Bruce Pennington

For those following RJT blades - @vajo @BANGBANGSAN @Kiipu - just found the second earliest RJT blade so far. Posted by @Stephen V back in 2013 here: It's an August 1941 Akiyoshi: Only one earlier is a June 1941, Kanetoshi, posted by Trystan.

Thanks Ron! A little cleaner than the auction house's rendition. I can see similarities to the 出羽山形住藤田昭吉 Fujita Akiyoshi name. Not exact, but then neither was the mei on @Crusader22's blade. He must have played with his mei, like some smiths did.

Star stamped, August 1944 RJT blade, but mei is only partial. Can you give me the part that is showing? Sword for sale at this Sofe Auction. They claim " The tang is signed Ushu Yamagata Ju Saito, likely Fujita Akiyoshi who made gendaito for the army from Ushu."

Here's an unusual one - a Type 98 almost standard, except it's got a budo (grape leaf) Gunzoku fuchi. Found at this Bamfords Auction. Blade is an undated, showa stamped Kanesada:

Wow, that tsuba is unique! The kabutogane and fuchi are normal fare for Gunzoku though: The tsuba normally look like this:

Yeah, I don't know. That's why I leave it open that an apprentice made it? But if an apprentice, wouldn't they use the master's stamp? Not enough is known.

That's pretty cool, Henry! Don't know if you know, the the sakura pattern on the tsuba and seppa are of the Gunzoku. So a member of the civil branch of the military carried this during the war.

You can read a bit about this from the actual post-WWII Army documents posted in our Downloads section - WWII US Govt Archived Documents and Swords Richard Fuller estimates that over 2,000,000 swords were taken by the Allies (includes Russia and China) at the end of the war. US military documented 661,621. Of these, "372,609 were dispersed as trophies, to museums, and technical use... The remaining 289,012 were destroyed." Many nihonto were retained by locals, and/or returned to them, but many obviously never were. Houses were raided, but many citizens hid swords in roofs and under floors. I have seen no numbers on how many were brought, donated, or bought for the war. There were at least 2 big public campaigns to get private swords for the war, but haven't seen anything that described their success. You'll have to use your imagination for the rest. I personally doubt many families donated/sold real National Treasure level swords. Most likely the stuff we see that was mass produced during the big war eras of old. But they were still nihonto.

Dang! Looks like someone took a belt sander to a totally rusted/corroded blade.

Dang! Thanks Trystan. I've fixed my files and the chart on that one. However, I do have at least 2 more in '43. June 1943, Kaneyoshi, @grapppa NMB October 1943, VIP Auction

I try to give blades the benefit of the doubt, but after comparing kokuin and kakihan, I don't think this one was made by the smith, and is likely gimei. Kokuin - There are relative dimensional issues; all the originals on the left are more rectangular with rounded corners. The questionable one on right is oval Kakihan The 3 on the left are original, the one in question is 4, and an obvous fake is far right. The one in question has 2 vertical strokes in the top bulb of the "B" that shouldn't be there, and the big vertical stroke on the left side isn't deep enough, doesn't fish-hook back up enough, and starts too high above the "B" compared to all the rest. I can't address the mei, but there are enough examples here, is someone wants to compare.

That was a very interesting story, Zi, thank you! We actually have 4 1944 Koa Isshin on file, so if this story means that only 6 Koa Isshin were made that year - we have 4 of them on file now! I suppose it could mean they made 6 specifically for the visit aside from others that may have been made for the war. Great piece of history, either way.

I asked Akira Komiya, at Warrelics, if he know of any documentation on the use of celluloid on dirks. His answer: "I haven’t really looked into whether there are any documentation on the use of celluloid on navy dirks but it is commonly accepted here that those are late war. I once met a veteran who was a graduate of the first graduating class of 海軍予備生徒, Kaigun Yobi Seito, literally meaning Navy Reserve Student, a short lived system which I don’t really understand but where students go to the Naval Academy but are commissioned as reserve officers upon graduation; the usual system where college students go into the navy as reserve officer candidates was Kaigun Yobi Gakusei, which can also only be translated as Navy Reserve Student. (In modern Japanese usage “seito” typically indicates elementary school students whereas “gakusei” indicates students of junior high school and up, but in the navy, it was the other way round and “Seito” meant students of the 3 Naval Officer Schools, i.e., the Naval Academy, Naval Engineering School and Naval Accounting School with “Gakusei” meaning trainees at specialty training schools.) In any case, he was issued a dirk with cow hide sheath and celluloid grip and the buckle on his sword belt was a one piece buckle with silver washed anchor and cherry blossom which quickly wore off, instead of the usual separately affixed insignia of which facts he was still bitter of after 40 years." So, the only evidence we have, so far, still points to Fuller's dirk being a late-war item. Anything is possible, but for now, this is all we have.

Oh, you're right, John. Got my big collectors mixed up!

Mal, Part of the problem in asking me is that I only track and file gunto with stamps. If there are standard (tan, steel) RS gunto out there with no stamps, it won't be in my chart. Having said that, the earliest I found was a January 1943 Kanemune, NA stamped blade in the tan, steel fittings, posted by @Philip. I haven't searched for the thread, but I'll post the photos. I was surprised at your claim that the steel sayas came later, yet that is what I'm seeing, at least in gunto with stamped blades. @Kiipu or @BANGBANGSAN might have more data than I do, though, on this question.

Ok, thanks guys. I think I'll just oil the area I can reach with the snaps open and leave it alone. Thanks for the help.

This one is posted by @drb 1643 over on this Gunboards Thread and has a nice patina that matches the kabutogane.

Hope someone has a technique to get a tightly fitted leather cover off a saya. The one I'd like to remove is on a kyugunto, so the real problem is the drag at the end of the saya. I've opened the snaps at top, and can see some light rust forming on the steel saya, so I'd like to get the cover off and clean the steel saya up. Any luck? The one in question is my kyugunto with Navy anchor on the backstrap and drag. @Stegel got if from the Plimpton collection sale and traded it with me for one of my NCO 95s with 4 fuchi stamps.

I have 228 star-stamped blades on file (yeah, surprised me too!) and yours is number 5 by date. Nice to see yours has 2 screws. Seems they started out that way, then went to one steel screw and one bamboo peg in 1943.

The RJT program started summer of '41, and I only have 4 or 5 other blades on file dated earlier than yours. So nice find there!

Ha! Hi Jeff! Boy, you jumped into the pool at the deep end, for sure! Love it! So, starting at the beginning, read: Legally Rebutting the "Type 3" Sword Name - Nick Komiya Unveiling the Rinji seishiki Sword, 1940 - Nick Komiya Arsenal Marks on RJT Swords Ray, Is this Sasakawa or Fujita? I'm really bad at this, but it looks like Fujita to me - {出羽山形住藤田昭吉), Sesko's list

Thought of this thread when I saw this horror show at THIS AUCTION

Zi, Do we have your blade in the files? If not, could you do us a favor and post both sides and serial number? Also, does that building have a museum with sword production history? I know we have the basics already, but looking for anything deeper, like - the Nan and Ren stamped blades, were they actually made in the Nanban (Nanman) Arsenal? If so, did they totally take over Mantetsu production or did SMR continue to make blades to the end of the war simultaneously?

I'm the wrong guy to say. All I know is to look at the patina, or age rust build-up on the nakago. Going by that, I'd say this blade isn't older than WWII; but that's not always a good thing to go by as I've seen some older blades without rust. Hopefully the real experts will help you.

I don't think there was a spec for Army blades, except those for RJT. Here is @george trotter's translation of that reg: "Commissioned Officer’s Gunto Manufacturing Specifications. (English Translation) English Translation by George Trotter, Documents provided by K. Morita Article 1. The drawings and writings appended at left describe the specifications for the manufacture and polishing of each blade to be delivered/supplied. 1. Generally the shape and length will be a balance of elegance and strength. Cutting ability will be good and especially as regards the forging of thehira‐uchi and the mune‐uchi , these will be tough but light, so as not to bend or break. 2. Shape will be shinogi‐tsukuri andtorii‐zori. 3. Blades will be of tamahagane and hocho‐tetsu and charcoal will be used. The strongest methods of sword forging, combining toughness and structure will be enforced on commencement (as described in the enclosure for style in Form 4). Ha‐ko carbon content will be 0.5 – 0.7% range. Hocho‐tetsucarbon carburizing will be controlled by multi fold‐forging. Carbon control will be in the 0.05 – 0.25% range. 4. Hamon is optional but must be chu in width. 5. Nakagoshape and file work will be of quality and mei cutting will be scrupulously done. The mei will be on the outside in the normal way and on the reverse/opposite side will be the date of manufacture as year, month, day (sexagenary cycle is also permissible). 6. The blade body will have a degree of niku, but mune and shinogi‐ji surfaces will be flat. Ji and ha roundness to be moderately hamaguri‐ba. There will be no unevenness in the polishing of the corner lines, curves or straight lines, nor in the symmetry of the omote and ura. There will be no grinding marks and “scratches”.Ji‐hada will be clearly apparent. Yakiba borderline to be wiped withnugui. The shinogi‐ji and mune‐ji to be polished using migaki‐bo (burnishing needle) to the area of the habaki. The ko‐shinogi and the matsuba‐kado interception point kasane will also be polished leaving it a little thick, the dimensions of the ha section and themune section to be at the regulation dimensions and not less. 7. Curvature, width, thickness, tip length and other dimensions are to be consistent with the explanatory diagrams. 8. Length and weight. Ha‐watari. Small: 2.0 ‐ 2.1shaku (60.6 ‐ 63.6 cm). 195 ‐ 205 momme (731.3 ‐ 768.8 g). Medium: 2.1 ‐ 2.2 shaku (63.6 ‐ 66.7 cm). 205 ‐ 215 momme (768.8 ‐ 806.3 g). Long: 2.2 ‐2.3 shaku (66.7 ‐ 69.7 cm). 215 ‐ 225 momme (806.3 ‐ 843.8 g). Nakago. 7 sun (c. 21.2 cm). 9. Long, medium and short manufacture is to be carefully advised. 10. Concerning the shape and dimensions of completed swords, a little variation to the appended drawings is acceptable, but exceeding the weight must be with approval. 11. It is a requirement that manufacturer who does yaki‐ire is the same man who does themei cutting. 12. Small changes, variations or overlaps in the forging method or hardening component, requires government approval.