Jussi Ekholm

That is how it is commonly how change in signature side is thought to have evolved that when swords were starting to be worn through the belt in opposite direction from before. However it would have been just as easy to mount blade in various ways regardless on how it was signed. As well as there were forms of suspension and ways of tying katana to be slung from waist like a tachi. I think most dealers in Japan know what premium NBTHK papers bring to table compared to others in financial sense. I personally like NTHK papers and it is nice that they provide more info in their paper than NTHK so you can follow their logic more easily. However on big name items I would definately go to NBTHK. While I am not too focused on financial side of the hobby, I see the financial upside just so much larger with NBTHK compared to other organizations. However I must say there is of course potential in NTHK papered items, and they can often be acquired for lower cost. Although I couldn't afford a certain partially signed tachi that had NTHK papers with Japanese dealer some years ago, I am still kicking myself a bit over it as it went on to get NBTHK papers to different smith of the same school and price doubled... I know you hear often buy the sword not the papers etc. but authentication brings certain amount of confidence to the field. Regardless of the organization authenticating they do carry value in market point of view. Having few different opinions on an item is in my opinion better than one even if they would be different. Personally I am wondering how Japanese dealer would not send a quality item to NBTHK (as I feel it greatly adds marketability to the item) but people have different views on things. And like on my example above there was that tachi with NTHK papers up for sale at Japanese dealer site for several years, so I guess I wasn't the only one standing idle. Smith like Tomomitsu is a great attribution and the blade most likely shows something good in the opinion of shinsa team.

I think it is indeed Umetada but using these kanji - 梅忠 See few references here: (unfortunately couldn't find NBTHK paper for mumei using this kanji fast) https://www.kandatoukodo.com/tousougu/tsuba42.html https://tokka.biz/fittings/TS720.html

Thank you for the pictures John, that makes it lot clearer. I think it makes things interesting. I know that you should focus on the details on the sword rather than doing speculative stuff but I'll give some reasoning here. As the sword seems to have been signed on sashi omote side (way katana are generally signed) and the signature has been folded over. Based on the 15 signed ōdachi & tachi I have on record for Tomomitsu, he signed his swords on haki-omote side (way tachi are normally signed). I attach here an example of orikaeshi-mei by Tomomitsu and you can see the signature is folded on the opposite side as on the sword we are discussing. Signing tachi on sashi-omote side was never really a big thing in Bizen and signature on this side started to appear more during the early Muromachi period. And as the signature seems to have been thought important enough to fold over I would think it could have been made by a good smith. NTHK going for Tomomitsu is a small headscratcher for me personally as due to this type of orikaeshi-mei I would look more in towards early Muromachi if thinking of Bizen. Of course that could be totally ignored in evaluation but I think it is important factor. Unfortunately I can't say too much about details on the blade from the pictures (and I am not skilled enough in detail stuff anyway). However based on the shape & size, orikaeshi-mei and horimono I think it is an interesting item.

I am not a koshirae guy but I think that style is called kawa-tsutsumi (covered in leather). To my eye that tachi koshirae in overall might be the most collectible thing out of the lot.

There are many good vendors in the UK too. I think UK guys can give good recommendations and info but mostly in private messages as publically discussing stuff like this can be bit problematic. In my personal opinion I do not think Lanes Armoury is geared towards "hardcore" Japanese sword collectors but more towards militaria guys want to get a Japanese sword. I do not mean bad with that comment even though I agree that it can be taken very negatively.

I know I commented to you on another forum but in general I'd be stunned if they sell the items in the ballpark of their asking prices (which I am sure they do as they have been running business for a long time). I am not a business savvy person and my hats off to them as they seem to show they can pull it off.

Welcome to the forum John! I agree what others have said about sending to NBTHK, if sending items to shinsa in Japan would be easier for me, I would try to get several attributions to the 2 mumei swords in my collection. In my opinion that is an interesting sword, what kind of measurements it has? I am having hard time figuring out if it has orikaeshi-mei (folded over signature) or gaku-mei (inserted signature), as it is so corroded I can't see anything (I know Ray is like a detective in figuring these out). Do you happen to have a picture of the end of the tang?

Yes it is most likely from Bizen province if the signature is good (and I would not personally doubt it too much). There were lots and lots of Sukesada smiths working in the late Muromachi period and if the signature does not have "personal name" it will be very difficult to identify unless the work is spectacular from which experts can agree on which Sukesada most likely made the particular item.

Finally found the topic as I remembered it was quite recent. Mark S. documented the changes that came with polishing by Woody. 0,1 cm in length and 5 grams in weight. I think one good indicator of how much the sword has changed from original in thickness is the difference between nakagokasane and motokasane. Here is an image of an old tachi from Nanbokuchō period I used to have. Nakagokasane was 8 mm, motokasane was 5,6 mm and motoshinogikasane 6,8 mm. While the picture is not optimal I think it shows the wear quite well.

Here is a verified example by this smith dated to same year 1450, from Jūyō 34 session. Now what is interesting that in this he is signing with the form 寳徳 that is alternative way of signing the era (it was featured in Japaneseswordindex). Historically both styles were used however I am not sure if the smith would sign the year in different form in his career? Unfortunately I only have this one Hōtoku era signature from Hidekage in my records. https://www.aoijapan.net/tachi-bishu-osafune-hidekage-34th-nbthk-juyo-paper/

You can also ditch going towards Sudo Kunitsugu route even though was suggested for researching in original sales ad as he wrote Kuni is very peculiar and original way.

I think you are very close, to me it seems like Hōtoku (宝徳) 2 - 1450.

I think the problem comes with the number of submissions & passes for lower tier items. NBTHK actually releases the numbers and I did dig them up in 2020 for this thread: In 2019 for Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon items there were 10,500+ passes In 2018 for Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon items there were 10,300+ passes Compared to 2019 Jūyō - 138 items 2018 Jūyō - 168 items Just the amount of time required to take good pictures of that amount of blades / items is a lot. Then add in all the processing to digital form and adding info etc. I do know NBTHK does has their own registry of all the items passed from which they can verify the authenticity of the papers (never done that myself but I believe it is possible). Also the English translations of certain parts of Tōken Bijutsu are accessible for free to everyone in their website from early 2012 up to this day, while lacking pictures featured in the magazine I still think one can find useful info in there: https://www.touken.or.jp/english/TokenBijutsuTranslation/backnumber.html

Here are 3 Jūyō swords for reference mei. Unfortunately I don't know the smith well enough to say anything for certain.

The last one was priced for 850k yen. Just noticed again it was attributed towards Kinjū in sayagaki. Even though I was really looking at that one when it was available I had forgotten about the sayagaki. I think it had some issues in the condition, it is sometimes hard to compare the pictures as some sellers use different techniques and possibly digitally enchance the pictures. I think this seller has quite honest pictures in general although sometimes they show the flaws in not too flattering way.

Like others have said above it is very nice sword. I feel the quality is definately there as it looks very nice in the pictures. However as I am personally very focused on shape & size, I would rather choose different type of Nanbokuchō item. Here are 6 other Ōmiya attributed mumei katana that are/were around this same price point for comparison purposes. http://www.nipponto.com/Sword/detailomiyaden.html https://web.archive.org/web/20160817205440/http:/www.nihontocraft.com:80/Japanese_Sword_Bizen_Omiya_Katana.html https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-mumei-unsigned-attributed-as-oomiya-school/ https://eirakudo.shop/token/tachikatana/detail/852780 https://www.aoijapan.net/katana-mumei-omiya/ https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/NT330431.htm Of these I would personally go for the last two, and even though the last one is in rougher condition it is my personal favorite as it has grand shape and size. Only negative thing size wise is the short length but that is often encountered with very wide swords.

Dale have you ever encountered this term in Japanese tsuba sources? 兜師 Like Piers I would think they might be classified under armor maker tsuba but of course tsuba are not my focus. I would rather think those as having the design of kabuto or the design was inspired by kabuto. Here is one example by very late Myochin maker. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EH5CNRIX0AAyB5O?format=jpg&name=large Edit: Added few examples https://blog.goo.ne.jp/tsuba_001/e/e146d09399c6ce3476c3b1b7ceebe693 https://www.nipponto.co.jp/swords6/TB202388.htm

I think you have characters correctly in section 2. I hope more skilled language folks will chime in for confirmation. I think 瑞祥 in the description means auspicious, which I believe means for good luck in the future etc. While searching auspicious patterns with google, this image has two patterns in your tsuba in the middle row:

I think the signature is 長村清宣 - Nagamura Kiyonobu. WWII era smith. I think he is very unknown smith as I didn't find him in Seskos index. Perhaps the WWII specialized guys in here know more about him. Here is a reference sword: https://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2012/1210_1094syousai.htm

I believe the Chōgi that was in the meeting was this one (I used my detective skills ) https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FGJzAAXUcAUkKgv?format=jpg&name=large

I've been butting heads with Paul over this for a good while However I must agree with his analysis on that it is not the best Shikkake work qualitywise. The size of it and how it has been preserved make it rare and precious. You cannot find many ubu naginata of this length from Nanbokuchō period surviving. I was looking at the data that I currently have and I think I have 16 naginata of around this size or larger from Kamakura & Nanbokuchō periods that have survived to this day. Of them 13 are Bunkazai, Bijutsuhin or non-classified items owned by shrines. So in overall the chances in owning a naginata of this size and age are very slim even for someone in Japan.

The results for Jūyō 67 just came online. https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/第67回重要刀剣等指定品発表.pdf Another very interesting session with lot to think about. Of course lot of wondering on my part as not having info or pictures of the items. I was very excited to see two Ōdachi in this session as they are incredibly rare. I believe these ones Morimitsu & Masaie are in the collection of Yasukuni Jinja. Both were previously unknown to me and seem to be longest examples by each ot the smiths that I am aware of. I did the swords in similar format as I've done before for my index and eventually when I have time for all the non-blade items I will update that to include the most recent results. Jūyō 67 swords.docx

Thank you for posting that very interesting book Dirk, I'll need to add that one to my long book list. Here is a history bit from the Sano Museum book that I took a pic for your other thread. I skipped one paragraph so I could fit in these that I have now as it takes so much time for me to type the kanji and translate it so I chose these parts. I'll add the original text as I most likely might have made an error or two in the process. Gassan was a swordsmith of Mōgusa group. Edo period sources [古刀銘盡大全] and [校正古刀銘鑑] state that he was son of Kiōmaru and moved to Dewa. It is said that the first generation was around Genryaku (1184) and Kenkyū (1190) and continued for generations. Looking at dated work of the school, there is work by Gunshō dated to (1367) [My other source has this sword as 貞治二 1363] and Gunshō dated to (1385) [This is listed as 元中三 1386 in Juyo 21], in the Muromachi period Chikanori works from Bunki & Eishō, Masanobu works from Eishō, Toshiyoshi works from Daiei & Tenbun can be found. From Kamakura period until the Early Muromachi period the school signed Gassan saku or Gassan. From the middle of Muromachi period many smiths put their personal names under Gassan. Main smiths include Chikanori, Masanobu, Yoshihisa, Toshiyoshi, Muneyoshi and Sadamitsu.

Best wishes and hoping for full recovery.

Here are two tanto both Tokubetsu Hozon by NBTHK: https://sanmei.com/contents/media/T2174_T5010_PUP.html https://www.tsuruginoya.com/mn1_3/f00117.html Then there are lots of his combination work with other smiths that do not have Ukyō no Suke in mei. I know there is a Katana in Jūyō 66 that has mei 備州長船勝光 / 文明十二二年八月日 so it is dated to 1482 but I have not seen info on it yet. I do have info 2 katana by Katsumitsu both dated to 1493 but I am not certain if they are late work by Ukyō no Suke or early work by Jirōzaemon.