KANENOBU and MORINOBU

[Swords]

I have a question regarding the weight of these 2 swords Both weight exactly the same 

Yet MORINOBU is longer and thicker than Kanenobu yet it weighs the same as Kanenobu is it because Tamahagane was used or maybe was  folded more?

 

 

[John C]

7 minutes ago, Swords said:

Tamahagane was used or maybe was  folded more?

Steve:

You can probably rule out these two right away. The density of different steels would be negligible. Also, a sword starts with X amount of ounces in a billet. So the number of folds will not make a difference. What could be happening is the profile. Even if the swords were exactly the same width at the mune (back spine), if one has a thinner profile moving toward the ha (edge) or has been polished more, there could be a reduction in steel and therefore weigh less. In addition, the width along the entire sword may not be exactly the same. Sometimes the nakago thins out toward the end.

 

John C.

[KungFooey]

Hi Swords,

Have you weighed the blades naked (I mean the swords, not you)?

One of them has a much bigger, heavier guard.

 

Dee

[Swords]

What I do is stand on the scale get my weight than hold the sword and subtract the difference Both swords were the same weight 

The longer sword is wider and thicker that’s what’s confusing Maybe John’s right about about the density of steels ? Because one is  star stamped the adding of tamahagane But shouldn’t matter because both swords should have tamahagane  I may be wrong if I remember after 1943  the star wasn’t used So that shouldn’t matter

I think is unusual they both was exactly the same one being thicker and longer yet it’s the same weight 

 

[John C]

1 hour ago, Swords said:

I think is unusual

There is another possibility. Firstly, tamahagane comes in grades based on carbon content. But this should not make much difference in weight. But it's possible the shorter one has a denser core steel and would therefore weigh as much as a longer sword without a core. It's far more likely, however, it is simply a matter of the amount of steel used. Exact measurements (width, thickness, length) of the entire blade would need to be taken. Blades are not consistent. Every inch can vary somewhat. The shorter blade may be just slightly thicker on more of its length making it the same weight as the longer one. 

 

John C.

[GeorgeLuucas]

Hi Steve, 

Cool swords! 

 

I didn’t see if you answered Dee’s question. Did you weigh the swords with or without their fittings? 
 

At any rate, if you’re using a bathroom scale, they have a pretty big margin of error - and sometime aren’t precise within a few pounds of difference.
 

Before drawing any conclusions, I would try using a gram scale and weighing the swords without their fittings, and by themselves. 
 

If they still weigh identical - I like John C’s answers

 

best of luck, 

-Sam 

[Swords]

I don’t have a gram scale I’m thinking it’s probably a denser steel which leaves me with another question Is denser steel better ?

I’m thinking probably stronger

I understand the variables fittings scabbard scale and other things But thanks for all  opinions

They are cool swords Me favorites 

I will try and get some measurements

I’ll get some pictures and post them 

 

Thanks 😊 Steve 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Steven,

Is your star-stamped sword in my files already?  If not, can you post photos, please!?

 

Also, out of the 236 star-stamped blades on file, 98 of them were made in 1944 and 1945.  So, there were plenty of star stamped blades made after 1943.

[KungFooey]

You need to strip em off, Swords!

That big old tsuba means one of them is packing much heavier junk. 😉

[Swords]

 

I am going to strip the swords as pointed out and weigh them separately I will also take photos and post them for John

 

Thanks Steve 

[Swords]

Bruce I hope these photos are enough 

[Bruce Pennington]

2 hours ago, Swords said:

I hope these photos are enough 

Thanks Steven!  I see we have that one in the charts - Aug '43.  Trystan brought it to our attention a while back.