Natichu

No limitations to Canada to my knowledge; I have had no issues importing a few, all through EMS on the Japan side and Canada Post on the Canadian side.

For those that either don't have FB or don't feel comfortable making a more public post there, I sent Mr. Martin a private message through FB messenger to indicate I should be counted as a yes. I received a thumbs up reply, so assume that's another way to get the numbers up.

PM sent.

Hi Adam, Any chance I can get the weight of the tsuba? Any idea if it is cast vs forged etc.? (Apologies if these are dumb questions, I have essentially zero tsuba knowledge but this one quite caught my eye)

Oh wow, well more than I anticipated! Thanks for letting me know.

What did it end up going for?

Reminds me somewhat of uma-no-ha midare.

Many thanks for saving me from myself! I'd been eyeing this one for sometime. A great deal, and looks like a fantastic addition to any collection.

Assuming the truth of your premises, that is the marks are known to be both genuine and an honest accounting, I would think they would significantly add to value. While some might be put off by them, I think among those predisposed to be interested in historical weapons they would be a minority.

Hey Gordon, should that be 21mm for the sakihaba? Thanks for getting those so quickly!

Hi Gordon, would you be able to provide the motohaba, sakihaba, and kasane (moto and saki preferably)? Many thanks, it looks like a lovely blade.

As another complete novice, I second that recommendation.

That is exceptionally helpful, thank you very much! As you say, what they didn't say is likely as instructive as what they did - something to keep in mind when a dealer might be leaning more to a specific generation than the attribution likely supports. The usual adage of the sword proving the mei (or in this case, the attribution) seems one that is good to keep in mind then.

Hi all, Just digging into the weeds on a few pieces, and had a question where a mumei blade is attributed to a specific smith by the NBTHK, but no generation is specified on the kanteisho despite there being multiple potential generations using that name. I do appreciate the NBTHK is often using a smith name as more a tiered attribution of quality for a school. But I would still assume they have a specific generation/smith in mind when making the attribution. Is the general assumption that it is the first generation? Or the most famous smith using that name? Or is no assumption possible such that one must really compare the specific piece against the known work of each generation when trying to assess the likely age of a blade and trying to understand why it has been attributed as it has? Any illumination on interpreting mumei attributions would be greatly appreciated!

Assuming this is the same smith, I enjoyed the read: https://markussesko.com/2013/03/22/the-inokiri-and-the-travels-of-masazane/