Timeline Type 3 Gunto

[vajo]

I have a Star Stamp Gendaito in Type 3 (late '44) mounts, Nakago no. 315

forged Showa Juhachi-nen Ni-gatsu hi (February 1943)

 

I found another Gendaito from the same smith sold on Ebay in Type98 mounts, Nakago no. 320

forged Showa Juhachi-nen San-gatsu hi (March 1943)

 

I thought the type 3 came after the type 98. 

 

Very interesting for me.

 

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Chris,

 

very cool that you found these two "sister" swords! Are the nakago numbers you refer to painted numbers?

 

The 98's were being made all the way to the end of the war. The Rinji (type 3) or Contingency sword was made parallel to the 98's. Earliest date I've seen is Dec '42 and they run all the way through '45.

[vajo]

Hi Bruce,

 

thanks a lot for the information.

 

the number is stamped in the nakago. 

The Type 98 was sold march 2016 over ebay. I bought the type 3 from a gentleman here in the board.

 

 

Did you know who decide which mounting was given to the sword?

[Bruce Pennington]

Sorry, I’ve never heard that part of the process.

[Shamsy]

Since Type 0 were contracted by the army, whereas the Type 98 were private purchases, the mounts were determined by who the customer was.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Yes, up to customer and what stock the sword supply store had by then.

[vajo]

Ah, thank you. But why so many Star Stamp Gendaito are in Type 3 mounts with different colors of saya and tsuka when the type 3 was a stock sword? I see many low quality showa-to blades in fine mountings. On other hands you found high quality blades in simple late44 koshirae with a lacquered tsuka.

[Shamsy]

While the Type 0 was a last ditch sword, meant to speed production and minimise the use of essential war materials, it was fully intended to be a quality, practical and robust sword. So they are not necessarily inferior blades, merely priced artificially low by the army and navy. Straight out of Nick ' own words;

 

"And like Type 98s there naturally would be luxury versions and barebones versions even for a sword conceived as a poor man's version. There will also be older blades made into the 1940 style, as the Appraisal Committee was sponsored directly by the army and navy. Also the scoundrels, who exploited the earlier shortage to peddle substandard quality swords, ripping off officers would have now tried to make money selling upgrade aftermarket kits, etc, etc. Officer items were private purchase items, and though they may have had difficulty buying one without having to pay an arm and leg for it, once they got one they could dress it up as they liked. So the existence of high quality examples of the 1940 model is totally natural and in no way conflicts with the account I have given you."

 

So basically the Type 0 koshirae was an upgrade to the sword, exactly as the Type 98. There is no mystery in this. Possibly some officers believed the koshirae was more robust too.

[Windy]

My Akihisa Type 3 is December 1941

[vajo]

Shamsy I'm confused. Type 0 is what?
I know Type95, Type98 and Type3 (called Late'44). Could you explain Type 0 please?

Windy, this is a very good sword. I have a Akihisa too in Type 3 mounts. Must take a look when it was forged.

[Shamsy]

The various ‘types’ of sword are all named from the years they were introduced. The so called ‘Type 3’ was a designation from Western collectors and is incorrect. While in the strictest sense this sword is not even a ‘type’ anything, if it is to be designated based on date it was approved to enter production, as in line with Type 95 and 98, it would be the Type 0. This is 1940 (Year Zero, 2600).

 

Since it is convenient to give the sword a ‘type’ because ‘last ditch’ or ‘desperate situation’ (Rinji) is a term used by Western collectors for a number of questionable quality swords from 1945, I use a correct designation in line with conventional naming.

 

Again, full credit to Nick for the research, I am providing only the condensed version.

[vajo]

Shamsy. I didn't know who "Nick" is. Is there any reference to read?

I don't think that the terminus came from the western collectors, because Ohmura san named it so. 

 

 

Ohmura says the types are:

 

Army officers Type 94 (established 1934)

Army officers Type 98

Naval officers Type Tachi (established 1937)

Army officers Type 3 (established 1943 - ohmura says but there a older types we know).

Army NCO Type 32

Army NCO Type 95 (established 1935)

 

I didn't find in the net any description about Type 0. So it is very difficult to follow a discussion.

http://ohmura-study.net/999.html

Ohmura cooperate with many persons in Japan for his research. He describes many aspects. 

[Shamsy]

Nick is a current researcher that reads and translates the Japanese National Archives. I'm a big fan because he deals in hard facts, not speculation and myths. He has disproven many longstanding myths and exposed ingrained inaccuracies in existing research. You may like to read this linked thread, which specifically deals with the Type 3 myth. It will clear up a lot of your questions and put you ahead of the average 'book expert'. I've learned a lot and we're lucky, because Nick not only spends many hours doing this for our benefit, but he openly publishes his work, provides proof in the form of copies of the documentation and is very willing to assist when approached. Enjoy.

 

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/deflating-another-myth-type-3-army-officer-s-sword-expanded-version-584796/

[vajo]

Thanks Shamsy, i will take the time to read.

[Shamsy]

You're very welcome. It's not only very interesting from the perspective of the Type 0 development, but it also touches on some other interesting events, like the Type 95 rental/purchase programme and the ‘bring your own samurai sword’ initiative.

[vajo]

Shamsy, i read many lines now. But there is a lot of questions i can't follow him.

 

He didn't make a cut between high quality his term type 0 and low quality swords.

His conclusion was only that there was a supply crunch. On this they produce this type 0.

 

That is in my eyes a myth. 

 

He said "One of the features adopted was the simplified manner of Tsukamaki, handle cord wrap pattern called the Kansuke-maki attributed to Shingen Takeda’s Chief of Staff, Kansuke Yamamoto. This simplified pattern would take only about 30 minutes to do whereas the diamond pattern used for the type 98 would take half day to a full day to complete "

 

Is that the truth? 

 

 

He wrote that the above tsuka needs 30 min. to complete.

The 98 tsuka half a day? (12 hours, or 8 or 4?)

Thomas Buck could say how long you need for each tsuka to complete.

But i think all that binding and coloring is maybe the same time.

 

There is so much to discuss because i think he read the Japanese files but he didn't understand each part.

[vajo]

Btw. I found a video on youtube where chinese binding tsuka. They need 5 minutes to wrap a tsuka. 

 

[Dave R]

 A couple of points. The first is that Nick Komiya is a native Japanese speaker! The second point is that the Chinese swords are done for a price, and with a lot of shortcuts.

 Having done a couple of Tsuka the proper way with Hishi-gami under every turn, I can tell you that it takes about 6 hours to do a proper job. The style used on Rinji (type 3) does not use Hishi-gami for most or even all of the Tsuka and so takes a lot less time.

[vajo]

Dave i read now a lot of comments of nick komiya to his Rinji Sishiki Gunto theory. He offend like a machine gun collectors they didn't follow his 80 Yen Sword Type 0 thema.

 

For example? 

He wrotes:" Officers had 3 choices, either to buy a Type 98 which was being priced out of reach of many officers, or buy the affordably priced Rinji Seishiki sword or you could simply rent a NCO sword. It became like cigarette marketing." http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/Japanese-type-3-ija-shin-gunto-654732-5/

 

Thats why you found oil queched showa-to stamped blades in bling, bling Type98 Koshirae and high quality blades from the best swordmiths of that time in Rinji Seishiki Gunto mounts?

 

Thats all is very crazy...

[vajo]

And Nick Komiya wrote this: "I am not a sword collector, so I would rather leave that to collectors who have a need to refer to it. I thought "1940 variant" would be neutral enough, but I am not able to tell whether that name is already taken by some other sword in the collector world."

 

Mr. Komiya has no knowledge about the swords inside the fittings. So it is easy to call a sword 80 Yen sword. Where a pistol cost 68 Yen. 

[vajo]

Nick Komiya wrote further:

"This sword did not even take over during the contingency, but was produced in parallel to the Type 98 to pad up the production volume. Kind of like introducing a stripped down version of a car as a "Sports" or "Rally" version."

 

 

A stripped down version - what?

 

The Type 3 has some minor improvements for the battlefield.

 

- 2 mekugi (one screw, one bamboo peg)

- a dust protection kuchi-gane

- Iron Tsuba 

- a silence kabuto-gane without a sarute

- and if you like a lacquered tsuka ito that didn't get wet. 

 

 

The Type 3 is the better sword in my eyes. Its a sword made for the battlefield not for sitting behind the table.

[Bruce Pennington]

Chris & Steve,

 

Concerning the use of the term "Type" - If I understand Nick's objection it is this: There were official Imperial orders by the Imperor officiallly creating certain weapons of all kinds. Those orders generate the "Type" designation. Everything else is a variation of those official Types. It bothers him when we use the word Type for the Rinji gunto because that implies that the style was ordered by the Imperor, which it was not.

 

Like Steve said, and I tried to explain this to Nick as well, collectors live in another world, using differing languages. We use nicnames to simplify language. Instead of saying "hey look at the 80 Yen model created to be simpler to manufacture and has laquered ito designed to withstand more use without cutting and unraveling!" We say "hey look at my Type 3". So I understand his objection, and as I get deeper into military gunto, I struggle with it too. We collectors are even bothered when a seller calls them "Marine Landing Sword"! HA!

 

So until the community settles on a term that makes everyone happy, we're going to have lengthy sentences to describe what we are about to discuss. And it will generate lengthy threads like this one!

[vajo]

Hi Bruce,

 

I have no problem with a term. I have a problem when he says 80 Yen Sword. I remember on the Okimasa that was sold for $10k in that 80 Yen Koshirae. For me it es a Type3 Sword and the words of ohmura are more weightfull for me.

[Dave R]

Hmmm, 80 yen in 1942 was a decent sum of money. I did a little research on this some time ago, and found that it equates to about £800 in modern money. This is what you pay for a decent cutting sword in modern steel now, and this price was for very much that sort of blade. Remember also that this was the fixed and authorised price, if you wanted to pay more for better then you were able to do so. I think that if you want to dispute Mr Komina's research then you will have to do some of your own, searching through Japanese documents in what is now an archaic script. Good luck! 

[vajo]

Dave i read what he say about ohmura san and i did not like it.

Btw i was reading about the sword costs during late edo period. And a sword costs much more. You paid for a medium katana around 5 - 8000 Euros in present day. A sword was always expensive in every time.

[Shamsy]

This is what you pay for a decent cutting sword in modern steel now, and this price was for very much that sort of blade. Remember also that this was the fixed and authorised price, if you wanted to pay more for better then you were able to do so. I think that if you want to dispute Mr Komina's research then you will have to do some of your own, searching through Japanese documents in what is now an archaic script. Good luck!

 

Well said Dave. Nick in fact stresses that these are quality swords, just artificially priced.

 

Sadly this thread seems to have now taken a turn from educational. I've nothing much to add.

 

Looking forward to seeing some primary sources quoted though.

[vajo]

Shamsy sorry that i not go with him. There is no existing Type 0.

But there is a Type 3 and every collector understand what is meant. 

 

This is not the style i want to read because he made a myth from a term.

 

I admit that only a week ago, the only sword myth I knew was that of Excalibur. I had never even heard of a Type 3 sword and I wouldn’t even have bothered to find out, because it was far afield of my personal area of interest. What provoked me, however, was a WAF thread I read about a mystery sword initially thought to have been used by the NLF, but now captured in a photo that proved it to be an army sword. I smelled a rat, exactly like the kind of fiction concocted by people, who would portray a China Incident Commemorative Medal as a medal for Chinese Collaborators. On top, I learned that Mr. Ohmura, who seemed to be a highly respected Japanese author in the western world also couldn’t quite figure out the so-called Type 3 sword. It sounded exactly the kind of mystery I was good at solving.

So I decided to read Ohmura-san’s site and within a few lines...

[Shamsy]

Each to their own Chris, I in no way take this personally The ‘Type 3’ will unfortunately be around for a long time, since there are no new books or articles emerging other than by Nick. So new collectors will continue to designate a type based off the incorrect year of acceptance (not that it is even a distinct pattern but anyway), because that is what they read in a book.

 

I'll continue to call it a Type 0 now that the acceptance date has been discovered. Bruce was spot on and I mention it earlier; Rinji is already associated with a great group of unpatterned swords so we need something to call this pattern, for the sake of collectors.

 

I would not call cars Ford, BMW, Porsche and blue one, so I will continue to use the correct name based on our type system which uses dates of acceptance.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Reminds me of the nomenclature of German WW2 weapons in the west for decades; "Schmeisser" for the MP38/40, when Hugo Schmeisser had no involvement in the design of the gun. "Spandau" for the MG34/MG42, left over name from WW1 era MG08's.

 

Type 3 is just as erroneous in light of official designations by the IJA and hopefully will be viewed as such by collectors eventually.

[vajo]

Sorry mates for my angry answering. I was thinking about it once again and i will try to find a different view.

I dont want to offend any of you.

 

Best

Chris