Alexander Smith

In fact, if anyone knows of a similar piece, let me know. I’d be curious to see it.

I’d agree it’s most likely muromachi. Sword smiths named masanobu come up a lot in that era as well. Could you give examples of such a piece (a katana of such length from that era)? I’ve known some very long katana but don’t recollect ones from that era that were so long. Usually they’re just tachi or nodachi. It’s also worth noting that extremely long tachi were popular at the time. To what extent of that trend reflected on the making of swords not made for horseback use, I don’t know.

To clarify on this point, it’s not an uchigatana but it’s signed like one. Katana mei instead of tachi mei. Does the occurrence of the mei on the wrong side of the blade imply it to be gimei?

Actually, “katana” refers to Japanese swords in general whereas “uchigatana” implies a blade over 2 shaku that is not a tachi and is shorter than a nodachi. In this case, we know it’s a tachi from the sori and sugata. Length can imply it to be a tachi but doesn’t dictate it to be one.

The nagasa is 2.61 shaku, sori of 2cm. It’s clearly a tachi. The question is whether a tachi being signed katana mei is an indicator if it being gimei. I apologize in advance for image quality but it should do the sugata justice.

I came across a Tachi recently that has the sugata of a Kamakura era piece but is signed Uchigatana mei. It was signed "Masanobu" (正信 ). It was badly damaged so any metalurgical features of the blade itself are almost impossible to decipher and are effectively unhelpful. Has anyone known a maker of a Tachi to sign Uchigatana mei? Perhaps an indicator of gimei? I certainly haven't encountered this situation in my experience.