RobCarter3

This was my sword, posted here. I sold it in October or November. It looks like it’s already changed hands at least once since.

Just be aware that modern gun oils typically contain various solvents and lubricants. While that's probably fine on the blade of a Type 95, I would not want to get it on painted surfaces, and definitely would not use it on a traditional nihonto with materials like rayskin, silk, lacquer, etc. Choji oil (camellia oil scented with a little bit of clove oil) is traditional, but beware that "clove oil" not bought from a specialist Japanese sword site is probably intended for some kind of health/wellness/incense/etc. purpose and will probably be WAY too thick and sticky to use on a sword. Pure camellia oil is good, so are high-quality mineral oils.

I don’t think this nomenclature debate will ever be resolved. FWIW, I like “Type 100” or “Type 0” for this pattern. We now know that the prior belief in a 1943 adoption date is incorrect, so “Type 3” is wrong (but not as wrong as “SNLF/NLF,” “marine,” or “Type 44”). “Type 3” is the prevailing term outside this and a handful of other collector forums, so it’s likely here to stay. Technically, none of the Showa officer sword patterns had official “Type,” designations, because their requirements were promulgated with the uniform regulations. But, there’s a longstanding practice among both Western and Japanese collectors of referring to officer swords as “Type 94,” “Type 98,” etc. @vajo, I don’t think the takeaway from Nick Komiya’s articles on this pattern should be that it’s just a lesser, ersatz version of the Type 98. The Type 0 is a superior fighting sword mount. High and low quality blades exist in both Type 98 mounts and Type 0 mounts. The high-quality Type 0 mounts with ishime-lacquered wood saya were undoubtedly more time and labor intensive to produce than painted steel Type 98 saya. Several things can be simultaneously true: - this pattern incorporated improvements and addressed common points of failure based on feedback from the field; - this pattern reduced the use of war-critical materials and was intended to help alleviate the sword availability/cost shortage; - high-quality gendaito were sold to officers at artificially low prices thanks to heavy subsidization by the army through the RJT program.

It seems like this largely answers your question as to Japanese collectors. Anecdotally, it seems like we're seeing papered gunto with increasing frequency out of recognition for wartime historical value, but before they can submit for papers they still have to get past prefectural registration boards which may have different opinions and standards. It's hard to meaningfully collect or study something when there are so few registered examples that can legally be owned. Again, anecdotally, based on my browsing of Japanese dealer sites, it appears that the practice of removing stamps is still fairly prevalent in Japan, which may suggest that registration boards still believe that the presence of any stamps = non-traditional, or that owners are not willing to risk it. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but I think gunto (non-nihonto) have obvious appeal to all sorts of militaria collectors, WWII collectors, edged weapon collectors, and more, and not just as the "next best thing." Japanese military pattern swords were the last swords in human history that were taken into combat on a widespread basis. I think that's pretty darn cool. The Japanese used cutting-edge contemporary technologies to engineer swords in response to various field conditions--mantetsu-to, gunsui-to, sabinaito. I think that's also pretty darn cool. And, obviously, these objects mattered a great deal to their original owners. They mortgaged the farm to buy them. They brought them into inconvenient places like inside midget submarines. They took them in hand in final, desperate charges. Traditional or not, they are the final expression of 1000+ years of Japanese sword history and sword culture, at least as actual combat use is concerned. There's a lot of variety to collect, and you see that reflected in things like Type 95 prices. While I certainly appreciate antique nihonto and gendaito, and I understand those who prefer to only collect nihonto, I think it's silly the degree to which the wider Western market, especially new military sword collectors, tend to laser-focus on "traditional" vs "non-traditional" as the end-all-be-all. New posters come here all the time asking "is this traditional" and often leave unjustifiably disappointed when it's not, even if their sword is quite nice. A high-class showato in custom mounts or a minty Type 94 zoheito can (should) easily command more than a munitions-grade shinto mumei wakizashi in late-war Type 98 fittings. Some dealers call any sword with an old blade a "family blade" or "heirloom blade," but, ironically, many were cheap swords bought/collected from the public for the war effort because the contemporary showato were in short supply and unaffordable. I've only been collecting Japanese military swords for about two years, but I was collecting WWII firearms about 15 years ago and I've seen what has happened to gunto prices in that time, especially NCO swords. I don't think that trend is going to reverse anytime soon. So I think the audience for showa gunto is whoever has the good sense to grab them now while you still can.

No longer owning the sword, this is the best I can do.

This used to be my sword! I traded it to a well-known member of the military swords Facebook group for a kai gunto kanemichi showato some months ago. I acquired it from a different FB group member about a year before. The blade is suriage or o-suriage mumei. I always believed it was sue koto. There is a single togari-ba element on the omote side (otherwise suguha), so possibly Mino den? The tsuba is the good early-style large/thick version. Glad this sword found its way into good hands. Your pics are better than mine!

I suspect that this sword has been cobbled together from parts. The fuchi and koiguchi are set up for a chuso (push button retention latch), but the tsuba and some of the seppa are set up for a leather retention strap. The seppa are mismatched. The stuff in one of the pictures about being a 16th century blade is bunk. It’s a wartime blade with a seki stamp. The nakago appears to have been shortened to fit the current mounts, which is very strange for a seki showato. Some of this could be due to repair or replacement in the field, but it’s more likely that it’s post-war bubba work.

@mecox Nagasa is 65.72 cm and sori is 1.71 cm. I can take or retake any pictures as needed. I have read your excellent article and was about to reference it in reply to @Bruce Pennington's observation about the volume of his output.

Just wanted to share this recent acquisition of mine for stamp and date tracking. Kai gunto with sho-stamped blade signed 濃州関住人兼道謹作 Noshu Seki ju nin Kanemichi kin saku. Dated imperial year 2601 (1941). Blade has some chips but is in good original polish and has a nice shape with longer kissaki. Koshirae is high quality and in great shape with large nodule same, four matched pairs of seppa, sharkskin saya, and tassel. As always, your honest observations and impressions are appreciated.

Do we have a dedicated thread for fake Type 98s like we do for Type 95s? If so I didn't find it. Maybe this can be the thread. Saw this one on eBay. Every hallmark of an obvious fake from damascus blade to numbers on habaki. The only thing noteworthy here is that the seller wants $3k USD for it.

It looks like it’s been subjected to electrolysis or chemical rust removers.

I’m not sure about if it’s an earlier thing because so many unsigned/undated blades with only the circled anchor are found in late Kai gunto mounts with the black pitch and other late features. This post suggests that the chevroned anchor and tenshozan mei were for swords to be sold through the tenshozan store, but the source link for that claim is dead. So many unknowns still out there on these stainless navy swords including (1) the formula(s) of the anti-rust alloys used, (2) how exactly they were made, and (3) how functional these blades were / how they fared in period testing. I’m aware of the existence of this document referenced by Nick Komiya, a 50-page report on low carbon nickel-chrome steel “bujin-toh” and wonder if it contains these answers.

Fantastic info. Thank you @Kiipu @mecox and @Bruce Pennington for this research and advancing our knowledge. If sword blades with the anchor-in-circle stamp were made or processed at Tenshozan, is there any significance to the different anchor stamp that we already associated with Tenshozan?

Sorry to deliver bad news, but this is a fake and a very poor one. http://www.jssus.org...japanese_swords.html https://www.Japanese...dindex.com/repro.htm