Hi everyone,

I am stumped and would value everyone's input as always. I am looking at an older blade mounted on fairly nice WW2 Shin Gunto mounts, possible to buy (not listed on Ebay). Overall, the sword is mediocre. The thing that really got me stumped is that the sword is clearly hira mune. I look on the web ... nothing. I looked in Hawley and Yumoto's The Samurai Sword but nothing much is said. I looked in Nagayama's The Connoisseur's Book of Japanese Swords, and it defined kaku mune succintly as "a completely flat back edge seen only on ancient swords, also known as hira mune." The sword is clearly not that old. I'm trying to get the owner to send me pictures of the tang. When I get the pics, I'll post them. All I know at this point is that the sword is mumei. I know what I am giving you is pretty thin, but would the hira mune character give us any leverage on the sword's provenance? Please help.

Regards,
Hoanh

BTW, nagasa is 26".

Hoanh,
Not so sure this isn't a Chinese fake. The habaki looks wrong, the ha-machi is rounded, the line where the shinogi meets the mune is wavy, nothing looks old. I could be wrong; just a hunch. Pix of nakago might tell us more.
Grey

Yes. Chinese?

Looks Japanese to me...
Just late war may be, it has shark skin instead ray skin.
Also original tsuka and Tsuba.
I don't see this sword as fake.

I'm with Grey.....

The thing that threw me off is that this sword does not look gaudy like a typical Chinese fake - no "Damacus" hada or anything like that. Also, as Jason pointed out, the tsuka and tsuba appear to be genuine. But, ..., so many details don't look right. In addition to what's already pointed out, the black leather cover on the saya doesn't look right to me either.

Regards,
Hoanh

My bet is on real, but WW2 manufacture, Showato that has had the usual buffing and sharpening.
Nothing too alarming that I see. I wouldn't even call hiramune without better pics.

Brian

Additional pics of the mune and nakago would be helpful in an evaluation.
My first thought was also showato and not a chinese fake. The black leather cover might have been added later on.
Cheers,

About the habaki:
Whenever you look at a sword pay attention to the habaki; it will tell you more about the blade than any other piece of kodogu. It, and it alone, was made specifically for the blade.
Below is a picture of a well made habaki. Ideally, when the blade is inserted into the saya, the habaki is tight in the koi guchi and suspends the blade inside the saya with a tiny clearance all around between the blade and the wood of the saya. This dead air prevents moisture moving through the wood from getting to the blade and causing a rust spot.
In order for the habaki to perform properly it has to be larger on all 4 sides than the blade; the habaki is tapered. The habaki on Haonh's sword doesn't taper; it is the same width as the blade and won't work well.
What this tells me about the sword in question is that it is either poorly made or a fake. I think fake is more likely but doesn't matter much one way or the other.
Of course, there can be exceptions, but in this case I don't think so. Even poorly made habaki, if made by someone who understands the purpose, will have a taper.
Grey

Hi Grey,

I see your point exactly. Very clearly put!

Regards,
Hoanh

While the photos of the nakago will be the defining factor, this to me just looks real/Japanese. Looks to me to just be a showato blade that has very poor shaping especially around the yokote.

Hello,

And I think it is a genuine massproduced WWII sword with numbers on the nakago.

/Martin

Also, the habaki has no inset for the munemachi...