Collecting Swords from WWII

[paulb]

I recently revisited an article I wrote some years ago discussing whether buying a sword from the second war was the best starting point for beginners. I have discussed it with Brian and we agreed that it might be better placed as a topic for discussion rather than posted in the article section. So at his suggestion I have copied the text below and created what I believe to be the longest single post in the history of the board so far!

 

Collecting Japanese swords from the second world war

 

As is often the case I need to start this with an apology. I do not collect swords from the second war nor have I bought one for more than 25 years. I am therefore ill qualified to offer advice, recommendations or opinion about them. The thinking behind the following started as a result of various conversations I had during and after the NTHK shinsa held in November 2008.

The NTHK held its second UK shinsa in November 2008. During the two days of the event more than 200 swords were submitted to the panel for appraisal. It was notable that a large number, possibly even the majority dated from the second war.
What also became apparent was how difficult it is to differentiate between swords made using the various methods employed during that period.
I believe the vast majority of collectors start by buying a Showa-To. They are not uncommon and generally less expensive than alternatives. There is also the optimistic hope that we all have at the beginning of our collecting careers that the one I am buying is a hidden treasure, an heirloom from a noble family mounted in Gunto mounts and carried in to war. Such blades do exist and have been discovered. However these are extremely rare finds. This ambition is fed when touring arms fairs or scanning eBay where virtually every blade offered by the non- specialist dealers is “an old family blade”. In fact based on these descriptions it would seem that virtually all swords in the war contained old blades which leaves one wondering what the military production forges actually did in the 1930s and 40s.

Some 35+ years ago I bought my first Japanese sword. It was a Showa-To in bulk standard Gunto mounts. I was lucky at the time I bought it as it was just before we started to see the influx of Chinese, and at that time, Pakistani fakes hitting the market. I knew nothing when I bought it, other than I liked what I saw and was fascinated by the Samurai culture and Japanese art. I kept that sword for many years trying to prove to myself that it was an early Mino blade by Kanesada. It was, I think, made by Kanesada working in Mino during the war years. Listed in John Sloughs book he made medium and low grade Gendai-to.
The reason I mention this is that although the vast majority of us start this way I believe it is the wrong thing to do if your primary interest is traditionally made Nihon-To. Let me qualify that by saying that there is absolutely nothing wrong with collecting Gendai-to, Gunto, Naval swords or whatever you are interested in. What I am saying is that it is not the best way to start.
During the Showa period more methods of manufacture were employed simultaneously than at any other time in Japanese sword making history. Swords were handmade, partially handmade fully machine made, made using traditional material, made using imported raw material, made using imported steel. They were water quenched or oil quenched. Some have traditional hamon some have etched hamon some have polished hamon. The fact is that identifying whether a sword is made using traditional material and methods is extremely difficult, especially if it is in less than perfect polish, which the majority for sale are, and if you are relatively new to the subject. In fact even those of us who claim many years of collecting experience can and do get it wrong.

In Fuller and Gregory’s second book on Japanese military swords they claim that less than 10% of the officers swords surrendered held traditionally made blades whether family pieces or Gendai-To. This means that 90% were either partially or fully machine made. Japanese

arsenals were producing blades from 1925 until the end of the war. At their peak the arsenals in Seki and Tokyo were targeted with producing 30,000 blades a year. By the latter years of the war this number had declined to approximately 8000 blades. According to Fuller and
Gregory’s calculations some 350,000 swords were surrendered at the end of the war. If you add to this those that were confiscated by the occupying forces and those destroyed during the conflict in the field straight afterwards the total number of swords carried by the Japanese military was probably nearer 1 million. Of this number approximately 8000 were made at the Yasukuni shrine between 1927 and 1942 and a lesser number at the Minatogawa Shrine which produced Gendai-to for the navy for 4.5 years.
They go on to define 9 different methods of manufacture including handmade, partially handmade and machine made blades. For the sake of consistency I have used their definitions when discussing the different types of blade found. I have also tried to offer definitions for some of the broader terms used.
:
1. Showa-To:- A sword made during the Showa period between 1926 and 1945. Most commonly the term is used when referring to machine made blades produced in the 1930s and 40s

2. Shin Gun-To: Literally new army sword. Often used when describing a blade mounted in the 1934 pattern fittings that copied earlier tachi mounts.

Hand made, partially hand made and machine made swords.

3. Gendai-to. A modern sword made after 1876, but more commonly referring to a blade made during the Showa period, using traditional material (tamahagane) and techniques. It is hand forged, folded and water quenched.

3a. Gendai-to made using mill steel. Produced using steel made in a western style smelter but being hammered, folded, drawn and water quenched. Western style steel is more homogenous than traditionally produced tamahagane and cannot therefore be folded without losing grain structure. Smiths compensated for this by adding carbon and folding fewer times. The resultant blades produced hada a hamon in nioi or nie and with all of the activity one would expect to see in a hand forged, water quenched blade.

4. Ko-Isshin Mantetsu-to: A sword made using imported Manchurian sand iron. These blades comprised of a soft iron core encased in a harder steel tube. They were made using complex manufacturing techniques but cannot be classed as Gendai-To. However they do exhibit a form of hada, hamon Nie and Nioi and activity within both jigane and hamon.

4a later Mantetsu-To made in Manchuria initially they may have used the same methodology as the Ko-Isshin swords but later manufacture used a single piece of rolled steel and oil quenching
(see below)

5. Han tanren abura yaki-ire-to. Literally partially forged, i.e folded several times and hardened in oil. Quality varies the better examples exhibit a fine hada and nioi like hamon (but without nie)

6. Sunobe abura yaka-ire-to: A sword made from a single piece of bar steel and oil quenched.

7. Murata-to machine made from a single piece of steel exhibits a Yakiba but without clearly defined hamon. These blades are regarded as inferior to Mantetsu-to.

8. Tai-sabi-ko. Blades made from anti-rust steel primarily for naval swords

9. Machine made- produced in an arsenal from a single piece of steel which may be fully quenched in oil (tempered?) without clay coating or allowed to cool in the air. These were general issue swords such as cavalry sabres or NCO swords.

With regard to quality the methods described above may be graded as follows:
1. Tamahagane Gendai-to
2. Mill steel Gendai-to
3. Ko-Isshin mantetsu-to 4.Han taran abura yaki-ire
5. Sunobe abura yaki-ire to
6. Mantetsu-to (rolled steel)
7. Murata-to

The definitions above are broad and probably over simplified. However they do demonstrate the point made earlier regarding the range of production methods being employed at this time. They also hint at the vast variation in the quality of swords being made. Even within the single category of traditionally made Gendai-to there is huge variation in quality. At the top of the list sit blades produced at the Yasukuni shrine. Here selected smiths produced superior swords using Tamahagane made in the shrines smelter. Based on the lists compiled by Richard Fuller there appear to have been between 8 and 10,000 swords produced at the Yasukuni shrine. Of equal quality were those produced at the Naval Minatogawa Shrine. I couldn’t find production numbers for their output but because of the shrines shorter life and the heavy losses of naval personnel during the war far fewer of these blades have survived.

By now I think it is becoming clear just how complex this field of study and collection is. Looking at the above definitions I think that, based purely on the workmanship visible in the blade it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for the majority of collectors to differentiate between the different types of blade outlined above. When these blades are in less than perfect polish the task becomes even more challenging.

Common Myths:

1. “An oil hardened blade made from a single piece of bar steel cannot produce Nie”. This is a misconception, and one that I have believed for many years. I was wrong. Fuller and Gregory confirm that impurities within the bar stock can, on occasion facilitate the formation of ko-nie. This is, however, a result of accident rather than design and the resultant nie is distributed unevenly and inconsistently throughout the hamon. Blades made in this way do not exhibit hada. Which leads to the second most common myth:

2. “It’s muji-hada”. Blades made out of bar steel do not exhibit hada. This is because there is no lamination s a result of folding and consequently no weld lines between the layers of steel. This is not Muji hada. Muji hada or “grain-less hada” refers to extremely tight hada produced by Shin-Shinto smiths where the weld lines between the layers of steel become almost invisible. In Sunobe blades the lack of hada is the result of the blade being drawn from a single piece of bar steel.

3. “Yasukuni blades are equal in quality to those produced in the Koto period”.
Blades made at the Yasukuni shrine enjoy a very high reputation and are eagerly collected by specialists in Japanese military blades. What is also apparent is that the quality of Yasukuni blades varied considerably. At their best they are as good as many earlier works but there are also some that appear to have little merit with regard to hada, hamon or activity.
As to whether the good ones reach the standard of good Koto blades becomes a subjective judgement my personal and very biased view is that they don’t get anywhere near the better works of the koto period. I also believe the works of such Gendai smiths as Gassan Sadakatsu were of far better quality than any Yasukuni blades I have seen.

Conclusion.

In the lectures published in the Solingen catalogue Nobu Ogasawara and Michael Hanegbusch attempt to persuade their readers that we should focus all our attention on “Meito” (swords with a name” and that one can only learn by studying top quality pieces under expert guidance. While these points are obviously true, such a narrow approach leaves little room for the majority of us who have neither the funds nor the time to devote to the pursuit of the perfect.
To adopt such an approach would negate the huge amount of pleasure we all gain from studying and collecting and lead to the neglect of a vast amount of important historical material.

However there were within these papers some very important and useful pointers. Mr. Ogasawara points out that once you fall below the highest level of manufacture it becomes increasingly difficult to differentiate between schools and traditions. By the time you get to the third or fourth level it becomes extremely challenging. In his words differentiating lesser work between Sue Bizen, Seki, Bungo-Takada etc. is extremely difficult.

Consider then how much more difficult that becomes when looking at swords made during the Showa era. More swords were produced in the first half of the 20th century than at any other time in sword making history. The range in quality was huge. More manufacturing methods were deployed than ever before. In addition the majority of remaining examples are in less than perfect condition.

As said above I do not believe there is anything wrong in collecting Showa period blades and many people gain a great deal from the experience and contribute a lot to the preservation of this part of the World’s history. What I do believe is that for someone starting out in the in the study of Nihon-To focussing on Showa blades is a mistake. I hasten to add it is a mistake that I and I am sure most of us have made! I believe that initial study would be better served by buying Shinto blades in good polish where all of the features that make a Japanese sword unique are visible and there is no ambiguity about how the blade was made.
A reasonable Shinto wakazashi in good polish can be bought for much the same price as a Showa-To. I believe one can learn a lot more about Nihon-To from such a sword. This would then equip the collector with a better understanding of what to look for in a second world war blade if that is the route they wish to follow.
Paul Bowman
Jan 2009 (edited 2020)

[EdWolf]

Great! Thanks for sharing.

[b.hennick]

Thanks for the great write up Paul.

My first sword, purchased in 1976, is a WWII blade. It is still with me. It has a  suguha hamon with great sunagashi. The mounts are pristine. My second sword is an o tanto - hirazukiri blade with an ito suguha. hamon. I still have both blades. The WWII blade started me on this journey. Although I have bought and sold many blades since 1976, these two remain in my collection. 

[16k]

A very interesting article, Paul, as all of your other ones, and an interesting discussion too.

 

The thing is, you place yourself in the position of a collector of Nihonto as we consider it in its usual way. Since I’ve started collecting, more than 20 years ago, I’ve often questioned myself as to what sort of collector I was, and I think I’ve only found out when I subscribed to this board a year ago. 
 

Of course, I started with a WW2 sword which, like yourself tried as hard as I could to convince myself it was some late Shinshinto mumei Mino work (hey, there wasn’t any stamp!) but I was wrong of course! I wanted it to be a Samurai sword!

 

I’d read books, and of course , nihonto collectors tend to look with a condescending way at WW2, blades, so that was my go-to attitude too. My next swords were real samurai swords, not that WW2 crap!

 

... then I came here. After some time pinching my nose at this section, I realized it was a very active one, so surely, if it was this active, there had to be a reason. So I took a glance... and became fascinated with this broad new world!

 

At the same time, it made me realize what sort of collector I was. I would dévide our community in several types of people:

 

1- the pure Nihonto collector. Has a tendency to think that nothing valuable was made after Nanbokucho. I’d like to be that guy, but let’s face it, it takes money, a lot more than I’ll ever had. Those guys are (?) the elite of the collectors. Sword is first and foremost art and an investment.

 

2- the poor-man’s collector. I’m partly that guy. I try to get the best in the range I can afford. My collection, though, will always be subpar.

 

3- the historian. That’s the guy I am. I realize that I don’t care if my sword is long enough, suriage or not, even Gimei. The important part, is some guys, born a very long time ago, have passed down for generations something they considered their heirloom. I consider it my duty to do the same, whatever the time period. WW2 swords deserve as much respect because they are history. Those swords, from all eras, are the witness of a time passed. If only they could talk!

 

4- the militaria collector. Generally focused on the 20th centuries conflicts, he’ll collect Japanese swords, but not just that. Those collectors are often as passionate as Nihonto collectors and this passion is often linked to family history. I respect that choice

 

5- the others. The tosogu, armor, mundane object collectors. I won’t say much about them as I don’t know those domains enough.

 

My point?

 

I don’t know which is the best way to start a collection. If your collection isn’t focused, any point is a good point of entry. Once you know what type of collector you are, then you can specialize and learn more, but dabbling in everything isn’t a bad thing either. Japanese sword collecting is a huge and fascinating world, it mingles people of different origins, different purposes, different social or educational background but this is what makes it so interesting: we learn from the knowledge and specialties of others. I’m truly grateful to all the people I’ve met and will probably meet here. Each, in their own way, broadens my horizon and makes my world more full everyday!

[paulb]

JP  I think a lot of what you say is right but a couple of points I would like to pick up on: 

 I am a Nihonto-Collector. That does not make me part of some elite grouping. I certainly believe the best swords were made prior to the end of the Nambokucho period but having said that there have been exceptional blades made throughout the whole of sword history. Its just that I think the very best came from that time. And yes I believe them to be art but no I do not believe they are necessarily an investment.

I do not believe any of your groups are necessarily exclusive, I think you can have interest in several or as you progress your motivation and interest can change.

 

My reason for saying WWII blades are not necessarily the best place to start is simply in many cases you cannot be sure what you are looking at. I have seen very experienced people misjudge WWII blades which may be in less than good polish. If you are trying to identify what makes a Japanese sword unique at least start with one where you can be confident it has been made in the tradition way with traditional material. At current prices it is probably less expensive to buy a wakazashi in reasonable polish than it is a showa period work and at least you know it has been made in the traditional way.

[16k]

Oh, I do agree, Paul,

 

And far from me the idea to exclude one group from the other. They all intermingle, at least partly. My “pure Nihonto” category isn’t meant as derogatory or anything. It’s just that some of us, particularly beginners, won’t often lay their eyes on one of these swords. I myself have never seen one except in pictures and since my collecting aim is to have a sword from roughly every period (I’ll have to get a late Kamakura early Nanbokucho one as it is unlikely I can get more than one, if I ever can!), it will probably the last item in my collection. There is a thread in auctions I think by Big showing the sword of the year. I’ve looked at it and I’m sure it is a highly different thing in hand, but I can’t say I was that impressed. I guess you can only judge their beauty in hand.

What I actually mean is the beginner won’t likely know what he is getting. Most likely, he’ll get a WW2 sword, or, if he is lucky,  a Shinto sword. But does it really matter? Even if he had a Masamune in hand, without knowledge, would he be able to learn anything from it? Any sword will do for a beginner. If he is just the casual buyer, he’ll have his sword, be happy and boast at dinners with guests that his NCO sword is the actual Honjo Masamune.

 

The guy who is interested, well, that’s another matter. He’ll learn from the mistake (I did!) and if is here to learn, he will, no matter what his original purchase was. The sword is the sparkle the will ignite the mesh of knowledge. The way will be tortuous, but he’ll learn at his own rate. Then there’s the realization we can’t all be Darcy or Paul Bowman. We all have limitation, some natural, some because of financial means some because we don’t have a mentor or access to a club. We aren’t all equal before knowledge but what matters is we progress. 
 

Wherever we start, the important thing is to go up, and if you’re passionate enough, it is sure to happen. Mistakes are also necessary. It’s part of the learning curve. So, yes, in an ideal world, the newbie will get a sword he can learn from, but even if he just has a NCO sword, he’ll realize what he has and be ready for the next step.

[IJASWORDS]

Paul, I read your article with great interest, as I can see myself described there in some ways. You of course have concentrated on the blades, but a sword is a combination of blade and koshirae. There are many of us who frequent this military forum who study the variety of WW2 swords, blade+koshirae as part of Japanese sword history, not necessarily as collectors of militaria. 

So it is wrong to assume that collecting gunto is a gateway to collecting nihonto, or a poor man's substitute for true nihonto. That is proven by the population and success of this section of the forum. 

You mention Yasukuni, Minatogawa, Sadakatsu, I have these polished and papered, as I see them as great blades of the period as you correctly point out.  

So I guess what I am saying is one mans poison is another man's fish. And some of us like to have a nice blade in true to period koshirae sitting in their collection, rather than maybe a better blade in plain shirasaya. 

But hey, it's only my opinion, and your article had a lot of really good information.

[BANGBANGSAN]

+1，I pass a very nice Yasukuni sword at a good price before, because it's not in Gunto fitting.

 

Paul, I read your article with great interest, as I can see myself described there in some ways. You of course have concentrated on the blades, but a sword is a combination of blade and koshirae. There are many of us who frequent this military forum who study the variety of WW2 swords, blade+koshirae as part of Japanese sword history, not necessarily as collectors of militaria. 

So it is wrong to assume that collecting gunto is a gateway to collecting nihonto, or a poor man's substitute for true nihonto. That is proven by the population and success of this section of the forum. 

You mention Yasukuni, Minatogawa, Sadakatsu, I have these polished and papered, as I see them as great blades of the period as you correctly point out.  

So I guess what I am saying is one mans poison is another man's fish. And some of us like to have a nice blade in true to period koshirae sitting in their collection, rather than maybe a better blade in plain shirasaya. 

But hey, it's only my opinion, and your article had a lot of really good information.

[Bruce Pennington]

Well said Paul and JP!

 

In this, I say:

 

I collect........ therefore I am.

[David Flynn]

During the early Showa period, the were many smiths making Gendaito.   Most of the Senior Smiths, were taught by Shinshinto masters and so were a carry on of this period.  Of course expediency came into the mix with the war,  however, most Gendaito, were forged in Gokaden, with Bizen den being the most popular.  In 1789,  Suishinshi Masahide, revived the Gokaden.  From that time on, Smiths were making swords in the various Den.  Some concentrated on one particular den, whilst others, made swords in multiple den.  Now to the point I'm trying to make,  Gendaito generally follow the Gokaden and so are valuable teaching aids.  In fact, most of the Senior Gendai tosho, made Utsushi of famous smiths.

[Bryce]

G'day Paul,

That is a great article and I completely accept your point that during the Showa period there was a greater range of sword manufacturing methods used than at any other point of Japanese history, making it a potential minefield for the new collector. What you say makes perfect sense.

 

However, depending upon what part of the world you inhabit, gunto may be the most commonly encountered type of Japanese sword. Also the additional layer of more recent history provided by the gunto koshirae makes them more interesting to some, so it is probably inevitable that for many they will be the entry point to the world of Japanese swords.

 

From my experience, the problem is that you really only have the motivation to do extensive research once you have bought your first sword. Also, a sword in hand is much more valuable as a learning tool than any number of books or photographs. You can only hope that when buying your first sword you don't have the unlucky experience of spending too much or meeting a shark/shonk.

 

Cheers,

Bryce

[paulb]

Neil,

Thank you for your thoughts which I fully understand and agree with. I think your post reflects quite clearly the change in the market over the past 10 or 12 years since I wrote the original. 

At that time Showa blades were regarded as a first step in to the field and a potential springboard to the study of traditional blades. There was a significant price difference between Showa blades and others and they therefore offered an entry level for the beginner. 

Since then the interest in Showa period work in its own right has grown dramatically, particularly in the USA and Australia where the majority of these pieces can be found. The section on the board here clearly illustrates the rise in interest that has occurred in that time. 

 

David,

Thank you for your comments and yes I think you are right about the Gendaito being made prior to and during the early part of the war. However the needs of the time also meant that later swords were made using all sorts of methods and material. Also Gendaito produced during that period are expensive in their own right and therefore not really an entry level piece to use as a learning tool. 

Bottom line is that if your primary interest is in traditionally made Japanese swords the most cost effective way to dip your toe in the water is not to buy a Showa blade. It would be better to spend the same or less money on a reasonable wakazashi.

If your interest is in swords of the second war or militaria generally then Showa swords offer a varied and interesting path.

 

Bryce

what you describe is I exactly how I started albeit rather a long time ago. And certainly my interest took off once I had that blade. I think JP also made a very valid point that over time our motivation and interest can and do change. an interest in one area does not exclude interest in another. None are better or worse than another they are just different.

 

Thank you all for your comments and thoughts

[16k]

What Neil wrote is also very interesting. Speaking about blades and koshirae. This is another “division” I guess among collectors. Some will be attracted to a particular type of swords looking at them as a whole. Others, like myself, don’t really care about the koshirae and think a sword is first and foremost the blade, the rest being just the cherry on the top. Personally, I’ve never been attracted to beautiful, very showy koshirae, preferring those that would have been carried by the average samurai. Something strong and practical over something beautiful but meant to stay in its saya.

 

And I think this is one of the attractions of WW2 blades. They saw battle. Their koshirae haven’t yet been replaced like centuries old blades have been and are often found in late Edo mountings. WW2 blades are still the way they were on the battlefield. It adds to their appeal since you know a fighter and not a samurai turned bureaucrat held them.

[PNSSHOGUN]

To me WW2 swords are still like the wild west, there's all sorts of gems up for grabs that fly under the radar relative to the current market just because they're in Gunto mounts. You could make up a fine Gendaito Gokaden collection for very little money. In regards to the mounts I think they will become more and more valuable, you already see rare variants with a good old blade that may as well be a Tsunagi because the Koshirae is the real star.