John C

Thomas: I have the exact same set up (Iijima stamps, brass tsuba, top latch, color scheme) as the one pictured above with serial number 139XXX with matching scabbard. Does that mean that either the blade or the fuchi/handle were switched at some point? John C.

Thank you Franco. Jussi: Those are the other references I have of that particular mei (a total of seven of them). The "wara" character in particular, looks much different than those examples. Indeed, the "kuni" character is different as well. Therein lies the problem. All of the examples are similar except for mine. Additionally, I cannot find that particular wording of the mei in any referenced/published resource for Nobuyoshi. Perhaps, as noted by Franco, I just don't have access to enough sources. John C.

Hello: These questions involve not only the fallibility of the NBTHK, but also relatedly, the lack of information surrounding Fujiwara Nobuyoshi. I know Nobuyoshi has been discussed here before, however this discussion takes a slightly different path. I have a signed Yamashiro (no) Kuni Ju Fujiwara Nobuyoshi katana in shirasaya. The problems are: 1) the signature on the blade looks different than 7 other reference samples I could find and 2) there does not seem to be any official source showing any of the Nobuyoshi generations signed this way. Below are just two examples of other papered signatures along with my signature (with gray background) and the origami. Specifically, the Kuni character (using rounded vertical strokes) and wara character (vertical stroke not in the right place) are very different than the reference samples. And I would add, all seven of the reference samples were papered and very similar to each other. Question 1: Why would NBTHK approve a signature that looks this different? Relatedly, I can find no reference to any of the Nobuyoshi generations signing this way. I have checked Sesko's "Index of sword smiths" as well "Nihon shinto-shi." Connoisseur's makes no reference to Nobuyoshi and both Nihonto Craft and Nihonto Club show a variety of signatures, but not this version. The closest is Yamashiro Kuni Junin Fujiwara Nobuyoshi with the added "nin" character. Question 2: Does anyone have an official reference showing any of the Nobuyoshi generations signed this exact way? I do not have access to any of the Hawley or Dawson books. I thank in advance those of you who would provide answers or comments. If I am way off for some reason, I welcome that information as well. It's all learning! John C.

Could some of the dark areas be shintetsu? Or am I just seeing shadows. John C.

Andrew: From these pictures it looks like a legit type 95 NCO. The handle, scabbard latch, and stamps look fine. How thick is the tsuba? Early versions were 11mm; later versions 9mm. The back of the bohi (groove) looks right, however the front is not very visible. The scabbard looks okay from these pics as well. Look on the throat (where the blade goes into the scabbard) for the serial number. It may or may not match the blade. Colors look correct as well. IMHO, I think it is a good example. But I am not an expert, just a collector. John C.

Certainly any damage to a blade can affect its structure and usability. Machine made blades, however, were more consistent in their structure than a purely hand forged blade. In addition, damage to the softer spine would not be considered a fatal flaw unless a small hairline crack developed. I think the real question would be is it worth restoring? I think probably not. For that price you can find a decent example that was not used as a hammer. Try to be patient. Good swords are out there. As for it being a souvenir sword, there is nothing wrong with that. It's just not a war time sword or a nihonto. Depends on what your collecting goals are. John C.

Noah: I think this could be a hybrid of an actual Toyokawa blade with souvenir fittings. I say that because the nakago has not been snipped off they way all of the souvenir blades have been so far. Look at the nakago in the document referenced by Chris and you'll see what I mean. The souvenir blades were made in the same factory, hence the same stamp. John C.

Dave: Depending on what the blade costs, I would not immediately discount it because it is gimei. Gimei blades are very common, and as I am sure you have read on various threads, assume ALL blades without origami are gimei until proven otherwise. That said, I would be more concerned by the hamachi/mune-machi line. It does not appear to line up in the pictures, which can be a common sign of Chinese manufacture. Just my humble 2 cents. John C.

Adrian: With the limited pictures, I would have to agree with Moriyama. Specifically, you mention the tang has no rust. It should! Either a reddish brown rust from the last 40 years or a deep black rust from centuries of age. In addition, the tang is an odd shape and the character writing seems hap-hazard. You mention the metal folds in the blade and the hamon. Better pictures may provide you with a better analysis, though unfortunately it doesn't look promising. John C.

Jesse: Beautiful sword! You are indeed fortunate. Living in California, I couldn't own one if I did find one. They are illegal here (although I suppose one could remove the cane part and buy the blade only). John C.

Thank you for the replies. I wasn't sure if the name on the back was supposed to be the swordsmith or just the owner or agent. Essentially, I can disregard it, which may explain why there is so little information about the back side. Now the different dates make sense...thank you! John C.

Hello: In researching a recently acquired NBTHK origami, I have noticed a lack of information on what (or who) is contained on the back side. There is a ton of information about what is on the front, however scant information at best about the back. I believe I have translated the information correctly, however I do not know how it pertains to the sword. I believe the top section translates to Miura Makoto and the bottom section translates to Issued August 27th 2010. Is Miura Makoto a person? If so, how does he relate to the sword? The date of issue is different than what is hole-punched on the front side (May of 2010). What do different issue dates mean? Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Regards, John C. (I have included the front side just for reference).

While I agree we should be careful in not "teaching" forgers what to look for, how then do we "teach" those new to the hobby what to avoid? In this particular case, I think the fraud was more about the misrepresentation by the seller than any detailed minutia of the sword itself. I suspect forgers have access to the same books and physical examples we do. Their ability to make a quality forgery then, is less about the information and more about the time, effort, and money needed for a quality forgery. Respectfully, John C.

With the fat belly and curved handle, it looks a bit like a stylized Chinese Dao. John C.

Yes. It's telling me it wants to be in my collection. In all seriousness, it looks as if the grain becomes more pronounced between the soft and hard metals depending on the light. For example, in the first picture on the left the grain is highlighted in the hard steel, whereas on the right it is highlighted in the mild steel. So I guess both are useful? John C.

@Bruce Pennington Bruce: Here is another hot stamp. Very difficult to read. But I think it may be a Masahide based on the shape. The sword has all manner of horimono and stylistic writing. https://www.ebay.com/itm/114468413750?hash=item1aa6d96136:g:b6IAAOSwgn5fiv-E&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAsIpIHHDoC4ujtsvG1TncUEK9cgWSpTH7KsTxUUZkonGR1rQuyjUeRFlfNuE28ZbVdq64eGSkYTvUAcSFUAz9bMg6nJj3lW6jGMaMer6rSkyRfcpcx06L1zKlujcx9ID6OgvEHz%2FqteItvp0oPXAWxzdrehH%2FjDbTpV8UdqN7%2FOpci2SNlNp9PdOvGphlBcrQLKimiaa3OYoQIOlMA%2BJnrvXgZK5MmUOx1wLPP6tg9Kyx|tkp%3ABk9SR_Tn0IicYQ John C.

It has been this way in California for some time. Amazon will not even ship incandescent bulbs to California. John C.

Steve: Some blades were both machine made and finished by hand (hence only partially forged). With the pressure to produce enough swords for the war effort, oil quenching is safer and results in fewer cracked blades. I suspect it is also a faster way to produce swords, however I would not know for sure. John C.

Steve: Tamahagane steel was issued sparingly to RJT smiths only. But the military wanted to differentiate traditionally made swords using tamahagane steel so they developed the star stamp. Some blades, however, are not fully traditionally made. For example, they may be hand forged yet oil quenched (which is safer for the blade). Early RJT blades may be traditionally made, yet not have the star stamp because the stamp program was implemented later. This is why studying the blade characteristics is far more important than the stamps. By the way, Vajo is a very respected member of this community and that respect is well deserved. John C.

Sounds like this guy is in the same league as those infamous Ebay sellers. Cases like this are often handled in small claims court where the burden of proof is much less. Whether criminal or civil court, it's not what you know to be true but rather what you can prove. Read up on the requirements for both criminal and civil action in your jurisdiction and decide if you have all of the elements for a case. Consult a local attorney for direct legal advice. US courts are notoriously lenient on con men. John C.

Okay. Thank you. I had the date pegged between June 1939 (handle change from copper to aluminum) and April 1941 (tsuba change from brass to steel). But the serial number in the 100k range didn't make sense. The 1943 date makes much more sense relative to the serial number range. I appreciate it. Quick edit: forgot to mention it also has matching serial number steel scabbard. John C.

Hello: I recently picked up a type 95 NCO. From the research I have done here and on Warrelics, it all looks correct for a pattern 2 (aluminum handle, brass tsuba [9mm], top latch, olive green steel scabbard). The top nut and bolt may be replacements. The marks are consistent with a pattern 2 (Tokyo 1st). The problem, if it is one, is the serial number range. I read that the 4th pattern serial number range ends around 132k. Mine is a pattern 2 at 139k. Were the different patterns made concurrently? Or is the serial number range as we know it somewhat flexible? I'm pretty sure the sword is legit, however the serial number is throwing me off a little bit. Regards, John C.

Jonathan: I have been burned as well, as I am sure many have. But I would caution against taking any kind of action without substantial evidence. Look at what the individual actually posts. Does he say it is from the 16th century or just that it is a Miura ( as in Bob Miura from Anywhere Idaho). In addition, any action would most likely be civil and not criminal (it's easier to prove). Lastly, you wouldn't want to get a suit filed against you for defamation of character if you can't prove your case. I'm not saying you shouldn't do any digging or evidence gathering, just that you are cautious in your approach. John C.

I think the wear on the patina of the tsuba looks a bit artificial given how pristine everything else is. I would lean toward nicely restored. John C.

Bruce: Could this be a variation of a late war emergency stamp? https://www.ebay.com/itm/295367094149?hash=item44c5402f85%3Ag%3AFYQAAOSwGvZjgUs0&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAoE2vtf1G0e6%2BYCRzQdr5e1FQNMgrEltgGeArcOmW7ZbSnRt2aUALk6H6UmPegZB3KZaTm9VpsjRGd%2BJcf9Bp8DOQiviWJgLA%2BQsAEM5XixxkYgVQ0IXqhjD%2FMWgB%2FzNRiGrMzBRb4VmyPhekf5%2BHOvMmhmIHPntWMq4xGMKSBBBjYDx6lZyE7fjUZxHj0%2FF%2BtKq6H3IjPf5QJygz0VMdhI4%3D|tkp%3ABk9SR8iMk-iYYQ&LH_ItemCondition=4|10 John C.