Bruce Pennington

I sent the seller a message. Hope he listens. Sometimes they get irate.

I agree with Shamsy & Hamfish! Blade and its fittings legit (lucky you with such a low serial number!!!) The saya and its fittings are a puzzle. The paint quality on the saya is crappy, unusual for a 94/98. The ashi and semegane look great while the koiguchi and ishizuke look worse than a Chinese fake! The Chinese fakes are better than this work! HA! All I can imagine is that with the shortage, and suppliers scrambling to meet production demands, mabye this custom koshirae guy couldn't get all the fittings for this, and had a local guy craft the odd ones for him on the "hurry-up". Guy, I think your theory is right-on.

Same here, only once or twice on a 98. I have a Rinji ('44 pattern) with it. I can't say I've seen anything about it in the reference books, other than the fact that it was used, in general. Sort of makes your gunto have some personalized uniqueness!

Wow, it's a shame it didn't have the original flag with it!

Hi Bruce - Bruce here! You're talking about an Officer Type 98 in combat saya (scabbard). That all you need? Have you taken the tsuka (handle) off to see if there is a swordsmith name and/or date? Ha! John was posting as I was, beat me by 1 minute!

Eugene, In my earlier years, I would have rattled off a long list of the things I see wrong, where the veterans would remain silent. But as I have been at this for a while, I'm seeing how much better the reproductions are getting, and I realize that every bit of help they can get by reading posts like this, helps them make their fakes even better. I would recommend you check with your original person who raised the concern about it's originality. You might also visit the Ohmura site and study the pictures there. http://ohmura-study.net/790.html I'm not trying to be rude, but we don't know you and your authenticity in your posted reasons to be here. And even if your intentions are completely legitimate, the "bad guys" are still out there and could read this post. I don't want to help them any more than necessary.

I agree. This claims to be made by Suya Shoten, but their standards and quality control were much higher than this. The serial number looks very short by the size of the painted over area - maybe too short. But it would really help to see that.

Brian, Thanks for that link, I had not seen those articles before! The one on gunto requirements was interesting. It states that a hamon is optional. Also interesting in the cutting test that a steel plate was to be cut as well as the usual bamboo role.

Chris, If you don't find an answer here, a couple of guys that might know are Nick Komiya at Warrelics http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/ and Chris Bowen, currently active on Facebook: Military Swords of Imperial Japan (Shin Gunton).

The reason that made me curious is that it seems that on all earlier Type 95s, the standardization and quality control of the Tokyo arsenal, and it's associated contractors, seems to be tighter than the Nagoya group. So if I were in a decision making role at the end of the war, and was going to pick a group to continue making swords, it seems I would pick the one that did the best work. Unless that group didn't exist anymore, or I wanted to use them to make something else that their quality production reputation demanded. Probably a question that is unanswerable, but thought I'd throw it out there just in case.

I agree and have never been able to put it into words like you just did. The real tsukas have crisp detail, and the fakes always seem not-crisp. Also, they definitely like those brass tsukas, don't they! I have NO idea what that belt hanger is supposed to be.

Chris & Steve, Concerning the use of the term "Type" - If I understand Nick's objection it is this: There were official Imperial orders by the Imperor officiallly creating certain weapons of all kinds. Those orders generate the "Type" designation. Everything else is a variation of those official Types. It bothers him when we use the word Type for the Rinji gunto because that implies that the style was ordered by the Imperor, which it was not. Like Steve said, and I tried to explain this to Nick as well, collectors live in another world, using differing languages. We use nicnames to simplify language. Instead of saying "hey look at the 80 Yen model created to be simpler to manufacture and has laquered ito designed to withstand more use without cutting and unraveling!" We say "hey look at my Type 3". So I understand his objection, and as I get deeper into military gunto, I struggle with it too. We collectors are even bothered when a seller calls them "Marine Landing Sword"! HA! So until the community settles on a term that makes everyone happy, we're going to have lengthy sentences to describe what we are about to discuss. And it will generate lengthy threads like this one!

Sorry, I’ve never heard that part of the process.

Chris, very cool that you found these two "sister" swords! Are the nakago numbers you refer to painted numbers? The 98's were being made all the way to the end of the war. The Rinji (type 3) or Contingency sword was made parallel to the 98's. Earliest date I've seen is Dec '42 and they run all the way through '45.

Seems to me almost all late-war Type 95 NCO gunto were made by Seki/Nagoya, with a few made by Incheon. Any idea why? Were the other contractors (Iijima, Suya, etc) bombed? Were they tasked with other weapons contracts? Anyone know?

There seems to be a rash off these with fake “Gifu” stamps lately. The Kokura stamp is wrong and there’s no inspector stamp. The serial number is upside down for a Kokura blade too . Good quality reproduction, but not authentic. I wouldn’t pay more than $150 USD for a reproduction.

Andrew take a look at this: http://www.ebay.com/itm/GREAT-WWII-Japanese-Samurai-Sword-Officer-SHIN-GUNTO-World-War-2-KATANA-Blade/222672092411?_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIM.MBE%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D41451%26meid%3De2599044f4dd4b888818b0785fd5d66f%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D6%26mehot%3Dpp%26sd%3D202073969705&_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851 Leather saya seems very similar.

Dawson has some that are close. Closest seems to be the Guard Design #3, pg 226. He states "During the ten years that passed between the introduction of the 1873 models and the introduction of the 1883 models, the navy apparently experimented with a variety of designs that were not included in the Naval Uniform Regulations" So I'd say a Navy 1873 variant. Be nice if someone would translate the kanji?!?

Chris, The issue guys have with the "crew gunto" label is there was no such official term in the IJA. There were official "Types" (94, 95, 97, 98, etc) but not "crew". I understand the image created by Ohmura-san's page, but as good as he was, there has been MUCH research into the National Archives on this. Like you point out, if a guy wanted to use a waki because he worked a tank or aircraft, that was his choice. But it was just a waki. There are blade types (tanto, waki, katana, etc) and Types. Other than the contengency models (Rinji), there are no other official labels. As collectors we throw some labels around because they have been adopted by our world, and that does help communicate something specific to others, but if it's different than official lingo, it can run aground with guys that get more deeply into the craft.

Wow, Chris, that's gorgeous! Looks like a well made blade. I'm on the road and don't have my books, but that backstrap is definitely at least Field-grade. Did you buy it, or just drooling like the rest of us?

Looks like it still has dried cosmoline on the blade, or is it paint?

How peculiar?! You can no longer see it after oiling? I wonder if it comes back if you dry the oil off and let it set for a while?

Me thinks you are all right.

Jojo, What a beautiful find!!! Great old waki in gorgeous fittings. Pictures and lighting do weird things to blades, so don't worry about that.

Agree with Steve on the Type 95. I'm away from home and don't have my books, but the first one appears to be Japanese Type 19'ish with 5-7-5 upper level Imperial Household flower.