Informations About The Rjt

[george trotter]

Please don't forget, RJT swords were made as weapons, not art swords.  Saying that, I have seen some beautiful Star Stamp swords.   Now here is something to be discussed.   Most fully accredited Gendai Smiths, made three levels of swords.  1.  swords nocked out for the war effort ( equivilent now of making lower level swords for Martial Arts) 2. Swords made with more care for general sale. 3.  Special order blades.   I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about this.  It actually began by him saying, he believed Gendaito had rather thin skins, as observed by flaws showig up after polish.  This intern led us to discuss why?  The concensus at the end was, there are three levels of sword quality.  I would personally put RJT blades between  low level and medium level in quality.  This is a generalisation and I realise, there are always exceptions.

 

Hmmm, what to say. Firstly I agree with Dave that RJT are weapons...in fact the last nihonto made for war on the battlefield (that's why I collect them).

Now about the quality...As I have never used a RJT blade for its intended purpose and have never had one polished, I am a bit 'under qualified' to make any profound statement here regarding this above view on quality.

I can say however that I have never seen a star stamped RJT blade with flaws (presumably because they had to pass inspection). I have seen private order gendaito by prominent makers (eg. Suetsugu Shigemitsu - Fukuoka) with the worst open hada I have ever seen, yet still signed, dated and mounted for military use. Although the sample is small, this suggests that a star stamp would not appear on such a flawed sword. As to the 'hidden' quality, which only appears after a second polish, well I have not had such a sword in hand.

 

What I have collected, based on my assessment: I have 4 RJT blades, all excellent quality (no flaws). I have 3 gendai gunto which would be classed as private order, also of excellent quality (2 not dated  and 1 a private order  by a RJT smith (no star). I have one 'mystery maker' which looks good but still has some unanswered questions about it and its quality.

Some of these swords need a polish but I like them too much to submit them to modern Hadori polishers...I'd rather look at the WWII polish even with scratches etc. Because of this fact, I will never see my swords in a repolished state, so can only defend their quality based on my 50 years of sword knowledge (I am not saying the above view is wrong, I am just saying I have not seen it myself). You can look at my swords in the 'Japanese Swords in the Trotter Collection" document that Brian attached at the bottom of the index page. I wrote it just as a record of a small group of swords...some might enjoy a read, some may have the same swords and give us their opinion on their quality..

 

So, in closing, I can only say that "from what I've seen", the classifying of RJT into "good, better, best" is not something I have actually seen myself. The closest I suppose I could come is that not all RJT blades appeal to my taste. I have let a few go (even Yasukuni) because they didn't 'inspire' me...but I never saw a flawed or inferior piece of work amongst them...just didn't meet my taste.

 

I will be interested to see what sort of feedback comes from this discussion. I have spoken as a collector who focuses on collecting "the last true fighting swords made for the purpose of war on the battlefield" Everything after 1945 is art...not for me (just my opinion). Knowing the dedication of the Japanese when they put their mind to it, it is hard to think their swordsmiths would make dodgy swords...maybe cheaper types based on clearly stated metal variations...but, will be interested to hear opinions.

Regards to all,

[vajo]

I collect RJT blades too. I'm not a very experienced nihonto collector. I have over 30 blades in collection. From all periods from the nambokucho period to shinsakuto 1972.

But i feld in love with those RJT blades. These blades are all healthy and shows all aspects what i want to see on a true warrior sword. The smiths are good reportet. We know a lot of the procedures and the quality check of these swords. 

I collect not in the ancient antiques history context. Its not important for me how old a sword is. I must like the sword. The blades i hold are all good in polish and condition, some have got a new polish to see the beauty of the sword clearly.

[David Flynn]

George, this discussion about the quality of Gendaito happened a few years ago, between Alan Morton and myself. As I was heavely in Gendaito at the time this discussion was very relevent.   Alan said, that he thought the average Gendaito, had thin skin.   At this time, I had managed to aquire some very good Gendaito and so was puzzled by Alans thoughts.   This made go on a bit of an iformation hunt.   This is when I discovered that Swordsmiths intentionaly make different quality swords.   The first part of the puzzle was answered by Yoshihara Yoshindo in his book, The Craft of the Japanese Sword.  where he said, he would make swords from sponge steel for Martial Artist.  Also, before the Gendai period, swordsmiths would make three swords for the customer to choose from.   Anyway, the conclusion is, Gendaitosho didn't always make the best sword they could.  

  I have seen Star Stamp swords with flaws, both pre and post polish.   If they weren't fatal flaws, they were allowed to pass.

[george trotter]

Hi Dave,

Yes I see what you mean (if I have got it right)...the "average gendaito" is sometimes found with "thin skin" as gendaitosho don't always work to high standards. On this subject there will be varying views I am sure, all based on personal findings. I haven't got that book you mentioned but in order to assess some aspects of gendaitosho work I looked up the book 'The Yasukuni Swords' p.73-74. I did this to check both 'differing standards of gendaito quality' and to see if there was any mention of swords failing on the battlefield for weaknesses and structural problems. This book gives the Yasukuni inspection process and states that  they had an inspection process that identified the Yasukunito as being rated as 3 grades, that is: 'good, better, best'. Swords could also fail this inspection. Prices were set on "good, better, best" and the variations are given on these pages. It doesn't say what happened to the rejected swords, neither does it mention any failures in those that passed inspection. Although not addressing faults or failures, this is a valuable record when you get discussions like this one.

So, if Yasukuni blades had 3 gradings and prices (and failures), then it seems reasonable that RJT system may also have done this (failure does not get a star) so your discussion with Alan about seeing low quality in some gendaito seems reasonable. But there is more to it than this. Whether gendaitosho intentionally made differing grades of sword I don't know...but it occurs to me that in the sense that Yasukuni and RJT had rigid inspection standards it could be said that they are less likely to have intentional low quality than the "average gendaito" and as for flaws I suppose Yasukunito and RJT at least were assessed on whether they affect the serviceability of the blade in use? I mean, they wouldn't let a blade through that was structurally liable to fail in use would they?  

Thinking out loud about the original question of gendaito having 'thin skin', while Alan said "the average gendaito" did he mean to include Yasukunito and RJT?  I ask as I think it less likely to be the case with Yasukunito and RJT due to the government control of tamahagane production and the two sword inspection systems put in place for Yasukunito and RJT.

Since production quality was the result of dedicated smiths, government control and rigid inspection standards, then it would be fair to say that, unlike the Yasukunito and RJT (can't say about the "average gendaito") all swords made from say 1250 to say 1932  would be more likely to have low quality metals and structural flaws than Yasukuni and RJT blades wouldn't they?. I say this as it would be fair to say that no swordsmiths before Yasukuni in 1933 and RJT in about 1942 had to pass rigorous official metal controls and blade inspections by trained swordsmiths and metallurgists and technical experts.

 

While flaws and several levels of quality may exist in Yasukunito and RJT, I think logic says they are likely to be superior to "the average gendaito", if not the average nihonto also. Having said that, I think we need more information/facts on why/how is it that the "average gendaito" (including Yasukuni + RJT) has gotten a reputation for having "thin skin"?

 

Hope I'm not rambling or missing the point,

Regards,

[PNSSHOGUN]

There was also an interesting passage in that chapter where only after inspection and the sword passing where the smith's allowed to cut their Mei & date. Was there a similar requirement for the RJT?

[IJASWORDS]

So, if late in WW2, tamahagane was in short supply, did they use as little as they could get away with, hence thin skins? 

Were reject blades (cracked, bent, etc.) able to be recycled as approved tamahagne? 

I guess the smiths were making weapons, not art swords, so they made what was required to meet the standard required? 

[PNSSHOGUN]

From memory in the Yasukuni book some of the rejected blades were given Shiage and harshly tested on thick bamboo and steel plate before being recycled for their steel.

[george trotter]

From memory in the Yasukuni book some of the rejected blades were given Shiage and harshly tested on thick bamboo and steel plate before being recycled for their steel.

 

Your comment prompts me to say that Morita sans "regulations for RJT'  doc I translated has a line which states that any left-over bits of tamahagane had to be returned to the govt. I think this would also mean that 'failed' swords would also be 'recycled' by the govt. into new tamahagane for supply to RJT smiths. I think I remember seeing a pic of a box of tamahagane for the RJT scheme that had a 'level of quality' note on the box. This must mean (if my old memory is correct) that various grades of tamahagane were supplied to smiths. This stands to reason as every smelting cycle would likely use slightly different raw material sowould  produce several levels of finished metal (or each smelting cycle produced one uniform level of metal, but each cycle's output varied from the next?)...so over time there were various grades of tamahagane used...some 'good, some better and some best', so it is probably correct what Dave said...the quality of the tamahagane varied so the quality of the sword varied....but whether this is connected to "thin skin" (which is a construction matter) I don't know. Thin skin would seem to be a 'choice' matter for the smith? 

 

From this I suppose it would be reasonable to say that the quality of RJT work varied as the Yasukunito varied (I wonder if they were supplied with the same tamahagane? Maybe there was only the one smelter?).

Anyway, I think the standard of gendaito varies (as swords always have) but whether 1932-1945 swords are generally, or more often, inferior I have to say that I think Yasukunito and RJT are in general of superior / uniform quality, as is their forging..

Just me...

[David Flynn]

George, I will go along with you on Yasukuni swords, but only pre 1942,  I have seen  few with Kizu.  As for Star Stamps, I believe the smiths made the best they could, with their limited amount of material.   I have a Masakiyo with a star stamp, whilst Neil has a Maskiyo without any stamps. Neils  Masakiyo doesn't need polishing, hower the Stamp Stamp could definately do with polishing.  I will never have the Masakiyo polished ( In fact I'm going to sell it).  But if it ever was polished I'd love to see the results.

  I have to admit I have only ever seen a couple of Star Stamps polished and they had Kizu.  Maybe, it depends on how much skin has to be removed?

[george trotter]

Hi Dave,

Yes I guess in the end it must all come down to what we have actually seen ourselves. In my case, never having seen faults, I still have high regard for RJT.

 

Keep up the good work,

[george trotter]

There was also an interesting passage in that chapter where only after inspection and the sword passing where the smith's allowed to cut their Mei & date. Was there a similar requirement for the RJT?

 

Sorry John, I just saw that I had not answered your question.

This is a difficult one. All I can say is (1) "probably" the RJT smith signed the work as he finished and they were either inspected and stamped at his forge when collected (monthly?)  or (2) stamped at HQ after they were collected by the inspector (monthly?). As this RJT system worked over long distances, this would mean that some blades finished/signed and collected would be rejected  and so would get no star.... meaning there are signed blades out there with flaws and no star...maybe he got paid a lesser fee for a flawed sword but it would be permitted to be sold on without a star or, if too flawed it would be recycled into the next supply of RJT tamahagane...I am only guessing here but it seems a logical assumption. 

As the RJT regulations say, and as is supported by Chris Bowen's experience with RJT, the inspection process was carried out on every sword in terms of workmanship, shape, mei and date cutting etc, but testing for actual performance/quality was only done on samples selected periodically. This means that every sword must meet all standards all the time! Visual in-hand inspection decided whether the sword got a star, but only a 'percentage' of each smith's work was taken to be physically tested (maybe to destruction?) at random from monthly bundles of star stamped 'passed inspection" swords. This system would mean that RJT smiths would always strive to produce good work because (I presume) they never knew when one of their finished swords would be taken for physical testing.

 

So...to give you your answer, I think the RJT swords were signed/dated before collection/inspection. I say this as I don't think an inspector would have time to go to 50 forges around the country every month to inspect unsigned RJT swords and then, having passed them, wait at each forge for each 50 smiths to sign them  before he stamped them and took them back to Tokyo...he would never get through them all. The same applies to the other system, meaning that the inspector collected the swords of 50 smiths around the country (or they sent them in?) and then, after he inspected them as OK back at Tokyo he had to send them back out to  be signed/dated according to RJT standards and then wait for them to come back so he could check them again and star stamp them....no, I think they were signed/dated at each forge and either inspected/stamped there or sent in to Tokyo where they would be inspected/stamped. As I said, I am only assuming this as we have little archive proof.

I know Nick Komiya hates guessing and rumour but this is really all we can do at the moment. This really is a task  for Nick I think...he has already shone so much new light on the Rinji Seshiki Gunto area of study, I hope he "finishes" the small details of the RJT part of the story also.

Regards,

[Kiipu]

I'm searching for information about the Rikugun Jumei Tosho. Was it only an office in the headquarters of the Japanese army or was it in its own building.

 

According to the leaflet handed out by the committee, the 将校軍刀鑑査委員会 [Officer Military Sword Inspection Committee] was located inside the 陸軍兵器行政本部 [Army Ordnance Administration Headquarters] building located at 東京市牛込區若松町 [Wakamatsu Town, Ushigome Ward, Tōkyō City].

 

See frames 5 and 7 of the document linked below.

https://www.jacar.archives.go.jp/aj/meta/imageen_C14020933500?IS_KEY_S1=C14020933500&IS_KIND=SimpleSummary&IS_STYLE=eng&IS_TAG_S1=InfoSDU&

 

About half of this document is already translated at the link below.

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/family-short-blades-gunto-688110/

[vajo]

Thanks for the information

[Brian]

Thanks Thomas, for your valuable updates and research.

[Kiipu]

Thanks Thomas, for your valuable updates and research.

 

And thank you for giving us a subforum to discuss gunto.  I can assure you that I have learned for more than what I have given!

[Kiipu]

 

On 1/5/2020 at 1:14 PM, Bruce Pennington said:

I am in the process of cleaning up the Showa/Seki/Star discussion on the Stamps Doc and in recent emails with Richard Fuller, have received from him a chart.

 

I think this table would look better if collectors could actually see what the symbols and kanji characters actually look like.  Visuals aids can go a long way in my opinion.

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Just got some interesting info on the star stamp from Nick Komiya on this Warrelics thread.  Seems the star wasn't an RJT specific stamp, but more an ARMY MATERIAL stamp.

 

The short version is that the Army went out and got their own supply of steels.  Items made with the Army supplied steel, and approved for use got the star stamp. 

From NIck: "The star stamp is an interim process stamp related to material inspection. It was not the Jyumei Tosho that was denoted by the star, but it certified that the material used was army issued Tamahagane. Army issued bullet-proof steel also got this stamp on the final product."

And example of the spade with star:

 

In the sword world, the RJT program was the only source of Army-supplied tamahagane.  So we now have documented proof that the star on a blade means it was made of tamahagne.  The reg that @george trotter already translated said that RJT approved smiths would be supplied tamahagane, but it doesn't mention the star.  There has always been a bit of debate about whether star-stamped blades were gendaito or was the star just another Army acceptance stamp.  This new document proves the star-stamped blades were tamahagane.

 

[Toryu2020]

By extension we need to start collecting these old spades so swordsmiths can turn them back into swords...

[Dave R]

49 minutes ago, Bruce Pennington said:

  Items made with the Army supplied steel, and approved for use got the star stamp.

 

 I think it's a step too far to say they made spades out of Tamahagane.. The spades were made out of bullet proof steel as they were used as part of field fortifications, which is very different.

[Bruce Pennington]

5 hours ago, Dave R said:

 

 I think it's a step too far to say they made spades out of Tamahagane.. The spades were made out of bullet proof steel as they were used as part of field fortifications, which is very different.

Well, Nick did use that term "bullet proof steel".  It was in the middle of his discussion of the Army supplying it's own steel, tamahagane, so I assumed the bullet proof steel was made of tamahagane. 

[Dave R]

1 hour ago, Bruce Pennington said:

Well, Nick did use that term "bullet proof steel".  It was in the middle of his discussion of the Army supplying it's own steel, tamahagane, so I assumed the bullet proof steel was made of tamahagane. 

 

 There is a separate thread on the development of the IJA spade from Nick on Japanese Militaria. Being a nerd fan of Nick's I read it all the way through. They were made of modern "bulletproof" steel, with a pointed socket to stick in the ground, and a spy hole in the base of the blade...... Which is just so Japanese when you think of it.

[Dave R]

On 1/7/2020 at 12:16 AM, David Flynn said:

Please don't forget, RJT swords were made as weapons, not art swords.  Saying that, I have seen some beautiful Star Stamp swords.   Now here is something to be discussed.   Most fully accredited Gendai Smiths, made three levels of swords.  1.  swords nocked out for the war effort ( equivilent now of making lower level swords for Martial Arts) 2. Swords made with more care for general sale. 3.  Special order blades.   I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about this.  It actually began by him saying, he believed Gendaito had rather thin skins, as observed by flaws showig up after polish.  This intern led us to discuss why?  The concensus at the end was, there are three levels of sword quality.  I would personally put RJT blades between  low level and medium level in quality.  This is a generalisation and I realise, there are always exceptions.

 

 If you are banging nihonto out for the war effort, a thin skin makes sense. You get a resilient blade that will bend rather than break, and who cares about multiple polishes down the line, there is a war on!

[george trotter]

21 hours ago, Dave R said:

 

 I think it's a step too far to say they made spades out of Tamahagane.. The spades were made out of bullet proof steel as they were used as part of field fortifications, which is very different.

Just saw this...have to agree. How much valuable hand-made tamahagane was being produced? ...enough to make say, 1,000,000 shovels  as well as swords?. Seems strange.

Just thinking out loud...

 

[Bruce Pennington]

17 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

Well, Nick did use that term "bullet proof steel".  It was in the middle of his discussion of the Army supplying it's own steel, tamahagane, so I assumed the bullet proof steel was made of tamahagane. 

 

1 hour ago, george trotter said:

Just saw this...have to agree. How much valuable hand-made tamahagane was being produced? ...enough to make say, 1,000,000 shovels  as well as swords?. Seems strange.

Just thinking out loud...

 

Thanks guys.  I went back and re-read Nick's discussion.  I mis-read the post.  He said that the bullet-proof steel products also got this stamp.  I've corrected my original post above.

[george trotter]

On 1/7/2020 at 8:16 AM, David Flynn said:

Please don't forget, RJT swords were made as weapons, not art swords.  Saying that, I have seen some beautiful Star Stamp swords.   Now here is something to be discussed.   Most fully accredited Gendai Smiths, made three levels of swords.  1.  swords nocked out for the war effort ( equivilent now of making lower level swords for Martial Arts) 2. Swords made with more care for general sale. 3.  Special order blades.   I had a lengthy discussion with a friend about this.  It actually began by him saying, he believed Gendaito had rather thin skins, as observed by flaws showig up after polish.  This intern led us to discuss why?  The concensus at the end was, there are three levels of sword quality.  I would personally put RJT blades between  low level and medium level in quality.  This is a generalisation and I realise, there are always exceptions.

Just a bit more on this interesting (and disturbing) discussion Dave had about RJT swords having (1) (his friend believed) rather thin skins and (2) three levels of quality. Can I comment....

(1). In subsequent comments it seems that the thin skin became visible after a post-war re-polish. Now, as I have said before I have never had a WWII RJT sword re-polished as I prefer a slightly dirty WWII polish to (IMO) an awful post-war hadori polish, so I can't speak with authority on this subject, but I can express an opinion on it.

My opinion is this - I find it hard to believe some of these RJTs had thin skins for the following reason. Using logic, if this skin is so thin it becomes visible after ONE re-polish it means that the skin is SO THIN that one polish can rub sections of it away to show the metal below. This skin therefore must be perhaps only a couple of  thousanths of an inch thick - I am amazed how anyone could make a layer of tamahagane that thin and then hammer forge it onto the core steel? Can it be true?

(2). Any chance  this friend can post the sources stating that RJT blades have three standards of quality ? I ask because this is totally new info to me.

Regards,

[Bruce Pennington]

"Skins"?  Seems like an odd term.  Gendaito/Nihonto are made with multiple foldings.  There is no "skin" applied to the outside.

[IJASWORDS]

Whilst the outer layer is folded tamahagane, called kawagane, this can be made thick or thin, and wrapped around the core steel, called shingane.  

So the thickness of the folded outer layer can be any thickness, and is drawn out in the lengthening process of forging the blade. 

So Bruce, the outer layer is folded, but is the outer "skin" called kawagane, can be of varying thickness.

I have had and seen Gendai-to that have been deemed "tired", where after a number of polishes the core steel shows through.  

[Bruce Pennington]

2 minutes ago, IJASWORDS said:

Whilst the outer layer is folded tamahagane, called kawagane, this can be made thick or thin, and wrapped around the core steel, called shingane.  

So the thickness of the folded outer layer can be any thickness, and is drawn out in the lengthening process of forging the blade. 

So Bruce, the outer layer is folded, but is the outer "skin" called kawagane, can be of varying thickness.

I have had and seen Gendai-to that have been deemed "tired", where after a number of polishes the core steel shows through.  

I had a feeling that I should be sitting this one out!!!  Carry on!

[David Flynn]

George,  I never said, RJT had three levels.  I was talking about swordsmiths in general and whether this applied to Gendaito.   Personally, I would consider RJT, mid level.

[David Flynn]

As a bye the bye,   I attended the SF show in 2006.   At this time I had only decided to concentrate on Gendaito for a few years.  Anyway, the was a chap there with a case with about,  1/2 dozen polished and papered, Yasukuni To.  All of them had either Kizu or Ware, or both!    This actually turned me away from Yasukuni To,  until I acquired an early Yasutoku.