Jussi Ekholm

One thing to note that Yamanaka Newsletters were written in late 60's to early 70's. Some of the missing items have been found since then. Jim Kurrasch wrote and updated list on 1996, which can be seen on Rays site: https://swordsofjapan.com/important-missing-nihonto/ And the finds have been continuing on occasional basis even to this day. What is more shocking to me that there are currently a fair amount (c.60 or so) of Jūyō Bunkazai swords in Japan of which the current whereabout is not know to Agency for Cultural Affairs. I am not sure how and why some of those items have gone under the radar.

It was this tachi by Ko-Bizen smith Tomomura. You can read the story of by Jim Kurrasch from Rays site: https://swordsofjapan.com/tomomura/ It shows how business side of this hobby is often extremely harsh. The sword was originally owned by Yusuhara Hachimangū before WWII occupation and I believe it has not yet been returned to the shrine (I know they have 3 Bunkazai at present time). The sword was in Japan I believe late 1994, where NBTHK team (including Tanobe-sensei were able to research it, and it was the feature sword of TB 456). I am hoping the sword will some day return to Japan and the shrine.

I agree with the analysis by Kirill and Paul above. I checked Bungo Taikan and there are 3 Yukizane smiths listed but none would fit the age of this wakizashi.

I think it is - 小島勝正作 - Kojima Katsumasa saku

As far as signed tachi go, Aoe school as well as Hōju school were sometimes writing on opposite side that was commonly used, there are some other exceptions too. However as they are generally very old swords they were made as tachi regardless of the side of the signature. Well one could argue that in some cases there would be 0 difference between some tachi and katana (if size and shape are looked at) and they would be correct. For mumei I think in general if the alteration to nakago is only slight NBTHK will classify it as tachi if it retains enough of it's original shape. I think the Mumei Ichimonji example (3rd one on those you listed) has me puzzled. NBTHK mentions it is almost ubu, and their expertise is far greater than mine. However it appears to me to have been shortened some amount. It is puzzling... Here is a mumei example attributed to Ayanokōji school tachi and nakago is almost ubu, only very slight alteration: https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-attributed-as-ayanoko-ji-ntbhk-the-43th-juyo-token/ I think the only complicated divider would be when a tachi is mumei and slightly altered. If it would be accepted as almost ubu it will still achieve it's classification as tachi, however if a mumei sword is deemed suriage then it will be classified as katana. There is also a term slight suriage that NBTHK sometimes uses that is sitting just about at this dividing point. I can try to look into the NBTHK Jūyō papers more closely tomorrow, this is just from the top of my head. I think the den Nobukuni example is very interesting one. It was papered with old system and I would think of it as a tachi from possibly early Muromachi period. I am looking at the picture and trying to figure out if it had had possibly a signature removed. I am not a gambling man but that could be nice one to look closer, however I think the 1,8M asking price drives me away.

Just noticed that Christian linked to an article by Markus above which had the info I was about to write on holes on Dans blade and so much more too. The square hole is referred as masugata 枡形. Here is an example on my tachi from early Muromachi. I think the square hole is original hole for tachi mount and round hole later addon when it was mounted as katana.

My condolences to the family & friends, a devastating loss to the community.

I am not confident on calling the signature either way, but if possible I think it should be evaluated by Japanese shinsa team at some point as was suggested earlier. Here are 4 reference signatures from Norimitsu dated to Bunan. I think I should have around 10 or so of these around in total. There are some variations in signatures so even though I see some points in yours that might not fit 100% with these examples, you can see variation within verified examples too. https://iidakoendo.com/623/ https://web.archive.org/web/20210612205552/https://www.seiyudo.com/wa-010714.htm https://ginza.choshuya.co.jp/sale/gj/r4/002/09_norimitsu.htm https://www.e-sword.jp/sale/2015/1510_2015syousai.htm You can see the last one linked has quite similar shape & size to yours.

I think smith is 筑後国住武藤秀弘 - Chikugo no Kuni jū Mutō Hidehiro

Can't comment on the theme but signature seems to be - 法安久次 - Hōan Hisatsugu

I am quoting Markus and his research on smiths that have acquired the title Mino no Kami. Is anyone able to find a reference signature of Kanesada with this title?

I think experts like Tanobe and Yamanaka have so much more knowledge. Tanobe could maybe refer it being early work by Niō school, pushing it towards middle Kamakura period? For example there is long ō-suriage mumei katana with attribution den Niō in Jūyō 18 (that session has lot of Niō), in the description it says near the end / この刀は鎌倉中期の作であろらか / This sword was made around middle Kamakura period (my rough translation). It is quite rare as other mumei Niō items seem to be put towards late Kamakura / Nanbokuchō by NBTHK.

I think the ownership might be - 大坪利夫所持 - I believe possible reading (not sure if it could be read in other ways) could be owned by Ōtsubo Toshio

For the 3rd one you linked I think the signature would be - 大和大掾藤原正則 - Yamato no Daijō Fujiwara Masanori I think the 2nd one could be signed - 国光作 - Kunimitsu saku

So far I have not yet found Ko-Niō attribution from Japanese sources. I believe the attribution Niō [二王] can include blades from possibly Middle Kamakura period in few cases but more often from late Kamakura to the end of Nanbokuchō period. I am basing this on the information of NBTHK Jūyō sword setsumei I have studied. This is for mumei swords that are attributed to Niō, as smiths would be identified more closely. I think one problem is that apart from Kiyotsuna [清綱] the signed Niō work from Kamakura or even Nanbokuchō period are extremely scarce. Often just one or few pieces by very few smiths. I can't help much with Sue-Niō as my personal interest starts to fade after early Muromachi period so I have not studied or researched them much. I do know there are much more signed Niō works from middle & late Muromachi period. And for the school is much easier to find signed reference items from Muromachi, and many more smiths appear.

I think it is 酒井繁正 - Sakai Shigemasa

I must admit I am having way too much fun digging these treasures up. I think these should tick all of your boxes, all with various tachi koshirae too. While not for sale this gives an idea what may be up in say 5-10 years time if not buying directly in private or one pops up for sale sooner. This Yoshimune would be my holy grail... 94,3 cm and ubu. Passed session 26 as Yoshioka Ichimonji but got reattributed in TokuJū 25 as Ko-Bizen. Was 14M and after TJ got bumped to 28M. https://web.archive.org/web/20161107181756/https:/www.kusanaginosya.com/SHOP/368.html Mihara Masaie tachi signed and dated to 1359. 86,4 cm and ubu, this passed session 18 and TJ 25. This was sold before passing TJ for 8M, havent seen it online after that. https://web.archive.org/web/20171203085209/http://www.kusanaginosya.com/SHOP/466.html Unshō tachi that is 79,3 cm and ubu. Jūyō 19 and this was for 13M https://web.archive.org/web/20121024004914/http:/katananokura.jp:80/SHOP/1206-TC02.html Tachi by Nagamitsu, ubu 77,8 cm. This passed session 62 and was sold quite recently. Unfortunately never saw a price for this as it was already sold when they put it online https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/V-1719.html Bungo Yukihira tachi, 77,4 cm and ubu. This is from Tokujū 21, and now resides in the collection of a new museum in Japan. https://www.yamasiroya.com/katana/tachi/post_12.html Toshimitsu tachi dated to 1390, 74,1 cm. This is Tokubetsu Hozon and now resides in the same museum collection as above tachi. Asking price was 7,5M https://web.archive.org/web/20160320223352/http:/www.seiyudo.com:80/ka-070315.htm Here are 6 amazing examples, unfortunately many of the items I have saved as links are now dead

Item numbers starting with 1 are Tokubetsu Hozon swords and 2 Tokubetsu Hozon fittings. Similarily 3 is for Hozon swords and 4 for Hozon fittings. I remember I wrote in a post few years ago that I thought change from 100,000 to 1,000,000 in numbers came because Hozon swords were numbering 390,000+. So they switched to 3,000,000 before hitting 400,000 as that was already reserved for fittings. That is just personal speculation but to me it feels like a logical solution.

Here is tachi by Aoe smith Naotsugu dated to 1332. Although it is slightly suriage, as it still retains signature and date I think it to be great reference piece maybe more than many ubu mumei pieces. Koshirae of this is much later and I am not a koshirae guy so to me koshirae like this is not too relevant. Also interesting as Gentoku has 3 years and then era changed. Perhaps the smith was not aware of that the era had changed? https://nihontou.jp/choice03/toukenkobugu/tachi/030/00-00.html Here is tachi that is mumei and attributed towards Ichimonji from middle of Kamakura period. The Jūyō paper states nakago is almost ubu and gives the middle of Kamakura period as the age of the sword. Koshirae on this is of course much later again but very very nice. I am bit puzzled as NBTHK classified this as almost ubu but they have the expert panel that has seen the sword. https://katananokura.jp/SHOP/1203-TC01.html I can dig for some old ones that have been sold for reference. Unfortunately I think many of the dealers delete the sold items from online.

Easy way to check the paper without even any knowledge of Japanese language is by the numbers. Those starting with 1 & 2 are Tokubetsu Hozon and those starting with 3 & 4 are Hozon (blades & fittings). Sometimes the color can vary a bit due to photography & lighting. Or are you talking about some sellers calling some completely unrelated papers as NBTHK judgement papers?

What would be your approximate budget? Would you be accepting for an Edo period koshirae for the sword? Pre-Muromachi koshirae tend to be mostly owned by museums & shrines / temples in Japan as surviving full examples are very rare. There are few packages for sale that come fairly close to your standards that few Japanese dealers have currently in their inventory (there have been more in the fairly recent past but have been sold). I think Dai Tōken Ichi in Japan would be the best place to seek such an item as I believe pretty much all the "top dog" dealers are present. I think the search for an item like this that is excatly to your liking could take several years. And at least for me the search is always very fun part.

This sold recently, just putting it out to show the scope of things that are around. If you are not in a hurry, more options will pop up. https://www.samurai-nippon.net/SHOP/N-809.html

Here is the Nanki Shigekuni from Tokubetsu Jūyō 8. Unfortunately I haven't got time now to check Jūyō Kotetsu swords right now, I can possbily do it some time next week. I don't have all of the books yet but I do have lot of them.

Well here is one that Tsuruginoya has by Tairyūsai Sōkan but I didn't post it earlier as it is in shirasaya and the OP is looking one with koshirae. 3,5M yen, both signed for 6th month of 1867: https://www.tsuruginoya.com/items/a00066.html

Here are two nice possibilities that are up for sale currently in Japan. 3,2M Yen - Nobukuni (Shigekane) 1717 & Moritsugu 1708 : https://www.sanmei.com/contents/media/K6997_6998_S2226_PUP_E.html 2,0M Yen - Kiyohide 1848 & 1849 : https://www.touken-matsumoto.jp/ja/product/shousai/DS-0007 This is not my field of collecting but I feel that package from Matsumoto is very nice.