John C

Does the family mon point to either of those two? John C.

Just to clarify. The issue in this case is not with the sword...it is what it is. The issue is when a respected collector labels the souvenir sword as "late war". This makes our jobs much harder when trying to add validity to the concept of a post-war "souvenir." And it surprises me that Plimpton would do so. He held enough swords to know the difference between a "parade-quality" sword and one built for battle. I think to him, it was an enigma like it was to us before all of Bruce's (et al.) hard work. Remember, however, I am speaking about the entire rig and not just the blade. But the facts are that the fittings are not made for combat. Indeed, someone of authority (I cannot remember who) said that if the handle (and presumably the fittings) is not strong, the sword is useless. Moreover, as evidence of how the Japanese felt about the quality of their weapons, the late Nick Komiya talking about the Rinjiseishiki noted: "The printed memo further explained that the sword 'was made to be robust and practical in both blade as well as exterior fittings, based on lessons from the Incident'”. So in my uneducated opinion, the problem is the sword's designation in the book as "late-war" and the impression that the sword was somehow made for combat rather than as a souvenir for G.I.'s. John C.

Wow. I cannot believe anyone who has held one of these in his or her hands would believe it was for a war-time officer. Thin, cheap, and gaudy parts, cheaply lacquered saya, and no sakura on the kabutogane? Even late war, these should have been built to at least withstand some form of combat. In Plimpton's defense, however, he obviously did not have access to the documentation we have today on these. Just my opinion, others may differ. John C.

Agreed. As an example, this art piece I did for a wood project was simply silver foil treated with a potash solution and left in the sun. A simple salt and vinegar solution can age copper pretty quickly in the sun. John C.

Yep. That's where I found the article. It was stuffed between two pages of my copy of Nippon-to. The book had writing in it, though unfortunately it was not signed. John C.

The souvenir sure does look longer...and almost like they are cut from a long billet then shaped. John C.

I can say the bottom of mine has signs of being sheared or snipped (as opposed to being saw cut), so I suspect that would be easier when heated. In terms of the length, the tsuka on mine is the exact same length as my mantetsu (9 5/8 from the tsuba), which is a bit longer than the type 95 and a bit shorter than the rinji. So my guess would be the cut may have something to do with saving time during manufacturing? My initial thoughts were that they were cut to distinguish them from actual war-time blades, however there are some rounded/signed blades found in souvenir mounts so I doubt this is the case. John C. @Bruce Pennington do you have both souvenir and kai gunto mounted blades?

Personally, I would have difficulty indexing the blade without a reference on the handle. But it looks really nice and I hope you enjoy it. Any idea on a sheath yet? John C.

I found this one that is somewhat close. John C.

Looks heavily played with by grandkids or intentionally roughed up. It probably doesn't mean too much, however my souvenir is also numbered 66 (see below) and looks decidedly different. John C.

David: Was the back of the blade, which is now basically a modified Wharncliffe design, re-hardened or left as "soft" metal? John C.

I think Noah @Bridges may be able to help you identify this. John C.

page 41... John C.

page 40... John C.

page 39... John C.

I found a short TRUE Magazine article from June 1958 stuffed into a copy of Nippon-to I recently purchased. I thought I would post it for those interested. John C

Ah. Forgot that the tai kanji has more than one meaning. John C.

Steve: It looks like the middle row is the date 1944. The kanji on the top left is Tai for "big" or "large" so maybe a size??? I am also interested in what the translators come up with. Trying to learn myself. John C.

Now you tell me! John C.

Sure. Here it is with the same date; also listing the contents as two swords. But my intent of the post was about the use of DDT. John C.

I tend to agree that a weapon needs to be functional; even if there is some additional symbolic reason to carry it. My purpose in throwing this stuff out there is just to present an alternative. Chinese fake; late war; maybe there is another reason. To prove a theory we have to control for other variables and reject the null hypothesis. I'm just chucking in the control variables so they can be at least considered...then eliminated! John C.

No worries. I knew I was opening myself up. I too believe in Occam's Razor, however. That's why "symbol of authority" rather than "functional weapon." Japanese version of the swagger stick. John C.

Thank you. This is why I ask here instead of relying on google translate. Google had the first version as Mamoru Hitachi and this version as Mamoru Mutsu. The problem with the translation apps is that they don't understand context. John C.

We know Mr. Yao was the manager of the Tenshozan Works in Kamakura, which made the blades. So I suppose the swords could be made there as well. I am not sure, however, the Japan Sword Company has anything to do with the PX sales. Other than the article that talks about servicemen getting USMC swords and swagger sticks made there, I can't find anything that says they supplied the PX with any swords. I probably missed something, however, so maybe someone else can chime in. John C.

I am sure the criticism will follow...but what if some of these types of swords were not meant to be truly functional weapons? A corporal gets a field promotion to NCO and just needs a symbol of authority to lead his men? Though I suppose he could pick up a sword off of the battlefield, maybe instead he buys the cheapest thing he can find. John C.