Arsenal Stamps.

[Bruce Pennington]

David,

Nice presentation, and good job getting that active rust off the 451 nakago!

 

You can read my summary of the Matsu stamp (which was the inspection stamp of the Okasa Supervisory Unit of the Kokura Arsenal) on the RJT mei Help thread. (post #10).  George Trotter has in-depth knowledge of the Yamagami brothers, Akihisa and Munetoshi, and discusses them in a couple of threads, but a good one is the RJT Showato? thread, post #18, paragraph 3.

 

If you haven't seen the Stamps Document, you can see the Matsu stamp listed with the other arsenal stamps on page 13.  I'm attaching version 5.5, if you like.

{the converter I used to create 5.4 PDF butchered it so bad, I've deleted it!  I've sent 5.5 to Brian.  It should show up in the Downloads section soon.  Sorry!}

 

[davidequis]

Thank you Bruce,

an amazing document.

 

This Munetoshi, October, 1942 sword pushes the use of the matsu stamp to much earlier than the document states (1944) - new info is good info.

 

According to the document, this sword is a bit of a mystery. Munetoshi was supplied tamahagane and is known for making traditional swords as was his brother.

The document states that star stamp indicates non-traditional made sword. This sword has no star. 

So, is it traditionally made tamahagane or mill steel?

is it water or oil quench? 

There was another post that mentioned a Munetoshi dated aug/sept 1942 and stamped in the low 300s. This Munetoshi is 451 making it roughly 100 swords later and indicating production output of 100/month between the two brothers. A third Munetoshi (might have been his brother) dated May 1943 was numbered a little over 1000, again suggesting production of around 100/month between the two brothers.

The question is, what is the production rate of traditional verses non-traditional swords? 

 

Finally, is this a quality sword or a wall hanging?

 

Many thanks, in advance, to all those who might offer their expertise.

 

Regards 

 

david

 

[Brian]

@Bruce Pennington I have uploaded the stamps article to the downloads section.
Updates can easily be added by me when they occur. Much more accessible there. And people can comment and review. Great work!

[Bruce Pennington]

2 hours ago, davidequis said:

The document states that star stamp indicates non-traditional made sword. This sword has no star. 

David,

 

That document originated as a compilation of all the sources I could find on blade stamps.  As a result, there are some differing opinions.  I believe the part you are referring to is from the Richard Fuller section.  His book was written 25 years ago and we have since learned many new things.  The paragraphs above his section are the latest info on star-stamped RJT blades, and they are definitely traditionally-made (note to self: I need to add a caveat to his section in this regard!).  I don't remember the full discussion on your blade, but its not having a star could mean it's non-traditional, if the smith is a known RJT smith.  But if it's pre-1942, when the RJT program begun, it still could be traditional.  Having no other stamps, like showa or seki, would support the chance that it's traditional.  Examining the hamon and surface features of the blade, itself, is the best way to make that determination.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Bruce Pennington

[davidequis]

 Munetoshi was an RJT smith, but apparently the star-stamp was not used on the brother’s swords until November 42 (I forget where I read that, but it was on a thread in here somewhere). 

This October sword is in an unregulated window.

 

[Bruce Pennington]

I've edited the above post to delete 5.4.pdf because the converter butchered it pretty bad.  Here is 5.5.  I realized Word can save docs in .pdf form, and does it without rearranging the pics and text!  Sorry! 

Stamp 5.5.pdf

[Bruce Pennington]

Matsu Stamp update

 

Thanks to George Trotter, I've completed my survey of blades marked with the circled Matsu (none other form was found). 

 

After searching 4 sword forums (haven't done a web-wide search yet), the stamp, so far, is only found on blades made by the Yamagami brothers, Akihisa and Munetoshi.  George said their forge was north of Tokyo - nowhere near Osaka - so it would appear the stamp was unique to the two smiths, and not associated with the Osaka Supervisory unit of the Kokura Arsenal. 

松   matsu

小倉陸軍造兵廠大阪監督班 Ōsaka Supervisory Unit of Kokura Army Arsenal

Considering that all observed inspector marks are the bare mark without circles or sukura (Showa stamp is the exception, but it wasn't tied to an arsenal, so it doesn't really apply to this issue), it supports the idea that the circled matsu is not an inspector mark at all, but something used by the Yamagami brothers in their serial numbering system (also supported by the fact that they moved to kana in 1944).  Marks inside circles, stars, sakura, etc, tend to be shop logo or unique to sword shops.  The only exception that I can think of is the Toyokawa anchor in sukura on seppa (which might actually indicate the seppa were made by a shop exclusive to the Toyokawa arsenal).

 

I still can't shake off the coincidence of their stamp appearing in 1942, when the Army took control over nation-wide blade production, and the corresponding change in 1944 to stamps that reflected the locales/provinces where the blades were made.  As RJT smiths, maybe their stamps were created to meet Army regulations.

 

If anyone has further data that would add or change this issue, please let me know!

[vajo]

Hi Bruce

thats an Akihisa from my collection. March 1943 No. 819 Star Stamped

 

[Bruce Pennington]

22 minutes ago, vajo said:

March 1943 No. 819 Star Stamped

Thanks Chris!  By the ana, I assume it's in Rinji fittings?

[vajo]

Yes Bruce. 

Saya is a reddish slim Type98. I think it is the original saya. The sword and the lock fits perfect together. The screws looks untouched.

[Bruce Pennington]

1 hour ago, vajo said:

reddish slim Type98

Yes!  I remember that one!  Clearly a custom job!  Very nice.

[davidequis]

 

Analysing the data.

 

Date of manufacture and numbers are not sequential.

 

Possible reasons

 

Option 1

Dates reflect the time of production and numbers are part of a larger allocation pool of area/region supply.

 

I think this option is unlikely. The theory is disrupted by the nov 1943, #443, that sequentially belongs to the oct/nov 1942 numberset.

 

This theory is further disrupted by the oct/nov 1942 numberset being out of sequence (oct 451, nov 422 & 433)

 

Option 2

The numbers do relate exclusively to the brother’s production sequence, however the dates reflect when the sword actually left the business, rather than the date of production.

 

This would explain how number 443 can leave the shop a year later than numbers 422, 433 & 451. It also explains why 451 leaves the shop before 422 & 433.

 

It would also make sense that any smithy would have a stock of swords for customers to choose from. Customers (private or government) would not pick based on number sequence but on aesthetics, materials and price.

 

Similarly, Smith’s would price on aesthetics, method of manufacture (traditional/non-traditional) and materials (tamahagane/mill steel) not number sequence. 

 

This theory is supported by the total production numbers as a reflection of output. 

 

The 1944 #2352 suggests wartime production 1939-1944 of 2352 swords at a production rate of 32/month from both brothers, or 16 each, which (i read somewhere) was the maximum traditional output.

 

Sooo why the Matsu stamp? 

 

If they did make 2352 swords from 1939-1944, there are 17 known examples making 0.7% survivors from their body of ww2 production.

 

Looking at the matsu stamp there are 12 examples of which 8 have star (66%) verified by the government as traditional. The verdict on #451 without star is that it is traditional. I assume #11, #61 & #2352 are also traditional.

The brother’s were traditionally trained and won awards - they made quality swords. 

 

It would make sense that at time of manufacture, when the brothers signed and numbered the tang they would also indicate its quality of manufacture and materials (the matsu).

 

In a market flooded with military swords all with numbers, various government stamps and  of varying quality, the brother’s wanting to clearly identify their brand would be logical.

 

Why some matsu without star?

 

The star is a government quality certification for government purchased blades. The matsu is the brother’s certification for quality blades. Thus, matsu without star is not government purchased.

 

Welllll at least, that is my theory:)

 

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

4 hours ago, davidequis said:

Welllll at least, that is my theory:)

 

At least we got some gears turning!  The more heads that we can get together on this, the more likely we'll come up with some useful information.  Glad to see you working it David!

 

On the sequencing - the numbers fall in line better if you look at the 2 smiths separately, and also assume the numbers started over each year - not perfect, but better.

The 4-digit numbers are interesting in that they parallel the 4-digit numbers of the Mantetsu line.  There is an odd-ball in 1940, but the 1XXX numbers show up in 1942 and 1943, with the 2XXX numbers appearing in 1944.  I don't know if this explains it, but Nick Komiya, Warrelics, revealed an order from the Army to randomize serial numbers to obscure production capacities from Allied Intel.  I'm not sure this was actually carried out by any factory, but it could explain the parallel jump to the higher numbers.

 

Your thought about bunched/stored blades getting out of sequence has some merit.  Army inspectors would travel around to the forges (and there were many!) monthly, bundling up blades and shipping them to Tokyo arsenal warehouses for distribution.  The only glitch to this explanation would be that it would require that the date inscriptions would have to be applied by the Tokyo operation as the blades went to market for the numbers to be out of sequence, and I'm not sure it was done that way. 

 

Interesting stuff, eh!

[davidequis]

Found this, it could be the “2352” in the survey or it might be a new sword. 

 

I believe it is an over stamp, possibly reflecting the army order to obscure production details. 

 

There are several points with this example that should be considered.

 

1. It does not have polisher marks.

2. It’s nakago tip is kurijiri

3. One mekugi

4. Original number 23 or 23?   With the last digit overstamped with poorly aligned 53. 

5. Nakago tip is damaged.

 

This supports the theory that numbers are in production sequence and dates reflect point of sale. 

This looks like an early run, possibly re-made (shortened) sub-standard historic blade that sat in the shop being rejected until shortages and desperation made it acceptable, upon which, it leaves the shop in 1943 and is star stamped as traditional.

 

It would make sense that the smiths dated the blades as they left the shop, rather than Tokyo dating when they receive them. 

 

It would be useful reviewing the other 4 digit blades to see if they are overstamped, with similar irregularities.

[davidequis]

I found the #443 on this site.

 

it is dated November 1942 not 43,

which places it’s sale within proximity of the other 1942 numbers, but still after #451

 

i can’t post pics coz it says I am exceeding the quota. It was posted by daddycool in 2016, “my 1942 Munetoshi “

[Bruce Pennington]

Thanks David!  That 2353 is pretty cool!  I doubt it is the 2352 of the Trotter survey, the numbers are easy to see.  Also, number stamping on the war blades is quite varied, with numbers not aligned and differing sized numbers/letters commonplace.  As I searched for your 443 reference I found a couple more that I didn't have!

 

Here's the updated table:

Matsu

1941, July	Munetoshi	106  (RS ana)	Trotter Survey
1941, Sep	Akihisa	249  Type 98	Trotter Survey
1941, Sep	Munetoshi	308  Type 98	Trotter Collection
1941, Dec	Akihisa	566  RS Model	Trotter Survey
1941, Dec	Akihisa	577 RS	Trotter Survey
?	Akihisa	松 61 RS	Trotter Survey
?	Akihisa	松 97	NMB
1942, Feb	Akihisa	松 542 RS star	Trotter Survey
1942, Apr	Munetoshi	松 11 RS	Trotter Survey
1942, Nov	Munetoshi	松 422 ? star	Trotter Survey
1942, Nov	Munetoshi	松 433 RS star	Trotter Survey
1942, Oct	Munetoshi	松 451 RS	Davidequis NMB
1943, Jan	Munetoshi	松 508 Type 98 star	Trotter Survey
1943, Mar	Akihisa	松 618 RS star	Vajo NMB
1943, Mar	Akihisa	松 819 RS star	Trotter Survey
1943, May	Munetoshi	松 1080 RS star	Trotter Collection
1943, May	Munetoshi	松 1082 RS star	baldi1942 NMB
1943, Oct	Akihisa	松 1377 RS star	Trotter Survey
1943, Nov	Munetoshi	松 443 RS star	? NMB
1944	Munetoshi	タ2352	Trotter Survey
1944, Feb	Munetoshi	タ2353 Type 98 star	For sale on web

[Kiipu]

Possibly the logo of Yamamoto Military Sword Shop 山本軍刀店.

Kyu Gunto mounted tachi

[Bruce Pennington]

1 hour ago, Kiipu said:

Possibly the logo of Yamamoto Military Sword Shop 山本軍刀店.

Kyu Gunto mounted tachi

Sorry Thomas, I’m not sure what you are referring to?

[Kiipu]

6 minutes ago, Bruce Pennington said:

Sorry Thomas, I’m not sure what you are referring to?

 

The logo stamped on the crossguard in post 2.

[Bruce Pennington]

6 hours ago, Kiipu said:

The logo stamped on the crossguard

Ah, yes, you got it!  Here's one on a Type 98 tsuba

[Bruce Pennington]

Came across this unknown shop stamp during a conversation with a guy about a gunto.  I don't think I've ever seen it before.  "S" on one side of the kabutogane, and "T" on the other; then "S  T" on both sides of the habaki.  The seller didn't post pics of the nakago, but said in the description that there is a Toyokawa blade in the fittings.  I suspect the shop did a top-dollar custom job on the fittings by the look of that seppa, cut to fit around the sakura on the tsuba.

 

If anyone has any info on this shop, I'd love to hear about it.  Likewise if anyone has similar fittings from this shop, please post.

 

I was going to post this on an old thread about fittings with stamps on the kabutogane, but I can't find it.

 

 

 

[BANGBANGSAN]

7 hours ago, Bruce Pennington said:

 

 

Bruce

The tassel looks like it's for 军属刀。

[Bruce Pennington]

1 hour ago, BANGBANGSAN said:

tassel

All-brown

[BANGBANGSAN]

1 hour ago, Bruce Pennington said:

All-brown

Yes ,all brown is for 军属Gunzoku. As confirmed in this thread

https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/what-were-regulations-army-civilian-employees-carry-swords-701783/

[Bruce Pennington]

There is a Kanezane blade being discussed HERE that has Kanezane's kao, but it also has a Seki stamp.

 

I had been assuming that the presence of a kao (hot stamp or an inscribed mark) would indicate the blade was made traditionally, because blades can be found by that same smith that don't have the kao.  But this blade has a Seki stamp which means it was not.  Hmmmm.   Of course, this hearkens back to the debate about stamps - are they always an indication of a non-traditionally made blade, or could they sometimes simply be an acceptance stamp.

 

The answer could lie in the reality that some blades with a smith's mei were really made by apprentices, so maybe the kao would indicate that this blade was made by the smith?  Another issue is that many WWII blades were signed by a professional mei-cutter (there's a word for that).  Maybe the presence of the kao, simply means the mei was cut by the smith himself?

 

What we know for a fact is that the government ordered all non-traditionally made blades to be stamped.  We do not have proof that stamps were being used in other ways, so with the assumption that the Seki stamp on the blade means that it was non-traditionally made, then the kao's significance lies somewhere else, like who made it or signed it.

[Bruce Pennington]

Stamps Doc 6.0: includes re-write of the "Stamped Numbers" section due to results of the Stamp Survey.  Also includes discussion in the Type 95 section of the suspected tie between the Gifu stamp and the Seki Shoten stamp (being of the same re-named company).

 

I'm also posting the current version of the Stamps Survey for those of us that love those tabulated data!

 

Brian - if it's not too much trouble, could you replace the outdated version of this in the Member articles section?  Thanks!

stamp survey (1).pdf Stamp 6.0.pdf

[Brian]

Done. But I think...if I have changed the author to the member himself,  you may have permissions to update the file yourself. Check what options you have under file actions?
But it is current now.

[Bruce Pennington]

 

35 minutes ago, Brian said:

under file actions?

Thanks Brian!

I don't see a "File Actions" option.

[Brian]

Click on your own title and open the page.
Bottom left, just above "previous file"
But you may not have the option, not sure. I'll check settings on the weekend.

[Bruce Pennington]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

Click on your own title

Found it Brian, thanks!