Bruce Pennington

That's quite an interesting book Thomas cited. It is an American edition, first published in 1942, of the original Tokyo edition dated "as far back as 1932." Col Creswell had 2 Japanese officers working with him on it. Nick Komiya, Warrelics, has doubts about the definition since the yamagata images on blankets and other military items have 3 full peaks. I believe it is possible they Army stamp marking office simply narrowed the image to fit a tiny metal stamp.

Ahso! It says “property of the War Dept”. That makes more sense than the prefecture idea. Mantetsu blades, even unfinished ones sent to the Tokyo Arsenal, wouldn’t be getting a Yamagata prefecture stamp, but getting a War Dept stamp would make sense! It would also explain why blades would have them from other areas of the empire.

Thomas,I looked up "Yamagata" and found there is a prefecture named Yamagata. It is near another prefeture, Fukushima, that I have seen an inspector stamp from (fuku). It is possible these are inspector stamps from the various prefectures. Interesting! The word means "mountain shape" and would be a fitting stamp for the Yamagata prefecture.

Me too, still don't see it after hearing the translation! Dud wis a badd spillerr!

I would check with Neil, IJASWORDS. He's got a great collection of the late-war gunto. My un-expert view is: NOT fake. Occupied forces likely. The crooked shinogi (that line that runs down the nakago) is a sure sign of non-Japanese work. The tsuba of occupied forces swords usually attempt to integrate some IJA style, but are always off (maybe intentionally. I doubt the IJA would allow "allies" to exactly copy thier military spec items) but with clear quality compared to the icky stuff you see on fakes.

David, I had heard similar things like John stated, like Mantetsu are too hard so traditionalists don't like to use their stones on them. So I checked with Hofhine and he happily accepted the job. Very pleased with his work.

That's a nice grip material. Is it eel?

David Hifine - http://6muncodqjvmdpowvj6egtg-on.drv.tw/kensei/ It’ Run you over $2,000, but it was worth it to me.

Which brings us to a regular discussion we have often - There are some collectors who really cherish WWII weapons "as is" because it shows the life of the blade. Then there are some who love restoring gunto to as close as their original condition as possible. I was seriously torn when I was considering having my dad's Mantetsu polished. The blade had lots of scratches and marks of use (ok, sure, that could have come from weed-wacking! But he got it from a fellow marine in 1957 and I don't think it saw that kind of treatment). So, do I "lose" all that history?! Or do I polish? I went with the polish, as I have several other gunto in as-is condition, but this one of Dad's will be, probably, my only polish. And man, oh man, did it come out beautiful. But, it boils down to what flavor of collector are you. Figure that out and go for it!

Bo, I have seen many of this style, commonly called Type 3 fittings, with wooden saya (scabbard). They are usually with more expensive, high quality blades. They're not usually covered in ratan, though! They will have other upgraded paint and finish. That's quite a beautiful and rare gunto you've got there. If you have the hobby cash, it would be worth having one of the pros mentioned already to re-wrap the handle. I wouldn't try to improve the blade at all. Lightly oil it for preservation. It looks great as is.

Rats, what a killjoy! Couldn’t even enjoy my fantasy for 24 hours.

Chris, The document states that the 8th Army PX had contracted "for some 8,000 swords."

Here's some food for thought. A document from right after the war, discussing swords classified as national treasures and works of art. Paragraph 1.b. lists a sword without signature but said to be made by a guy named "Isshin"! Ha! So, a Japanese official actually listed the Koa Isshin as an important work of art!? Hmmmmm. This comes from the Articles section: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/forum/57-nt-and-iao-list-and-sword-documents-by-us-gov-1945-1950/

Wouldn't a 9 look like this?

That's the way it looks.

Here is the document. It shows the Tenshozan factory was the only factory allowed to remain open and was making these swords.

Here is the document. It states that the Tenshozan factory is the only one allowed to remain open after the war and was making these "swords". I don't know if they were just making the blades and Japan Sword was doing the rest. It doesn't say.

Copying something provided by Ian on another thread: Ian B3HR2UH Jo Saku Members 120 posts Locationdrouin australia Posted Yesterday, 11:26 PM There are a few documents around that I think explain what these swords are Among the fantastic documents that Stephen Thorpe kindly posted in the articles section is the report of a conference held at the Tenshozan Works Kamakura on the 9th of September 1946. Those present included the manager Shintaro Yao who said that he had a contract with the 8th Army PX to deliver for sale by them 8000 swords . He was worried because the PX had cancelled the contract. Among the downloadable documents in the National Diet library website is a letter from Capt Wall dated 22 July 1949 where he seeks permission to take home one Naval type Japanese sword presented to him by Mr Yao supervisor of the Japanese Naval sword Manufacturing Co Kamakura . There is a further letter dated 4 March 1950 requesting authorization to procure authentic samurai swords and hari kari knives for resale to the Exchange . I am not sure what the exchange is but the letter goes on to approve the recommendation that CPO be allowed to procure for sale to the exchange some 6000 souvenir swords . It was noted that the recommendation was based on the fact that an original purchase order had been placed with the manufacturer and had not been cancelled in time to prevent the manufacture of some 6000 swords. In order to prevent monetary loss to the Japanese concern procurement of the remainder of the purchase order was approved . I think these documents explain the origins of these swords Ian Brooks

That's great information Ian! It confirms what I had found. Over on Gunboards someone posted one of these with the Army PX document. It written out by the 8th Army Exchange and says it's a souvenir not a war weapon. By all appearances, it was sold by the PX! I think these were being made as part of MacArthur's post-war effort to keep businesses running. You can see more of it on this thread: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/22400-nlf-gunto-discussion/page-1?hl=gunto and http://www.wehrmacht...ad.php?t=984036

I couldn't get mine to unscrew. Something under the sakura hangs up on the wire wrap. I'm afraid if I force it, it will break the wire. Oh well, it's a factory blade anyway.

Trystan, Do you have the smith name on that blade? I have in my files another kai with the identical styled Toyokawa stamp and it, too, has a kanji stamped below the arsenal stamp. It is the first kanji of the smith that made it. Could this be what we are seeing on yours?

That's a new one on me, Trystan! Katakana "Ka". Thomas - do you have this one on your document?

Well, most factory-made products were, and still are, numbered. Bayonets, guns, etc, all had numbers. Don’t know why factories do it though. There were a small number of smiths that numbered their blades.

I would still like to hear Morita-san's thoughts on why the school kids kept records of the serial numbers they polished, and a clarification as to how certain we are the blades were actually produced at Mukden. I've attached the updated document (4.0) which includes these new numbers and I've attached the chart showing the serial number flow using the iroha method. mantetsu serial numbers (1).pdf

Trystan, I see it now, thanks! This would also clear up my question about how many blades were being produced per year. Serial numbers in this range would still fit the 6,000/year number. The '45s are: I 57, 90, 213, 289, and 449.