Unusual Open Work Tsuba

[Yukihiro]

To go back (if you don't mind) to the original topic, here is another example of a Japanese (???) gunto tsuba with holes drilled in it that I have found... Could this one also be a Chinese fake? (I have posted a photo of mine for the sake of comparison)

[Bruce Pennington]

Didier,

 

First, I want to make it clear - I don't believe yours is a fake. Mine likely is, but yours is not a fake. The plum blossoms on it are intentional and high quality work. The tsuba is made to resemble the Japanese style, but with differences that are intentional to set it apart for Chinese use, most likely the Chinese forces working for/with the Japanese.

 

As to your latest example, it's clearly legit also, but Japanese made for a Japanese gunto. It's just another good example like John's above. This is becoming an interesting thread for collecting examples of the tsuba with round holes!

[Bruce Pennington]

  On 3/8/2019 at 8:35 PM, vajo said:

  Sorry guys, I'm to stupid to follow. Chinese who made gunto in the style of gunto which are not Japanese made. That sounds for me like fake gunto. I got headache.

Chris,

 

All occupied lands, both by Germany and Japan, "recruited" locals to fight for them. They forced business and factories to make things for them. Try looking up "PETA forces WWII". Here's a link that has a little info on them: https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=171150

[Yukihiro]

Bruce,

These tsuba with round holes seem to be rather scarce : maybe less than 1 or 2 % of the total number, judging by the time it took me to browse the Internet to find but ONE instance of a tsuba with such holes.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Original example of early Type 98 with round holes in tsuba: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Old-Antique-Japanese-Sword-Signed-WW2-Samurai-WW-II-Army-LARGE-Katana-DATE-1936-/113397806095?hash=item1a6709340f%3Ag%3A74MAAOSwtgFbiXu1%3Ark%3A22%3Apf%3A0&nma=true&si=LFKQo1m6CN%252BxD9Ww%252FVwExtbDR6s%253D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

 

[vajo]

I dont think this is a real set. The seppa yes but not the tsuba.

The seppa didn't fit really, the boars eye are complete covered by the seppa. If we see restamped type 95 why not restamped gunto fittings to complete a sword?

 

What me doubt is these drilled holes. They look so ugly and unfinished. The lower one sits complete out of the shape. And why is the tsuba stamped twice? What does it makes it a early fittings set?

[PNSSHOGUN]

Large 1936 dated sword in unique and giant mounts, can't be too many Tsuba that size, let alone fakes?

[vajo]

Hmm, John.

 

I really don't know. Type98 was invited 1938 yes. But why they drilled the boars eye holes? Any idea?

 

Neil and George had a big collection too. Is there any open work Gunto Tsuba with drilled holes?

[PNSSHOGUN]

My best guess is time/cost saving or one contractor decided to make them that way?

[vajo]

These early gunto where as they invited from high quality (maybe). There was no need for rush making the fittings. Is there such making Tsuba from Type94 known?

[PNSSHOGUN]

I still believe Didiers example is not authentic. If you look at it compared to all the others the quality is quite poor whereas the others are of standard fit & finish with the exception of the round holes. 

[vajo]

Overall its now a little interesting to look further to this drilled holes tsuba. I never took notice before that they exist.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Another authentic example for consideration: http://www.artswords.com/Imperial_Japanese_Gunto_Mounted_Katana_101107.htm

 

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

And another original Type 94 example: https://buyee.jp/item/yahoo/auction/w318867212

 

[vajo]

Thanks a lot for collecting the pictures John. Its interesting.

[lambo35]

Just a WAC [Wild A_ _ Comment]. First, I am a very Newby in the field of Japanese swords, but I do have a little teaching background in Botany. So here is my WAC.

Japanese artists are to me, known for accuracy in their art. The Sakura or other flowers used for a decorative purpose I would expect to be accurately portrayed. A 5 petaled flower, such as the Sakura [ Dicot, Angiosperm ] also will have a number of stamen [identified as the Crown in this series of posts] in multiples of 5 [5, 10, 15, 20, etc]. Therefore, a tsuba, made by a Japanese artist would reflect the true number of stamen in their casting of the Sakura. I have not looked up a picture of a Sakura flower, so I do not recall what the real number [ in multiples of 5 ] is. I would therefore believe a real Japanese tsuba, if I counted the number of stamen would have the correct number.

A few of the pictures of tsuba above show stamen numbers other than the expected multiples of 5 [11, 12 ], Those are not what I would expect to find on any Japanese representation of the Sakura flower. One of the illustrated tsuba's has 4 per petal [ possibly correct ] therefore I believe this tsuba, which is accurate, is also Japanese made.

What do you think of my WAC? Florescence not accurately represented = not Japanese made!

 

Remember, I am really a Newby.

 

Chuck.

[Bruce Pennington]

Chuck,

 

I agree with your feelings that Japanese craftsmen were prettey precise about things. While there were a bit of variation from shop to shop, some things were pretty standard on WWII gunto, and the stamen were one of them (as far as I know!) at 3 per petal. I've included a pic of a well-made one. I don't think any of the ones posted on this thread are of enough pixel definition to really see the count on them, though.

[Bruce Pennington]

Latest one from this NMB thread: http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/29234-old-blade-or-showa-blade/

 

On a (likely) older blade, but marked 1935, for test cutting in 98 fittings (94 with missing ashi?)

 

[PacificRim]

  On 6/23/2019 at 4:11 AM, Bruce Pennington said:

Chuck,

 

I agree with your feelings that Japanese craftsmen were prettey precise about things. While there were a bit of variation from shop to shop, some things were pretty standard on WWII gunto, and the stamen were one of them (as far as I know!) at 3 per petal. I've included a pic of a well-made one. I don't think any of the ones posted on this thread are of enough pixel definition to really see the count on them, though.

[PacificRim]

Bruce, below is the sword that was test cut in 1935, which I believe to be a type 94, and an early type 98. The craftsmanship of the 94 is significantly better than the 98.

[Bruce Pennington]

Mr Rim, may I call you Pacific?, (Ha, please go to your settings and give us a real person's name, forum rules),

 

Nice looking gunto, there! I have felt the same thing, in general. Although, you'll find quality variations in all the years of the war, hence the need for arsenal inspectors. So far, though, the lowest quality Japanese work is, for the most part, a cut above the product being put out by the fakers. It's usually noticable in the finer details of the artwork (leaves, petals, etc).

[PacificRim]

Bruce, thanks for sharing your knowledge. Just added my name on file.

 

Best regards,

 

Alex

[Shamsy]

Here are some photos of these Chinese collaboration swords.

 

The flowers on the tsuba are plumb blossom I think... Been a while since we discussed these. There are two 'grades' of swords seen. One is very crude, one rather well made (pictures 1 & 2). Both have open work tsuba and I recall that upon the ends of the obviously not Japanese made nakago, there are hot stamps of characters. If this is actually news to anyone I can find all the old notes and photos I have on these.

[PNSSHOGUN]

How remarkable, please dig up what you can, no doubt we've all passed over a couple of these as modern fakes at some point.

[Shamsy]

Sorry, took a long time to find in all the crap I've gathered over the years.

 

Not much to be dug up, but some useful info around translations and some old pictures I have saved. Basically, there are two 'patterns', one is very shabby (couldn't find any reference pics and not for want of trying), the last sword pictured in 3 photos is the 'higher grade' one that is quite nicely made IMHO for a non-Japanese sword. It has an inscription you can see in earlier post. Nakago on all are crude, stamped with numbers and Chinese characters. Take a gander at the paperwork on the 4th sword listed. These swords are a fairly interesting subject without a lot of info or awareness. Anyway, onto some translation I saved:

 

1) The one stamp looks like 應 the verb ataru, one meaning 'to accept'. I don't know by whom this sword was accepted or OK'd. It does look like Chinese manufacture. 應 in Chinese is not used in the sense of acceptance though. In Chinese it is used as in this sentence " 我們應該去。" (Cantonese) "Ngo ying gai hueh. " " We should go. " Where 應 means 'should'.

 

2) These 應 marked swords are late war lowered standard swords probably made in China for local and Japanese officers. The Kanji 應 is an older style of the Kanji 応 which is most likely a shortened form of 応急 meaning "emergency", like those similarly 応 marked emergency T-99 rifles.

 

All a bit indecisive, but my feeling is that these are genuine collaboration swords. They are quite well made, show a good aged patina and there are too many in old collections (and with paperwork) to discount offhand. But who knows, we need some primary sources to make anything more than a modestly educated guess.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Fascinating, thanks for sharing Steve. You would feel a little gypped getting one of these compared to a real one, I imagine the value is akin to the "Island swords", purely as military curios.

[Bruce Pennington]

Steve, thanks for the presentation! Very nice example. I have that stamp down as "emergency" also, though I don't recall my source, and as being made by/for Chinese collaboration forces. Quite an interesting tsuba! Seen by itself, I would have written it off as a bad Chinese fake! Great piece of history there.

[BANGBANGSAN]

  On 7/25/2019 at 7:03 AM, Shamsy said:

Sorry, took a long time to find in all the crap I've gathered over the years.

 

Not much to be dug up, but some useful info around translations and some old pictures I have saved. Basically, there are two 'patterns', one is very shabby (couldn't find any reference pics and not for want of trying), the last sword pictured in 3 photos is the 'higher grade' one that is quite nicely made IMHO for a non-Japanese sword. It has an inscription you can see in earlier post. Nakago on all are crude, stamped with numbers and Chinese characters. Take a gander at the paperwork on the 4th sword listed. These swords are a fairly interesting subject without a lot of info or awareness. Anyway, onto some translation I saved:

 

1) The one stamp looks like 應 the verb ataru, one meaning 'to accept'. I don't know by whom this sword was accepted or OK'd. It does look like Chinese manufacture. 應 in Chinese is not used in the sense of acceptance though. In Chinese it is used as in this sentence " 我們應該去。" (Cantonese) "Ngo ying gai hueh. " " We should go. " Where 應 means 'should'.

 

2) These 應 marked swords are late war lowered standard swords probably made in China for local and Japanese officers. The Kanji 應 is an older style of the Kanji 応 which is most likely a shortened form of 応急 meaning "emergency", like those similarly 応 marked emergency T-99 rifles.

 

All a bit indecisive, but my feeling is that these are genuine collaboration swords. They are quite well made, show a good aged patina and there are too many in old collections (and with paperwork) to discount offhand. But who knows, we need some primary sources to make anything more than a modestly educated guess.

The Gunto present to  Capt Sideny Hardvick from Chinese Ministry Of Defence was made for Nanking puppet government Wang Jing Wei's  Armed Force.Like the Gunto this officer hold.

 

應 also could be 應需-On demand。應需 can be seen on some high ranking officer's Gunto tang.

Here is Gunto from 畑俊六 Shunroku Hata，栗林忠道 Tadamichi Kuribayashi，山下奉文Tomoyuki Yamashita

[Shamsy]

Thanks for the input, Trystan. It's quite hard to get good translations for Chinese. That was my thoughts too. Imitation gunto for the collaboration forces.

 

John: it's obviously up to each collector what value they place on these swords. My personal thoughts are that a collector of Japanese swords from WW2 should probably consider a good example of these swords as an important part of their 'extended' collection. I personally like a verified island sword and consider it of equal collection value (though not dollar) as any standard Type of officer sword. These to me are about the same.

 

Of course I collect 95s, so they are outside of my collection anyway.

[PNSSHOGUN]

Here's one to add to the pot: https://www.ebay.com/itm/VERY-RARE-WWII-Period-Chinese-Shin-Gunto-sword-Presented-to-American-General/133126980426?hash=item1efefc834a:g:zU4AAOSw6vhdPjeo