Bruce Pennington

Matt, Terminology time! "Machine made" is collector short-hand for "non-traditionally made, which could mean a variety of things like hand forged but not tamahagane steel, or oil quenched, or other things." All blades were made by people. To increase production speed while maintaining reliability, factories began using a variety of methods like hydraulic hammers, oil quenching, rolled steel, all of which removes a blades from the "traditionally made" category. But often, the blades still have a good deal of quality workmanship put into them. Here is a list of methods from Richard Fuller's book: In my opinion, blades with the large Seki stamp tend to be nice looking and had a good deal of workmanship. They were most likely non-traditionally made, but I like them. But I am a WWII gunto lover, not a nihoto art aficionado.

Great looking sword, Kevin! I love the unusual bohi. Your investigations/analysis are always a pleasure to read as well.

Someone like Thomas or Trystan may have insight, but I have never heard of a meaning for it's use in sword making shop logos. It is also seen with the Showa and Gifu stamps, as well as the Toyokawa Navy Arsenal stamp on everything but blade nakago. I just figured that shops were going to use some sort of design and the sakura has always been popular in Japanese culture so why not used something that customer consider attractive. You can still see it being used in modern day products.

A sixth 1944 katana-mei with large Seki stamp posted by @partyjam3 here: It's well into the years of Army spec blades with Army stamps with tach-mei. So, somehow, Seki Cutlery was still requiring katana-mei blades for inspection. Or maybe it was the other way 'round? Was the Army rejecting katana-mei blades and pushing them over to the Association for inspection?

Your sword fits both Military - Navy - and civil - Nihonto. So depends upong which you wish to discuss. You will find some good nihonto guys on the Military forum as well, though.

I'm seeing Saneharu, so that's probaby wrong! 眞治 or Sanesuke or Naosuke 眞祐 or Naoharu 眞玄

Thanks! That is a very faintly struck large Seki stamp. @Kiipu @SteveM - any chance of getting this smith’s name, please?

Oh, and I missed your actual question. There was a short period of time when the Type 94 was on the street, and the 97 had not been produced, that Naval officers carried Army gunto. But as you can see in those photos of that other thread, once the 97 came out, aviators carried it, not the Army gunto.

And Matt, just give me your best shot on that small stamp. I'm often able to make them out.

It's a Type 98 Japanese officer gunto, made in 1944. Still awating smith name:

Sorry Matt, usually with a little time, Brian would have simply transferred your original post over here. Here's his original post:

Nice to see an aluminum saya with intact paint!

Lots of photos here, John, and not one waki:

Just did a quick browse through both, and you're right! Fits the pattern for Army specs. Interesting that the Minatogawa blades are tachi side, though, seeing that the Toyokawa blades are all katana-side.

@PNSSHOGUN John would be the guy to answer your question, but in the "combat" saya, or informal saya as Ohmura calls it, there is little to judge it by except the width of the tsuba (handguard). He knows the millimeters of the thicker tsuba. It is a WWII Japanese army officer sword of the 94/98 category. Made in 1944. Someone else can give you the smith's name. Any small stamps on either side, or on the back edge?

I was thrown by that Sada, too. But you can see a similar style on this Sadahiro:

Doh! Missed it by THAT much!

Best thread I could find to post this. An older waki in custom kaigunto fittings, posted on this Gunboards Thread. It also has the patented drag. Could I get a translation for the owner?

Sorry I missed your post. If you’re talking about the industry in general, you may be right, however, the army was clearly only buying the blades with tachi mei. If you are talking about the RJT smiths, you may be right again. Any of us who worked under regulations of any kind know what that kind of work life is like. The majority of workers follow the rules, but there are always some who decide to disregard them. I think it’s possible that once someone got their RJT qualification, they probably got to feeling sassy about themselves and felt like they could sign their blades however they darn well pleased. The army probably didn’t like it, but took their blades anyway, considering the valuable steel that was invested and the never-ending need for more swords.

Looks like Yoshisada? I only have 1 other June 1945 with Gifu. It is the latest date on file for the stamp. Never heard any history on that, John.

I just remembered that this is an RJT regulation. So, I wonder why the most deviations from the reg are on star-stamped RJT blades? All the non-RJT blades comply with the reg almost without fail.

Oh boy! That is pretty clear! Thanks John. Now we have to wonder why blades inspected by the Association used katana mei. Who knows about the Navy! Maybe they used katana mei just to be diametrically opposed to anything the Army did!

I wanted to add my ongoing thoughts about the Gifu stamp in Sakura Its source, so far, is unknown. I made the mistake of speculating in previous Stamps of the Japanese Sword that it is possibly the stamp created by the Seki Cutlery Manufacturers Association after the Nagoya Army Arsenal absconded with their SEKI stamp. Appearance of the stamp in the dateline would fit the theory. But recent data coming from the WWII Military Mei - Tachi then Katana thread reveals that the stamp is more likely an Army stamp. Once I got pointed back in that direction, I realized, too, it appears on officer blades in 1943 and runs through '45 just like all the other area specific stamps do. It's more logical that a blade with the Gifu, and sometimes the NA & Gifu, and Gifu & small Seki are all Nagoya inspectors. It now seems illogical to think a blade would have a civil stamp from the Association plus an Army stamp. I'll revise the discussion of this stamp in the next revision of the Stamps doc.

Thanks Thomas! I never would have seen those on those sites.

?