Questions about "late war", NCO swords

[WilBru5]

I am still new to the learning curve of collecting Gunto, so please excuse if this is al ready a well known and covered topic.
As I am gathering knowledge I have noticed something which I find interesting and curious.  The swords described as "Late war" ,or "Last ditch", " Late War NCO sword"... As I understand it there is excepted to be 4 variations of these.  What caught my eye is what I notice, and what is spoke of in a page of Dawson's book( I don't have access to the book, I just ran into a graphic of the page).  Anyway every Ito wrapped Tsuka example I can find...are less refined than the cross hatched wood tsuka variations.  Also, none of the Ito wrapped "variation #4" examples I have found have  a serial number on the blade, nor do they have a fullered blade.  Where as every example of the cross hatched variations have the serial number on the blade, and some are fullered as well.   I found one Ito wrapped example with the tsuka removed which had a serial number on the nakago(tang)…. which has me wondering if the other variation #4 have a serial number on the nakago… But the thing which caught my eye the most is every ito wrapped variation #4 example which I can see the blade has the "HE" stamp of the heijo factory of Korea.  The ones with wood saya where I can see the drag also have the "HE" stamp.... The page out of Dawson's book describe the two which have a readable mark as being the "HE" stamp... I have not seen any example of the less refinded, ito wrapped tsuka, variation #4  with any other stamp than the Heijo factory "HE".  However I have yet to see any example of the more refined cross hatched tsuka variation with a "HE" stamp?  This leads me to the questions:

1. has anybody else who owns a ito wrapped variation #4 taken the tsuka off and found a serial number on the tang?
2. Has anybody else seem an ito wrapped variation #4 with any other stamp besides the HE of the heijo Factory in Korea?
3. Does anyone have a variation #2 or #3 with the HE heijo factory stamp?

If the answers are "yes" "no" & "NO"; then it makes me ask if all of the ito wrapped variation #4 were made by the Heijo factory.... and none of the other variations were made by the Heijo factory.  And is there any sugnifigence to this?

 

always learning

[Shamsy]

1. No, I don't disassemble 95s

2. Yes. I have a pattern 8 with serial numbers. It is unique to my knowledge

3. Would have to look, but likely I have pattern 5 and 6

 

I'll just add for clarity how I classify the various patterns and how I will refer to them:

Pattern 1 - copper handle

Pattern 2 - aluminium handle, brass tsuba

Pattern 3 - aluminium handle, iron tsuba

Pattern 4 - aluminium handle, side lock

Pattern 5 - cross-hatch wooden handle, steel saya

Pattern 6 - cross-hatch wooden handle, wooden saya

Pattern 7 - ring wooden handle

Pattern 8 - ito wooden handle

[Bruce Pennington]

Bruce,

I’d love to see the nakago with serial number! Do you have pics?

[WilBru5]

Bruce

I am away for thanksgiving, but will post pictures of the sword right after I get back.

[WilBru5]

I am back.

Here you go Bruce

this is every place I have found the stamp.

[Guest]

Definitely the Hiragana character へ He  

[Shamsy]

Nice leather cover. Don't often find those on the 95s.

[Bruce Pennington]

Thanks Bruce. I'll add one of those to my Stamps Document!

 

I'm not sure that the numbers on the nakago are serial numbers. It would be way out of the norm, if so, and quite impractical as serial numbers are used to issue items to soldiers and track ownership. It is more likely something stamped there by the koshirae fitters. But that's just an educated guess.

 

Very nice gunto!

[Bruce Pennington]

Nice leather cover. Don't often find those on the 95s.

Steve,

I don't follow the late-war 95s, so forgive my question, but is it normal to see an all-wooden saya like that? I thought the wooden ones had a metal top-end piece.

[WilBru5]

Thanks all for the affirmation of the sword.

I am still learning Bruce, and lack much information of the process... But seems to me all the blades of a factory produces production run would be pretty much the same, (all within a certain tolerance), any blade out of tolerance would have been rejected... thus no need for koshirae makers to produce individualized koshirae to a blade.  because it is being made to fit a specific pattern, the koshirae could also be made in a production run then mated to the blades by fitters.  Slight adjustments would be made at the time of fitting the koshirae to the blade... thus no necessity to stamp a number in the blade relating to koshirae.  How about possibly a production run number?

Part of my background comes from decades of factory work including product development, quality control, and production run development of new products... those experiences is why I make the comments reqarding your thoughts on whether the stamped numbers on the nakago relate to koshirae fitting.  I do not question your knowledge, I very much value your insight and the information you bring to the table.

When I received this sword I thought it possibly a fake, because of how "unrefined" the construction is... That is part of the reason I have devoted so much effort into researching this particular variation.  And in doing so I keep finding the same instances as I pointed out in my first set of questions.

 

Shamsy, or Steve, (which name do you prefer I converse with you by?)

 

Does your pattern 8 have an arsenal mark on the blade?  and is there an arsenal mark on the fuchi or tsuba?  Does your pattern 8 have the same saya construction?  And if so, does the saya have a arsenal mark on the drag?

 

Also I now see there is an example of a pattern 6 displayed on a post on WarRelics forum with a numbered blade and the HE mark by the number + a wooden saya… and you can also see the HE mark on the saya (approximately the same place as mine has it).  The pommel is of the same less refined construction.... bringing me back to wondering how active was the Heijo factory of Korea in the production of these particular variations?  

[Shamsy]

Steve,

I don't follow the late-war 95s, so forgive my question, but is it normal to see an all-wooden saya like that? I thought the wooden ones had a metal top-end piece.

The pictured sword has the correct metal components, Bruce. The black 'top part' of the saya is the thin stamped tin over wood. This and the drag are the only metal components.

[Shamsy]

Bruce W,

 

I do not have anything more than speculation, but I also am not certain that the nakago numbers are production. I thought part of the purpose of numbering blades was the tracking of inventory and assignment of equipment. It would be rather impractical, therefore, to require the removal of two screws to make the numbers visible. Conversely, by that stage of the war, perhaps it simply did not matter...

 

 

As to the questions... I'm unfortunately not able to look at this time, so I'm relying on memory and a few old and somewhat poor photos.

 

Does your pattern 8 have an arsenal mark on the blade?

It does indeed, along with the serial number. I thought the others may too, but not visible in the photo. Need to see in hand.

 

Is there an arsenal mark on the fuchi or tsuba?

Not visible in photos, need to see in hand. Pretty sure there's a mix of yes and no between swords.

 

Does your pattern 8 have the same saya construction?

Identical.

 

And if so, does the saya have a arsenal mark on the drag?

I need to check. As mentioned, the amount of stamps and locations vary across individual examples, so while I'm fairly certain that it does, I will have to check.

 

The Korean Jinsin arsenal must have made a few swords, but not enough (or perhaps few survive?) for them to be considered anything but rare. There is evidence through stamps that they must have received a number of aluminium swords (for some purpose) from a variety of other arsenals, but I'm not aware that they ever produced an aluminium example. The pattern 6 is a crude version of the 5, with different materials and poor workmanship. We can at least assume that the similarities are probably not accidental.

 

I do not have access to my serial number records, nor my official production records at this time.

[IJASWORDS]

A pattern 6.

[Bruce Pennington]

The pictured sword has the correct metal components, Bruce. The black 'top part' of the saya is the thin stamped tin over wood. This and the drag are the only metal components.

Ahhso! I was looking at the last photo and the color made it blend in with the wood. It is clearly metal in the next-to-last photo.

 

Thanks Steve!

[WilBru5]

Bruce P

Question out of curiosity?  From what I am learning; all the stamps except one appear to be Jinsin arsenal stamps.  The exception is the one on the side of the blade closer to the nakago, this stamp has a circle around the HE?  I found a listing of stamps which makes me curious.  Have you a copy of this, and am I seeing it correctly?

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Bruce, that's a new one on me! It seems it is from the Heijō Factory of Jinsen Army Arsenal (called Hoten Arsenal Corp by Ohmura). I haven't seen it before, and will add it to my Stamps Document!

[WilBru5]

Thank you Neil.

Do you find the Heijo/Jinsin stamp on the suspension ring mount?  How about on the tsuba and the fuchi?

[WilBru5]

Bruce

In reading the Ohmura study; I note Mr. Ohmura does mention HE  mark (without a circle) as being the Incheon army arsenal inspection stamp.  Further down I also note he discusses the Mukden factory inspection mark "HO".  But Mr. Ohmura doesn't mention the Mukden factory "HE" (with a circle ), nor the Mukden factory "YE"... I do not know his reason for omitting these two inspection marks.

Further reading of Ohmura study also shows what he terms as a "Last stage type" and a "The Maximum last stage type", both of which he attributes as "Nagoya army arsenal made".   the numbers and the stamps on the two blades appear very different in composition.  It could be wishful thinking on my part, but it sure looks like a "HE" before the number on that maximum late stage one...I wish I could see a better closer picture of the number and mark.

[Bruce Pennington]

Yes, Ohmura-san's site is a priceless reference for studying gunto, yet, like all our references, they aren't all-encompassing, all-knowing. The internet has made more information, and source material, available to us than Ohmura, Fuller, or Dawson ever had at their fingertips. It's quite amazing the level of coverage they all reached, considering.

 

As to the Circled He - I'm not yet entirely sure that is what we are seeing. It COULD be. Yet there are many non-circled He stamps on late-war 95s. Steve (Shamsy) has several. I'm wondering if the crescent we see on this isn't just the outer edge of the stamp and it struck the blade because the stamp was held at an angle when struck. The chart you've provided seems to be more about guns and other things. For example, the Mukden emblem of a circle in a circle connected by 3 lines is only found on guns, not blades. It would be good to know if the Circled HE is found on guns as well.

 

Steve, if you are reading this - do you have any blades with the Circled HE?

[WilBru5]

I agree with your comments regarding research and references.  From a collector stand point; it is a shame so much information was lost to us, but that is the way it goes.

After closely inspecting the stamp; I dont think the cresent is the outer edge of the stamp. The depth of the impression of the cresent and the HE appear to be consistant with each other with out any crushing  of the file marks between them.  If the stamp were badly struck at an angle to the point the edge of the stamp imprinted into the metal the file marks between the crescent and the HE would be crushed by the resulting imprint of the stamp face.  Plus the raised HE portion of the stamp would be imbedded deeper, than the face(crescent), into the metal.  And you are correct about the firearm arsenal mark.  I have seen many circle connected  on rifles, but no Mukden arms corp "HE"... interestingly, I have seen many rifles baring both the Mukden rifle stamp and the Jinsin rifle stamp,(which is different from the jinsin HE).

Also very interesting to me;  this post by Stu W http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/ija-type-95-nco-sword-info-228172/shows a pattern 6 which has the Jinsin HE stamp followed by circled two line stamp.  The two lines are very consistent with the Nanman arsenal stamp.  accounts from multiple sources describe a very patterned flow of equipment and military between the Imperial Japan Jinsin Korea  and the Imperial Japan puppet state of Manchukuo (Manchuria).  It is entirely plausible these duel stamped swords were manufactured at/for the Jinsin arsenal, then sent to the arsenals in Manchuria, inspected and stamped there.  Rambling a bit, but there is also much said about the chosen-gun (Koreans military of Imperial Japanese Army).  And the use of these troops in Manchuria and as guards for the Japanese POW camps of allied POWs., camps in both Jinsin Korea and Mukden,Manchuria.  Any correlation between these crudely constructed swords and use by the Chosen-Gun, I have not found.

[Bruce Pennington]

You could be right about the strike of the stamp. I'll keep watching for it.

 

I thought you had one on that Warrelics thread, but it's the "NI" - second inspection mark that is found along with an arsenal mark - which in this case is a non-circled HE.

 

[IJASWORDS]

This one is only 89 away from yours Bruce.

[IJASWORDS]

Hey Bruce , notice how on both examples the 3017 looks to be gang stamped in a straight line, the last two digits added separately? Do other members have similar numbers ? 

[Bruce Pennington]

My wooden handle is in the 211xxx range and none of the numbers are lined up like that (pluse mine has a Seki stamp, so different operators).

[BANGBANGSAN]

I have 3 pattern 5 wooden handle NCO sword.2 of them maybe "Prototype",only has 関 mark and no ser# on the blade.The other one has 6 digit numbers but not line up,looks divided to two parts.I noticed both  "Prototype"  has only 3 digit on the scabbard throat,and stamped on the opposite side .

 

[WilBru5]

Thank you Trystan

your pattern 5s are continuing to reinforce my thoughts.

which are:

1. Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory did not make any pattern 1 through pattern 5 type 95 NCO swords, or the corresponding koshirae & saya of those swords.
2. All pattern 6 & pattern 8 with original koshirae & saya are easily identifiable by their less refined, (cruder) construction.  All pattern 6 & pattern 8 original saya will be as easily identifiable by their construction, (metal parts originally painted black and wood originally painted green).
3. All pattern 6 & pattern 8 , and their original corresponding koshirae and saya, will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo Factory stamp.  All pattern 6 & 8 were made by/for the Jinsin Arsenal and were not made by/for any other Imperial Japan Arsenal,(and will therefore not bare any other arsenal stamp as the maker).

Since I am already out on the limb, I'm going to go a little bit further;

• The pattern 5 and the pattern 6 are essentially the same pattern,(the 5 being more refined better construction than the 6) having different saya and coming from different Arsenal makers. 
• So; I am betting, apon further study, Shamsy will need to expand his pattern list to include another pattern... a "less refined" construction ringed handle with a wooden saya, and it will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory stamp,(just wild speculation here).  Or maybe The Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory didn't make any pattern 7??

While I am this far out on the limb...

• I don't believe there will be a pattern 8 with original saya found which will not bare the Jinsin arsenal Heijo factory stamp... As I am speculating ALL pattern 8 were made soley by/for the Jinsin Arsenal.

And since I am merrily wondering down this path; "why is the pattern 8 tsuka ito wrapped??  The pattern 8 is supposedly the very last version... the last ditch, when all materials and time was in short supply... And yet, the pattern 8 uses more valuable supplies than the pattern 5,6, & 7.  Plus the tsuka of the patterns 6. & 7 were already being made, and we can see an obvious decline in quality... so why try to improve the quality of the pattern 8 by taking the extra time and supplies to wrap the tsuka??  

 

At this late date in the war when the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing swords, I am guessing was necessity due to lack of supplies and support from main land Japan.  I think it plausible just as necessity dictated the Jinsin Arsenal Jeijo factory produce their version of the type 95 NCO sword,(pattern 6 and a possible ringed handle variation), necessity also dictated they produce their version of the contingency( B substitute) variation of the type 98 officer's sword... That being what we are calling the pattern 8.

Jim Dawson's description in his book referred to this variation as variation #4.  And in his description he postulated as to whether these were intended for officer use.  I think it is plausible.

I think it is plausible the sword we are referring to as a pattern 8 has been mischaracterized... 

I think it plausible the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing "at the same time" their versions of "both" the type 95 NCO sword and the contingency variation of the type 98 Officer's sword.  This would account for additional effort and supplies applied to the pattern 8.  Also; NCO swords were issue items, thus the numbered blades of the pattern 6 being the norm.  But Officers had to buy their uniform accompaniment, thus the reason almost all pattern 8 sword blades are not numbered,(no need for inventory control).

 

I admit at this time I have no hard evidence to base this on. So I offer these thoughts up for open discussion... prove it right or wrong with verifiable evidence.

[Bruce Pennington]

Bruce, I like your thinking. And it supports Fuller's idea of it being a last-ditch officer gunto.

 

Since we're way out in la-la-land with speculation, Do you think, though, that since these were being made by Jinsen, maybe they had access to more resources than mainland Japan at the end of the war? I honestly don't know, just wondering.

 

Overall, though, lacking other evidence, I lean toward yours and Fuller's idea about these.

[Shamsy]

Woha there. Without going into every point, about half of what you've said is already known, established fact, while the other half is wrong or wildly speculative and missing several fairly obscure but established truths.

 

As this is an educational thread, I would ideally address conjecture.

 

This is a pickle, but I'll try to separate the post into manageable statements...

 

Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory did not make any pattern 1 through pattern 5 type 95 NCO swords, or the corresponding koshirae & saya of those swords.

- only Suya produced patter 1, though this is essentially correct up to pattern 4 too. They may have produced pattern 5, as there are so many variations of this pattern, not all with many identifying stamps.

 

All pattern 6 & pattern 8 with original koshirae & saya are easily identifiable by their less refined, (cruder) construction.

- well yes, hence why they have their own patterns

 

All pattern 6 & pattern 8 original saya will be as easily identifiable by their construction, (metal parts originally painted black and wood originally painted green).

- easily identified by their distinct pattern would be better. Also, assuming the saya is green is misleading. They are also brown and black. Please note the wood is typically not directly painted. Usually there is a cloth mesh over the wood which is painted

 

All pattern 6 & pattern 8 , and their original corresponding koshirae and saya, will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo Factory stamp.

- no. There are always exceptions, including unmarked swords and those that are marked, but this is not apparent, either through quality of stamping or obfuscation by paint

 

All pattern 6 & 8 were made by/for the Jinsin Arsenal and were not made by/for any other Imperial Japan Arsenal,(and will therefore not bare any other arsenal stamp as the maker).

- I believe Jinsin did make pattern 6, 7 and 8

 

The pattern 5 and the pattern 6 are essentially the same pattern,(the 5 being more refined better construction than the 6) having different saya and coming from different Arsenal makers.

- no. Vastly different materials, construction and measurements. They bear a superficial resemblance only. I could point out that there are plenty of late war officer blades with a similar cross-hatched tsuka, but this is a matter of practicalities. You will also find that the number of crosshatch varies.

 

So; I am betting, apon further study, Shamsy will need to expand his pattern list to include another pattern... a "less refined" construction ringed handle with a wooden saya, and it will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory stamp,(just wild speculation here). Or maybe The Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory didn't make any pattern 7??

- I'm a bit confused, but you seem to be talking about the pattern 7, which is well documented.

 

And since I am merrily wondering down this path; "why is the pattern 8 tsuka ito wrapped?? The pattern 8 is supposedly the very last version... the last ditch, when all materials and time was in short supply... And yet, the pattern 8 uses more valuable supplies than the pattern 5,6, & 7. Plus the tsuka of the patterns 6. & 7 were already being made, and we can see an obvious decline in quality... so why try to improve the quality of the pattern 8 by taking the extra time and supplies to wrap the tsuka??

- a good question, though misleading. Steel and brass were the most valuable commodity, which are most in evidence in pattern 5, of those mentioned above.

- I imagine wrapping the tsuka was probably about as easy as carving rings by hand, and undoubtedly easier than the far more refined and machine made crosshatch of pattern 6.

- misleading timeline. We think that pattern 6 were made first, then pattern 7 and 8. There is some evidence that pattern 8 may have been concurrent or perhaps earlier than pattern 6. The order of the list is according to that with which the swords are typically listed, not a known time line. There is too much unknown about the last three.

- if I were to guess about the ORDER (only a guess mind), I would say pattern 6, then 8 and lastly 7. I believe 7 is the final pattern produced.

 

At this late date in the war when the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing swords, I am guessing was necessity due to lack of supplies and support from main land Japan.

- I concur and this has been the assumption for many years, though the fact that they had examples of the pattern 3 makes me wonder if they intent was to produce these swords at one time.

 

 

I think it plausible just as necessity dictated the Jinsin Arsenal Jeijo factory produce their version of the type 95 NCO sword,(pattern 6 and a possible ringed handle variation), necessity also dictated they produce their version of the contingency( B substitute) variation of the type 98 officer's sword... That being what we are calling the pattern 8.

- this is a very old theory, one which I don't agree with based on all the evidence, no matter how speculative some of it is.

 

Jim Dawson's description in his book referred to this variation as variation #4. And in his description he postulated as to whether these were intended for officer use. I think it is plausible.

I think it is plausible the sword we are referring to as a pattern 8 has been mischaracterized...

I think it plausible the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing "at the same time" their versions of "both" the type 95 NCO sword and the contingency variation of the type 98 Officer's sword. This would account for additional effort and supplies applied to the pattern 8. Also; NCO swords were issue items, thus the numbered blades of the pattern 6 being the norm. But Officers had to buy their uniform accompaniment, thus the reason almost all pattern 8 sword blades are not numbered,(no need for inventory control).

- Jim is a lovely gentleman and while I enjoyed talking to him and his book is immensely important and informative, this theory was construed way back in F&G, if memory serves. As I keep stating, do not consider all published material accurate. Nick has demonstrated time and again how primary sources should be used and how guessing, theories and folklore passed down can quickly lead to myths, like the 'Type 3'. Therefore, until official records confirm one way or another, can we not start the myth of the Pattern 8 for commissioned officers.

- as already stated, the pattern 8 requires less machining than pattern 6 by a long way, and arguably the same as pattern 7. The pattern 7 and 8 are also more crude than pattern 6, to my eyes.

- there are pattern 8 with serial numbers, so discount that theory. In fact, as I alluded to, these numbers are lower than the pattern 6, so that is less helpful and really muddies the waters.

 

Now for my own speculation: most likely swords were not given serial numbers because of time constraints, lack of quality control, records or perhaps loss of the stamps. Why are some wrapped with ito? Who knows. I'd assume that the crosshatch took too long or perhaps the machine was damaged or destroyed, so the ito was used until that too was replaced by the carved rings. Could it be that they were for commissioned officers? Perhaps, but I've had lengthy discussions around this and the general consensus is that this seems unlikely. Japan still produced various iterations of the 98 at the end of the war. The 98 was not a large enterprise undertaken by an arsenal, as 95s, small arms and bayonets were. They were collectives, individuals, businesses and cottage industry producing swords for private purchase. The closest example to a 'pattern' is the Rinji. Therfore, while the wide-scale bombing may have halted the production of firearms, equipment and likely 95 swords, I cannot see it being as devastating to the production of 98s. Japan instigated a 'bring your own sword' for NCOs too remember?

 

Agree though that either theory is possible, but I think that a little tsuka-ito is not a good basis for a theory.

[Bruce Pennington]

Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to go through all that! You have a lot on your plate, so your contribution is greatly appreciated, and respected.

 

Sure hope I live long enough to see a book from you on the 95s!!!

[Shamsy]

No worries mate, always happy to share most of what I know when someone pries it out. Yes, I really need to consider a book... I've not seen anything 'new' in 95s for a few years, so maybe it's time.