Japanese Type 95 Sword for NCOs

[Bruce Pennington]

11 hours ago, AzWaterboy said:

Almite coating

Patrick, you've been doing your homework!  That's the first thing I thought when I saw the color, too.

 

But I'm more concerned about the other things, like John mentioned.  The 14xxx number range, along with 30xxx, 40xxx, and a few 50xxx numbers, are common for the Polish reproductions.  And what da heck is that stamp by the number?

So, as we often see with these, their fuchi stamps are pretty darn close, but here is what they should look like:

 

Note how delicate the Suya stamp is, compared to the clunky version on yours.  Also, the center inspector stamps are always small, where yours it quite big.  Finally, the Kokura stamp, while better than the other fakers, is still off.

 

Note the fit of the parts.  Especially the saya thoat piece where it meets the saya.  Not a good fit.

 

The dimpling in the tsuka diamonds, while better than most fakes, is still not up to standard for a legit 95.  note how they fade away near the ito, and aren't even there in the half-diamond nearest the fuchi.  Here's a couple examples of legit dimpling:

 

They make very good replicas, which is why it can be a challenge identifying them.

[AzWaterboy]

Thanks so much everyone for the information!! Wish I had done some more homework previously. If anyone has any idea about the kanji script, Id still like to know about that. Thanks again

 

Patrick

[Bruce Pennington]

@SteveM can confirm the gibberish quality of this, but I'll touch on the date.

 

This is trying to be an arsenal produced WWII NCO sword, so IF dated and signed, which to my knowledge has never been seen, the date would have to be a Showa date, like - 

昭   Sho

和   wa

十   Ju

二二  Shi 

年   Nen

六   Roku

月   Gatsu

 

Just an example

 

But this one is trying to be something old like

But the kanji doesn't match anything I can find in the dating chart.  So, something like Kwansho 9 (1468) then the "year" kanji is butchered, should be "年", but it's not; then 9th month, which is close to "月"; then 9th day, but the day "日" is butchered, too.

[SteveM]

I think its trying to say

寛文九年九月九日　Kanbun 9 (1669)

 

but, yes, all these characters are horribly cut. 

[AzWaterboy]

Really really appreciate all your help guys...Thank you!!