Bruce Pennington

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.

Joe!!! That's the most expensive looking Rinji (Type 3) I'VE EVER SEEN! OMG! And Neil, you always have drool-worthy gunto!

Cyn, Agree with Steve, a police sword. Could use a picture of the backstrap of the handgrip showing the circular emblem. I'm on the road this weekend, and won't be able to get at my reference books until Wednesday, so maybe someone else can confirm it's type. All kinds of swords were used throughout the war, including ones that were made well before. Some troops picked up swords like this during the post-war occupation.

Stephen, Beautiful fittings! Is that a fake blade?

This must be an old blade that had some damage. The two large mekugi ana are either from an old blade or the nakago is from a Type 95. WWII officer gunto only had one ana. So it could have been an old blade, damaged and repaired, or a damaged shinguto with a Type 95 nakago reattached. I'm puzzled by the non-military fuchi. That would be fine if this were a pre-WWII blade refitted in combat IJA fittings, but the ito and same' look very new. But then why would the fuchi have standard WWII paint scheme? Other than the fuchi, it all looks legit Japanese, but it's definitely got a story it could tell.

David, I took a look - nice looking blade! I don't know if you've seen this page on Kami Yoshimichi: http://japaneseswordindex.com/yoshmich.htm There were 11 generations of them. I only saw 2 oshigata (actual tang signatures) of them, so that's not a big sample, but I can see why some of the guys were leary of the signature on this sword. There didn't seem to be the amount of old-age rust on the tang (dark, blackish) to make it very old. So, there is a chance it was made during the war with a "gaimei" or faked signature. Several smiths were arrested during the war for making faked signatures. Famous smith names on blades were worth more money that non-famous names. So there was a strong temptation for some smiths to want to fake a famous one. Like I said, 11 generations are a LOT of smiths and swords, so without more old signatures to compare yours to, I wouldn't side either way on the issue. And either way, that a really good lookin' gunto!

I'm confused by your thought that the blade was not military. You haven't posted pics of the nakago (tang) and signature. Is it one of the old blades fitted for WWII?

David, Mark is correct about the assembly numbers. They aren't always there, but when they are, the number is usually on all the seppa, and often the tsuba. But if the pieces match perfectly, then they could have been made for this blade, and the number-stamping-person simply didn't finish them all (end of a shift; end of the day; US bombing run interrupted; etc). Like Mark said, it could be a replacement seppa too.

I don't know anything of the science of it. I used acetone to remove a really bad post-war gold/black paintjob on a latewar 95 saya and it worked pretty good. Still had the original paint underneath.

Nice backboard for your gunto display, Neil!! Ha!

There's a movie "The Bombing of Darwin" on Amazon Prime.