So, I did some reading last night concerning this particular era in which the paper work claims the sword was made. From my understanding it was very, very common for swords to have been shortened due to the battle tactics of the time, where the warriors would use longer blades, surround leaders that were on horse back, and take them down using said longer blades. Those longer blades (excuse my lack of appropriate terminology, again I am quite new to this) were often shortened to accommodate close quarter fighting. IF this particular blade was shortened during the actual era in which it was forged does that still take away from it's value? That being said, was it common for longer blades to have such short grips? Seems to me that longer blades would also make for a longer grip for, well, better grip and more power in the swing of the blade. So now I am questioning whether or not the length of the tang is correct? Am I looking into this too much or is it possible that this particular maker just didn't forge a blade with the right hamon?