Jussi Ekholm

Few days ago a friend noted that NBTHK had released Jūyō 69 results on their website Now as I always do, here are the results translittered to partly English following the format I am using on the index. All possible errors are most likely mine, I am not well versed in fittings so there I might have incorrect readings of lesser known makers etc. and as usual I avoid translating fitting / koshirae themes as it is often very difficult to get correct. Here is the link to the original PDF at NBTHK site: https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/第69回重要刀剣等指定品発表.pdf Jūyō 69 – 84 Items – NBTHK Web page 1. Katana – Gojō Kuninaga – Mumei [五条国永] 2. Tachi – Ko-Kyōmono – Mumei [古京物] 3. Tachi – Awataguchi – Mumei [粟田口] 4. Katana – Niji Kunitoshi – Mumei [二字国俊] 5. Naoshi – Rai Kunitsugu – Mumei [来国次] 6. Tachi – Mitsumasa (den Senju’in) - 光正 [伝千手院] 7. Tachi – Senju’in – Mumei [千手院] 8. Katana – Senju’in – Mumei [千手院] 9. Katana – Taima – Mumei [当麻] 10. Katana – Hoshō – Mumei [保昌] 11. Katana – Shikkake Norinaga – Mumei [尻縣則長] 12. Tantō – Shintōgo Kunimitsu (1322) - 国光 / 元享二年六月日 [新藤五] 13. Katana – Yukimitsu – Mumei [行光] 14. Katana – den Yukimitsu – Mumei [伝行光] 15. Tantō – Sadamune – [Shumei 貞宗] 16. Katana – den Shizu – Mumei [伝志津] 17. Tantō – Shizu – Mumei [志津] 18. Katana – Kaneaki (1592) - 生駒雅楽頭公依御意兼明造之 / 文禄元歳二月吉日谷出羽守二胴切 19. Tantō – Asago-Taima Nobunaga - 信長 [浅古当麻] 20. Katana – den Gō – [Shumei Fumei] [伝江] 21. Katana – Norishige – Mumei [則重] 22. Tachi – Ko-Hōki Sanekage – Mumei [古伯耆真景] 23. Katana – Sekishū Naotsuna – Mumei [石州直綱] 24. Katana – Sukemura (Ko-Bizen) – Orikaeshi 備前国助村 [古備前] 25. Tachi – Norinari (Ko-Ichimonji) - 則成 [古一文字] 26. Tachi – Sukekane (Ichimonji) - 助包 [一文字] 27. Katana – Yoshioka Ichimonji – Mumei [吉岡一文字] 28. Tachi – Norifusa - 則房 29. Katana – Iwato Ichimonji – Mumei [岩戸一文字] 30. Tachi – Nagamitsu - □□□長□ [長光] 31. Katana – Nagamitsu – [Kinpun 長光] 32. Tachi – Kagemitsu (1331) - 備州長船住景光 / 元徳三年三月日 33. Naoshi - Unjū – Mumei [雲重] 34. Katana – Kanemitsu – Mumei [兼光] 35. Katana – Kanemitsu – Mumei [兼光] 36. Katana – Yoshimitsu – Mumei [義光] 37. Katana – Motomitsu – Mumei [基光] 38. Tachi – Masamitsu - □州長船政光 39. Tachi – Shigeyoshi (1392) - 備州長船重吉 / 明徳三年十月日 (Attachment – Tachi Koshirae - 金梨子地青山菊紋散金貝鞘糸巻太刀拵) 40. Tachi – Shigezane - 備州長船住重真 41. Katana – Nagashige – Mumei [長重] 42. Katana – Ōmiya Morikage – Mumei [盛景] 43. Katana – den Ōmiya Morikage – Mumei [伝盛景] (Attachment – Tachi Koshirae - 金梨子地三條花角紋散蒔絵鞘糸巻太刀拵) 44. Wakizashi – Yasumitsu (1439) - 備州長船康光 / 永享十一年八月日 45. Katana – Aoe – Mumei [青江] 46. Katana – Aoe – Mumei [青江] 47. Katana – den Aoe – Mumei [伝青江] 48. Katana – Sairen – Mumei [西蓮] 49. Katana – den Samonji – Mumei [伝左文字] 50. Katana – Enju Kunitoki – [Kinzōgan 国時 / 光遜 (花押)] [延寿] 51. Katana – Horikawa Kuniyasu - 国安 [堀川] 52. Katana – Shinkai Kunisada (1670) - 井上和泉守国貞 / (菊紋) 寛文十年八月日 53. Katana – Echizen Yasutsugu (Nidai) - 於武州江戸越前康継 / 諸越所持 [二代] 54. Katana – Kaneshige - 上総介藤原兼重 55. Katana – Taikei Naotane (1831) - 荘司筑前大掾大慶藤直胤 (花押) / 天保二年仲春 56. Katana – Hizen Masahiro - 肥前国河内大掾藤原正広 57. Naginata Koshirae - 黒漆塗鞘朱塗柄薙刀拵 58. Tachi Koshirae - 黒漆塗紋散蒔絵鞘糸巻太刀拵 59. Tachi Koshirae - 金梨子地桐違鷹羽檜扇紋散鞘糸巻太刀拵 60. Tantō Koshirae - 朱塗陰陽藤花文鞘合口短刀拵 61. Tantō Koshirae - 黒石目曲竹断文散腰刻鞘合口短刀拵 (中邨春寛一作金具) Nakamura Haruhiro Issaku – Fuchi – Haruhiro - 中邨春寛 (花押) Kozuka – Haruhiro - 春寛 (花押) Kōgai – Haruhiro - 中邨 62. Tantō Koshirae - 黒蠟色桜花散蒔絵鞘合口短刀拵 Menuki – Sasayama Tokuoki - 篤 / 興 Kozuka – Sasayama Tokuoki – (棟銘) 篤興作 Wari-Kōgai & Semegane – Sasayama Tokuoki - 一行斎 Saya Lacquer - 平安篤興画 梶川 (壺印) 63. Menuki (歳寒二雅図目貫) – Ko-Kinko – Mumei [古金工] 64. Kozuka (引手金具図小柄) – Gotō Yūjō & Gotō Kenjō & Gotō Teijō - 祐乗作 顕乗 (花押) 光昌 (花押) 65. Kōgai (樋定規図笄) – Gotō Sōjō & Gotō Teijō - 宗乗作 程乗 (花押) 66. Menuki (牛馬図目貫) – Gotō Kōjō – Mumei [光乗] (Attachment – Gotō Origami (1739) - 元文四年代百五捨貫光理折紙) (Attachment – Letter - 後藤三郎左衛門書状) 67. Mitokoromono (枝菊図三所物) Kozuka & Kōgai – Gotō Tsujō - 後藤通乗 (花押) Menuki – Gotō Tsujō – Mumei [通乗] 68. Mitokoromono (竹雀図三所物) Kozuka & Kōgai – Gotō Hōjō- 後藤四郎兵衛藤原光晃 (花押) Menuki – Gotō Hōjō – (割際端銘) 光 / 晃 69. Tsuba (雲出八橋透鐔) – Hayashi Shigemitsu - 林 / 重光 70. Tsuba (武蔵野透鐔) – Yasuchika - 安親 71. Kozuka (木賊刈図小柄) – Yasuchika - 安親 72. Kozuka (猿猴耳掻に刷子図小柄) – Yasuchika - 安親 73. Tsuba (雪花透唐子雪遊図鐔) – Issando Joi – (金印) 一蝅堂乗意 (金印 永春) 74. Fuchi & Kashira (親子獅子図縁頭) – Konkan - 岩本昆寛 (花押) 75. Daishō Fuchi & Kashira (猛禽図大小縁頭) – Ishiguro Masayoshi – Daishō mei - 行年七十七歳 寿翁政美作 76. Kozuka (富嶽図小柄) – Hirata Dōnin – Mumei [平田道仁] 77. Tsuba (山水図鐔) – Tomonobu - 染谷知信 (金印) 78. Menuki (海の幸図目貫) – Nagatsune – (割際端銘) 長常 (花押) / 長常 79. Fuchi & Kashira (風神雷神図縁頭) – Minayama Oki - 皆山応起 (花押) 80. Tsuba (雷神図鐔) – Kawabarayashi Hidekuni - 天光堂秀国 81. Mitokoromono (粟穂図三所物) Kozuka & Kōgai – Araki Tomei - 吟松亭東明 (花押) Menuki – Araki Tomei – (割短冊銘) 吟松亭 / 東明 82. Kanagu (福禄寿図揃金具) Tsuba – Imai Nagatake (1858) - 安政戊午孟今井永武 (花押) Kozuka – Imai Nagatake (1857) - 安政丁巳孟秋今井永武 (花押) Kōgai – Imai Nagatake (1857) - 安政丁巳孟秋今井享斎 (花押) Menuki – Imai Nagatake – Mumei [永武] 83. Tsuba (追儺図鐔) – Tanaka Kiyotoshi - 東龍斎 / 丁未歳製 清寿法眼 (花押) 84. Kozuka (雀海中蛤図小柄) – Natsuo - 夏雄 (印 古意)

Not really regarding the cutting test but that particular sword in general. High papered swords are super easy to track down as I do follow old swords perhaps way too much. Now Jūyō 64 session was only in 2018. Yet this is the 4th time I see this particular sword being sold online. 3 times were by 2 Japanese dealers and now it is with Fred. Also the sword has gotten a koshirae in 2023, as when it was sold in late 2022 in Japan it was only in shirasaya. So while the koshirae is most likely old from Edo period as mentioned, it was not made for this particular sword, it is good to look at the tsuka for more information. Fred knows his stuff and way more than me, he has great knowledge. Not wanting anyone think negatively about him, just wanting to point out some background of the item. I admit I am personally bit puzzled when swords get sold over and over in short time span but people are aiming to make profit.

Unfortunately I don't have accurate info on the dates when Kunimura tachi mei was removed. Jūyō 22 which is the first time I have info on it was 1974. Then when I got the Jūyō 49 book year of that session was 2003. So somewhere during that time the mei was inserted on to the tang. I tried to look into the item descriptions on both books but they just mention that original signature was lost when sword was shortened but the piece remained. I remember Darcy possibly talked about this particular sword many years ago, perhaps his posts might have had more info on the item. I am not that well versed in newer swords but I was reading the end of Shinshintō book of Nihontō Kōza (it is fairly old book), where there is long discussion about gimei with examples and references. I must admit it goes well beyond my understanding... For example just for Shinshintō gimei there are 3 different categories in the book. 1. Period gimei, made around the time the sword was made 2. Recent gimei, made c. 1935 when appreciation for newer swords started to boom 3. Present day gimei, made after WWII. I must admit I am often banging my head when I read the Japanese descriptions on fine details as they are so "adjective" and hard to understand for my brain. For example, cut boldly, with strength very skilled tagane movement etc. To me this is very difficult to understand as I am not artistic person in general. There are of course the really bad signature fakes but I think they are not really that dangerous as they would be quite obvious to spot. Still I think in overall it could be fun research subject. There must be people who really know a lot about these, as just reading the gimei section of Kōza kinda blew my mind... I think one kind of fun and "problematic for profit" items that have NBTHK (or other) papers, are the ones where Kuni fumei is mentioned in the brackets, mostly combined with approximate age of the item. As that indicates that they were unable to put it towards known smiths but they acknowledge the signature and the date of the item.

I think finding the actual smiths is going to be bit tricky, as not too many signed old Uda works are remaining. While in comparison you will see that Ko-Uda seems to be somewhat common attribution for mumei items. I have tried to gather all authenticated works by smiths I have been able to find. As Kirill said above the difficulty comes when there are multiple generations using the same name. Kunimitsu - I believe there are 2 tachi that are seen as late Kamakura period work, and 1 tanto that is dated 1321 but only shumei, no signature on it. Then there few signed tachi and tanto that are seen as late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi work. So they would be 2 different generations. Kunifusa - I have 22 signed blades, that are from Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi, I believe sources state there were 2 generations working during this but personally I couldn't differentiate. There is the famous 1405 dated tanto, it is very fine work as it was at display at NBTHK when I visited this summer. There is also 1389 dated blade, although Jūyō 16 book has it as 康正元年 1455 but other sources have it as 康応元年 1389. So NBTHK sees it as 3rd gen work and even state so in item description, where as Kunzan described this as Ko-Uda work. I cannot really say which is correct as both are expert opinions. Kunimune - I believe I only have 1 signed Nanbokuchō tachi, rest of the signed items I have for Kunimune seems to be early Muromachi onwards. Kunihisa - There are few signed items that are possibly late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi work, and there is 1400 dated tanto. Otherwise signed works seem to be early Muromachi onwards. Kunitsugu - There seems to be 1 tachi that is seen as Nanbokuchō, and rest of the signed items seem to be early Muromachi. Tomonori - 7 signed tachi & kodachi, late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi work. Tomotsugu - 10 signed works, late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi work. Tomohisa - 2 signed tanto, late Nanbokuchō - early Muromachi work. Tomomitsu - 1 tanto, possibly early Muromachi Tomoshige - 1 tanto, late Nanbokuchō Tomohiro - 1 tachi, early Muromachi In total I counted I have so far found 87 signed items that I think are work of early Uda school. However to note few of these are only described as Muromachi period in general, so they could be going into mid-Muromachi. It is always very fun to dive into stuff like this.

I am on the side of extreme preservation, and I am leaning even more and more towards that as the years go by. I know money talks and people will do many things for swords with profit in mind. I would advice caution even with restoration and extreme caution with removal of certain things. I cannot really comment on NBTHK stance on things and why they issue the papers as they do. However as Moriyama-san pointed out earlier they have just put an upper number limitation to blades accepted to Hozon/TH shinsa. I am not sure of the number of their staff but I am under the assumption that they are not a huge organization staff wise. I remember we tried to estimate submission number with Darcy some years ago and how much time they could spend per blade, and the amount of time is not that big. I think it could be a good option to possibly authenticate gimei swords but not sure if NBTHK would currently have resources to start doing it as they seem to already be at their limit with current staff as they need to limit amount of blades sent in. However I feel that it could amount to even more shady dealing, as some sellers could push them as legitimate signed items. Yes I understand in the idea there would be clear mentions of gimei but there will be people who do not read Japanese and would trust sellers. To make a judgement that something is gimei can be problematic. As for some smiths (especially the old ones) there are not that many references. I know that many later time smiths are well documented but as I am fascinated by the old ones, there are many where examples are extremely rare. Now for mumei blades the attributions give a "range" being the educated guess, where are for signatures it is quite rough 50/50 genuine / fake. There is also maybe less known phrase to XX ga aru, that can apply to mei, kiritsuke-mei, kinzōgan etc. I know there are multiple ways of seeing this phrase but personally I see it just as, there is XX. It is bit of a neutral stance in my opinion, and more research could be made in the future on it. I find this very interesting but again it is problematic (and probably headache for dealers looking for profit). Sometimes with more research the to XX ga aru is switched to fully legitimate. I think the opposite is not really documented if that proves to be fake it would not been updated in NBTHK papers for example. As I mentioned being extra careful in removing things, here is a heartbreaking example (I have read about other mei removals too but don't have picture documentation of them) This tachi by Enju Kunimura has had the signature removed (luckily the piece was preserved). It first passed Jūyō shinsa 22. Then mei was inserted as gaku-mei and it was updated in Jūyō 49 session. Then after that it has passed Tokubetsu Jūyō session 18. Now here is the fact that makes it so bad in my eyes, as I am bit obsessed in finding old work, I have so far found only 8 authenticated signed tachi by Enju Kunimura... Instead of highly precious historical tachi it is now "just a katana" instead, fortunately this has been documented and signature preserved as gaku-mei but in my eyes it is not nearly the same as it would have been preserved as a tachi. As Mark asked about mei of original smith being added after shortening, there are examples but they are quite rare. Added mei in general is called kiritsuke-mei. There are also examples with to kiritsuke-mei ga aru, meaning the presence of kiritsuke-mei is noted but it's authencity is not yet 100%. For 100% authentic and where smith is noted this JūBi Kanemitsu is one that comes in my mind, it is famous sword Omachi Kanemitsu, it was shortened in 1442. It was owned by Uesugi Family and is now in private collection in Japan.

Congratulations on the sword and thank you for posting it. I must confess I was wishing I could have afforded that particular sword, as I felt it was a great deal. Back then it was with Hozon paper to den Senjuin (伝千手院) and no sayagaki. So it is super interesting to see Tanobe mentioning Tegai features. I had put it on my files as Kamakura without more specifications, I know the Japanese seller mentioned Late Heian - Early Kamakura but I have found the datings by the dealer being bit optimistic in many cases. Signed and ubu Yamato tachi from Kamakura period is in my books a super find. Yes the smith is unknown and length is short but you can't have everything. I am happy this went to a good home of fellow NMB member.

I got bit caught up on researching as I also found out very interesting ōdachi by accident (that I didn't know about before) while searching correct info on Shinsoku (神息) blades I have info on. Here are the legitimate Shinsoku blades I am aware of, however none of these are by the ancient smith but more likely followers of the lineage. I am lucky to have collected amazing books that have a lot of info and doing research is so fun. Tachi signed Shinsoku (神息), Jūyō Bijutsuhin, Oita Prefecture Bunkazai, in the collection of Usa Jingū. I believe this one is seen as Early Kamakura period work. Tachi signed Shinsoku (神息), the origin of this one is bit of unclear to me but it was discussed by Honma Junji in Tōken Bijutsu 381 in his series. If I understood correctly this could be Aizu Matsudaira provenance but I believe it was said more research is needed. I believe this one is seen as Kamakura period work. Tanto signed Shinsoku (神息), Jūyō 14, in the collection of Sano Art Museum. This one is seen as Late Kamakura period work. Katana orikaeshi-mei Shinki (神気), Jūyō 52, Nagasaki Prefecture Bunkazai, Matsudaira Provenance, Owned by Shimabara City. I believe this one is seen as Middle Kamakura period work. Then there is Shinsoku tachi that was in the collection of Sumiyoshi Taisha, I have only found reference from an old book and I believe it's current location is unknown.

Here is the mei from Fujishiro. I was really puzzled this was the only signature reference I could find fast. I was thinking I could easily get few but then again I don't track Edo period smiths at all.

I think the papered tsuba is the one that is on the koshirae and the one in picture with the papers is just an addon. I understand how community often sees the old papers as worthless, however I am giving them some credit. Regardless, when you have something like mumei attribution to Mizuta it is not a very high praise in my eyes.

That comparison looks great

Is it supposed to be "the" Masamune? There are few other Masamune smiths too.

Do you have the date and location planned out Daniel? I think we can help you with museum recommendations. However the tricky thing is that many of the museums switch the items on display. I experienced both good and bad of that this summer as I saw items I did not expect to see and some museums did not display a single sword (even though they have amazing collections) as the focus of the current display was on another subject.

That is amazing Robert, really happy to hear that

There are several nice items on the site. I am liking especially this one: https://www.owazamon...-tanto-with-koshirae The Tsuneie wakizashi was actually the kantei item of Tōken Bijutsu magazine 267, and was also featured in the kantei session of magazine 426. I think in overall this is a splendid package, signed, dated, papered, sayagaki, in publication, and also with koshirae.

Great article Peter

In my opinion Kozori as a group is hard to judge as it is generally an outlier attribution. The history etc. of Kozori group is quite uncertain as well which smiths are seen as Kozori smiths (not fitting the other groups at the time). There are some wonderful items made by Kozori smiths but as Japanese "ranking system" is bit difficult to grasp but very high quality and mumei Kozori attribution rarely go hand in hand. As Kozori is lesser desirable group in eyes of high end collectors you can actually find signed works within a reasonable budget. I do think the sword is reasonably good condition for mumei suriage sword around this time. The shape is nice although I personally would even prefer more massive shape. However looking at the signed tachi I have on record it seems Kozori tachi in general were more on the narrower side compared to many peers during that time. There is even an ubu mumei ōdachi at Futarasan-jinja that has been attributed towards Kozori and regardless of 98,2cm length it has narrow shape. Of course there can be bias in attributing suriage mumei and that might steer wide blades away from Kozori. The koshirae is nice, however one thing to note is I don't think it was made for this particular sword. When you look at the close pictures of the tsuka, you can see there has been another round hole that has been plugged with circular piece of rayskin. I personally see that as the original hole for the sword this koshirae was originally made for. Japanese dealers often combine things to make them more marketable. I know many are 50/50 on this dealer, some like them a lot, some dislike. I am personally quite neutral. I must note that this koshirae fix was NOT made by the dealer that has the sword now. The same item has been with another dealer previously and it had the koshirae even back then. Having a nice koshirae and combining it with a nice blade probably adds more value to potential buyers. Of course you can see the exact opposite too where nice koshirae is stripped from a sword. Here for reference I will link few Kozori tachi these are on the small side in general as it is bit common for Kozori tachi The smith name is unlegible attributed as Kozori: https://toyuukai.jp/products/太刀-太刀銘-備州長船-小反り-保存刀剣鑑定書-tachi-bisyu-osafune-kozori-nbthk-hozon-品番-ｋａ０５８ Dated 1391 (the smith mei most likely removed) attributed as Kozori work: https://www.Japanese...i-no-dachi-koshirae/ Mumei Kozori: https://www.e-sword....1410_1125syousai.htm Mumei Kozori: https://ginza.choshu...ale/gj/h30/06/13.htm Then it gets even more interesting with signed works by Kozori smiths and their reference items... I feel the price is reasonable and if it feels good for you then it might be good one for you. However in the 1,5M - 2M yen range there starts to be lots and lots of very interesting items depending on what kind of items you are looking for.

Jone you can message them, as I believe there at least used to be some members that are only members in Sweden but not in NBTHK, and they have very small fee. Unfortunately it has been many years since my last visit to Sweden. And I think you can attend a meeting without any commitments to see if it feels interesting.

Yes the Scandinavian branch is active with multiple meetings per year. Unfortunately like with many groups in this hobby keeping public up to date with activity is bit lacking The last meeting was held on 30.9.

That Ichimonji wakizashi and Tsugunao wakizashi were both really nice items. However I would advice being very cautious with the auction houses. For example the "premium" sword in upcoming Zacke auction seems to be extremely questionable tachi with attribution to Rai Kunimitsu and 15,000€ estimate (+ 30% buyers premium etc.): https://www.zacke.at...&sd=0&pp=96&pn=1&g=1 Well that same sword sold at Yahoo JP this february for 537,000 yen (3,500€): https://buyee.jp/ite...auction/j1081148557/ Seems like habaki was switched for possibly cheaper one too for the Zacke sale. When something passes at Yahoo JP at very cheap price it would be highly unlikely it would be hidden gem as there are many eyes with knowledge scouting there as well as multiple sword dealers probably keep checking items in there too.

Welcome to the forum Jone. I think we have few Norwegian members in here. The problem is similar in all Nordic countries, geographically quite large countries with sparse population. So it can be difficult to get together with local collectors. For us here in the north I will always recommend NBTHK Scandinavian branch: https://nbthkebscandinavia.wordpress.com/ if you are able to get to a meeting you'll meet fine folk and see nice items in the meetings. And they most likely know Nordic collectors the best in overall so they might know people around your area too.

I think Robert Hughes @Keichodo could get the stuff done for you. I think price range will vary a lot depending on what type of tachi koshirae you are going for. I am really not well versed in koshirae especially commissioning one but I would think for high grade mount and mounting you would be looking 5,000€+.

I am not sure if many are aware but NBTHK is starting to limit the number of shinsa applications, you can read more in the link: https://www.touken.or.jp/Portals/0/pdf/english/Important Announcement.pdf The new upper limit for Hozon/Tokubetsu Hozon swords will be 1,600 applications per shinsa session. I remember I tried to do some calculations about shinsa submissions few years ago. Then discussed these with Darcy, amounts of H/TH & Jūyō submission. Now with the new system there will be 4 H/TH sword shinsa per year, so there would be 6,400 sword submissions yearly.

Thank you for your efforts in arranging this Yurie. Now I will need to start asking my boss if she can allow starting my summer holiday in late May

The paper seems to be JTK instead of NTHK. Unfortunately I wouldn't put much faith in JTK papers. I am not that well versed in Edo period smiths but 2nd gen Kunisada became Inoue Shinkai, and I am not aware of 3rd gen Kunisada. The sword itself seems to be in quite nice shape. I would be cautious of the signature and would not invest money into the sword and would try to enjoy it as it is.

I think the question might possibly have bit of a flaw within it. As item quality often correlates with the papers it has. This is not always true and you can find very good Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon swords but it is very difficult to find bad Jūyō sword and pretty much impossible to find a bad Tokubetsu Jūyō. For very high quality items you can pretty much ask what you want, as there won't be that much competition. I don't have that much knowledge about prices at super high level as they are often private and for asking only. However as I am bit obsessive about keeping sword records I remember 2 times when the sword has been listed initially as Jūyō and then it has passed the Tokubetsu Jūyō shinsa and listing was upgraded. Funnily enough they were with different Japanese dealers but on both times the price increase was exactly 2X, 10M -> 20M and 14M -> 28M. It kind of shows what kind of prestige dealers and market show towards Tokubetsu Jūyō, on case number 1 nothing else changed but on the case number 2 the smith was actually changed for a lot earlier one, and this was signed very long tachi! For lower level upgrade steps in papers the difference can be from 0 to very small. I have recorded multiple cases where the dealer has upgraded the sword from Hozon to Tokubetsu Hozon without any change in price, and some with small change in price. For Tokubetsu Hozon to Jūyō there have been some changes in prices but actually quite small ones. Now one has to consider that Tokubetsu Hozon swords with potential to pass Jūyō are high quality items to begin with and dealers wont sell them for cheap prices. I might be super strict but NBTHK attribution papers would be only ones I count having market value. Personally I wouldn't put any market value to other papers NTHK, NHTK-NPO, JASMK, JTK, ETC. For me they might be something nice to have but I don't see financial value to them. Now authentic sayagaki from the likes of Tanobe, Kanzan, Kunzan or Hon'ami lineage would be totally opposite. For example I would gladly have a sword without any papers but Tanobe-sensei sayagaki. Of course the optimal package for me would be NBTHK papers + Tanobe or Kunzan or Kanzan sayagaki. Now as I have love for peculiar old items that high level collectors mostly wont chase, I feel that if I will find an item that I would have strong desire I wouldn't stress about papers etc.