Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Japanese Sword? Vets Estate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Japanese Sword? Vets Estate

    Not exactly sure what it's supposed to be; has a small stamp at the bottom of the tang as shown. Any help or information greatly appreciated











    #2
    Fred,

    Yes this is a Japanese Type 98 shingunto. It’s a custom job, with the blue ito (handle wrap) and the nice fuller-groove. The tiny stamp is a Tokyo Army Arsenal inspector stamp. Its presence means the blade was not made in the traditional way.

    Nice sword. Does it have a scabbard?

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by BruceP View Post
      ...The tiny stamp is a Tokyo Army Arsenal inspector stamp. Its presence means the blade was not made in the traditional way.
      From what I can see, it looks like

      To[kyo]

      Bruce, is this the same 東 mark found on the NCO blades that are Kokura?

      Illustration from Ohmura-study.net


      --Guy

      Comment


        #4
        I think this is an NCO blade, fitted to 98 pattern type mounts. The nakago shortened to remove the end sarute barrel and screw hole, and make it fit the tsuka. I would like a look above the habaki at the other side of the blade to see if there are any numbers.
        I also think the ito to be a rebind, an unusual colour and the style of ito-maki is one not usually seen on gunto, and in very clean condition. It is however nicely done, and the style is high class and not the most easily done.

        The question as always is when this was done, a wartime expedient during a time of shortages, as we know happened. http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/japane...ersion-584796/

        Or a post war refit, perhaps for a martial artist?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by GHP View Post
          From what I can see, it looks like

          To[kyo]

          Bruce, is this the same 東 mark found on the NCO blades that are Kokura?

          Illustration from Ohmura-study.net


          --Guy
          Guy, yes, and while I haven't seen one of these on officer nakago before, I have lately seen "Na", Nagoya, stamps on two, so that's why it didn't surprise me. But it is common to see them on Type 95 nakago.

          But after Sengoku's comments, I took a closer look, and think he is right. The kissaki and bohi are identical to a Type 95 blade. I was initially puzzled by the grinder-looking marks on the nakago edges, and Sengoku's theory would explain that. A close look at the nakago jiri shows that it's not perfectly shaped.

          Fred, could you give us another picture of the blade, like pics 2 & 4, but with better lighting? I'd like to see if there was a serial number there, and just ground off, or if there was never one there. There were some specially made blades for officers, during the shortage, and they were identical to NCO blades, but with no serial number.

          Comment


            #6
            It should be 造兵刀-形状寸法等概ね鍛錬刀に準じたもので刀身は刀剣鋼(C1.0%-1.1%)を使用し火造り素延べ成形し反りを付して油焼入(温度840度)焼戻(530度)したものを鍛錬 刀に準じて上研ぎした。油焼入れのため折れないけれども焼刃はない.
            http://ohmura-study.net/219.html
            造兵刀=Arsenal made blade with Type 94/98 officer Gunto fitting.






            Comment


              #7
              Here are the additional photos, both sides of the blade and scabbard







              Comment


                #8
                To me it looks like someone buffed the finish off all the fittings, repainted the scabbard and rewrapped the handle post war. Did a nice job too if that's what you're looking for. Contrast it with the pics Bangbangsan posted.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Thanks for the updated pics Fred! The blade was definitely not an NCO blade, and was likely made for an officer. It’s still possible it was made by an NCO blade company during the gunto shortage years. Rod may be right about it being recently (post-war) refitted as the file marks on the tang look too new. I agree it was nice work either way.

                  Interesting gunto!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Certainly a collectable piece. Given that NCO 95's have serial numbers on all major parts, this indicates that they went on after completion and before leaving the factory as opposed to immediately after the blade was made.

                    ps, thanks for the link to Ohmura, I am familiar with the site but not that particular article.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      The scabbard is the one from the much debated "Navy-Army" sword.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by oldhonda View Post
                        The scabbard is the one from the much debated "Navy-Army" sword.
                        I noticed that as well. Do you see this as a variant on those? Much better ito and has same which you don't see on them, and a very different blade, but still has a certain resemblance.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by BruceP View Post
                          Thanks for the updated pics Fred! The blade was definitely not an NCO blade, and was likely made for an officer. It’s still possible it was made by an NCO blade company during the gunto shortage years. Rod may be right about it being recently (post-war) refitted as the file marks on the tang look too new. I agree it was nice work either way.

                          Interesting gunto!
                          http://ohmura-study.net/206.html
                          check this article about 造兵刀

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by oldhonda View Post
                            The scabbard is the one from the much debated "Navy-Army" sword.
                            These did exist in the period as I have owned a few bought directly from veterans.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by bangbangsan View Post
                              http://ohmura-study.net/206.html
                              check this article about 造兵刀
                              Yes! Good example!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X