Type 32 Ko, strange number and lack of markings. Is it a fake?

[Skrag0]

I bought this Type 32 Ko sword as a novice and I've taken more time more to research what the details are. It seems like this is a very strange version if not a fake. Here's what I noticed:

 

1. A strange serial number, the font is different, it's small, and the numbers are too close.

2. The clasp is a rounded point, not is a wedge shape.

3. There are no additional markings, not on the scabbard or on the guard.

4. No leather washer.

5. The throat has the bolt protruding.

6. The handle is shaped differently, it's more of a tube shape.

7. The fuller starts and ends far away from each end of the blade.

8. The blade doesn't have a clear edge, very dull and round.

 

Is this authentic? It has so many things that I question now, but overall it looks like it could be real, although I have no idea.

[Bruce Pennington]

Alison,

I will say up front, that I don't specialize in these, so someone more knowledgeable may correct me, but I agree with you on all your points.  I've looked at the one in Dawson's book, and at my own, and yours differs in all the ways you've mentioned.  Additionally, the lip of the handguard doesn't curve out enough, and the spacing on the belt loop is too far down the saya.  The drag doesn't look right either.

 

Now, there are always exceptions, but unless someone with knowledge of these chimes in, I'd say it's an imitation.  I do recall a recent discussion of the Chinese, producing their own version of the 32, during the war, so maybe that's what you have.

 

Here are some pics of mine for reference:

[BANGBANGSAN]

Alison

Your Type 32 looks like a replica. One of my friends got a 4 digit Type 32, it is a little different than the others, shorter blade,lighter in weight, hanger ring in different position,and the blood grove is no the same way. But you can tell from the detail compared to yours, not the same quality, and the style of numbers is different even If his also a replica.

 

[Skrag0]

@Bruce Pennington Thank you!

 

@BANGBANGSAN My sword looks very similar to your friend's sword, albeit a few differences. Have you confirmed your friend's sword a replica? 

 

I can't shake the feeling that it feels real when I hold it, it feels solid. But if it's a replica they made it look pretty authentic with rust. 

[Bruce Pennington]

Maybe someone with better search skills can find the thread where it was discussed about the Chinese military being authorized to produce their own version of the type 32 during the war.  The handles were normally painted green, but I still wonder if this is what we are seeing.

[BANGBANGSAN]

Alison

I think my friend's Type 32 #6623 is a better replica. Yours is a lot easier to tell it's a replica.
Bruce
This is NOT PLA version of Type 32.

[Shamsy]

You have done an excellent job of already picking the issues! well done, so I put some extra effort in and grabbed some photos for you. I'll comment on what I feel are the more apparent tells of the sword. Now, I'm looking at photos so don't jump on me and savage if it's not easy to tell.

 

The saya throat is not even, the screw is incorrect and it looks crude.

The fuller/bohi starts in the wrong place, is the wrong width, depth and design and terminates in the wrong place.

There should be stamps on the guard.

The serial numbers are in the wrong place; they are always much further towards the hilt, making them hard to photograph. 

 

Regarding the other issues... these are tells but not to be solely relied on.

The handles can wear and were hand carved I believe, so there is some variation.

Serial numbers come in a range of fonts

Washers are sometimes missing, it's old leather after all.

Blade sharpness varies, not sure that's a huge give away.

 

Grabbed 3 Ko and 2 Otsu to demonstrate. They are all pretty consistent.

 

Damn I'd forgotten my love affair with Type 32s.

 

Oops, reached upload limit... ah well, that's all you get then!

 

[Mister Gunto]

A few pics of my Ko for comparison as well...

 

 

[Skrag0]

Thank you everyone! I'm going to return it now!

[Shamsy]

While I am pretty confident it is a repro, remember that F&G do talk about the Type 32s that were made in Japan and sold to foreign military's (I think they say these lacked the 'cannonball' stamps), as well as foreign made swords that are basically aesthetically identical. They only briefly mention it, but thought it was worth dredging up some basic from so long ago in case people have forgotten. Oh, they were not talking about the PLA swords either. Those are an entirely different pattern they mention separately.

 

I still think repro; Stephen has mentioned a few times that there were a ton of these made quite a few decades ago, so patina might be genuine, even if the sword is not.

[Bruce Pennington]

Well, the plot thickens.  A guy over at Warrelics just bought a similar 32 ($195), and is waiting for it to arrive, but he's posted pics:  https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/type-32-sword-cosmoline-776160/#post2112925.

It's not the first one, in cosmoline, but the second one at the bottom of the thread.

 

I'm adding the pics here.  Something I noticed on his is the saya throat.  It's clearly made of brass, then coated/painted/blued with something to make it look like steel with a brass insert.  Why would a legit sword-maker artificially make the throat to look like an insert?  Seems more like something a faker would do.  The handle work is really good and looks actually aged.  The blade has the same problems with the ricasso and bo-hi.  The numbers are a good distance apart.  I mention that because on 95s the fakers seem to keep using the same numbers over and over.  So, either these numbers are far apart because they really were on a real production line, or the faker was just smart enough to care about that.

 

It has the same pointed latch tip, and squared latch receptacle on the throat

[Shamsy]

Just looks like another fake to me Bruce,  with a few touches to try and make it look older. All the same issues as the first. I don't think there's anything of interest here I'm afraid, no new discoveries (except that people are still buying swords without any research or effort prior to purchase).

[Bruce Pennington]

On 9/21/2020 at 5:11 PM, Skrag0 said:

I bought this Type 32 Ko sword as a novice and I've taken more time more to research what the details are. It seems like this is a very strange version if not a fake

WAIT A DARN MINUTE!

Alison - Did you just sell this to someone?  The saya seems to have been coated with something, but the blades are exactly the same!

 

I think the saya was just oiled

[Skrag0]

On 10/8/2020 at 3:20 PM, Bruce Pennington said:

WAIT A DARN MINUTE!

Alison - Did you just sell this to someone?  The saya seems to have been coated with something, but the blades are exactly the same!

 

I think the saya was just oiled

 

I returned it to the original seller and informed that person that it was a fake. They said they bought it from an estate and the estate seller's grandfather brought it back from Japan. I washed my hands clean from that sword and got my money back. The eBay seller is to blame here, especially if they sold it under the pretense that it's real.

[Bruce Pennington]

5 hours ago, Skrag0 said:

I returned it to the original seller

I appreciate the update, and apologize for my hot-headed post, sorry!  The other guy says he bought it from a "Michelle", and said he's returning it too.  I'm not against, folks selling and buying replicas or items of iffy heritage, but they should be honest about it when the authenticity is shown to be questionable.

 

Again - my apologies!

[Skrag0]

No problem. The guy I talked to said his name was Fred. I don't want to out his eBay username because it looks like his last name but it ends with '111'. If it's the same guy then he should have definitely disclosed that it was a probable fake.

[craiges8979]

Hi all, sorry to revive this thread. It's been a great read. I'm about to pick up a job varient for what I consider cheap. The seller seems authentic and so does the sword but hoping if I throw a few pictures up some people with a great deal more knowledge then me might be able to confirm the authenticity? Cheers all. 

[Conway S]

Craig, 

 

This one is original. If the measurements in the listing are to be trusted, it’s an Otsu variant. Dated Taisho 3 or 1914. More details at the following website. 
 

http://ohmura-study.net/802.html

 

Conway

[lonely panet]

I know the seller, hes a member here, always posting swords and asking for advice

 

 

You will be paying top dollar 

[craiges8979]

Thanks all. I'm new to collecting so I wanted to double check. Appreciate the feedback 🤙🤙