Kiipu

Two more for Bruce to ponder in his leisure hours. Help needed to decide on WW2 Japanese Naval Kai Gunto sword

A question that arises is the time period in which these swords were manufactured. On 1938-07-05, a mekugi 目釘 was added to the tsuka 柄 yet these swords still only have a hatome neji 鳩目ねじ [see note below]. This would seem to indicate production took place right about the time of the change in mid-1938. 5809 = hatome neji only. 5847 = hatome neji only. 5875 = hatome neji only. 6320 = hatome neji only. 6444 = hatome neji only. ============================== 6787 = hatome neji and mekugi [aluminium tsuka]. 7118 = hatome neji and mekugi [aluminium tsuka]. ditto = and all those that follow after. Note: The hatome neji 鳩目ねじ can be translated into over twenty different English names. For example, a grommet screw in the US or a grummet screw in the UK. Another is barrel screw. Feel free to substitute another English name for the part. All that matters is that the Japanese called them a hatome neji 鳩目ねじ. 鳩目 = literally means eyelet. ねじ = screw [have also seen it spelled ねぢ].

Here is the link for serial number 5809. Japanese NCO Sword found in the TRASH!

And another encircled anchor. What about this one? Late war IJN sword.

Here is a big encircled anchor stamp. It is on a single hanger naval sword. Is this the late war one or the postwar one? new Japanese navy sword

I am flagging this Type 95 reproduction because of the nakago markings. Samurai sword - part two

There was some initial confusion at the beginning of this thread in regards to the blade 刀身. However, the blade 刀身 and tang 茎 fall within the parameters of an original Type 95 九五式軍刀 blade other than the repair at the end of the tang . Only the markings, a Kokura logo and ホ inspection mark, are similar to an arsenal sword 造兵刀. Ohmura sensei has pictures of two copper handle blades that can be seen at his website. As you can see by comparing the profiles, the sword above is clearly a Type 95 sword blade and not a 造兵刀. Hence no middle mekugiana 目釘孔 in the tang 茎. Army sword steel and blade

The kanji character 鉢 does not show up in the 1943 inspection mark regulations nor am I aware of a sword company that uses that character..

Interesting 鉢 stamp on the leather strap. Picture is upside down at the link though. Senior NCO Sword 鉢

Me thinks Stegel has x-ray vision! The rework number is indeed 2532. The 3 has that downward turn at the top which can be misleading at first sight. I too am having second thoughts about the tang. I have noted that some swords have corrosion at this same location. The habaki area is usually fairly clean followed by staining in the crossguard area. This is followed by corrosion at the ferrule and tsuka juncture. The lengthwise scratches/serrations seen on the tang could just be part of the production process by the 1st Factory. This can be seen on the arsenal sword 造兵刀 over at Ohmura's website as well. Also note the similarity in the markings on the nakago. 造兵刀 Army Arsenal blade

Just when Bruce thought he was retired... I do not recall ever noticing both sides of a dirk crossguard having been marked before. Navy Military Short Sword Japanese Gunto Parts Tsuba 65x26mm 19186

This is what I have so far. Serial Number = Rework Number 5809 = ホ2182. 5847 = ホ1792 [A Nice Early Japanese Type 95 Copper Handle NCO Samurai Sword]. 5869 = ホ2023 [JM&CS&D]. 5875 = ホ1522 5979 = 2363 [unverified] 6320 = 2552 [nakago has a Kokura logo & ホ.] 6444 = ホ1807 [Type 95 Copper Handle NCO Sword]. 6561 = 501 [unverified] Just a note that the ホ stamp and/or serial number is frequently partially covered by the habaki. This indicates the stamp and/or serial number was applied when the sword was disassembled. For an example, see BangBangSan's post #10 above, third picture down.

BangBangSan, the observed rework serial range for these is 501 to 2552 and this is based upon eight examples. They seem to show up in the 5,000 to 6,000 serial number range. It is my opinion that these swords were reworked by the 1st Factory of Kokura Army Arsenal 小倉陸軍造兵廠第一製造所. Thank you for pointing out the lack of an original mekugi-ana on the rework. I had overlooked this important fact and it seems to indicate that the alteration/modification/rework was done at a factory and is not a field repair. Bruce, more likely an arsenal sword 造兵刀 tang was used rather than a Murata-tō 村田刀 tang? Vajo, could we be looking at two different repairs at two different time periods? That is the original Japanese rework and then a later postwar repair to the rear of the tang? Shamsy, could the scratch marks be caused by the removal of the tsuka and habaki or is it the other way around? That is, the tang was cleaned so as to allow the removal of the habaki?

There is a correction thread for this book started by Morita san some years back. I too have found a minor translation error on one of the Kanemasa (Murata) swords. Mr.Slough's Oshigata book. FYI, I have enjoyed reading your recent articles by the way.

Yes, that is #2, the second printing in a blue hardcover, which still has Slough's name on the title page. Below are the updated citations for the first two impressions. 1. Slough, John Scott. An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. Palmyra, VA: Rivanna River Company, 2001. [2001 first edition, white softcover, 1000 copies, ISBN 0-9707080-0-9.] 2. Slough, John Scott. An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. Darlington, MD: Livio W. (Chuck) Cillo, 2001. [2004 second printing, blue hardcover, 1000 copies.]

There are three impressions of John Slough's book, An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. The original 2001 white softcover by Slough and two reprints, a 2004 blue hardcover by Slough and an unknown red softcover by Cillo. As far as I know, they all have the same content. I am missing the copyright pages for the two reprints so some of the information below is incomplete. 1. Slough, John Scott. An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. Rivanna River Company, 2001. White softcover. 2. Slough, John Scott. An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. 2004. Blue hardcover. 3. Cillo, Livio W. An Oshigata Book of Modern Japanese Swordsmiths, 1868–1945. Publication details unknown. Red softcover.

Cross reference to the other reported 鷹信焠之. Mantetsu with attribution Attention Mantetsu Owners: A Survey (post #527)

That could very well be the case and it is one of two possible outcomes. The other scenario goes down this road. The owner stated a "44 pattern tang" which infers a Type 100 blade. These blades were introduced in 1940. If this is the case, then there was an omission of one of the year numerals following the 十. I just recently ran across this type of omission on a Kanemasa blade. You can see it at the post below. Murata Swords 村田刀 Hopefully, the blade will resurface down the road with better pictures of the nakago; but until then, the enigma continues.

As IJASwords already hinted at, I think this could be a 1945 made Mantetsu. Does the blade have any markings on the top of the tang by the habaki?

It is a term that does not show up in the technical dictionaries. Slough uses "shin-gane iri" in his book. Whatever term you decide to use, just be sure to include the kanji characters.

I have run across several pronunciations for the 眞金入 stamp. The character 眞 can also be written as 真. The various pronunciations and discussions about them can be found at the links below. 2010 ma kane hisa or shin gane iru = Arsenal Stamps. Post #76. 2011 magane iri = Help with translations. Please! 2013 shin-gane iri = Masafusa 2015 shin-gane iri = Arsenal Stamps. Post #235.

Nakago Mune:　名　ホ. Nakago Reverse:　紀元二千六百一年十一月 = November 1941. Nakago Obverse:　筑後住武藤幸廣

Due to a recent post, I decided to followup on that 1935 blade. It is a bit of a long shot as the post is old but worth the effort none the less. https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/32732-stamp-survey/?do=findComment&comment=354106 I was going to post this in another thread about kabutogane markings; but, I simply can not find it. Opinions of WW2 type 98 officers sword please!!!

This sword is a bit of an mystery. It has a peacetime date of 1935 but has wartime inspection marks along with late war fittings. The post is old but in the off chance the owner or sword is still around, can a picture of the entire length of either side of the nakago be provided. Just recently, a second early sword dated 1941, has surfaced over at the Stamp Survey thread that has similar nakago mune markings. Nakago Mune 小　ホ = Inspection marks used by Kokura Arsenal. Nakago Reverse 昭和十年四月日 = A day in April 1935. Nakago Obverse 肥前國光廣 = Hizen-kuni Mitsuhiro

My jest about hybrids was referring to the combination swords that mix officer and enlisted sword components, such as below, and not the Type 32 conversions or experimentals. Has anyone seen this kind of saya on a type95 gunto before??