Type 44 Gendaito help needed

[sanjuro]

A friend of mine brought a sword to me recently, A gendaito about which he knows nothing. It pains me to admit that I also know nothing beyond the signature and date, simply because this is not my area of expertise. I am aware that there are some signatures and types of sword that were made by true swordsmiths under an art name. This appears to be possibly one of those. SIGNED MYO JU AND IS DATED SHOWA 19TH (1944) MAY.

I would appreciate an assessment by those who are more informed than I on this subject.

 

The sword is a gendaito 26 3/8" Nagasa. Mounted in type 44 mounts of fairly decent quality, the blade appears to be machine polished although hand made.

Any assistance would be very helpful.

[sanjuro]

More pics...... There are no stamps of any kind on the nakago.

[John A Stuart]

I am thinking Sukehisa, Showa 18, 1943. John

[sanjuro]

John.

Did I read the date wrong? My kanji is rubbish usually, so it wouldnt surprise me. Also why Sukehisa? I didnt think I got the signature that far out. (then again.... my Kanji is woeful as I already stated).

[John A Stuart]

Actually Keith I read the first kanji wrong, Myo is correct and the Ju kanji can be read Hisa among others. My mistake. The date is Showa 19, so 1926 +19-1=1944. Saw Ku as Hachi. Haste makes waste. John

[sanjuro]

That does restore some of my faith in my own reading of Kanji... Thanks John. Is this one of those art name type signatures or just a commemorative kind of thing? Obviously it isnt a sword by THE Myoju.

I'm sorry if I'm very dumb on this subject, its far from my usual area of interest which is Koto Blades. This is quite a learning curve for me.

The blade appears to be quite a reasonable blade for what it is, and to be honest I rather like its meatiness, being not polished down to a shadaow of its former self. I'm not about to switch camps, but a good blade is a good blade regardless of when it was made.

 

The owner is a friend and he wants to sell this sword. I would like to help him out, and owning one of these would be no great burden. I guess what I'm really asking here is exactly what would I be buying and how much should I reasonably pay for it. Ebay prices are no help in this because they arent a reflection of real value.

[k morita]

Hi, Keith,

Date is SHOWA 19TH (1944) MAY, you are correct.

Even if you read the mei as Myoju, it is not a mistake.

 

The signature is read as Akitoshi though Mei of this sword uses same kanjis as Myoju.

Akitoshi 明寿 is correct.

 

There was one same name smith Akitoshi in Seki.

But, I am not understand whether this sword was made in Seki.

[george trotter]

Hi Keith,

following on from what Morita san told you, there seem to have been two Akitoshi smiths...one is named Wakabayashi Akitoshi who was mentioned as Army Jumei Tosho, but no mei kanji are given. The second is the Seki Tosho mentioned whose name is Ohno (Yuichi) Akitoshi, same mei kanji as yours...he started as a Seki tosho on 17th Nov 1943. Since there are no stamps on your sword (either "star", "Seki", Na" or "Gi" ), it is hard to say which yours is...but judging from the pics, I suggest it is the Seki man...it has the look of Seki gunto work to me IMHO.

Regards,

George.

[sanjuro]

Morita San, John, George.

 

You have been most helpful, and I am endebted to you for your valuable opinions.

 

We have then a fairly clean, fully mounted gendaito, most likely made by a Seki Tosho named Ohno (Yuichi) Akitoshi, but certainly by a tosho at least whose last name was Akitoshi in May of 1944.

The general quality of the blade in as much as what can be seen in hand is quite good. A fairly clean hada which because of the polish is hard to quantify, but there are areas where itame (I think) is faintly discernable. The wide sugaha hamon is well edged with a fine misty nie that is not a polishing effect but a tempering effect. I would assess this blade as sound and healthy, regardless of period. Not an outstanding blade, but a good serviceable unpretentious blade. This is only my uninformed impression however.

 

May I prevail further upon your experience of these swords and inquire if this is likely to be a reasonable sword as I suspect? Lets say on a rating of one to ten, ten being the most desirable. Was there perhaps a ranking of either or both of the smiths likely to have made this sword? (I really hate to ask these newbie questions gentlemen, but this is virgin territory for me and I have absolutely no idea of what I may be dealing with).

[george trotter]

Keith san,

If you can see signs of hada and are happy that the yakiba has a distinct hamon line of ko-nie (or similar), then it appears the blade has handcrafting...the lack of any military stamps tends to suggest that this blade might well be out of the more usual run of Seki gunto production (usually oil-quenched)....although it has handcraft characteristics it is doubtful that it is made from tamahagane so rather than true "gendaito" it is more likely a "Showato"...similar handcrafting but western mill steel. We have little chance of confirming this from pics, but I do think your boshi shows signs of a nie/ko-nie line...anyway, as to rating the smith, this is not really possible, as there were about 200+ of them by 1944 and all were generally trained to the similar standard by a handful of traditional smiths. I suggest that you read the book "Modern Japanese Swords and Swordsmiths 1868 to the Present" by Kapp & Yoshihara....your Akitoshi is listed on page 213 as "Myoju" Also there is a wealth of information on these WWII era swords of all qualities on Ohmura san's "Military swords of Japan" link above.

You have a nice condition sword and koshirae there for sure.

Regards,

George.

[k morita]

Hi friends,

 

When i googled today, i found the photo of Ono Akitoshi sword by chance.

I think that his mei(Ono Akitoshi, 大野明寿) is very similar to Keith's sword-mei.

[george trotter]

Very interesting Morita san...it looks like Ono Akitoshi is capable of doing gendaito, or very good showato...that certainly is nie in the hamon.

I see you have marked his name Akitoshi very definitely in red and say it is very similar to Keith's mei...I agree...I think this is correct...(the use of the reading "Myoju" in Kapp & Yoshihara (p.213), is a mistake I think).

This sword of yours seems to be worth a close examination Keith...you might have found a good one there.

Gotta love the modern sword researching... :-)

Regards,

George.

[k morita]

Hi George san,

Ono's blade (my attached pic) is a fine blade i thik.

Date was nothig or removed from the tang of this blade.

 

I'm also have their book.

明寿 Myoju appears on page 213 of the book.

I think that we should read the mei as Akitoshi.

Also on page 212, author were reading 外藤 Tofuji as Sotofuji.

[sanjuro]

Morita San and George.

 

Once again gentlemen my thanks and appreciation for your research efforts. I have gained a greater appreciation of gendaito and showato as a result of your information, and I now look upon such swords with a very different eye. Perhaps in the past I have been somewhat dismissive of gendaito and showato. However, since I am now the owner of the sword I inquired about, it will be the subject and foundation of further inquiries and study on my part.

 

[Bazza]

As one who has a number of gendaito this has been a most interesting thread. I hesitate to ask, but does anyone think the tsuka on Keith's sword has been recently rebound??? It doesn't look "quite right" to me...

 

Regards,

BaZZa.

[george trotter]

Hi Baz,

I did look closely at the binding in the pic, and I feel that it is original. lI have been privileged to handle a fair number of Type 3's in the past two years and they matched this binding/fittings/saya etc exactly (some had dust protector seppa and the dia. of the tassel hole varies), but...all in all, I'd say the binding is right IMHO....it is amazing how many Type 3 swords are appearing in recent years...the vast majority in excellent condition (I've seen more in 2 years than the previous 25 years!).

regards,

Geo.

[Bruno]

I agree with George, original also.