Identification aid?

[u/Pointlowlyhr]

I've got these earlier today and want to have a better idea as to what specifically Im looking at. Google image search is saying that the yellow one is from mid 1800's and the black (eagle) on is either modern Damascus or 1400's traditional tamahagane. Note the yellow has nothing on the tang where as the eagle has something. Both have a singular pin and I am told 1960's or older... I have put the yellow then the eagle in photos, so if you are looking at the photos, please keep that in mind.

I am thinking/planning getting these authenticated/appraised, but I want a better understanding before then.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

[u/wotan_weevil]

The yellow one is Chinese. late 20th century, 1980s or 1990s, or possibly later.

The fittings on the other one look very Chinese-fake style. The pattern on the blade doesn't have deep acid etching of the yellow one, but the pattern is otherwise the type usual on Chinese fakes. The unusual thing is the habaki (two-piece habaki, niju habaki, 二重鎺) - I don't recall seeing that style before on a Chinese fake. The 21st century Chinese-made honest replicas sometimes use that style.

[u/Pointlowlyhr → u/wotan_weevil]

And what of the inscriptions. Would they have been added to 'increase value'?

[u/wotan_weevil → u/Pointlowlyhr]

When these were common on ebay (in the 2000s and early 2010s), I didn't notice any difference in price between those with and without inscriptions (they were usually sold for US$100-200 by Chinese sellers).

In this case, the inscription reads 正三位有功, "Shōsanmi Arikoto". Arikoto did sign some of his swords on the blade (which is quite unusual - inscriptions on the blade rather than the tang are rarely the swordsmith's signature). Here are a tanto and wakizashi made by Arikoto and signed on the blade:

https://www.aoijapan.net/tanto-mumei-chigusa-arikoto/

https://nihontowatch.com/listing/580230

and his style of signature is quite different compared to this fake. Also, his workmanship on these blades is vastly different from the fake.

On the other sword, the inscription is on the tang, the usual place for a swordsmith's signature. I can't read it, and I don't think the AI reading offered by Google Images is correct. In any case, the fittings are super-low quality compared to Japanese fittings, and the blade looks like a Chinese-made fake, so I don't see any reason to assume that it isn't a Chinese-made fake. Therefore, what the signature says isn't important.

[u/heurekas]

And this is a good lesson why you don't let Google identify antiques.

[u/Tobi-Wan79]

So as Wotan said these are super fake, and not even good ones, basically every part of these on its own is a good example of how to spot a fake.

I would suggest to read this a couple of times, and use it for future reference, or at least ask before you buy anything again.