Jump to content

Navy

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Navy

  1. This is why I find so interesting the Japanese WW2 blades: unlike the western sabres (with the rare exception of those issued to cavalry mounted troops), which are essentially uniform/dress adjunct, they were intended to be used in the field, and saw actual, extensive use in every battleground, even in the air!
  2. Arigatō gozeimass, useful inputs here. Some more bits to evaluate this sword and decide about it. Thanks again!
  3. Dōmo arigatō gentlemen; any chance to have the nagako translated? Is there any stamping showing the date she has been made?
  4. Hi to you all; I've already posted this blade, but due the site crash I hadn't the time to read carefully the answers (thanks for those who replied), thus I ask for your help again. This sword is in gunto koshirae type 98, has a nagasa of 67 cm, the smith should be Yoshimitsu and, despite advertised as Taisho blade, the seller defines it as semi-traditional gunto. Due the presence of the "torokusho" license I understand this souldn't be a mass produced, only machine-made blade, am I wrong? Unfortunately I'm not able to read Japanese kanji's, so would someone of you experts be so kind to translate the nakago's writings? Those painted in red are also present on the tsuka. I find this sword interesting, so I'd like to know more about it. Thanks in advance, M.
  5. Thanks Chris! May I ask you what the Nagoya arsenal stamp could mean? Did that arsenal make blades besides rifles and bayonets? This nakago lacks seki and showa stamps, and the oshigata hasn't the Kanesane kokuin, just the two smith's kanji. Regards, Marzio
  6. Dear collectors, thanks to the informations given by this forum I'm trying to do my homeworks diligently, so I attempted to translate the nakago of this type 3 gunto I'm spotting. If I did it correctly, the smith should be Kanesane, and the production date should be November 1943 (in order from above: Showa era + 18 year (-1) and 11th month); it hasn't the usual seki stamp, but just that one which seems to me a "na" symbol (Nagoya?) Is it right? Regards, Marzio
  7. Thanks to you all! Actually, it does have the boshi (as for the togishi words), but for that sum I think it's better to view in person the blade, including the nakago... I don't like too much the fact that it is mumei and reworked in the machi area recently... Marzio Italy
  8. Ok collectors, after a couple of days of "investigation", I didn't get the pics of the nakago but I spoke with the togishi which made his job some years ago on that blade: it was heavily rusted, the nakago is mumei with sign of suriage (2 mekugi ana), and both the machi's were milled almost to the same level of the nakago, so he had to work seriously on them (and actually a gap between the mune and the upper corner of the fuchi is well noticeable); in his opinion the blade (by the shape of hamon and sugata) is a good one, possibly a copy of bizen school, made at the end of 1700. Asking price is 2.800... Regards, Marzio
  9. ... 1700 AC, or XVIII century... I know, no tang, no party, but that red Tsuka? Marzio
  10. Dear collectors, I spotted this sword in a on-line gunshop and I like to have your opinion on it; it has an unusual WWII koshirae, and that red tsuka ito ; the seller states it is an old blade, made around '700; to my untrained eyes it seems an old blade, fitted with WWII parts; I know you need nakago pics to better evaluate it, but what do you think at a glance? Thanks, Marzio Italy
  11. I did it above, I forgot to do it on the last 2 posts. Thanks to you all for your appreciated assistance. Regards, Marzio Italy
  12. Mmmm, maybe a "crew gunto" (private order)? But someone is suggesting me the blade had a suriage in the past.
  13. Hi KM, I've been told this sword (wakizashi) should be a late Edo/early Meiji period, so a traditional made blade... Did the military arsenals make also mass produced wakizashi during WWII?
  14. I tried to get some detailed pics, but I guess I need a better camera... Any comments will be really appreciated, thanks in advance. Marzio Italy
  15. Dear collectors, first of all thanks to you all for your previous inputs; the sword is finally arrived so I'm here again with new pics and measures: - nagasa 57,5 cm (roughly 22,63 in; so is it a wakizashi?) - kissaki 3,5 cm (1,37) - nakago (mumei) 18 cm (7,08) - blade height at yokote 2,3 cm (0,90) - blade height at munemachi 2,8 cm (1,10) The hamon (gunome?) is visible but not crisp, and I think there is some hada on the blade. I can't find out the boshi. In the boshi area, to the right side near the ha there is a kizu Other than this, the sword seems quite healthy. Marzio Italy
  16. Dear collectors, I'm considering to add this specimen to my WWII weapons collection; I'm used to collect mainly firearms and I have only a very very basic knowledge on Japanese blades, so I would like to have your opinion on this sword before getting my final decision. I don't expect to get a Nihonto specimen, but instead a true WWII, collectible piece. The seller have been told the blade could be late '800/early '900 production, and he bought the sword in Japan some years ago. The tsuka is a bit loose, and the same, which is dark in color (as for the pics) doesn't fully wrap the handle but instead there are two "sheets" applied on it. The scabbard under leather is wooden made, with a copper (?) throat piece. He stated there are not dings or major scratches on the blade. The nagako is mu mei, and not arsenal marked. Asking price is 1.100 out of the door. Thank you in advance for your inputs and happy New Year to you all, Marzio Palitta Italy
×
×
  • Create New...