Bruce Pennington

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.

?

Thanks Dan. It's been fun. And like you point out, there are quite a few of us involved in making it happen. On the topic, I was surprised, actually. I had expected to see the mei switching sides over time, across the board. I suspected it was related to the Army assuming control of all sword production and the switch would have been due to their regulations. But as we found out, it is something else. You can see that the Army inspected blades are all tachi side as far back as 1935, fully overlapping the years of Showa and large Seki stamping on katana-side mei. I was also hoping to see the Gifu stamped blades come out on katana-side blades, because it would support my theory that it was a stamp developed by the Seki Cutlery people to replace their stolen Seki emblem. But we can see they are on tachi-sided mei. So, I don't know what to think about that other than to assume it might have been an area inspector from that location. In 1943, the military stamping went to area specific stamps. The sakura is what made me think it was from the Association, as it matched the style of the Showa stamp. However, with the new data in mind, it may be more in line with the Toyokawa practice of using the sakura and anchor. So, we do know that an arsenal, Toyokawa, used the sakura. Maybe the Army, or a local inspector created this one.

Ok. Finished my tally of mei types - Tachi vs Katana - on stamped blades. It is clear that blades inspected by civilian authority (Showa and large Seki stamps) used Katana mei, with minor deviations; and blades inspected by Army arsenals (small Seki, and Arsenal inspector stamps) used Tachi mei. Blades with the Tan stamp used Katana mei, supporting the proposal that it was a "gendaito" approval stamp of the Seki Cutlery Manufacturers Assoc. Unexpectedly, the Toyokawa Navy Arsenal used Katana mei, while Tenshozan forge used just the opposite, Tachi mei. The implication, to me, is that smiths knew which inspector their blades were being made for and engraved their mei accordingly. I tested this theory by looking for smiths that had blades inspected by both civil and army in the same year. I didn't find many, but those I found fit the pattern exactly. 1941 Large Seki w/Katana mei Na stamp w/tachi mei Kanetsugu Kanetsugu 1943 Large Seki w/Katana mei Na stamp w/tachi mei Kanenori Kanenori Kanetaka Kanetaka Nagamitsu Nagamitsu So it does appear the smiths knew who each blade (or batch) was heading for and placed the mei accordingly. The star blades were predominantly Tach mei, but they did have an unusual number of blades with Katana mei. Here's the chart: TACHI OR KATANA MEI SHOWA KATANA MEI TACHI MEI 1935 1 1937 1 1939 4 1940 21 1 1941 21 1942 1 ND 63 1 SEKI Large 1940 4 1941 7 1942 37 1943 19 1944 5 ND 108 1 SEKI small 1943 1 1944 1 Star 18 (8 Star) 1945 10 (2 Star) ND 1 NA 1941 1 1942 8 (1 Star) 1943 46 (2 Star) 1944 15 1945 1 ND 3 GIFU 1944 1 1945 16 ND 1 SAKA 1943 2 1944 5 ND 7 Ko 1935 1 1942 3 (1 Star) 1944 1 (1 Star) ND 2 1 YAMA 1943 4 (1 Star) 1944 1 TAN 1940 1 1941 1 1942 2 ND 13 STAR 1941 1 1942 5 16 1943 19 47 1944 5 61 1945 2 19 ND 6 12 Toyokawa 1939 20 1 Kiyomichi Tenshozan 28 All Dates

Is there a date on the other side?

I figured I’d get the terminology wrong! I haven’t had time to get into my files yet, but there was a definite change on which side they signed the blades in the last half of the war. Or so it seems.

Ignore the line about tanker and pilot sword. That is a myth. But that looks like it’s probably a really nice blade to own! You would need to post better pictures of the blade itself and you should post a good clear picture of that rank tassel. If it is legitimate, it is a general tassel worth over $1000 by itself.