John C

Is that the same sword? John C.

Thanks for the correction. I had not seen one with just Naval parts. John C.

Just my opinion, however I think this is a legit kai gunto, albeit late war fittings. Possibly retrofitted with souvenir fuchi?? John C.

Ditto. I would like to know the answer as well. Interestingly, the California Penal Code does not define a dirk or dagger by its shape, but rather by its intended use: "A dirk or dagger is a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death." John C.

You may want to post this in the translation assistance forum. BTW, aside from this kai gunto, what else was in the lot? Was the dagger also navy? John C.

In addition, I would lean toward a sword with some sort of guard based on the taper/slant of the "fuchi." John C.

J. p.s. - the date is Showa 19 (1944). John C.

@Bruce Pennington two dots on the nakago jiri John C.

Looking at the tang recess, it doesn't seem to have the shape of a Japanese nakago (neither tapered nor screwed end). John C.

Could be. Here is a picture of another one (disregard the "yours" label). John C.

Ditto. John C.

Roger: I don't think that is generally true. The issue is how the Japanese sword is sharpened. It achieves its edge from the polishing of the two sides and not from sharpening the cutting edge itself (as in Western style). So being out of polish along with going in and out of a scabbard for 80 years is probably what makes them dull. That said, some parade swords and others were issued without an edge. In addition, swords issued early on came with sharpening stones, which ended up tearing the edges so were not used for long. This is my understanding, however others may argue differently. John C.

Bruce: Other than the double hanger and thicker tsuba, what else differentiates a 94 from a 98? Ohmura-san lumps them together and I have wondered. John C.

Rooster on a fuchi. John C.

I'll let the translators give you the smith name, however to get you started: 1. The writing on the left side of the first picture is the date - Showa 18 (1943) 2. the stamp in the second picture is the small Seki stamp. John C.

I assume these go through a press of some sort as a strip. If the strip were "folded" the wrong direction, I could see this happening. But I wouldn't think it would pass quality control. John C.

I think you mean 87.47, but the point is the same...unless they start the kana over as well??? John C.

Evan: Not much left to say beyond Bruce's Mysterious Naval Landing Sword article and this thread. About 8,747 were ordered by the 8th Army PX and sold mainly at the Tokyo px from 1946 to 1952. Notice the use of both army style parts and navy blade. The orange cord attached to the sword (which is almost always missing) actually went on the bag and not the sword. Is there anything specific you would like to know? John C.

Those numbers are commonly referred to as assembly numbers, however their exact usage isn't clear. Since each sword is individually made, they were probably used to keep individual parts organized. John C.

Chris: Just for reference - from Dawson (pg. 91-92) John C.

The nakago is interesting. Looks like it has been reshaped. Notice how the bohi look compressed from the reshaping. John C.

He might be talking about thermal cycling. After quenching, the blade is too hard. It is then re-heated and allowed to cool slowly to bring back some of the flexibility. This is usually done in an oven or furnace but perhaps he used oil instead. John C.

@Bruce Pennington Not sure if you have this, so here is a rough translation of that page. John C. Mantetsu manufacturing.docx

It also has a torokusho, which I thought could only be issued to traditionally made blades? John C.

Part of it could be secrecy. These were war plants and it's possible pictures were not allowed. There may be tons of pictures in Japanese war museums that are not available on line. But I agree that it would be nice to see the production from start to finish. John C.