Hand forged blade in 95 mounts on eBay

[mdiddy]

55 minutes ago, drb 1643 said:

To have two swords fabricated by the same smith during the same time frame in duplicate mounts I think is more than a coincidence.

Oh WOW, now that is very cool! Had no idea that your example was also by Kii Masatsugu. That is a very nice sword!

[drb 1643]

12 hours ago, Dave R said:

Personal opinion, I think the date of the blade is a clue here. The bombing campaign had  obliterated most of the factories in Japan by this time with the result that production was dispersed to the extreme, and handwork was replacing machine production.

 Someone got a very nice (replacement) blade almost by accident, because that was all that was available.

Regarding the polish, another signed and dated gendai field pickup from the Pacific campaign was found to have been finished on a buffer during production in Japan. Desperate times, desperate measures.

I’m wondering Dave if these mounts were all that were available for this smith at this time?

Tom

[Shamsy]

1 hour ago, drb 1643 said:

 To have two swords fabricated by the same smith during the same time frame in duplicate mounts I think is more than a coincidence.

 

We may never know, but coincidences like this do make the idea more plausible and interesting. Could there be some sort of record about the smith that might shed some more light on this?

[Stegel]

Matt, can you show a picture of the mune on your sword?

Tom's pictures show 2 stamps on the mune, for a moment i got excited thinking it was the  私 stamp signifying a private purchase, but the more i look at it, i think it is the  社  'sha' army acceptance stamp.  The lower one i'm not sure about yet.

 

 

 

 

On the drag, i think the top stamp is again the 'sha' with a heavily struck 'To' beneath it.

[Kiipu]

福 = fuku.

 

It starts to show up in 1945 on sword blades made on Kyushu 九州.  So far, it has only been found on the nakago mune in the same location as final inspection marks.

Mune Stamp

Name On Nakago Mune!

[Bruce Pennington]

O.....M.....G!!!!  Major overload!   I have the Yoshitsugu on file already; so now we have 2 Masatsugu, and all 3 in Type 95 fittings! Well, actually, the Yoshitsugu had a Type 95 tsuka with a wooden saya made for a (missing) leather cover.  Sesko has this Yoshitsugu working in Gifu, and the Ki Masatsugu in Fukuoka.  So, the fittings came from different shops, OR, all 3 blades were obtained by a single shop that was using Type 95 fittings for officer purchases (on the premise that end-of-war supplies were scarce).

 

Adding to it, now, another example of the "Fuku" and "Private Contractor" stamps!  Thanks for those!

 

Assuming these are wartime legit, I can imagine an owner between then and now, didn't like the latch on Matt's gunto not working and simply adding the coil spring.

 

Checking the files, we now have NCO blades in officer gunto (from @Stegel) and officer blades in NCO gunto!

 

Edit: the 3 gunto could be for NCOs, not an officers.  A tassel would have been useful, but none of the 3 have one.

[BANGBANGSAN]

10 hours ago, drb 1643 said:

Hi All, the reason I started this thread was because I have a very similar sword by the same smith in duplicate mounts. I just wanted to find out more information about it. To have two swords fabricated by the same smith during the same time frame in duplicate mounts I think is more than a coincidence. I’ll have to attach  pictures in separate posts.

Thanks 

Tom

 

 

 

Hey Tom

Do you have more photos of your 2 repurposes 95s? Are they both have NO habaki and added the extra hole on the tang? Do both have the date?

[drb 1643]

This is the only one I have Trystan. The other one I posted a few years back is no longer available, but yes it also had no habaki and the extra hole. That one was also mumei with no date or other stamps.

Sorry, 

Tom

[Bruce Pennington]

A small correction to my post - the Yoshitsugu is an old blade, made by a smith from Mutsu province in 1803.  But same explanation could still apply - blade was fitted out by a different shop, different city, than the Masatsugu blades.

 

I'll be honest, my gut says the paint on the saya throat of Tom's post looks almost too new, which lends to post-war assembly, but something else on the other hand, is ..... what are the odds of a post-war Bubba getting his hands on 2, yes TWO Masatsugu blades made in the same month and year?!  Seems unlikely to the max.  More believable to me is the late-war theory.

[Kiipu]

On 6/21/2022 at 12:22 AM, Shamsy said:

I've already presented a logical argument covering the points I think most meritorious in a previous thread and won't repeat it here, unless someone can find that thread so it's a simple copy paste job.

 

There have been several discussions about these but maybe this is the one.  This one was started by Tom and is mentioned later in this thread.

Type 95 with a hand forged blade

[Shamsy]

10 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

I'll be honest, my gut says the paint on the saya throat of Tom's post looks almost too new, which lends to post-war assembly, but something else on the other hand, is ..... what are the odds of a post-war Bubba getting his hands on 2, yes TWO Masatsugu blades made in the same month and year?!  Seems unlikely to the max.  More believable to me is the late-war theory.

 

That's about how I feel. Never believed that fittings from 95s and officer blades were ever legitimately put together in wartime. The mixed 95 fittings ... no habaki... there is too much variety between these, not uniformed enough... plenty of examples that are absolutely crude bubbas... most likely just a coincidence that two have the same blade maker, but since we don't have any primary evidence, can't rule anything out.

 

This one reminds me of all those 'last ditch naval swords' that were post war assembled to be sold as souvenirs. Just not as well done. Anyway, I've seen enough in Japanese military sword collecting to be cautious of creating very tenuously supported rumours which through word of mouth somehow become 'facts'.

[Shamsy]

6 hours ago, Kiipu said:

 

There have been several discussions about these but maybe this is the one.  This one was started by Tom and is mentioned later in this thread.

Type 95 with a hand forged blade

 

That's it. Thanks mate.

[Kiipu]

Tōkyō stopped all sword production in March 1945 due to bomb damage.  Interestingly, right before this, Tōkyō started using civilian parts to keep production going.  This cessation of production would have caused a ripple effect on all swords assembled from this point forward.  The burden was now on other existing locales to assemble swords.  Seki was one such area that starting in 1944 resorted to using wood scabbards and iron component parts.

Short Development History of Type 95 Gunto, Post #82

The Atsuta Factory & Military Swords

 

Several of these hybrid swords are using Type 95 replacement parts that would be available to the divisional ordnance unit and above, such as the army and area army ordnance units.  There are several indications that these parts were used such as the undrilled handles and the unserialized scabbards.  These hybrid swords could have been assembled just about anywhere in Japan toward the end.  However, several of these hybrids are using blades coming from Kyushu which did not have a large scale sword assembling center like Seki, Ōsaka, Jinsen, or Nan-Man.  It does not surprise me that spare parts that were readily available were used to fit these swords out.  An invasion was literally months away and the Japanese just wanted things put together and in the hands of the troops.

[BANGBANGSAN]

Talking about no habaki, Type 32 also have no habaki.

[mdiddy]

3 hours ago, Shamsy said:

Never believed that fittings from 95s and officer blades were ever legitimately put together in wartime.

I understand that perspective, but how can you explain the Plimpton Yoshichika? It is dated 1940, the nakago is very long to fit the full length of the Type 95 tsuka, and the only mekugi-ana is at the base of the nakago?

[mdiddy]

1 hour ago, BANGBANGSAN said:

Talking about no habaki, Type 32 also have no habaki.

Good point! And also naval dirks, parade sabers, court swords, artillery swords, blades in cheap shirasayas, Meiji period exports, etc.

 

On the habaki question, one thing that strikes me is the shape of the habaki fitting into the fixed width of the Type 95 saya. Pretty sure that arsenal blades were thinner, less niku, etc as compared to forged blades like gendaito, nihonto, maybe even showato. It would be very challenging to create the custom fit for a habaki inside the metal Type 95 saya. Maybe this is why we see habaki on the Plimpton Yoshichika and the other one that Bruce documented (Yoshitsugu?) where they had Type 95 tsuka and habaki, but not the Type 95 saya.

[Dave R]

 Regarding Habaki, when the type 95 was introduced there was a need for a catch up programme because a lot of them were needed all at once. As a result there was a mass conversion of type 32 to type 95. Mr Komiya covers it in some depth on https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/ . How long did the conversion programme last, and was it restarted late in the war. When resources are stretched the habaki is a good candidate for being missed off.

(I have seen a genuine Edo era Satsuma/Okashi To where the habaki was no more than a piece of sheet brass wrapped round the base of the blade.)

[drb 1643]

You can see in the picture I posted of the inspection stamps on the mune how nicely the sword fits into the saya without a habaki. It’s a very nice fit without any wiggle. When the tsuka is assembled the whole unit locks up perfectly with the saya again without any play. Bruce, as far as the paint goes, it does look period when you inspect it in hand. IMHO I believe this sword was never issued this late in the war and was taken care of post war.

Thanks everyone for a great discussion on these hybrid 95’s.

Tom

[Bruce Pennington]

10 hours ago, mdiddy said:

he Plimpton Yoshichika

That makes 4, now.  Both the Yoshichicka and Yoshitsugu have habaki and officer saya.

 

 

On the matter of the blade fitting the 95 saya, you can see on Matt's example the saya opening was re-shaped to take the slightly wider blade.  The adjustment looks old.  Tom's didn't seem to need the adjustment.

 

A correction to something I said earlier - the 2 Masatsugu are not the same month.  One is June '45 the other is April '45.

 

And finally- @Kiipu - I sure hope you are writing a book!!!  The stuff you know needs to be put in print!

[BANGBANGSAN]

7 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

 

 

And finally- @Kiipu - I sure hope you are writing a book!!!  The stuff you know needs to be put in print!

Agree!

[Kiipu]

Besides the hybrids, the Japanese built from scratch a Type 95 lookalike parade sword version that was sold on the commercial market.  Several exist and one is depicted on pages 192-193 of Dawson's book.  Oddly enough Trystan, both lack a habaki so they will be in good company with your Type 32!

Very Rare Prototype NCO Sword

A Very Rare Prototype Imperial Japanese NCO Sword

 

@Stegel also ran into one of these and posted some pictures in a related thread back in 2017.

Puzzling Type 95 Nco, Post #22

[Kiipu]

Cross-Reference

This sword was discussed on another forum besides this one.  As this thread was mentioned repeatedly, I will likewise cross-reference to the other discussions.  While some interesting observations were made, the lack of moderation in the end soured the discussion.

Put together Type 95 NCO sword with Gendaito blade on ebay

Put Together Type 95 NCO Sword Thread Removed??

[Shamsy]

Thank you for the extra links, Thomas. A bile thrown from both sides, but I liked and will copy the words in post #82 here as they seem most respectful, IMHO provide the most likely alternative scenario to a full-blown bubba and the author speaks with some authority on traditional swords, which I am sorely deficient in.

 

From Edokko on Gunboards.com - Post #82

"I had just been made aware of this thread about the Masatsugu in T-95 mounts, and it’s an extremely interesting read to say the least !
I don’t see any issue with the description that the seller listed on his auction as he has mentioned clearly that the analysis of the sword is his own and not guaranteed, hence all bidder has been notified that the claim of originality and rarity is just an opinion of the seller. Therefore, as such, potential buyers should formulate his own assessment of the rig to place a bid value to it. Besides, it was a dollar starting auction, and who could fault that !

Having said that, here is my “opinion” and nothing more nothing less, “opinion”.

This set up was probably created post war, but since the workmanship of the fitting is pretty good, I might make a guess that the slap together was done using un-issued T-95 mounting parts (hence unnumbered koikuchu) over a shirasaya’d Ki Masatsugu by a Japanese mounting craftsman under order of occupying souveniring GIs, or was created by the craftsman to sell as a souvenir to said GIs.

The issue here is that Ki Masatsugu was an extremely highly regarded smith, of an IJA Jumei ranking with a second from the top highest being “Kihin Jo-I (distinguished in the highest), and his swords were “Sai-jo Oo-waza (top class quality)”, this being in the same ranking with smiths such as Gassan Sadamitsu. The only level higher than that were given to the likes of Gassan Sadakatsu, and Masatsugu’s dad Ki Masayuki (these smiths were ranked as “distinguished in the divine)”. A high level sword like Masatsugu’s cost a LOT of money back then, and no officer in his right mind let alone who could afford such a blade would force it on to a lousy lowly NCO T-95 mount like this.

Moreover, as some of the posters here have mentioned, the lack of a Habaki is an absolutely fatal flaw as far as correct sword mounting is concerned, and no good sword fitter or an officer would let an expensive blade like a Ki Masatsugu be mounted without a habaki. A Habaki is one of most important of all components out of koshirae parts, even the tsuba and tsuka is considered secondary to the habaki as far as the functionality of the mounted sword is concerned, and this is just the way it is traditionally with Japanese swords, no exceptions. I have read the argument about navy dirks, parade sabers and Meiji era souvenir junk swords made without the habaki, but that argument will not hold water, as habaki-less dirks and sabers are originally derived from western designs and does not follow the Japanese sword design tradition to require habakis, and of course Meiji junk souvenir swords were…. exactly that, junk.

The two T-95 mounted Masatsugus presented were dated April and June on 1945, both very very late in the war, but as you can see from the original peg-hole position, they were not made to fit the dual-ana Type 3 mounts, and were made to fit ordinary non-gunto mounts or perhaps a Type 98 mount but which were already obsoleted by then as far as military mount standards were concerned. So my guess is that both these blades were made late war by Masatsugu as perhaps by order of some sword dealer or wealthy individuals and placed in a shirasaya to be mounted on a newly made koshirae in the future when a wealthy customer would come around for a purchase order, which probably never happened as the war came to an end soon after and all hell broke loose as far as sword business was concerned. Then comes the occupying force, every allied officer and GI thirsty for a nice souvenir, so ok let’s slap together these Masatsugus (which no one in Japan can afford or wants anymore) with these junky T-95 spare parts mount components, and sell ‘em to the GIs to make them happy. Habaki wont fit ? lose it then, no matter, them GIs wouldn’t care nor will know the significance anyways ! (says the enterprising post war Japanese sword seller). Of course this is all pure conjecture on my part.

In regards to paratrooper spec question. Regardless of what some long time collector may have claimed, so far I have not seen anywhere in original documentation where T-95 mounts were used specifically for IJA paratroopers. Of course if the paratroop was an NCO, he might have carried a T-95 on board, but that just about as much as it would go in terms of a paratroop connection. I’ve seen photos of IJA paratroopers with swords, and they carry whatever they had, not restricted to T-95 mounts."

 

Please be aware the discussion goes on, but this reply at least I think we should capture here for posterity. What comes before and after is less pleasant to read.

[Kiipu]

I have known Edokko for about 20 years and I can vouch for his statement about Dawson's book as I was involved as well.  I can even remember calling Edokko about what the correct rōmaji ローマ字 spelling was for 九五式軍刀, as it was misspelled in the Type 95 chapter, which was initially one chapter but was later split into two chapters.

 

His forum name of Edokko 江戸っ子 means someone born and raised in Tōkyō, usually going back for a few generations as well.

江戸っ子

Edokko