Maple Creek

Here's what I understand about sword from our earlier discussion thread. I'd welcome corrections, additional information or opinions. This was one of a pair of swords found by a friend in the home of a WWII vet. The vet was in the navy in the Pacific. My friend discovered the swords wrapped in cloth and stuffed into the rafters in the basement of the home. The swords were as-found relics, probably in exactly the same condition as when they were brought back to the States after the war. They had never been in a collection before. If you followed the earlier discussion thread, you know that a potential buyer removed the leather combat wrap or tang on the handle in order to remove the handle and examine the markings on the upper part of the blade. The stitches, therefore, are not original. The stitching on the tang when I got it was not original either because it didn't match the imprint on the leather, but given the history of the piece, my guess is that this was a period adjustment. I’m not a sword expert (learning ), but the collector who examined the piece provided some information. It was made by Hiromitsu a Showa during the war. This was a lesser known sword smith. The 28” blade is rare for a Showa piece. The handle under the leather is in very good condition and is all complete. The hole in the handle does not match the wooden handle where the wooden pin goes. This suggests the handle was replaced at some point, but because of the history of the piece, my feeling about it is that the handle was most likely a WWII period replacement. When found, the handle was pushed on firmly and did not separate from the blade. Additional photos: http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/maple_creek/library/Japanese%20Sword

The sword, like anything I sell on eBay, could have been returned for a full refund for any reason. It just needed to be returned in the same condition as sent, which this was not. My feeling about the piece is that the modifications , specifically the possible replacement of the handle and the stitching that was on the tang when I got it, were period done, or at least possibly period done. Of course, I could be wrong, which is one of the reasons I offered an unconditional return. Part of the charm of this piece was the opportunity to be the first person (possibly at least) since WWII to disassemble the thing and find out if it was made by a rare of valuable maker. Personally, I've grown to be adverse to mucking around with WWII relics, so I probably would have left the piece as is if I had chosen to keep it. I understand, however, that sword collectors like to see the maker marks. The PayPal dispute was resolved in Geoff's favor, but I've appealed. Some of the evidence that I submitted, including comments from here didn't upload for some reason. I think this dispute is partly a generational issue. Older collectors from Geoff's and my generation used to not give much thought to pulling military relics apart, switching parts, etc. Younger collectors are mostly adverse to that kind of thing. I've noticed from my sales that "out-of-the-woodwork" stuff gets a significant premium, so I always highlight this if I find something apparently unmodified that hasn't been in a collection before. Unfortunately, this piece no longer qualifies as "out-of-the-woodwork." Thanks again for everybody's input, including Geoff. The dispute is a drag, of course, but I've enjoyed going through a learning curve on Japanese swords. Mark D.

Thanks to everybody who has weighed in and offered opinions. I really appreciate your views and your help especially as I am new to this field of collecting. The buyer is a member of this forum, so hopefully this will help us resolve the dispute. I'll let you all know what the outcome is. Cheers, Mark D.

I'm new to Nihonto and am seeking some help resolving a eBay dispute I'm having with a buyer - my first ever The title of the sale was "WWII Japanese Officer’s Samurai Katana Sword – Out of the Woodwork." At least two members here participated in the bidding. Here's the link: http://www.ebay.com/itm/300906762352?ssPageName=STRK:MESOX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1559.l2649 The buyer wants a refund, which is fine as my policy is to offer full refunds for any reason. However, my policy also states that items must be returned in the same condition sent. The main point of dispute is that in my opinion the sword is not being returned in the same condition as sent. The buyer differs in on this point. The buyer undid the stitching on the combat wrap of this piece and restitched it with new thread. He wouldn't contest this. My view is that this disqualifies the item for refund, or at least calls for a partial refund only. The buyer thinks it's not a big deal and wants a full refund. The buyer pointed out, correctly, that the stitching on the sword was not original anyway because it did not match the imprint on the leather. I think it is at least possible that the stitching on the handle when I got the sword was period done. At any rate, I don't think it should have been removed if the buyer intended to return the piece. I'm a collector of military helmets, so am out of my depth with swords. In my field, however, an equivalent modification of a helmet would be a no-no if you intended to return it. So I'm seeking disinterested views of people who are knowledgeable sword collectors. I told the buyer that I would refund him 100% if there was a consensus view among reputable collector/dealers his modification is not significant, but have asked him to abide if the consensus judgement is different. 1) Is the sword in your opinion returnable given my conditions of return (i.e. must be returned in the same condition) 2) Is he eligible for a full refund? 3) If he's eligible for a partial refund, what's the correct adjustment? The sale price was $2,391. Thanks in advance for your help. Additional photos: http://s1008.photobucket.com/user/maple_creek/library/Katana Mark D.