Jussi Ekholm

I really hope we will get lot more entries as this is incredible opportunity and lots of fun at the same time. I was sure that we would have 100+ entries for the raffle but so far I counted 15 entries. I hope towards the end we will get people jumping in.

Might be bit far out thought but what if the sword is middle Muromachi work by an unknown sue-Hōshō smith Sadayoshi? I think I would personally lean towards c. 1450 - 1500 for the age just a feel by looking at the pics. And while there is strong possibility of gimei I just feel that there are still plenty of unknown smiths out there.

Some nice looking items in there. I am not sure if you know Krystian but Poland has a strong & healhty sword community: http://nihonto.com.pl/There are some nice items in Polish NMB members collections too.

Based on the pics you provided I'd guess this came from eBay seller Daimyou54eb? I'd guess it is late Muromachi / early Edo period wakizashi with false signature of very famous smith added sometime during it's lifetime like I said earlier. The thing with Daimyou54's eBay sales is the prices are attractive as they are quite low but the downside is that condition is usually quite poor. Yours seem to be in quite good overall condition (basing this on the pic where sword is in your lap). The wares that he sells often have a bit "hazy" polish, are in rough condition and flaws are to be expected. It is often that proper restoration for them is not financially viable or the swords are just worn out. He generally knows quite well what he is selling (at least it seems like that to me). So you won't most likely discover any hidden treasures. I think you can enjoy this wakizashi in it's current state as details seem to pop up a bit in proper angle & light.

Based on those pics I think sayagaki is 相模国住人行光

There were good posts made there above. I would also point out that there are not too many super long signed tachi left today by early Uda smiths. For the ??? I am unsure of the designation (but they are high cultural designations I believe) but as it is middle of the night and I have to get up to work really early I don't have time to spend on them tonight. I will read them later when I document swords from that book. Tokubetsu Jūyō / Uda Kunimitsu / suriage 69,1 cm, sori 1,6 cm Jūyō Bijutsuhin / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 64,2 cm , sori 1,8 cm ??? / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 71,8 cm, sori 2,1 cm ??? / Uda Kunifusa / suriage 63,9 cm, sori 2,1 cm ??? / Uda Kunifusa / ubu 88,2 cm, sori 3,2 cm Jūyō Bijutsuhin / Uda Kunifusa / ubu 70,3 cm, sori 1,8 cm Jūyō / Uda Kunimune / ubu 70,9 cm, sori 2,3 cm So I think the sword discussed being 62,2 cm is no problem at all as it is very high quality. However given my own fascination of swords that are near ubu I do think bit critically about large suriage as I feel it alters the sword a lot. And given the choice between 65 cm ubu tachi and 85 cm ubu tachi I would go for the longer one as I do appreciate big early swords. But give me the choice between that 65 cm tachi and 77 suriage katana from same smith I'd rather go for the short tachi. People are just sometimes weird in things that they appreciate when they collect. For example I get really hyped when I see really wide (3,3 cm+ motohaba) and long 70 cm+ suriage Nanbokuchō swords that have little profile taper.

Well here are my guesses Sword 1 - Koyama Munetsugu - Shinshintō Size and hada combined with the state of preservation would point me towards shinshintō. Chōji-midare was popular during this period and many made it. One thing that would make guess Munetsugu against the others might be just due to pictures as bright nioiguchi is often listed as a point of his work. At least I am seeing it very brightly under the hadori in the upper portion of the blade. By reading kantei explanations by NBTHK it is easy to understand how close the worksmanship of shinshintō smiths who worked in Bizen tradition is. Sword 2 - Mutsu no Kami Tadayoshi - Middle Edo I do not have a clue about this one honestly. I think sword has been shortened as others before stated too. I don't really think the sword is exactly Hizen work but that is the feel I get every time I look at it. I am not too well versed in shintō swords so I might as well go with my first guess that is Hizen as I can't get it out of my mind. Sword 3 - Rai Kunizane - Late Kamakura This one I think is from late Kamakura period. I juggled back and forth late Kamakura & early Muromachi calls for date. In the end I just have a gut feel that this is a suriage sword from late Kamakura period. I think I am seeing ko-itame hada in most parts. I can't see too much under the hadori but I think there is lots of activity in hamon underneath the white. I am thinking the sword is from Yamashiro tradition but it is quite "bold" in hamon execution so I can exclude quiet schools & smiths. I tried to look from Yamashiro book by Tanobe Michihiro for possibilities while it is a great resource it didn't have "lower tier" Rai smiths included. As I think this is bold sword I would go with little bit less known Rai smiths and after browsing my own Koto database I thought that Rai Kunizane would be my pick.

Yep looks like there is signature of Sadamune & Gentoku.

If it is Sadamune gimei then Gentoku makes sense, and it probably is. Early dates in general are quite rare while dates such as Genroku are common. I can't really say anything about the age based on those pics, could be Muromachi could be Edo, anyones guess is as good as mine.

If I'd have to guess based on that pic in op I'd guess it reads 元禄二年八 月日 - day in 8th month of 2nd year of Genroku (1689). At 13,9 inches it is just c. 35,3 cm so just slightly over tanto classification in length.

Good luck for the shinsa, yours seems to be a good sword. I am quite clueless about these new swords and their rankings but the smith is remarkable for the period I think. The Jūyō sword is actually slightly wider than yours in profile having less profile taper, going from 3,1 cm to 2,4 cm. You can see correct data on their Japanese page: https://www.aoijapan.jp/%E5%88%80%EF%BC%9A%E7%9F%B3%E5%A0%82%E9%81%8B%E5%AF%BF%E6%98%AF%E4%B8%80-%E6%96%87%E4%B9%85%E4%BA%8C%E5%B9%B4%E5%85%AB%E6%9C%88%E6%97%A5%E7%AC%AC49%E5%9B%9E%E9%87%8D%E8%A6%81%E5%88%80%E5%89%A3/ I think Aoi sells lots of commission items as you can often see swords pop up for sale that have been previously sold by them. They have all the info ready so they often use the same info texts. I mined interesting stuff (in my view) from Aoi website and came to conclusion that their item number dates to the first time the item appeared in their inventory. Some items have gone through them at least 3 times over the last 10 - 15 years. So in this case I believe the Jūyō Korekazu sword was first in their inventory in the very late 2015. And you can see in the current item listing that it came to sale again 24.8.2018.

Congrats Francis and it is a fine sword. Ryūmon Nobuyoshi is a great attribution, would be lovely to see this one in person.

Jeremiah, look what just popped up at Aoi for auction. Stunning sword, about only negative thing is the length. https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-kouda/

Looks like it was a blast.

I think signature reads 津田助廣作 - Tsuda Sukehiro saku

I think NTHK papers have different numbering methodology and this was about NBTHK numbering. I think for example Chris Bowen as US representative might be able to get NTHK numbers. Here are some more numbers. Jūyō & Tokubetsu Jūyō numbers are straight forward as they've been continuosly numbered from the beginning. For Tokubetsu Hozon I was able to quickly find 100,829 from 1985 (Showa 60) http://samuraishokai.jp/sword/17109.html, And before they modified numbers ranging into millions I found 155,315 from 2011 (Heisei 23) http://www.e-sword.jp/yari/1210-4001.htm . From 2018 Shinsa widest number range I found fast was 1,008,052 to 1,008,529 http://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1810-1080.htm , http://www.e-sword.jp/yari/1810-4010.htm Which would indicate about 500 swords passing Tokubetsu Hozon session. For Jūyō it is really straight forward as the numbers haven't been changed. Here is a sword from 1st Jūyō shinsa (1958), paper number 26, http://iidakoendo.com/6336/And here is one from 58th Shinsa (2012), paper number 13,272, http://iidakoendo.com/4386/ Tokubetsu Jūyō sword from 23rd Shinsa (2014) http://iidakoendo.com/5770/, paper number 1059. So all in all you could roughly say by these estimations that somewhat following number of the classes of current NBTHK papers for swords have been issued. (lost papers, repapered from other reason, duplicate papered items, etc. are all still in the count as once issued you cannot reuse the number) Hozon - c. 115,000 papers for swords Tokubetsu Hozon - c. 65,000 papers for swords Jūyo - c. 14,000 papers for swords Tokubetsu Jūyō - c. 1,200 papers for swords These are by no means totally accurate numbers but I think they give some idea of the numbers I believe are roughly in the range.

From the pic I'd guess it has been sold by Aoi-Art at some point. Signature could possibly be X貞 - X Sada?

It's an interesting question. I did some minor searching about NBTHK papered swords and I do believe that there are 100,000+ Hozon papers for swords (made a new topic for it not to derail this one). Of course some of them have gone Hozon - Tokubetsu Hozon - Jūyō route so they remain as "ghosts" in numbering as sword has papers on multiple levels. I think that only a portion of swords is papered by NBTHK or NTHK branches. You'll still see lots of unpapered stuff in Japan and all around the world. So I think the estimate in few millions might be a good one. When you think about it I have no idea how many thousands of swords are owned by some major museums alone in Japan. There are also some Shrines and private collectors with massive collections. You'll see tons of stuff being sold in Japan at any given moment. I think there are many thousands of swords being sold by well reputable dealers and many thousands on Japanese domestic market (internet auctions etc.). And of course you'll see good amount of stuff on international market too. Thousands of swords are being sold outside Japan too.

Well this is not factually researched information by any means, I just used common sense. But of course someone could contact NBTHK for official answer. I read yesterday the article about German meeting and following speculation about how many swords there are currently left. So of course I remembered that Darcy posted some time numbers of total Jūyō items at that time (at least I am fairly sure he made a post like that as I have the memory of it in my mind but cannot find that post)... And we've discussed multiple times how Jūyō are the cream of the crop and only small percentage will ever reach that level. So I immidiately thought I should look at the numbers on Hozon and Tokubetsu Hozon papers to get the idea of amount of items passed. I remember people saying NBTHK "changed" the numbering at some point and I think I got the why figured out with common sense after I tried to figure out how many Hozon & Tokubetsu Hozon swords there are. And I think the reason are Hozon swords hitting the first cap. So here is the explanation shortly. Here are the numbers I think the current papering started with. 100,000 - Tokubetsu Hozon swords 200,000 - Tokubetsu Hozon fittings 300,000 - Hozon swords 400,000 - Hozon fittings When adding common logic to the game after X99,999 they couldn't go 1 more as the next numbering category starts, so they have to add a number. for example 300,000 -> 3,000,000. The new shinsa system started in 1982 (Showa 57). I think they changed all numbering after Hozon swords hit 100,000. As I do not think Tokubetsu Hozon swords hit that 100,000 mark but their numbering is in Million range now as well as fittings too. I believe the Hozon swords hit around 100,000 in number in 2013 and the numbering was changed. Here is a sword numbered 390,077 from early 2012 (Heisei 24) and sword numbered 3,004,286 from early 2014 (Heisei 26). http://www.e-sword.jp/katana/1810-1105.htm& https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-mumei-den-enjyu-2/ Just for fun here is a Hozon sword from May 1983 (Showa 58), so soon after Hozon papering started and it is numbered 301,044 so I believe it is 1044th sword to pass Hozon. https://www.aoijapan.com/katana-kun-yon-to-kurihara-hiikosaburo-akihide-saku-showa-18-nen-shogatsuhi/ For example here are two swords from March 2018 shinsa (Heisei 30) and their numbers are 3,016,216 and 3,017,194 http://samuraishokai.jp/sword/18110.html& https://www.touken-matsumoto.jp/product_details.php?prod_no=KA-0197 So following my logic these are actually Hozon swords c.116 - 117,000's. Also to be noted that these are from the same shinsa, yet the numbers are almost 1000 apart. I also found blades between those numbers so I believe c. 1000 swords passing Hozon shinsa in March 2018. So if NBTHK shinsa is held 5 times per year that could in theory mean about 5000 Hozon swords yearly. And mathematically if I divide the my assumed current number of Hozon swords with years we get to little over 3000 Hozon swords yearly. So roughly 600 swords per shinsa. I think the amount of submissions has risen a lot from earlier years. This also might explain a bit why the shinsa team cannot spend too much time on one particular low level item as the number of submissions is just so great in number. It is easy to understand how you can get "safe" attributions below the Jūyō level. As only at higher level adequate time for research in great detail can be achieved. Might sound like a wild speculation and would be nice to get info from NBTHK officials about it. And of course would be nice to hear some discussion about this topic. Do you think this makes sense? Do you think this is crazy talk?

三品義明 - Mishina Yoshiaki

I like Uda school too. I generally like the bit "rustic" appearance of more rural schools. They might not be the finest art there is but for a historical collector just basic swords of my liking tick enough boxes for me. There are some very highly rated works by Uda school but they are signed. This must be taken into consideration, the highest ratings for Ko-Uda smiths are for signed pieces. There are 1 or 2 Jūbi tachi by Uda Kunifusa and I think 1 or 2 Jūbu tachi (don't know exactly how the designations carried on). Here is a Tokujū tachi by Uda Kunimitsu https://web.archive.org/web/20130709004919/http:/www.iidakoendo.com:80/info/item/a470.htm(I think this might be the Tokujū tachi attributed to 1st gen that is mentioned in one book). I counted roughly c. 20 smiths from indexes that will make up the Ko-Uda school. Out of those I believe about 6 are rated, many of them are totally unknown. So if you have a signed piece from one of those 6 smiths you'll probably get to high level (historical / artistical value). I think the "problem" is that Uda school in general is not highly regarded apart from few good smiths and the same applied to Ko-Uda & pre-Muromachi swords and Uda swords from Muromachi. Like Michael wrote above there is a huge gap in appreciation between Norishige and early Uda works. Is it justified? Well I don't want to go against common consensus but I think as a historical collector that some mumei swords are overvalued because of their attribution. That is just my personal opinion as I prefer signed or ubu mumei pieces in less than perfect condition over suriage mumei top tier condition. I think this example will show the difference in valuation a bit (my small statistics is just in the beginning but gives the idea). For Norishige 6 mumei blades, 3 Tokujū, 1 Jūyō and 2 are in museum collections. For Ko-Uda 23 mumei blades, 3 Jūyō, 12 Tokubetsu Hozon, 8 Hozon I like the sword posted in the OP, I think it is a good sword but I think like Marius that I can get a Ko-Uda attributed sword with similarish attributes for a lot smaller price at Tokubetsu Hozon level. Of course Jūyō prestige carries a lot of weigh in pricing.

Asking price was 2,7M Yen.

I took pictures of Tōsōgu section of 63th Jūyō shinsa results. Sorry if it is bit dark & blurry but it is about midnight in here and my lighting in the apartment is not too good and neither is my phone.

I've really enjoyed reading the discussions and seeing the views that people have on things. I think the "problem" arises with mumei swords as has been mentioned earlier. It is quite rare to argue about validated signature. However I must note that even NBTHK is sometimes uncertain in their attributions on signed swords. Kuni fumei, province unknown with approximate period in brackets is sometimes used. I own one such sword and 2 others that caught my eye recently have had this type of attribution. Or you can sometimes see the rare to mei ga aru in brackets, which I believe confirms the signature being unorthodox but legitimate for the smith in question. To me that shows that shinsa team is validating the signature as genuine and dealing with the uncertainity at the same time. While NBTHK is not too often specifying the period on papers it can sometimes be seen. My collection is 3 tachi with just Hozon papers and 2 of them have period pointed out on Hozon papers. I remember when some years ago I used to really like how NTHK always has the period attribution for a sword while NBTHK had often "just" school attribution. But now after more reading and studying I've realized that pretty much "just" school attribution points towards the period as well. Knowing history of the different schools will make you put certain things into certain time periods. Some posts by Darcy few years ago made me rethink my thinking for mumei swords and their attributions. My view now is that the attribution by shinsa team is for the school that ticks most boxes on a particular mumei sword in their opinion. So the attribution gives out a potential school and period for the sword, and it might not be by that specific school but it gives base for it. I think Darcy worded it out something like the attribution also shows the quality of the particular sword. I am not sure how many are members of NBTHK and get to read the kantei explanation translations provided by Markus (or have his Kantei-zenshu books) but if/when you read those you can see how some minor things make enough ticks for specific attribution instead of other perfectly viable possibilities. Of course the better the condition is the better the attribution can be due to characteristics of the workmanship seen. And like Franco and Arnold said earlier improved state of polish might lead to different conclusion. I think we too often think that attribution is set in stone, and that is I believe which causes some puzzlement when differing attributions come from different organizations. Of course it is problematic when/if the differing organizations have a totally different view on a sword (for example dating it 400-500 years apart). Even though I am on the defense of NBTHK and NTHK I must admit I have never sent anything to shinsa. Maybe if I some day send something and it comes back with attribution totally different than I would think it will be funny to guess how I will feel. Now here is a question, which I think shows the quality part that Darcy has explained many times. As I am building my old sword database, has anyone came across attribution just to Rai? No specific smiths or branches but just Rai in general.

Will be interesting to see the result. Both polished sword and the attribution it gets by the shinsa team. You have great comparison view from Kenji Mishina as he polished it and worked long time on it.