Neil

Stephen, Thanks for the tip. I will probably leave it at simply (and carefully!) removing the blistered parts. As I'm in little doubt that is a Showata piece I'll probably satisfy myself with the fact that this is really just an ageing piece of militaria and do as little as possible aside from preservation. Many thanks, Neil

Gents, Thanks for the prompt and informative replies. I'd always made the assumption that 'assembly' marks were purely painted on. And, rather embarrasingly, since posting the question I've come across a UK dealers web site who is advertising a Katsumasa sword from March '43 which apparently bears "A very small Nagoya acceptance stamp and the number ‘1404’ stamped to the tang. No Showa or arsenal marks" so it seems Mr. Katsumasa was busy compared to most! Now, if my son can remember where he put the family magnifying glass I'll go away and look for a stamp. Thanks again, Neil

Sorry, Forgot to say no sign of any other stamp, though you'll note the heavy rusting.. Cheers

Hello, I've a Type 98 sword whose blade is, I believe, signed (Kojima) Katsumasa and dated Nov/Dec 1942 (I'd be glad of confirmation of latter). Whilst I've read whats been written about this gentleman on here and Sword Forum, any additional info. would be welcome. The blade is, I'm sure, a non-traditional one, its got a suguha hamon with a ko-maru boshi - puts his book down - and there's no visible activity that I can make out. The mounts appear to be fairly average, though its got a gold over copper habaki if thats unusual? The thing thats got me scratching my head is the numbers stamped on the tang. These swords seem to be fairly well documented - albeit I'm confined to the web for any detail, and much I read says there's many exceptions to the norm - but the only ref. I can find to stamped numbers is to NCO swords, and mounts aside, this blade is clearly a much better item and stamped on the nakago rather than the blade. Any thoughts, musings are more than welcome, any help gratefully received. Cheers, Neil