Questions about "late war", NCO swords

[Brian]

Steve,
Maybe at the least, for now, a short article on the subject that we can upload for future reference? Excellent info!

[Shamsy]

I had a couple of informative threads planned for 95s, Brian. However, I'm not in a good position to work right now, as I don't have access to my usual resources.

 

I did have a think about a book last night and what it could cover. I jotted down 11 headings without even touching on the history of the swords or starting to write about any of the many variations. I think it's a fairly mammoth project. The biggest issue is knowing what I can legally use (or not). I have a wealth of references photos, but these are not mine, coming from dealers and individuals. Some have stated they are copyright. I wouldn't be comfortable using them, which would mean there would be a few 'trust me' statements.

 

Luckily I have spoken to a number of military researchers over the last couple of years and they were happy for me to include their own work.

[WilBru5]

In response to member Shamsy’s  reply;

Sir.

• You may have missed the beginning of my post so here is how I started this.
  “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”…
• Also due to a poor word choice and sentence structure I may have confused you into believing I was attempting to claim “discovery” of  “already known established facts”.  I assure you that was not my intent.  I will attempt to better cite preestablished works in the future.

Let’s get right to the points I was trying make:

 

Excluding any reproductions and fakes, for obvious reason. Excluding any unmarked or indistinctly marked, for it can be said that even tho they may have a distinct pattern suggestive of origin, they could be said to be of indeterminate origin.   And excluding exceptions, for they are by their very nature not indicative of a “norm”.  The Theories I was trying to express, (which I have not seen you or any other historian express is):

1. The origin of the “distinct pattern” which appears to be the norm for swords, (which you designate as), pattern 6 and pattern 8, and the “distinct pattern” wooden saya, (which I have shared pictures of).  I am theorizing the origin of this distinct pattern of production, and swords and saya which are easily identifiable by it, is the Imperial Japanese annexed region of Korea known as Jinsin.  That Jinsin was the singular point of origin.
   If this be a “fairly obscure but established truth”, then bring it forth and display it in print…  If you believe this theory to be “wrong or wildly speculative”, then disprove it with factual data showing a “norm” of pattern 6 and pattern 8 swords and distinct pattern wooden saya not only being produced in Jinsin but being produced elsewhere as well…
    
2. Regarding the two distinct patterns you designste as pattern 5 and pattern 6:  I agree with other historian’s designation the two are an intent of the same handle design. (Please consult bullet point 2 above)
   But I theorize the distinct pattern difference in appearance and construction is because of theory 1 above, you provide support for this thought by showing pattern 5 is not from Jinsin. 

Only a sizable enough survey of swords and saya refenced in theory 1 will lend credibility to, or disprove the theory…

 

Now about other points:

• The reason I omitted direct referencing of the distinct pattern you term as pattern 7 is because I have not seen enough examples of pattern 7 to apply reference or any thought to them.  If you believe Jinsin did make pattern 7 this is something I should be able to find examples of as I continue to research.
   
• To my comment of “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”.
  You state “I concur and this has been the assumption for many years”.

Seems my comment is neither “already known, established fact”, nor “wrong or wildly speculative and missing several fairly obscure but established truths”.
 

Regarding the pattern 8

• We could debate the rates of production of a trained worker making handles on a Blanchard lathe,( or similar wood turning machine), with a spiral jig – vs – a trained worker hand applying a ito wrap… but without direct evidence the debate would only be speculation.
• I took a statement, which I do believe I credited Mr. Dawson’s book with where I first encountered it, and expanded into a theory “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 is a Theory and only a theory, not an attempt of claim of fact…

Your position of relating this theory to the myth of the type 3 is a fallacy of relevance.  Mr. Ohmura claims the type 3 designation to be fact….

I could be wrong, (and I am sure you will tell me if I am), but as far as I have seen Mr. Dawson did not claim the sword, (which he designated as variation #4 and you designate as pattern 8, to be in fact an officers sword… He merely mused about the possibility.

Now you inform me published authors Richard Fuller & Ron Gregory also expressed this theory…. BUT, not that they claimed it to be FACT.

Thus again a theory is only a theory, waiting to be given credibility or proven incorrect.

And while I address this; included in your educational reply to my post you state:
 “There is some evidence that pattern 8 may have been concurrent or perhaps earlier than pattern 6.” “ Could it be that they were for commissioned officers? Perhaps”, & “Agree though that either theory is possible, but I think that a little tsuka-ito is not a good basis for a theory.”

So… Is my guess of the pattern 8 possibly being made as the same time as the pattern 6 and plausibly intended for officer use “already known, established fact”, or “wrong or wildly speculative and missing several fairly obscure but established truths”.

 

A word of advice, (not that you want my advice, but I ‘ll give it anyway),

Musing about the possibility of, and saying some evidence exists supporting a theory you adamantly denounce is counterproductive to your argument.

 

 

One last thing.

In a previous conversation I with due courtesy and politeness asked how you preferred me to address you.  You have not provided such.

Let me introduce myself;

Formally:  In Academia and legal arenas, the Professional business environment, and to acquaintances I am addressed as Mr. Williams

But as this is an informal environment:  Friends, close family, & associates address me as Bruce.  As there are multiple members here named Bruce, Bruce W. is fine…

 

I extend the opportunity for you to decide the decorum of our interactions.

[Bruce Pennington]

Bruce,

You guys are both way above my pay-grade on the late-war 95, so I'll leave that to you 2. But would like to caution against getting the feathers riled too easily. There's not a guy (or gal) on this forum that is intentionally rude. You'll find folks that are blunt. There are some that come to a debate pre-loaded to skepticism (I have a tendency to be naively positive at times!). But no one that is intentionally disrespctful. Communication via text is fraught with pitfalls because it lacks body language and vocal inflection.

 

An example from personal experience - We were debating a tough one and a guy told me, paraphrasing, "You don't have any expertise in this, why are you even here?" When I mentioned the rude sound of his comment, he copied a link to an older conversation where I had said the exact thing to him! He was quoting my own rudeness!!! Ha! Hate it when that happens!

 

One of the joys of this hobby, and these forums, it the detective work. In the process, we toss ideas and theories around, hopefully eventually coming across some real evidence to pin something down. In the meantime, having a good debate on the pros & cons is just part of the deal.

 

If you plan to be around for any length of time, and I hope you do, assume the best, ignore the rest, and "party on, dude!"

[Stegel]

Bless you Bruce (P), can't help but love you sometimes!!

However, i can be intentionally rude sometimes.....when i get rubbed the wrong way!

Grumpy old man syndrome......ManOPause...... whatever!!! Lol

 

I also extend a hearty welcome to the other Bruce (W), another possible Connoisseur or Aficionado of the Type 95?

[Bruce Pennington]

Bless you Bruce (P), can't help but love you sometimes!!

However, i can be intentionally rude sometimes.....when i get rubbed the wrong way!

Grumpy old man syndrome......ManOPause...... whatever!!! Lol

 

I also extend a hearty welcome to the other Bruce (W), another possible Connoisseur or Aficionado of the Type 95?

Always good to "see" you Ernie! They say you can skip that Man-O-pause by removing a couple of particular organs!

[Stegel]

Hi Mr Williams (Bruce W),

You can call me Stegel, where i grew up, everyone called each other by nickname or surname, so first names were rarely used, no big deal as i’ll know when i’m addressed!

 

Now, forgive me for winding back this thread to your post #26, wow, lots of questions etc, i prefer less in posts, but anyway here goes.... my responses are in red font.

 

 

WilBru5

#26

 

Posted 06 December 2019 - 07:01 PM

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.                                                                If you base this upon having seen further examples yourself, then i can confirm with my data that this is essentially correct.   There are however,  a very few pattern 5’s with 3digit serial numbers on the scabbards and what appears to be the same on the blade (appearing to having the serial number ground away leaving the last 3 digits) See Trystan’s post #25. I’m guessing they may have been samples or parts of the Pattern 5 sent to Jinsen possibly assembled or modified by them prior to gearing up for production of the Pattern 6. All have Seki inspection stamps and no Jinsen acceptance stamps as seen previously on Tokyo swords.All have steel scabbards.
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).                 I agree in principle, however it should be noted that quality continued to deteriorate with the metal used in scabbards and variations in paint colour do exist.
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).                                                                                                       To date after recording numerous examples over the last 20 years or so, i would tend to also agree with this thought.

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. Handles are also different patterns of knurling (cross hatching)Pattern 5 is Nagoya, Pattern 6 is Jinsen with the possible examples mentioned earlier( a very small sample) Note- patterns 6/7/8 all have He stampings from my observations.
• 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??
• The Pattern List you’re referring to was something i introduced some years back, to simplify the referencing of T95’s as per the long winded labelling still currently being used.-i.e  early/mid/late/copper/aluminium/wooden/brass/steel/var2A -dawson’s etc .  You incorrectly assume it needs to be expanded, as it already does include Pattern 7(....the one in between 6 and 8 Lol -no offence meant!) Here’s a rough draft you can look at:

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.                                                                                                                                 I believe your speculation here, as it mirrors all my observations to date.

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??  

 

OK this is a fair question, and as it’s essentially directed at my Pattern list, so  i’ll attempt to explain why i placed it last in the order it is. 

 

From your earlier posts, i note that our backgrounds are not too dissimilar, although not decades, a good part of my early working life was engineering based in a factory environment, both production and later development. However, this has no bearing on the topic here, other than to hopefully explain why i have come to the conclusion i have, be it correct or not.

Like most collectors, i have a copy of Dawson’s book, and read his take on the last two ‘Late war’ variants. My interpretation differs in that  i think both variants were intended for NCO use.(This is not to say anyone is wrong mind you- both are plausible)

So then from a purely production based point of view,  taking Time as the most crucial element to meet the demands of supply, i considered the ringed handle to precede the ito wrapped one.  Instead of fully carving the handle, a quick partial carving, followed by a basic ito wrap (no same/filler paper involved) and i believe you can churn these out at an even faster pace.

This is where we differ, unlike you,i believe it would be a time saving effort. Yes, ito wrap is extra material, however i believe it is not as big an issue as it might appear.

The end result is what i believe most personnel would want.... a handle that looks more like the officers versions.

 

  

 

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.

I disagree with you here, the contingency pattern for the T98, already existed...NLF/Pattern44/type 3/Rinji/Type 0. They also produced the various patterns of Rinji for officers, one of which Neil has already shown...(Dawson covers this in Ch14 of his book).  (reposted for convenience)

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.

Correct, in his very last sentence, he speculated, and i quote  “the presence of  handle tape  may reveal that these swords were  intended for officer use”.  

Nothing else is mentioned or expanded on this speculation. I admit it is plausible.

Now your speculation, (also plausible) builds upon Dawson’s speculative sentence, to extrapolate even further...that is:

Assumed officer use and concurrent production with the pattern 7.

Whatever the chances are of this being the actual case,  i do not agree, as i cannot see anything to lead me to your same conclusion. (mind you 1 in a million and you can still win the lotto draw)

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).

Just being silly here, but as both patterns do not have serial numbers on blade or scabbard...   you could take this further, if you like and conclude, that the pattern 7 was also intended for officer use ??, why not?? 

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.

Or just perhaps debate it out, presenting alternative views and interpretations, until more evidence is discovered.

Here’s an old draft  i made up a few years back to show the mid to late war progression as i see it.

 

I'm of the belief that the Type 95 gunto consists of Patterns 1 to 8 inclusive. What i call 'Last Ditch' is the very "Spartan"- also wood handled, with cross hatching version, as can be seen at the bottom.

 

Not all will / need agree with me, but I'm happy to discuss further, time permitting of course.

 

Stegel

 

 

 

 

[Stegel]

Sorry can't edit my previous post, but this picture compilation of IJASWORDS (neil's) examples of Rinji swords for Type98 were posted in another thread and not here,forgot to add them just after the reference to Dawson Ch14 .

[Shamsy]

As we've already discussed, Ern, while we differ on a couple of minor details, I more or less echo your response in my earlier one.

[WilBru5]

Bruce P

You truely are an Ambassador of this arena.  And a credit to the hobby. I do have intentions of sticking around here, this group contains a vast and valuable amount of knowledge. 

[WilBru5]

Stegel

I am pleased to meet you.

I very much like the manner in which you discuss topics.  Even when you disagree with my opinions and when you are pointing out my inaccuracies, you do so in a non-confrontational, none demeaning or debasing manner.  This is the type of dialog I thoroughly enjoy when  researching discussing and deciding conclusions pertaining to topics where in parts of the "real" history has been lost or obscured and collectors/researchers are left to interpret the existing evidence the best they can.  This type dialog I enjoy even when opinions and conclusions drawn oppose each other to the point of impasse.  Mutual consideration and respect is afforded.

Again, it is a pleasure... I look forward to, and I hope we have, many more conversations.

 

Sincerely

Bruce W.

[WilBru5]

Shamsy(Steve)

You are a well respected member of this community.  And evidence has shown you have a wealth of knowledge gleaned from study and research.  Evidenced by your posts; you also have an interest and passion for the items discussed here.  For my part; when I develop an interest and decide to immerse into a subject, I readily plunge into the deep side of the pool.  I am an avid and tenacious researcher.  I also enjoy involved discussions and debates, even when they involve opposing positions and conclusions.

 

As you and I enjoy sharing our thoughts, there are going to be times we are both going to be providing comments within posts.... We get to decide whether or not our interactions are adversarial, or met with mutual consideration and respect.

I for one would rather not have Members here concerned with whether broaching certain points of interest was going to incite nonproductive exchanges.

 

Sincerely

Bruce W. 

[Shamsy]

Bruce W,

 

My comments have never been 'adversarial', though your response certainly was intended that way, which is why I chose not to response. The Internet is full of man-children who throw tantrums when someone disagrees with what they say or points out an error they make. Goodness knows that there have been a number on this forum. Most of us have probably unleashed the child a few times ourselves. However, it is the following manner in which we conduct ourselves that matters, and whether we learn from our tirades or continue to make them.

 

For my part, I am here to learn and hopefully assist people in gaining a deeper knowledge of primarily Type 95s, with occasional input into other sword types where possible (though there are other members far better situated to do so in most instances, such as Bruce with his Mantetsu work). I'm not here to trade niceties and feelings; conversely, I'm not here to bandy insults and exchange petty 'he said she said' (though regrettably our colleagues are lacking the she). If I disagree with something, I'll say it. If I think it's incorrect or misleading, I'll state that. It is a great disservice to everyone with an interest in the subject not to question or to point out errors, perceived or real. That is how we spark discussions, draw out information and reach a conclusion, even if we reach different ones.

 

Brian is the moderator who decides what is or isn't appropriate. His level of cool-headed zen is an inspiration we should aspire to. I am convinced he is a monk.

 

For my part, I will continue to write in my same blunt style, as I have for years. The only question is whether you can accept that, or whether you would rather make use of the blocking functionality of the forum (it's available under our profiles and prevents you seeing posts from given users). I've never needed to use it, but I accept that there are all kinds of personalities and communication styles (limited by our ability to convey complexities of interactions via writing only), nor am adverse to conflicting opinion, provided people refrain from personal insults and can provide a basis for the counter discussion.

[Kiipu]

On 12/5/2019 at 5:20 PM, BANGBANGSAN said:

I have 3 pattern 5 wooden handle NCO swords. Two of them maybe "prototype", only has 関 mark and no serial number on the blade. The other one has 6 digit numbers but not line up, looks divided into two parts. I noticed both "prototypes" has only 3 digits on the scabbard throat, and stamped on the opposite side.

 

I am curious about these two unserialized Type 95 swords and I am wondering what are the actual three digit numbers which are located on the scabbard throat mouths?  They are kinda hard to read via the pictures.  Can you see the numbers more clearly in person?

 

Stegel in post #37 alluded to this variation and mentions some exhibit evidence of a previous serial number on the blade.  Does your two swords show any evidence of a blade serial number being removed?  Trying placing the flat edge of a ruler on the blade to see if there is any sign of an indentation.

 

On 12/10/2019 at 9:56 PM, Stegel said:

There are however, a very few pattern 5’s with 3-digit serial numbers on the scabbards and what appears to be the same on the blade (appearing to having the serial number ground away leaving the last 3 digits). See Trystan’s post #25.

[BANGBANGSAN]

16 hours ago, Kiipu said:

 

I am curious about these two unserialized Type 95 swords and I am wondering what are the actual three digit numbers which are located on the scabbard throat mouths?  They are kinda hard to read via the pictures.  Can you see the numbers more clearly in person?

 

 

 

One scabbard throat can see very clear X56 ,not sure was is the first digit .The other one is kind of hard to see, but the number t's there.I think Steve saw/have other example like this.

[Kiipu]

Thanks for the prompt reply BangBangSan.  I found some additional pictures of the other one over at another thread.  This one could be 277? 

Post #18

 

I think these are literally the last swords off of the production line.  Some factories just plain stopped inspecting and serializing weapons in late July and August 1945.  The goal now was just get something out the door and into the hands of the troops before the invasion came in November 1945.

[BANGBANGSAN]

22 minutes ago, Kiipu said:

Thanks for the prompt reply BangBangSan.  I found some additional pictures of the other one over at another thread.  This one could be 277? 

Post #18

 

I think these are literally the last swords off of the production line.  Some factories just plain stopped inspecting and serializing weapons in late July and August 1945.  The goal now was just get something out the door and into the hands of the troops before the invasion came in November 1945.

Very possible!The number maybe 277 or 271?

[Shamsy]

I wasn't going to get into this because it opens a bit of a can of worms... but oh well. There are a heap of oddities around pattern 5 swords.

 

I have one of these, as Trystan somehow remembered! Mine has number 297 (pretty sure or maybe 2X7?) On the saya. However, it does have a serial number on the blade, very faint. 300103 I'm guessing. Last number is half stamped but 3 is likely. It's in the Jinsen font too. To head off the question, no it is not a pattern 6 blade in pattern 5 mounts. I can't quite tell... maybe a single stamp on the fuchi... it's at the point I can't differentiate between a dent and dust or a stamp.

 

Now... I also have another example with no marks at all on the blade, but the serial number on the saya is 251125. No arsenal marks I can find.

 

On 3/12/2021 at 5:40 AM, Kiipu said:

Some factories just plain stopped inspecting and serializing weapons in late July and August 1945.

 

So not quite fitting the what Tristan has, but probably from around the same period.

[Kiipu]

10 hours ago, Shamsy said:

Mine has number 297 (pretty sure or maybe 2X7?) on the saya.  However, it does have a serial number on the blade, very faint. 300103 I'm guessing. Last number is half stamped but 3 is likely. It's in the Jinsen font too. To head off the question, no it is not a pattern 6 blade in pattern 5 mounts. I can't quite tell... maybe a single stamp on the fuchi... it's at the point I can't differentiate between a dent and dust or a stamp.

 

Jinsen was never noted for their quality control!  Jinsen could have started with the Pattern 5 and then moved on to the Pattern 6.  Jinsen serial number 300060 has a matching steel scabbard that is painted black.  However, the tsuka was painted gray so it may be just best to ignore the colors for the time being.  The next sword after yours is serial number 300107 and it has an unserialized wooden scabbard with the black metal fittings and green painted wood or is it canvass?

 

It would not surprise me in the least if Nagoya Arsenal supplied Type 95 component parts to assist Jinsen in getting production started.  Jinsen Arsenal assisted Hōten (Mukden) Arsenal Company, Limited, in setting up Type 99 Short Rifle production and Chūō Kōgyō KK assisted Hōten Arsenal Co., Ltd., with Type 99 LMG production.  In both cases, component parts were supplied and used in production.

[Shamsy]

1 hour ago, Kiipu said:

Jinsen serial number 300060 has a matching steel scabbard that is painted black. 

 

Do you have a picture of the sword, Thomas? Particularly the serial numbers? My own sword has some black, but there is a green (think it's green) paint as well. I can't tell easily which is the primer and which the actual colour.

 

1 hour ago, Kiipu said:

Jinsen could have started with the Pattern 5 and then moved on to the Pattern 6. 

 

I agree. I'd been holding this sword for some time as I believe it at least suggested as much by the font of the stamping, but I would rather see more examples before trying to formulate any theory. The lack of stamps also makes the theory less tenable in my opinion,  as Jinsen were pretty prolific in stamps with the pattern 6.

 

The 251125 serial scabbard is interesting too, as it seems to be quite an outlier for the range the pattern 5 covers. Are you aware of any other swords or saya in that range?