RobCarter3

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

Dave, Don't be disheartened, and don't write this sword off as "fake" just yet. I was being careful with my words because these kinds of swords are controversial, as you'll see if you look at prior threads. Some knowledgeable members think they're post-war fakes, some knowledgeable members think they're genuine island/collaborator swords. We know from primary source documents that swords were made outside of Japan during the war and were made by and for collaborator forces. Some, like the Java swords, are fairly well documented. For the rest, the difficulty is connecting the dots between "patterns" that surface, any provenance that might surface with them, and the incredibly scant documentary evidence, all while sorting out the true fakes. FWIW, I think the evidence from the prior threads points to this pattern being made in China during the war for officers of the Japanese puppet collaborationist Chinese army. There are some members here who are much more knowledgeable about these types of swords than me. @Bruce Pennington@BANGBANGSAN@Kiipu Can you post a more close up picture of the tassel? And pictures of all the other fittings, including the habaki?

Hi Dave, It looks like some of your pictures are not coming through. This sword will undoubtedly spark some discussion. Some swords with this tang stamp have been posted here before, here is one example, here is another. The fittings also fall into a known pattern, see also here, and here. There is evidence that various patterns of crude Japanese-style swords were made in China, Java, and other places outside of Japan during the war for Japanese or collaborator forces. There is also evidence that fake Japanese swords were made during and immediately after the war (and ever since) by enterprising individuals to sell as souvenirs to GIs. Without provenance or conformity to one of the known "patterns," it's hard to tell the difference between the two. Search for threads on "island swords."

I think your hunch is correct that the o-seppa are missing and that someone added seppa to tighten the sword up. The thick seppa do not appear to be sized for this sword. The rest of the rig looks nice with decent rayskin and strict navy-style hiramaki wrap with the knot on top. I think you did well for very, very cheap. You should be able to find a pair of o-seppa without much difficulty.

William, Here’s a link to @Bruce Pennington’s article about the souvenir swords if you want to learn more.

John, you got me scared that I messed this up, so I searched the forum for swords where both the Wakase patent ishizuke and ito are visible and found a mix of tsumami-maki and hineri-maki on posted examples. From the small sample size, the tsumami-maki seems to be more common on kai gunto, and the hineri-maki more common on army swords. I noticed that most of the army swords have what Ohmura calls the "Kashira-Kakemaki" style of binding stop. All I know about how my sword was originally wrapped is that the menuki placement was standard (you could see where they were) and that it was not kashira-kakemaki style because there was no hole through the tsuka. So I'm reassured that my restoration is at least "historically plausible." Tsumami-maki #1, #2, #3, #4, Hineri-maki #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7 High-end katate-maki outlier

Sword is back from tsuka restoration. Very pleased with how it turned out. I added a company grade tassel from my parts bin.

I don't think there's any real value difference between a Seki showato blade and an anchor-stamped Toyokawa stainless blade in kai gunto mounts, all else being equal. Stainless blades are very common in kai gunto. Kai gunto are less common than army Type 98 mounted swords and command more in the current market for comparable examples. IMO, any complete kai gunto in reasonable condition that hasn't been ruined in some way is worth at least ~$1,000-$1,200 on the low end, going up (potentially way up) from there depending on the rarity/desirability of the particular variation. Yours has a tassel which is nice and a $150-250 value by itself. Your Seki-stamped blade was "hand-forged" in the sense that it was forged to shape by a gunto smith from bar stock using a power hammer. It's almost certainly more hand-forged than an anchor-stamped Toyokawa stainless blade, which are usually considered "machine made" by collectors. I've never seen documentation or a detailed description of how exactly the mass-produced wartime stainless blades were made, but I suspect they were made by their own unique process given the very different requirements for working and hardening stainless steel, and that process was probably consistent with "machine made." There was some discussion on the topic of "hand-forged" vs "machine made" in this recent thread here.

The fake wakase saya fittings on the sword posted by @vajo are frighteningly convincing at a glance. They remind me of some dubious swords I’ve seen on Japanese auction sites that appear to be in brand new reproduction gunto koshirae. Usually rare koshiraes like wakase or Iida latch. Thankfully the rest of this sword has numerous dead giveaways — numbered habaki, kanji on blade, Damascus blade, amateur non-alternating ito, poor quality casting on the tsuba, poor quality seppa, etc.

I also hate the term “machine made.” It gets carelessly thrown around on places like Reddit when people ask for gunto IDs. IMO the only Japanese WWII blades that can accurately be called “machine made” are Type 95s, zoheito, and possibly the navy stainless blades (I’ve never been able to find good info on how these were actually made). Typical officer showato were “hand” forged to shape from bar stock by smiths using power hammers. Every blade is slightly different, and sayas and fittings do not freely interchange. They’re non-traditional because they aren’t made of tamahagane or orishigane and are oil quenched. Not because they’re not “hand forged”. Gendai smiths used power hammers too. If the use of power hammers makes a sword “machine made,” then most gendaito are “machine made.”

The sword is finally in hand after USPS misplaced it for 5 days. I cannot see the outline of the stamp -- it was thoroughly removed.