Ray Singer

Likewise for Nakahara's book. We are fortunate to have reprints available today.

You're getting good advice in starting with a good primer. I would recommend these (and in the following order): https://www.amazon.com/Facts-Fundamentals-Japanese-Swords-Collectors/dp/1568365837 https://www.amazon.com/Connoisseurs-Book-Japanese-Swords/dp/1568365810

Swords which have NBTHK Hozon kanteisho will be have an authentic signature (not gimei) if signed. Some collectors have concerns with the older, deprecated kanteisho formats (Kicho, Tokubetsu Kicho and Koshu Tokubetsu Kicho).

For the blades with a white kanteisho, you are viewing an NBTHK Kicho Token certificate (which is a depricated certification). Mumei (Omi no kami Hisamichi) Kanenaga (Seki) The third sword has been issued Hozon as described. Mumei (Uda) Presently, the NBTHK does not issue any kanteisho for swords which do not qualify for at least Hozon. There many individuals here who sell swords and are willing to ship to Canada. Suggest reviewing the Sales section and asking the sellers individually if they have any concerns about shipping internationally.

Getting back to this a bit late, but my understanding (in terms of the most recent NBTHK policy) is as Jean mentioned. There have been a few past discussion threads here about this particular topic. I believe one that came to mind first was the thread below (and specifically it was Guido's comment #16 which had stuck in my memory). http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/3708-nagamaki-nagamaki-naoshi/

It is disappointing, after coming here for feedback and advice, that you are telling us that you still may mutilate this sword (as you are guaranteed to do without any formal training) in spite of our recommendations not to take this course. The reason that these pieces have survived this long, and in such condition, is that their caretakers regarded themselves as custodians rather than owners. In a short time (relative to the overall lifetime of the sword) the sword would be passed along to another caretaker and should ideally have been preserved in as close to its original health as possible. So no, I disagree that it is only the business of the 'owner' and that they can do whatever they want with swords in their care. When I look at the photos of your sword I see absolutely no reason why it should be restored, even by a licensed togishi. The older polish looks generally intact and you should be able to study and enjoy the wakizashi as it presently is. John Yumoto used to say that he was better at evaluating swords than some of his Japanese counterparts because he had to do so in the somewhat degraded condition and state of polish they were often found in. If you need to struggle a bit more to appreciate the sword through a few light scratches and stains, then that harder effort made to study the workmanship will go towards further training your eyes in what to look for.

Naginata. http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/ns8.html Swords will be considered naginata rather than nagamaki, unless they have nagamaki koshirae.

Dwaine, as Steve wrote above amateur sword restoration is not a hobby that you will find supporters of here. I would strongly encourage you not to attempt restoring your sword or any other traditionally-made swords. If you absolutely must put steel to stone there are countless numbers of Chinese replicas that you can work on.

Not for sale Stephen.

One of my favorite recent finds. This one was shared in the translation section recently. 羽州庄内於細谷村五十余ノ者ホソコシヲハラフ 其刃ヲ以テ大立割如夢 脇毛切手大沼甚右衛門正重 In Yamagata's Shonai Hosoya village cut the thin waist of 50 people. Big standing cut is like a dream on this blade. Wakimou Kirite Ônuma Jinzaemon Masashige

If you are referring to taking an ubu tsuba such as the examples above and refiling it to fit your iaito, I would expect some loss of value. The first two do not appear to have ever been fitted with sekigane, so if the tsuba you are considering is similar then you would be filing the nakago-ana of the tsuba directly rather than adjusting an existing sekigane to fit your sword.

Definitely a kakejiku box.

I think that 'best' is largely a matter of opinion and depends one what type of sword on is evaluating against. Sumitani came closest to realizing Bizen (for example Kagemitsu), Ichimonji and Aoe during the Showa period. Today if you want the best Ichimonji utushimono and an unlimited budget you would go to Ohno Yoshimitsu. Sadaichi was probably the best at Gassan-den post war. Okimasa was said to be the best at realizing Kiyomaro, with Moriyoshi a close second. I've heard Amada Akitsugu was the best at Yamashiro-den. More than one person who saw Yoshindo's hitatsura work has said it was the best Soshu-den they have seen in modern times, though I don't think he has won a Masamune-sho (yet).

Best vs. most famous will yield different answers. Many of the top smiths who worked after the war did produce swords during the war as well, including Tsukamoto Okimasa, Gassan Sadaichi and Tanigawa Moriyoshi. My opinion is that Tsukamoto Okimasa is the overall best from the Showa period. I personally love the work of Moriyoshi and would rank him at the top as well, but he did not receive the fame of some equal or lesser smiths. I believe that Seiho Sumitani was considered to be the best by Dr. Homma.

Uda Kunimune. Appears gimei. Blade looks to be Showa (mei format like a Seki Showa-to).

For reference, a Kaga Goto kozuka I saw on Aoi which also incorporates kebori into the design. https://www.aoijapan.net/kozuka-mumeikaga-goto-2/

Sword 1 (appears Shinshinto Bizen, as others have said. The sword does not seem to have the tight nioiguchi and somewhat sparse hamon typically seen in Yokoyama work.) Chounsai Tsunatoshi (my first impression was Unju Korekazu) Sword 2 (hamon seems very inconsistent in terms of the treatment of nie, and jitetsu does not appear as fine as typical mainline Hizen-to. I agree with Mark above that the sword has a Yamato feel, the hamon is reminiscent of Sue-Tegai work. I am less confident about this bid than others given the yasurimei. Monju/Shigekuni would probably be closest to Tegai in the Edo period but the sword does not look to be at that level). I will ignore the yasurimei, which points to a later machiokuri blade, and bid Tegai. (Previous bid was Echizen Yasutsugu) Sword 3 (narrow shinogi-ji is typical of Soshu and Yamashiro, hamon is nie-deki with areas of somewhat wild highs and lows when adjusted in Photoshop. Coarse areas are due to worn ji, but default jitetsu appears to be a fine ko-itame.) Niji Kunitoshi * Note: Edit to kantei 2

I am sure it is gimei (not signed by the actual smiths who signed Izumi no kami Kanesada). The nakago has the look of a WWII era sword, and from the hamon does not appear to be a Showa-to. It is difficult to say though. The koshirae is a bit of a patchwork quilt and the tsuba looks homemade.

Kanesada. 和泉守兼定 (Izumi [no] kami Kanesada)

Seems like the second instance of the moon *may* be intended to be the motif of the moon reflected in the water (ie. an unattainable dream).

Yes, any sword signed with this mei would be gimei.

There are no authentic examples of a signed Soshu Sadamune (Takagi Sadamune signed differently).

Yes, Matt has got it. I was inventing strokes in my head which were actual spots of corrosion (and soap). Clearly Amakuni.

If anyone here purchased this kurikata, it would appear to be a good match. http://nihonto.us/GURIBORI%20KURIKATA.htm

Looks like a portion of a Rai mei. There would typically be a 3-4 character signature. 来國_ I would be careful about putting soap on the nakago and leaving the soap residue there as you may promote additional corrosion.