MEI Nihontō · Authenticated

Catalogue № 001 · Spring 2026

Few blades survive
examination. These do.

Authenticated Japanese swords — papers, polish, and a named hand on every blade. By catalogue only.

Examine the catalogue Begin an inquiry → Move to look · scroll to enter
I · The Standard

What enters this catalogue, and what does not.

Folio II

Rules I have written down so that they can be held against me. They exist because there are days when an attractive blade arrives without papers, and days when a willing buyer offers full price for the wrong reasons.

I.

No blade is listed without NBTHK Hozon, or higher.

Tokubetsu Hozon, Jūyō, and Tokubetsu Jūyō papers are welcomed. A blade without contemporary NBTHK certification — however beautiful, however well told the story — will not appear here. The certificate is the floor, not the ceiling.

II.

Provenance is documented in full, or the gap is named.

Every listing carries the chain: smith or attribution, period, polisher, papering body, prior collections where known, and the dealer from whom the piece was acquired. Where a link is missing, the listing says so, in the same typeface as the rest.

III.

The acquisition timeline is six to eighteen months.

Each blade is selected, examined in hand in Japan, papered if not already, polished if appropriate, and shipped under controlled conditions. A quarter with nothing listed is preferred to a quarter with something I would not buy myself.

IV.

Inquiries are reviewed. Most receive a no.

Every serious message gets a reply. Replies are not quick, and they are rarely yes. A useful first message asks about a specific blade, a specific question, or a specific gap in the writer's own understanding.

V.

Every listed blade is confirmed by a second, named senior.

Authentication is not signed off in private. The second name on each piece is a senior dealer or shinsa member in Tokyo, Osaka, or the US, and is listed in the catalogue entry. Disagreement between us removes the piece.

VI.

Reading another collector's blade costs nothing.

Photographs of a piece you already own can be sent in. The reply will be honest, including the frequent answer that the photographs are not enough to say. Education is not a paywalled product here.

II · Field Notes

An open ledger of the study.

Folio III
Dated entries from the working notebook, posted in public. Trips, examinations, blades considered, blades declined, and corrections to my own work. Photographs and longer write ups are linked where they exist. If you want evidence for any of the rules above, this section is where to look first.
2026 · 05 · 12 — Tokyo
Three days at Tōken Sugita. Examined four Bizen wakizashi. On the second, confirmed a retouched bōshi from a 1970s repolish — visible only under raking light, not in the dealer's photographs. Declined. Returning in September to a different piece I would like to handle a second time before deciding.
Declined
2026 · 04 · 21 — Osaka
Second day observing NBTHK shinsa. Twelve appraisals over six hours. Took notes on Yamashiro and Sōshū hada distinctions I have been getting wrong in photographs — written up at length in the notebook with reference plates.
Study
2026 · 03 · 04 — New York
JSSUS spring meeting. Presented photographic comparisons of suguha variations. Correctly taken apart for the methodology by Mr. K. and two other members; reworked it the following week with their notes in front of me.
Correction
2026 · 01 · 18 — Kyōto
Handled a Tokubetsu Jūyō Yamashiro, late Heian, in a private collection. One hour examination granted by introduction. No purchase considered, no offer made. Notes and measurements only.
Recorded
2025 · 11 · 02 — Catalogue № 001
First listed blade closed to a collector in Connecticut. Six month conversation, three meetings, final inspection in both our hands. He paid roughly acquisition cost plus polish and shipping. The margin will not always be that thin.
Closed
IV · Considered · Not Acquired

The blades I said no to, and why.

Folio V

Pieces examined in the last twelve months that did not enter the catalogue. Each is listed with the dealer's permission and a plain note on the disqualifying observation. Several are excellent blades by any reasonable definition. They were not, that day, ones I was prepared to underwrite.

№ R014 · Tokyo
Sōshūden Katana, late 14th c.NBTHK Hozon · polish c. 1998
Polish is two generations old and beginning to tire; jihada definition compromised across the monouchi. A repolish would be appropriate, but funding it is the buyer's decision to make in full information, not mine to absorb into a listing.
Polish
№ R009 · Kyōto
Bizen Tachi, attributed OsafuneNBTHK Tokubetsu Hozon
Papers in order; nakago shows evidence of work in the 1960s that the dealer's photographs did not record. The blade itself is honest; the tang's recent history is not. Returned the morning of the second viewing.
Nakago
№ R007 · Osaka
Mumei Wakizashi, attr. Miharano current papers; sayagaki only
Pleasant to handle, fairly priced. But without a contemporary NBTHK paper, Rule I applies without exception — including for pieces I personally believed in.
No Papers
№ R002 · Online
"Edo period" Katanacertificate of unclear origin
Photographs alone showed at least three indicators of a 20th century reproduction, including a hamon pattern that does not occur in the claimed school. Reported to the platform. Listed here for the public record.
Counterfeit
№ R021 · Tokyo
Shinshintō Katana, signedNBTHK Hozon · 1990s polish
Authentic and well made. In this price band the buyer is paying for both activity and elegance, and this piece has one but not the other. Recommended onward to two colleagues; not a fit for this catalogue.
Wrong fit