RobCarter3

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

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.

@Kiipu I should have the sword in hand tomorrow or Thursday and l’ll update with the requested pictures.

I know that a gendaito by an Ehime smith would never have a Seki/Gifu commercial association stamp. I was about to buy the sword and then noticed a removed stamp and alarm bells started going off that this was a komonjo-type special where someone had applied a spurious Hiromasa mei to a Seki showato, despite all the other indications that the mei looked right, "yama" stamps check out, hamon is in Hiromasa's characteristic Bizen style choji-midare, blade is obviously water quenched, etc. You and the others are obviously correct that it's a removed star stamp. Very glad I came here and sought opinions from more experienced eyes.