōwa 2 & 3 (1313 & 1314)

Some of the high quality Chinese made Japanese swords would fool me personally, if I wouldn't know the origin. I think they show high level workmanship and are of good quality. I haven't personally owned any Chinese made items of this quality but I have owned lot of low-mid level Chinese made stuff and some of them were actually quite nice, and extremely nice vs. the money invested in them. Here are two such examples. https://www.swordcn.com/Naginata-Wakizashi-（Cherry-blossoms-koshirae）by-Zsey-p290841.html https://www.swordcn.com/Muramasa-Wicked-Katana-Sword-Replica-by-Zsey-p290846.html

I believe with swords the name 通明 would more commonly be read as Michiaki. The three yari you linked seem to belong to Goryo jinja in Fukuchiyama city.

The discussion is good and there are several good views. There is nothing really wrong in suriage Shintō swords. However I think you must understand how much value you will put on the item. For some smiths you can find hundreds of signed blades and suriage blades are unfortunately not on top of the list. Then you need to weigh long swords, short swords, possible polearms etc. It is actually quite confusing for people starting out. I am fairly long time member of NBTHK but my interests in swords do not really align with the interests of the organization. I like stuff that they don't appreciate that much and for me it is ok. I know what I like and to me it feels good but I wouldn't recommend going so far out of the "norm" for anyone. I do think the traditional sword appreciation is bit hierachical you are supposed to like certain things because it is traditionally accepted. I think the "mainstream" collecting is safest and in general the best option. Also I feel that when the talking goes to Jūyō swords and what is acceptable and not, then it gets to actually bit advanced stuff and I think new collectors maybe shouldn't be too stressed about that stuff in the beginning. Jūyō stuff is actually very complicated in my opinion and I believe I am not the only one. Sometimes it is very puzzling. For example in the session with 3 Tomomitsu passes at Tokubetsu Jūyō, one of them was historical Masamune of Yasukuni jinja. Now NBTHK attributed the sword as Tomomitsu and it went through their whole system and finally at the top TJ. Last 2 years it was not on display at Yasukuni jinja because it was in the NBTHK process but I finally got to see it this summer. Yasukuni jinja displays it as Masamune as it has historically been, I feel they disregard NBTHK opinion on this. Now is it Masamune or Tomomitsu I cannot say but I feel in overall quality the sword is not super nice, however it has very large historical value.

I think one difficult thing with Aoe is that there are literally hundreds of NBTHK mumei Aoe attributions and the range is huge. Of the examples in this thread in my opinion number 5 is the best. It is Jūyō 21 session, and good quality sword. Unfortunately the shape and size is not what I would be after. For me number 3 would be second butI do not have enough info on that sword to say anything of importance. These might be only 2 I might look for but unfortunately I believe both carry a decent price tag which they deserve. It is rough to say but I would put 1,2,4,6 in the same bucket and they are not interesting to me personally. Yeah I know two of them are Jūyō swords but many Jūyō swords are uninspiring to me. However if would have to buy an item out of these I would mostly look into number 2 as it seems to be decent item for the price. Still I would rather put the same money into some other sword than this Aoe. You can see good quality image of Aoe 5 here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240113073202/https://www.aoijapan.com/img/sword/2023/23761-2.jpg

I think Rayhans advice that has been discussed is very good for high level sword collecting. Some wording he has used might be bit provocative and ticking people off. However the issue might be that there are different levels of collecting. To me it has seemed in recent threads that it is difficult for people of varying collecting levels see eye to eye. What is seen as a no go in high level collecting could be perfectly accessible sword in lower level of collecting. For a brain teaser people can think 15 Kongōbyōe swords vs. Mumei Tokubetsu Jūyō Rai Kunitoshi. I know high level collectors would pick the TJ Rai Kunitoshi and I would choose 15 Kongōbyōe, it is just a matter what you feel is correct to your personal collection. Life would be boring if everyone would just want to buy the same swords.

Unfortunately I am not aware of the actual price of the Kanenori ōdachi that landed at Nagoya Tōken World. It was at Christies auction few years ago with koshirae and Tokubetsu Hozon paper (which are not mentioned at Tōken World website and koshirae was not featured at display) https://www.christies.com/lot/lot-6417474?ldp_breadcrumb=back&intobjectid=6417474&from=salessummary&lid=1 It was not sold at the auction, so nobody was willing to probably go for 30-35,000$ for it at that time. I remember for a while I had a wild thought that I might try to buy it some day and try to make a lower offer on it... Actually now I might be happier to see that the sword landed at Nagoya than to me and historically it is nice too. The museum had very nice special exhibition of Inuyama swordsmiths, of course quality wise that was not in par with their special exhibition I saw in 2024 but there was actually amazing theme going for it. Maybe some day when visiting I will see the amazing Mikazuki Kanemitsu they acquired for huge amount of money, it will most likely be splendid sword but I might still like this basic ōdachi over it. So I might end up liking 30,000$ sword more than 1 million+ $ sword. Of course in traditional appreciation they are on totally different level and I understand that that particular Kanemitsu tachi is of much higher overall quality. However I saw many Kanemitsu tachi this year including several Jūyō Bunkazai and even comparing top work of top smith is very difficult to me. Some I felt were nice swords while some were just amazing.