Franco

There are only two polishers in North America to my knowledge that have served full apprenticeships in Japan, Shigekazu 'Jimmy' Hayashi of San Francisco, and Takeo Seki in BC Canada. Both of whom I highly recommend from personal experience.

Sorry, no apologies for raining on anyone's parade here, but just as exciting as receiving a freshly polished sword may be, and it is, the truth is that unless the sword has been polished by an excellent polisher the end results may be in both the long and short term not quite up to par ending in disappointment. And what could be worse is that the recipient may not have the background to properly assess the result or know the difference. After all, ignorance is bliss. In the end the sword owner may find out by receiving a disappointing and poor shinsa result leaving them wondering how that was possible without ever understanding why. Oh, yes, a shiny "new" sword, but what if some of the most critical factors like foundation and finish were not executed quite up to snuff or even incorrectly (for the sword)? Since, according to the Japanese, kantei is the very foundation for nihonto appreciation, wouldn't that make the choice of selecting the right polisher for the sword most critical? Which brings up the question of how do we really know? By simply asking? By looking at actual examples of the polisher's work (traveling to sword shows or participating in club events where you have the opportunity to see polished swords)? Choose wisely, do your homework. Just food for thought.

https://www.nihonto.com/bungo-takada/

Shape is early, however, keep in mind that there was a period of time during the muromachi period that produced worthy copies of earlier swords, sometimes complete with a mei. A blueish tinge to the metal is one give away. Real or memorex?

Although reading kanji is not by any means my forte this looks to read Kane Mitsu. Corrections welcomed and will surely come along shortly. Which Kanemitsu made this sword needs to be determined. Images of the entire sword would be most helpful in making that determination and appreciated. Signatures (Mei) can be shoshin (genuine) or gimei (false). In general what is called a Shinsa can certify its validity and pinpoint the maker. The patina on the nakago (tang) hints that this sword is of some age and appears to be well cared for to this point in time, don't mess with it - carefully research proper Japanese sword care articles, there are many posted on this website.

Hmm ... , 平安時代 [前期] Early Heian (弘仁 Kōnin) period 794 ~ 897 , 平安時代 [後期] Late Heian (藤原 Fujiwara) period 898 ~ 1185 .

In short, yes. In kantei a sword is judged by the workmanship, the workmanship confirms the "mei (nakago)" and not the other way around. But, as we can see from O suriage papered swords there is a wide range of possibilities from almost definitely, yes, this person made this sword, all the way to a general school/tradition attribution. The better the sword the more likely the answer will be more specific. see previous answer. Then there will always remain questions about what exactly was the original nakago. One adage from a collecting point of view says "half the value of a sword is in the nakago." The sword would (almost undoubtedly) get bounced at shinsa. A trained professional could refinish the nakago, but that's a whole other conversation in itself.

The Japanese write that kantei is the foundation for nihonto appreciation. What is kantei? What does Sato sensei say is the 2nd step (that is too often skipped or sometimes completed overlooked) in kantei? Why is this sword Hozon? Why is this sword only Hozon? Swordsmith ratings? What is the history of nihonto? Books; Sato's, Yamanka's Newletter's revised, Markus Sesko's, The Craft of the Japanese Sword , ... , ... Some places to begin the journey ... enjoy!

Lotus flower