MrJones

Good luck to all the NMB members in Japan - let's hope none of you need it. I think a lot of people with breathe easier once everyone's confirmed OK. As another thought, however, what of artefacts? I've heard one or two grim rumours of museums being hit by either the quake or the tsunami and their respective effects. Obviously details will be slow in coming, but one can only hope that the treasures of Japan's history are safe for future generations.

At reading this, my eyebrows rose just a tad. Pistols, y'say? How interesting. I understand that matchlock pistols were made in Europe, but weren't terribly popular owing to the difficulty of keeping the slow-match concealed and lit, unreliability of the weapon in poor weather, short range etc. However, obviously the Japanese found in them sufficient merit to equip themselves accordingly; what was that merit? I assume, by the way, that these pistols are something like this: http://www.kinko-koshirae-swords.com/sa ... tol__7.jpg

Thank you one and all for the helpful information. Makes me rather glad I couldn't afford to spend good money, really. However, I should like it noted that, although I have at least some idea of how a Kai-gunto should be constructed, if I've learned anything thus far in life it's that my knowledge is so limited as to be non-existent. I'd far sooner be cautious and ask questions, before basing decisions on my own meagre knowledge, than go off at half-cock while basking in the glory of my own ill-founded confidence. Perhaps I'm over-cautious, but with good reason, in short: I'm over-cautious because I remain very conscious of my ignorance and callowness in approaching this subject. Now I agree, that certainly looks very little like the standard description and image of a Kai-gunto. However, since I am ignorant - shamefully so - I refused to discount the possibility that it might be some strange variant thereof, or a rather beaten-about example, that I hadn't seen before. Happily, my ignorance is being whittled away, bit by bit. Copy of Military Swords of Japan now en route, for a start!

Very interesting, there, Matt; I'm surprised if that is the case, since T. Del Mar's stuff is usually pretty good. That said, one must never discount the possibility that an earlier collector was led astray. I fully intend to pick up a copy of Military Swords of Japan (along with Kaigun, Sunburst, Heavy Cruiser Takao and a bunch of other IJN-related stuff) as soon as possible. Might arrange that as my next inter-library loan, actually.

Howdy lads and lasses. I know this will seem horribly vague, but... well, having a job and all, I've started getting things that interest me at long last. Among these is a jezail, which has consumed a fair wodge of my time and money for the last six months; another long-term goal is a Japanese sword. Now, a week or so ago the catalogue for Thomas Del Mar's latest auction, down in London, came into my hands at work. While idly flicking through it at lunch, I suddenly stopped. Lot #7: "A Japanese NAVAL SWORD (KATANA), 20TH CENTURY with curved single-edged fullered blade, signed tang pierced with a single hole, iron tsuba, and iron mounts decorated with soft metal, in its saya 72.5cm; 28 1/2in blade Estimate: 200-300" http://www.thomasdelmar.com/Catalogues/ ... 0007-0.jpg Sadly, after a lot of thinking I've realised that I just can't afford to part with that kind of money on the run up to Christmas. Indeed, I'm still recovering from all the gun-related things I've had to get to work on my musket. It has, however, got me thinking; for the past 12 months I've thought about a Japanese sword, but now the very real prospect of getting a Kai-gunto seems, at last, to be in sight, and to have a piece of the Imperial Navy's history in my own hands would certainly be a joy. So, before I go launching money around at things, I'd like to know a little more about 'em. I've lurked here a while, as you know, and I've read that, among other things, most of them are stainless steel and machine-made (fair enough, they need to resist salt-water corrosion), and that they're rather rarer than the Army swords. Nonetheless, beyond that I know nothing much. What sort of market price do they command? Is this one more likely to be a gendaito or similar, being signed? Just how rare are they anyway? I know a stainless steel one probably isn't much of a cutter, but their historical value is surely quite high. So yes. Sorry for being so vague, but I reckon I can only ask and hope for some help from you very helpful chaps. Thanks very much! Meredydd Jones (By the way - figure I might as well get over this adolescent terror of using one's name on the web. I'm not exactly likely to be lured to a terrible fate from the NMB... and anyone that tried would get one hell of a shock )

It's just as bloody maddening here, too; I did hear rumours that the BBC was working on a Vuvuzela-free transmission for the UK, but so far nothing more seems to have come of it. I especially loathe the way they keep bellowing with the idiotic things during the national anthems; you could hardly hear Kimi ga yo last night. Still, it didn't seem to bother the Blue Samurai too much! :D

Ron, Most interesting to hear that "from the horse's mouth", so to speak. I have in my hand a copy of Bert Hall's fascinating book, Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology and Tactics, which contains a chapter exclusively dedicated to the vagaries of smoothbore ballistics. A wondrous subject in itself, that... but anyway. Hall refers extensively to a series of tests conducted at the Graz Steiermaerkisches Landeszeughaus in 1988-89, which we performed upon a number of muskets (rifled and smoothbore) and pistols (all smoothbore, though I suspect that goes without saying). He notes: (pp. 140-141) These tests were performed with the most assiduous attention to ensuring that only the inherent, mechanical inaccuracy of the weapon was what was being detected. Hall again: (p. 140)

I find all this most interesting. I'm no expert (as if that weren't clear), but I'd expect, as I said in the other Tanegashima thread (well, the other current Tanegashima thread), that converting a smoothbore barrel, built around the sorts of pressures generated by black powder and firing a reasonably large bullet, to take a modern cartridge (i.e. a post-1884-ish, smokeless powder cartridge) would be not only difficult, but not particularly useful and possibly dangerous to boot. Even by 1883, European powers were moving, while retaining black powder as the propellant, to smaller bullets for their standard-issue cartridges, and one would have thought that attempting to discharge, say, an 8mm bullet down a 12.7mm (.50) barrel would have been a dodgy proposition when it comes to accuracy; even with, say, a .45 or an 11mm bullet, the windage would be on the same order as that exhibited by ordinary muzzle-loaders. Is it perhaps possible that these weapons, if they were conversions, were all made in a small time period - say from ~1867 to ~1885? Or perhaps the Japanese who converted these weapons were able to purchase surplus, or obsolete ammunition for their weapons? It seems much more likely that Ron and Ian have it - these "conversions" were modern action and barrel fittings added to a traditional stock. Perhaps many Japanese gunners found it decidedly jarring to move from their old Tanegashima to these strange Western things with big, flat, heavy stocks and butts, though I wonder what the recoil from a modern "nitro propellant" cartridge would feel like when transferred through a Tanegashima-style stock. Also, and just to throw everyone - does anybody know why the Japanese went in for those vast, flared muzzles? It seems to me to be both a waste of metal - and thereby money - and an encumbrance, adding weight where one doesn't need it and unbalancing the piece. I await the enlightened responses with anticipation...

Cheers Ron, a very helpful description indeed. One question: the recommended treatment for use if the gun is not to be used "for a while" should last for quite some time, I take it? Obviously, being a small museum and not having anywhere to do it (though I'd love to - sigh) we don't get chance to shoot our pieces, even if they're in good condition and working order, metallurgically and mechanically. Still working on our latest acquisition, I'm now at the stage of de-rusting (as far as possible) and then oiling the barrel for protective purposes. You should've seen the face of the local gunshop's attendant when I asked for a .60 brush and a four-foot cleaning rod ... I'd quite like to possess a caplock Tanegashima, now I think about it... Added: Also, Piers and others: Converting a Tanegashima to bolt-action!? Sounds like quite a tall order. I may be wrong here, but wouldn't the barrel be a problematic area? Bolt-action being largely associated with smokeless powder, I'd have thought using a black powder barrel - a smoothbore at that - with a modern smokeless cartridge, firing a small bullet, would produce results that were at best inaccurate, and at worst very unpleasant for one's face.

Piers, very nice indeed. "Bisen" seems to be analogous to a threaded breech plug in Western guns. On that subject, it's interesting to hear that the Japanese disdain civil, "hunting" guns in favour of the military pieces. From what I've read, in the West, the gun produced for a hunter - i.e. mostly for the reasonably wealthy squires and gentry - was generally superior to the "mass-produced" military firearms of the period, made to tighter tolerances and with possibly greater quality control. A source (which I don't have handy at work) noted that, in essence, a well-made 16th-century arquebus such as might be ordered by the wealthy nobility for hunting (or indeed for armed service) would shoot as well as, or better than, a military musket of the 18th or early 19th centuries, such as a common-or-garden Brown Bess, lock notwithstanding - and even then, a wheel-lock could, I'd expect, achieve reliability comparable to a flintlock; being so costly, a wheel-lock arquebus/musket would probably be a piece made for those of some considerable means. Anyway, the practical side of this is that I'm surprised that the reverse was true in Japan. I'm not exactly hot on Japanese history, especially between the Sengoku-jidai and the Meiji restoration, but I thought the Tokugawa's antipathy toward firearms (at least in large-scale public use) would have meant that the only guns not made for military service would be high-quality hunting weapons for use by the wealthy and powerful, rather than the Japanese equivalent of a cheap-and-cheerful farmer's 12-bore.

Interesting, Piers. I'm just imagining how I would use such a device, and guess that you'd hold the end of the line around the left hand finger as described, and then one could simply tug it to open the pan lid prior to firing, thus saving a few seconds of adjusting grip (and all its inherent effects on accuracy and timing of fire) and so on to do it with the right instead. Am I far off?

More than satisfactorily, Ron; thank you both, gents, for yet another insight. Now I'm going to bother everyone with a yet more simple query: what exactly does "monme" denote?

Ron, what a beautiful piece! I'm certainly glad that the NMB covers guns as well as swords. If I may, I'd like to pose some more (doubtless rather simple) questions for the experts hereabouts (i.e. everyone but yours truly). I expect they'll all have been answered many a time before... First, that lock. It's really quite beautiful, but if I'm not mistaken the mainspring appears to be a coil spring. I didn't know this was at all common on any lock of this period, and am interested to know more about it. Why did the Japanese adopt such a mechanism, and when? It seems to me (as an utter novice) that such a spring would be decidedly more difficult to manufacture, and possibly more fragile, than the much simpler V-springs prevalent in Western guns. Did the weapons first introduced to Japan, perhaps, have a similar spring? I'm especially curiosu since a quick gander into the operation of the snapping matchlock turned up this happy picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Japan ... eum_SF.JPG Secondly, and still on that subject, does anyone have any insights on how they eliminated what I understand to have been the principal difficulty with the snapping matchlock - that of extinguishing the match if an overly strong spring were used? The obvious possibility that occurs is, simply, that of very careful manufacture; perhaps this and that coiled mainspring are connected. Third, I notice the gun is fitted with what seems to be a backsight, highly unusual on most Western muzzle-loaders unless they happened to be rifled. I'm assuming this piece isn't rifled, but I'd be most interested in finding out why, if it isn't, the Japanese bothered with a backsight in a weapon known, even with careful loading and shooting, to be highly inaccurate at the sort of ranges where one might use a backsight.

Well, I too suppose I can number myself among the young - and definitely among the near-totally ignorant. 22 years old (23 in July), I've been fascinated by military history since I was a very small boy; my degree is in military history, and toward the end of my time studying (I'd still like to do a Master's degree, but money is most definitely an object), I started to gravitate towards the Imperial Japanese Navy. Unfortunately, that interest has led to a succession of branching interests. To understand the Imperial Navy, one must understand its men, its machines, its doctrines and so forth; to understand those, one must look to the people and state that created them; and to understand the Japanese people and nation requires that one study the history, culture and (oh gawd) the language. Nihonto are, unsurprisingly, a significant aspect of that. The technology they incorporate, the purposes and thinking behind their design, the history of their use and the men who make and wield them are all bound together with the huge whole. In a heartwarming aside (d'aww), it's all my father's fault; he was the one who bought me the late M. J. Whitley's Battleships of World War II: an International Encyclopaedia. Having browsed the British ships - the floating castles of a glorious past ,gone long before I first saw our green and pleasant land - I started ambling through the rest of the book, and came across two photographs of HIJMS Fuso, running her trials in Bungo Suido after her first, 1933 modernisation. I don't think even heroin bends the mind quite so quickly as those two images bent mine towards the IJN... As for acquiring Nihonto (or indeed, Shin gunto) of my own... I somehow doubt my income could support it, for the moment - and besides, the last time I tried my hand at any of the Japanese martial arts (ninjitsu), at the age of 18, my self-consciousness overcame my wary curiosity, so it seems unlikely I'd be able to acquire one for practice :lol:

Argh! I bury myself in database and things for two days and the thread's gone off on a tangent! Oh well. Piers, I'm amazed to see that many re-enactors in one place, let alone that many with working guns! I can just imagine what the police would say around these parts. But still, I'm even more pleased to see that you shoot yourself, so I can get it from the horse's mouth: how are these Japanese guns? How do you find you perceive the recoil, in relation to a Western muzzle-loader of roughly similar proportions? Perhaps excluding caplocks from that query. I said I couldn't imagine it being comfortable, having the arms taking all that energy, but I didn't realise I had a primary source of whom to enquire. And, speaking of multi-barrelled guns, I spotted on another forum; that little specimen struck me as looking and sounding very like the Chinese reproductions being discussed here. For some reason, they seem inclined to accept it as being a percussion-ignition gun, yet assess it as being 15th Century (if I recall); I wasn't aware that such an ignition mechanism was known, let alone used, as far back as that. And Ian - I didn't know Durs Egg were contracted to produce Nock guns; I'd always read that they were all produced at Nock's themselves, hence the name.

Piers, While I'm aware of the original configuration of guns - the very early, pot-like "hand gonne" of the 14th century - I'm still puzzled by the weird and wonderful shape of the Jezail, for reasons upon which I shall elaborate later. However, with regard to Japanese guns, your suggestion is interesting. Most muzzle-loading pistols seem to have been designed at least partially to function as clubs, as I'm sure you're well aware; however, if I'm not mistaken, Western long guns made little special adaptation toward this function, it presumably being considered that an eleven-pound, four-foot club was quite adequate as a melee weapon. As to recoil absorption, I find it a little difficult to believe that the method you suggest, involving as it does significant stress to the arm of the firer and a lot of movement by the gun, would produce particularly good results; surely, with the surprisingly high muzzle velocities of early modern firearms, this movement would be quite unpleasant for the firer? One of the things I've been told (doing what little shooting I have done) is that one should never let the weapon work up any velocity in the recoiling direction; bracing the butt firmly against the shoulder, and maintaining a tight grip on the fore stock and hand grip, are both key components of this prevention process, rather than letting the weight of the gun be accelerated to a velocity where its impact hurts. That said, I can imagine that letting the gun recoil a fairly long way, and simply letting one's arms "take the strain", in conjunction with the different grip used by Japanese musketeers (ashigaru of some sort?), would perhaps be quite effective. Likewise, I'd never considered the fact that Japanese musketeers evidently wore armour, something their European counterparts rarely enjoyed; perhaps the armour provides an extra sort of cushioning effect for the wearer; and I'm most interested by your point that larger and larger guns were used in this way. Is the o-deppo a sample of that breed? To return (briefly) to our Jezail: I've been experimenting with different ways of gripping the piece with a view to understanding that curved stock. Holding it beneath the shoulder, in the crook of the arm, seems to me a most unsatisfactory arrangement; firstly, it provides little to no benefit in recoil absorption, suggesting that the entire butt could have been dispensed with (producing something that looks like a giant, very old combat shotgun, perhaps!); secondly, it negates the use of the backsight on a rifled weapon (which this particular gun is, though I understand many Jezail were not), which rather makes one wonder why they put it on in the first place (it seems to have been made integral to the barrel, i.e. forged with it); and thirdly, it places one's face uncomfortably close to the lock, and especially the priming pan. Anyway, sorry to drift off topic. I can honestly say that, once again, I've been shown something I'd never even conceived of. Heck, I didn't even realise that Japanese musketeers wore armour! Thank you, good sir, for enlightening a young, over-eager student. I just hope I'm not coming over as a bit of an arrogant beggar.

Oh my... I can't help but agree, I love the Oo-deppo. Reminds me not a little of the much later Western "elephant guns" in its dimensions, though by the look of that pic the bore is considerably smaller - about 0.6-0.7in? It's a magnificent thing, nonetheless; I can only assume, too, that the barrel wall thickens as it approaches the breech! And never mind the bloke carrying it - pity the poor lad whose ears are only slightly removed from the muzzle whenever she fires... Incidentally, I have a question. The characteristic Japanese butt design seems to be very different to that of Western firearms, even of this period (though not nearly so odd as the Afghan jezail; we've just acquired one in the last week, another project to look into!), exhibiting a pronounced drop at the base of the stock and producing that characteristic, steeply curved shape. I've looked at these many times and can't help but think it's not at all comfortable-looking; when I last visited the RA, I stood and tried to envisage how I would hold such a weapon, and reckoned the butt would probably rest near the top of the shoulder (if one was to have any sort of aim, that is), which would probably be quite nasty when firing for prolonged periods. Does anyone have any information on why the Japanese design evolved thus? And, although it's off topic, does anyone know of a forum that specialises in Eastern firearms? :lol:

The delay was, I should hasten to add, partially my fault; I wasn't really happy with posting anything myself, in the knowledge that a) I'm ignorant on the subject and b) I might therefore misrepresent what I an had said. Happily, however, all is well. With regard to the remaining two swords, unfortunately one's grip components overlapped completely the mekugi (as I recall; many pints of good ale seem to have done my memory no good), and it was felt best to leave them in place rather than damage the samegawa and tsuka-ito. The other had been wrapped with Ian judged (to my astonishment) to be... masking tape! Many, many years old, it was faded to brown but still seemingly rather sticky and resilient. Erk. As Ian has said here, he felt they were both likely to be Showato, so I was happy to leave them alone. Rather a shame, but such is life. Needless to say, I was rather pleased (not to mention a bit awestruck) to find myself holding what seems to be a blade considerably older than, among other things, either of the regiments in the museum's earliest antecedents! At any rate, I'm supremely grateful to Ian for having come along in his own free time to have a look at our blades, and it was a privilege both to learn so much, and to have him take the time to come to our small organisation. Ian, many thanks indeed. Now, a few questions on my part (for my own curiosity as much as anything). Firstly: Having perused a most interesting page on Showa-era swords (linked from here, at http://ryujinswords.com/shostamp.htm ), I'm curious about the quality, not so much as artistic items but as weapons, of the two Koa-Isshin Mantetsu weapons in our museum. How good, really, were these blades? The above page has led me to suspect better than the conventional wisdom on Showato might decree, but still. A board full of experts is always better than just one source. Secondly: Ian mentioned "scouring" of the blades; I'd observed that they were generally in a fairly battered state (with not a few having many patches of very black, very old rust), but what exactly does this term mean? I can only suppose that the blades, as well as being unpolished, have a literally scoured or scratched appearance when viewed closely. Ian mentioned (in the course of enlightening me on a good many other things!) that the difference between polished and unpolished blade was, to say the least, pronounced. Is this sort of thing part of that difference? Thirdly: Regarding our Bizen blade, which Ian has described as deserving further examination; how would this be possible, if the museum wished?

I'm afraid I'm not lucky enough to be at the Castle Museum; ours is the Regimental Museum of the Royal Dragoon Guards, which is near the Castle Museum but on the opposite side of Clifford's Tower. In the same building (indeed, the same room) there is also the Regimental Museum of the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment of Yorkshire (now part of the Yorkshire Regiment, along with the Green Howards, Duke of Wellington's Regt. and the Lancs and Yorks Regt. if I recall rightly). I have to confess that these weapons - two in our part, six in theirs - are more part of the regiments' stories than any sort of coherent exhibit on Japanese weapons, however. We're really here to tell the story of our regiments' 325 years of history, rather than to display exclusively this or that, so I'm not sure how much interest it would hold to anyone purely after nihonto. But still, feel free to come along; the more the merrier, and we do have a lot of exhibits from those 325 years. Uniforms, weapons, medals, standards, helmets, trophies, all the usual paraphernalia of a regiment. Oh, and also, a stuffed horse of sorts.

Indeed, I appear to have been most fortunate not to have ruined something priceless and utterly irreplacable. And yes, I am supremely lucky to have Ian to assist in improving my minimal-to-non-existent knowledge of these magnificent weapons. I happened to go looking at the ones in the other half of the museum (being extremely careful not even to breathe near them, now!) and spotted another shin gunto that seemed to be quite different from the rest; its rounded tsuba looks like one of iron, but is very dark in colour and appears to have gold fittings on it; having been here, I breathed very deeply and thought, "that could be patina. Thank gawd I didn't try to clean that in a spare moment"! Anyway, I'll await Ian with interest. Hopefully we're all set to meet on Tuesday, so I'm looking forward to learning an awful lot in a short time... and also most interested to learn of the UK token (SP?) association's common meeting-place, apparently a pub with which I'm familiar...

Ian, that would be excellent indeed. I'd be honoured to have an expert come and ID our blades; I'm sure they're nothing particularly special, but it would certainly be good to know precisely who made them and where. I'll PM you shortly; thanks very much for the offer. And for that matter, thanks to those of you who've taken the time to look at this thread so far. I'm quite sure that I'll never, ever make the foolish judgement I made in carefully cleaning this particular piece again, and John, that site to which you provided a link is fascinating indeed!

Grey, I can't say I'd ever come across that particular facet of nihonto construction before. With that in mind, the picture becomes quite different; I've no right to damage the work of a skilled artisan, and I seem to have been very lucky, and, as you said above, done damage only to mass-produced fittings manufactured during wartime. At least I had enough sense not to use a Brillo pad, but it seems that's about all the redemption I can hope for. Lesson, unfortunately very belatedly, learned. The worst bit is that I should have enquired here before even thinking about doing anything.

It was for precisely this reason that I refrained entirely from doing anything more than running a cloth, very gently, along the sides of the blade itself, or for that matter of so much as touching the nagako. I am, even if only dimly, aware of the need for very special care in dealing with these swords, and especially in caring for their blades. I may be no specialist but I am by no means wholly ignorant. Now, I am also aware that patina is valued, especially by collectors, as evidence of a piece's life, if you will; patina signifies the many years of uncomplaining existence the object has endured, and collectors like patination. Fair enough. What, however, of the aesthetic value of displaying an object in the best condition you can, consistent with preserving its integrity? What is more interesting to the visitor - a gallery filled with tired, dulled objects, or a gallery in which those objects, while preserving their integrity, are at least displayed in the best possible condition consistent with their safety? Unless removal of the patina is going to cause sudden and serious degradation of the brasswork (which would be worrying in a climate-controlled environment regularly watched over by staff), it seems to me that there is equal value in keeping the piece looking its best, and presented in a manner that is interesting to the public. Understand that I am not saying, here, that I am some superior expert; I'm not, which is why (as I said) I left the blade well alone. I am, however, not a collector, and not interested in the value of the piece; it's not going to be for sale any time soon (well, I hope not anyway). What I am interested in is three things: knowing what it is, knowing if possible how old its blade is, and displaying it for the edification of the general public. Now I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong, if I am - but I'd like a reason other than "a good patina helps to give it character", or "it can help determine the age somewhat". One could well say the same thing about a quietly tarnished piece of silver or a dried, almost cracking wooden figure, or a book whose leather is dry from many years of hard wear. (As a minor aside, I am curious as to what the men of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy did with their weapons. Did they leave them to grow a natural patina, or were they made to polish them to perfection?) Please be aware, Grey, that I am not trying to be confrontational. Nor, however, am I a total imbecile, and the implication of your post was not too far short of that mark. I'd appreciate a slightly more useful contribution than what amounts to "you are a moron". I can appreciate why collectors prefer a patina, and I can appreciate that it may have some value in helping to tell you things about the object. I still, nonetheless, am not sure why a non-destructive process performed on many objects throughout the ages is castigated as "destroying" the object in some manner.

Thanks! I might, you never know... but then again, I hardly know anyone up here! I moved to this city (York) a couple of months ago, and it's taken that long just to get to know my housemates. Of course, the fact I spend my post-work nights slobbing in front of the PC (and reading lots and lots of history) doesn't help that. Anyway, I'm now going to demonstrate my magnificent ignorance: shinsa?

Hello there everyone! I work for a small military museum over here in the sunny North of England, and in our collection we have (among many other blades - 31 were on display last time I counted!) a pair of what are, I think, shin gunto, probably both mid- to late-war. All the data we possess on them are, unfortunately, that they were "Japanese Officers' swords" surrendered to a British General at Singapore (we think), upon the surrender of Japan in 1945. When I dug the first of these out of its case for cleaning and general inspection, I did at least have the sense to do some research before going about my business; however, I feel it pertinent to emphasise now that, since this weapon is being displayed in a museum, keeping all of its fittings, etc in a state of good repair and cleanliness comes above the interest of collectors. So, I make no apologies for the shininess of the tsuba, habaki and to some extent the menuki. This weapon is being displayed to the public; in addition, at least to me, it seems the least I can do to commemorate the man who fought with it all those years ago. The war's long over, after all. Anyway, enough philosophy. The sword is generally, from what I can see, in decent shape; to start from the top, the copper kashira is intact and still carries its mounting ring for a tassel, although the tassel itself is missing; the tsuka-ito is somewhat faded, but largely intact, though sadly it has been severed in one place and thus come away, and probably lost its tension as well. The samegawa is all present and correct, and I think white rayskin. Both menuki are also present and correct. (Incidentally, do correct me on terminology if I'm wrong!) The mekugi is, much to my chagrin, missing, although the mekugi-ana is fortunately still accessible; this has enabled me to put a piece of fishing wire through and loop it around the tsuka, albeit loosely so as to avoid putting pressure on the tsuka-ito. When I first tried to pull the sword from its saya, I (showing my youthful ignorance) grasped it by the tsuka and gave it a firm pull - at which point the entire assembly shot off the nagako into my hand! I needed a cigarette after that one... The seppa are all where they should be, as is the habaki. The tsuba appears to be a fairly ordinary piece of cast brass, with four five-petalled flowers (I assume either a rather poor representation of the Imperial chrysanthemum, or perhaps of something else... memory lapse, I had one in mind but it's flown out of my head) at the corners. The blade catch is just about intact, but the tsuka-ito is badly damaged around its upper end and so it is poorly secured; in addition, the saya is so badly worn on the inside that the catch has nothing upon which to grip, making the mechanism non-functional. Now, on to the blade. The blade is around 23-24in long (i.e. near or exactly 2 feet, or 60cm) and has a fairly shallow curve, which seems to be normal. (Again, correction desirable if necessary.) The habaki is around an inch long and looks to be gold. There is a pretty clearly visible hamon (which is what got me excited), which appears to be pretty straight (i.e. its upper edge doesn't undulate very much); there are plenty of random, if smallish, variations in the edge, which made me wonder if it had been hand-made (and thus hand-applied). The grain of the blade is also visible, but lacks that... oddly swirly quality that I have seen in pictures (and examples) of katana and tachi when looking at polished blades. In this case, one can see a clear, straight pattern running longitudinally. The blade lacks any fullers. The mune is as straight as a die all the way along the blade, as are the shinogi on both sides; the blade also has a nice, prominent yokote. The blade does exhibit some damage; the very tip of the blade is slightly bent and compacted, obviously from an impact; just below this there is a nick in the edge of the blade. A quick run alone the mune showed nothing, save for some small specks of black staining of some variety. This staining is also visible on the right-hand side of the blade, around an inch down from the habaki, and I have an unpleasant feeling may be rust as a result of careless handling some years ago (we always use latex gloves!). On the left-hand side, there are various small scuffs and scratches (most of them very small), and a further nick diagonally along the shinogi, about 8.5in from the tip. I realise, of course, that all this guff isn't much use without pictures, and of course that any info on the blade will be a bugger to get without a good pic and/or rubbing of the nagako's inscription. Unfortunately, that will have to come tomorrow - I aim to have the works digicam up and running by early afternoon, so hopefully I'll be able to get you chaps some pictures. In the meanwhile, however, can you tell me anything in particular from that, apart from "it's a sword"?