Philip

Would be great to see some pictures and info. As someone completely new to this...how big is the market for new blades such as these? Most/all I have been seeing on the forum has been focused on much older blades. Greg, Is that first link that Stephen posted the same as your number 1? Year is off by 1 from the description but I was not sure since there wasn't any other info. Very nice.

As somewhat expected....I received the following email from Staples this weekend: "Unfortunately, this item is currently out of stock with our vendor. Therefore, it has been removed from your order and the cost will not be charged to your credit card. We currently do not have an ETA for when the stock is expected to be replenished....." ​Here I was all set for Stephen to buy me a copy...my hopes crushed! 8-)

Just did a quick search and oddly enough Staples shows as having the "Facts and Fundamentals of Japanese Swords: A Collector's Guide" available. $6.08 + shipping. Not sure if it is an error on the site or not. I just ordered one and will let you know if it shows up as expected. This is the Canadian site for Staples. http://www.staples.ca/en/Facts-and-Fundamentals-of-Japanese-Swords-A-Collector-s-Guide-New-Book-9784770031303-/product_2004788_2-CA_1_20001

Steve M - thanks for confirming for me that I had those those broken out correctly. Good stuff...and definitely not easy for me on some of the characters when I start looking at other examples. Will take some practice that is for sure. Brian/Bruce - that makes sense...year 0 vs year 1. That makes it easy to understand, at least for dates written in this format. David - What's the importance of the signature being Niji Mei? If I read that correctly Niji Mei essentially means that the smiths signature is comprised of the two characters of his name. Is the thought that the smith himself would have signed it rather than perhaps one of his students/underlings who may be signing it more formally on the smiths behalf? Would that be how most swords of this time period were being signed just due to the sheer volume of blades being produced for the war effort - meaning by one of his students or underlings - rather than the smith himself? interesting stuff. Really appreciate all the info on this. Great first intro for me.

I took a stab at understanding the identification and wanted to check to make sure I have this correct. I added some text to the pictures for the name and the date kanji. Couple of things I am not sure about. For the year...if I am starting with the showa period - 1926 - and the year specified in the kanji is 19...why is it then 18+1926 = 1944? Why 1 less? Easy enough to remember if it's a rule....just curious on the why. The second piece that I am really not sure about is the name. The second kanji is nice and clear - mune - but the first I was less confident on - Kane. I took a look at the following: http://nihontoclub.com/smiths/KAN1619 and at http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/oshigata/kanemun2.jpg and I had a hard time matching my first kanji to the examples. The two examples seem to match up well to each other...but I had a tough time getting my head around the match to the signature on my sword. Here are the pictures with the text broken out per kanji (hopefully the text comes through enough to read it). Hoping someone can verify if I am correct. Really appreciate the help. Enjoying the research on this. [/url

appreciate all the information. This has definitely led me down a rabbit hole in terms of reading which is great. I gave the blade a light wipe with isoproyl alcohol using a coffee filter and then wipe down with a cotton cloth and a very light amount of 3 in 1. The rest of the fittings and the saya just a wipe down with a clean cotton cloth. I have it reassembled without any issue. One of the meguki's was previously broken..so it's only about half as long as it should be. Any recommendations on replacement or leave as is? Also...curious on thoughts around fabrication. I came across an article that describes the 9 manufacturing methods of that time period as per Richard Fuller (listed below). Where would this blade fit into that? I am assuming somewhere between 4 and 7. Is there any general rules around when a smiths signature would be applied or not in regards to the manufacturing processes listed below? 1. Tamahagane gendaito. Fully hand forged and differentially hardened in the traditional manner using water as a quenching agent. Possesses an active hamon and hada. 2. Mill-steel gendaito. Fully hand forged from mill steel or (more often) 19th century railway tracks made from Swedish steel. Differentially hardened in the traditional manner using water as a quenching agent. Possesses an active hamon and hada. 3. Koa-isshin Mantetsu-to. Made from Manchurian steel by a special process. Partly forged, partly engineered, and differentially hardened in the traditional manner using water as a quenching agent. Possesses an active hamon and hada. 4. Han-tanren abura yaki-ire-to. Partially forged from mill stock, some folding, differentially hardened using oil. Does have a hamon although it is nowhere near as active as a water-quenched sword, but lacks hada. 5. Sunobe abura yaki-ire-to. Drawn down, forged to shape, not folded. Differential hardened using oil, may have a fairly inactive hamon, but no hada. 6. Mantetsu-to. Rolled from Manchurian railway tracks. Differential hardening using oil, may have a fairly inactive hamon, but no hada. 7. Murata-to. Rolled or drawn, oil hardened but not differentially hardened. Yakiba but no visible hamon and no hada. 8. Tai-sabi-ko. Stainless steel, oil-hardened, no grain, no hamon, possible yakiba. Made for the Imperial Japanese Navy to resist salt corrosion. 9. Machine made. Serial number in the blade. No forging; stamped out and quenched in oil without differential hardening, assuming that they are hardened at all. No hada and no hamon. Some may in fact be plated, and in the worst cases the hamon may be acid etched onto the steel. The classic example is the NCO swords. On a par with Chinese fakes, and the most commonly faked sword. (list was taken from the following article: http://ryujinswords.com/shostamp.htm)

Thanks so much Bruce, Mark and Peter. Great info and lots for me to go on for more research on it. Any initial care recommendations? Assuming just a very light oil on the blade with a cloth. How about the metal fittings and the scabbard...a light oil also or not needed? Appreciate all the info.

Also just noticed a very small mark also on the one side that didn't come up in the pictures I posted...I didn't notice it the first time around.

a few more...

Thanks Bruce. That's great info. I quickly watched a couple of video's and took the handle off using a small mallet and a chopstick of all things to push the pegs through...pictures are not the best with the light at the moment but here goes... [/url

Pictures Part 2

Brand new member...hoping for a bit of information. Just picked up a sword at an estate auction here in Canada. Beautiful piece, but I know nothing about it. There were no family members able to provide information on how it was acquired. The lady passed away this year and was 102. Guessing it might have been her husband bringing it back after the war, but that is simply a guess. Posting a number of pictures in no particular order and hopefully this will help for identification/information. I just purchased this today so have not had a chance to research care...and definitely not yet brave enough to think yet about removing the grip to see the tang. One of the pegs is buried under the wrapping.