I just recently bought this sword and would like to know more about it

[Jonas Ne]

I have no idea who the smith is and I'm getting very contradicting answers from some personal research I've done, the sword does seem to have been used in some sort of altercation as there are multiple pary markings along the spine of the blade. 

[ROKUJURO]

Jonas,

the bladesmith is KANEMICHI. The painted numbers (346) on the tang were used in the assembly of the sword.

All signatures and numbers are written tip upwards, so please show all photos accordingly (so we don't have to break our necks to help!)

[mecox]

Jonas, looks to be  this smith from Gifu:  “Kinmichi” (金道), real name Hibino Ichiji (日比野一二), born May 6th 1917, he worked as guntō smith and died August 20th 1945, real name Hibino Ichiji   (日比野一二) and he was from Oyama, Tomida-mura in Gifu.   Hibino is an unusual family name.   Note 金道 can also be read as Kanemichi.   He registered as a Seki swordsmith in 1942 (Showa 17) September 10.  There is an example sword by him (at right) listed by Meirin Sangyo Co Ltd, which is dated Showa 18 (1943) September and signed ni ji mei  "Kinmich"  and their note includes "On August 6, Showa 20, he took responsibility for the defeat of Japan and judged himself on August 8 ...".  The meaning being he committed seppuku.  However the dates listed disagree, if he "died"  August 20 1945, and was born May 1917 he would have been 28  (the surrender of Japan was announced by Emperor Hirohito on August 15, 1945). 

Another example from Yahoo Auctions (3 from left), no date.  No. 2 is from Rick Stein site.

 

                 

 

[ChrisW]

I have a blade by the same maker in a nearly identical setup as yours!

[Jonas Ne]

Thank you guys so much for the help! Do you guys know if the sword would have been made traditionally? I know most gunto were not but around 10% were still forged traditionally. Also, do the parry marks along the spine of the blade indicate battle use? If so what would this be worth?

[ChrisW]

Kinmichi only made showato, as far as I am aware.

If you look in the peaks of the hamon and see dark spots, that is the tell-tale sign of oil-quenching.

[ROKUJURO]

18 hours ago, Jonas Ne said:

..... do the parry marks along the spine of the blade indicate battle use? If so what would this be worth?

If they were parry marks from another KATANA, it would have been from a battle between SAMURAI. Quite unlikely, don't you think?

Battle marks (= KIRI KOMI) on an authentic NIHONTO  blade's spine (= MUNE) don't reduce the value much in case they are few, small, and obviously old. 

[Jonas Ne]

On 10/23/2023 at 1:28 PM, ChrisW said:

Kinmichi only made showato, as far as I am aware.

If you look in the peaks of the hamon and see dark spots, that is the tell-tale sign of oil-quenching.

There are no dark spot peaks along the hamon

[ChrisW]

They can sometimes be rather subtle, especially if the wartime polish is scuffed or not in great condition.

Either way, Kinmichi is only known to have made showato. If this were a gendaito, it'd be a first. But unlikely, as those who were not deemed worthy did not get access to the materials during the war to make gendaito I believe.

However, pictures across the internet can only do so much. You should bring this to the nearest Token Kai meeting or sword show to get an in-hand opinion for something more definitive.

[Bruce Pennington]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:10 PM, Jonas Ne said:

do the parry marks along the spine of the blade indicate battle use?

Jonas,

It would be interesting to see the marks you are talking about.  But, parry marks (there's a word for that) are usually found on old blades that were used in the feudal wars.  Since this blade was likely made for WWII, the owner would not have been sword fighting with allied troops.  Many blades after the war suffered from owners, and owners' kids, using them to whack all sorts of stuff, from weeds to steel bars.  No way to know how the marks got on your blade.

 

I would add to the discussion of tamahagane, that since there were around 500 active smiths during the war, and steels were in constant demand and often short supply, smiths were known to use steel that was available.  Around 1942, the Army assumed command over sword production and started gathering their own tamahagane to parcel out, in sword production, to smiths that applied and qualified for the RJT program.  There were around 300ish that became qualified, but I doubt all smiths tried.  And even the RJT qualified smiths were known to make many showato blades.  So, I wouldn't assume Kinmichi wasn't "worthy".

[John C]

I would add that in close, hand-to-hand combat, it may be possible for parry marks to be made sword against a bayonet during a banzai charge. It is far more likely, however, that as Bruce said some kid was just banging on it during the last 80 years.

 

John C.

[Jonas Ne]

On 10/22/2023 at 4:41 PM, mecox said:

Jonas, looks to be  this smith from Gifu:  “Kinmichi” (金道), real name Hibino Ichiji (日比野一二), born May 6th 1917, he worked as guntō smith and died August 20th 1945, real name Hibino Ichiji   (日比野一二) and he was from Oyama, Tomida-mura in Gifu.   Hibino is an unusual family name.   Note 金道 can also be read as Kanemichi.   He registered as a Seki swordsmith in 1942 (Showa 17) September 10.  There is an example sword by him (at right) listed by Meirin Sangyo Co Ltd, which is dated Showa 18 (1943) September and signed ni ji mei  "Kinmich"  and their note includes "On August 6, Showa 20, he took responsibility for the defeat of Japan and judged himself on August 8 ...".  The meaning being he committed seppuku.  However the dates listed disagree, if he "died"  August 20 1945, and was born May 1917 he would have been 28  (the surrender of Japan was announced by Emperor Hirohito on August 15, 1945). 

Another example from Yahoo Auctions (3 from left), no date.  No. 2 is from Rick Stein site.

 

                 

 

do you mind If I use the information you provided in the sale of this sword?

[mecox]

Jonas, OK to use publically available information if uses references, and consider assumptions versus facts.