Jump to content

Shamsy

Gold Tier
  • Posts

    1,402
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Shamsy

  1. Fittings are so incredibly varied and range from terribly cast junk to exquisite artisan's craft. The blade looks OK, but with Brian here, need more pictures of the naked blade, especially the tang to provide an informed opinion.
  2. Hi Rob, Great observations and now I'm looking properly, I see issues. Apologies Tyler for not being thorough the first time I looked. You're absolutely right about the saya screw. Looks like a replacement, unless the original screw were flattened (very unlikely, but the brass can be soft), or its just a bad picture that makes it look flat. Agree with your observation on the Inspect stamp. It does look odd, but I suspect it is just a poorly struck Nagoya Army Arsenal stamp. When they aren't very well struck, they can look odd. Where is the blade stamp. Well it may be missing, as certainly happened on occasion. It may be a little further down the blade and not visible, though the examples I just checked are all very close to the numbers. They are very faintly struck though (while the numbers are deeply struck). Could be the light or the photo again and just not visible. I THINK I can VERY faintly see it, I've attached a pic of where I think I see it. The serial numbers are in the correct range for Gifu. Correct orientation too. The saya has the screw on the correct side (right) but the numbers on the saya aren't in focus... not liking that. I can't actually see what they are and if they are matching, but they probably are. Seek clarification on the screw and confirm matching numbers, Tyler. If the numbers don't match, hard pass. If the screw is a replacement... personally I'd pass, but up to you. 95 spare parts are hens teeth.
  3. Yes it is real and a nice uncommon one in good condition. Great start to 95s. Edit: seeing issues, read on.
  4. Another one. There seem to be a fair few of that style of sword. Some are signed, others like mine, just have the painted numbers. Sadly mine lost all the black paint. I know Stegel's sword has it all intact though and most of the other examples I've seen have the black paint remaining.
  5. Well they are short gunto, so title seems correct to me!
  6. It is the eventual dating of links and removal of listing's that has prompted us to collect images here as opposed to early on when I shared links. The images already in this thread probably cover all the older or more 'classic' fakes, which would have been listed in that original link.
  7. White or nickel? Is it possible to tell from the photo? I'm absolutely not doubting the existence of white saya (now faded to off cream) and the plausibly of this actually being used in a snow environment. But black and white photographs need to be carefully considered.
  8. Copied from another thread to prevent myself from having to repeat this later While I have been spurred to action. I've previously mentioned I'm rather dubious about calling a number of the less common colours a 'camouflage'. Too often casual statements without any basis at all in documentation become 'fact' when read online. Especially when there is no disclaimer that it is an opinion or guess, or the guess is stated as a fact. While I was looking for examples of plexiglass modifications in LaBar's excellent book on Japanese bayonets (for a different thread and topic), I found the souvenirs thread. Wouldn't you know, some of the examples have the same colours of paint and unusual mixes (like black with gold highlights) we have seen on 95s. Worth popping in here as an example at least of why we might find some fancifully painted 95s with period appropriate patina. On a separate note. Looking through the whole book, there are two observations I'd like to add. There seem to be a fair number of black painted bayonet scabbards. Now, I've been and remain dubious about a good majority of black 95 saya. The pertinent questions are: Factory or field painted? Originally painted black or refurbished later? Why is there is such a variation in quality of finish (sometimes black is over metal and no traces of other paint, but regularly there are traces of a previous colour or sometimes at worst, the original paint seems to have black slapped straight over the top) There are a number of modern repaints to black to muddle this further There is no official documentation at all about the use of black or any particular reason to use it ('supply' doesn't cut it. As Nick stated, the army had a ready supply of 'red bean' paint which was used on equipment) At this point I'd like to state that I tentatively support the idea that A LIMITED NUMBER of black saya may be period and a further limited number of these appear to possibly original, with no traces of a previous paint under the black. However, just like EVERYONE else with an opinion on these, there is no primary evidence nor reasoning explaining why black may have been used. That is something where we are still looking for answers. All we have are a mixed bag of examples, not very conducive to a neat explanation.
  9. Unless you found a collector who really wants an example of a saya in Red bean, no effect on price I'm afraid. I'd hazard that you won't find anyone in that boat. Things like that don't usually matter to a buyer. Afraid there is no way to verify the origins. Unless there is some sort of documentation, but I wouldn't get your hopes up. Anything you'd likely find would have been with the sword.
  10. Red bean is an extremely rare variation to the usual greens and browns of saya. There are only a handful of these I've seen. It was typically used to paint field equipment later in the war and there is no evidence to suggest the use of this colour is in any way linked to rank or personal preference (which seeing as an NCO does not own their sword, wouldn't likely happen). Pure speculation, but it's probably only used when the more traditional colours weren't available and painting was required for maintenance and protection. There is an example of a Red bean 95 and bayonet in the Black Saya thread, around page 3 and 5 respectively. There are also examples of 98s with Red bean, but I didn't think to save these since Red bean is a relatively new concept to me (less than five years anyway) and 98s don't hold more than a passing interest.
  11. While I have been spurred to action. I've previously mentioned I'm rather dubious about calling a number of the less common colours a 'camouflage'. Too often casual statements without any basis at all in documentation become 'fact' when read online. Especially when there is no disclaimer that it is an opinion or guess, or the guess is stated as a fact. While I was looking for examples of plexiglass modifications in LaBar's excellent book on Japanese bayonets (for a different thread and topic), I found the souvenirs thread. Wouldn't you know, some of the examples have the same colours of paint and unusual mixes (like black with gold highlights) we have seen on 95s. Worth popping in here as an example at least of why we might find some fancifully painted 95s with period appropriate patina. On a separate note. Looking through the whole book, there are two observations I'd like to add. There seem to be a fair number of black painted bayonet scabbards. Now, I've been and remain dubious about a good majority of black 95 saya. The pertinent questions are: Factory or field painted? Originally painted black or refurbished later? Why is there is such a variation in quality of finish (sometimes black is over metal and no traces of other paint, but regularly there are traces of a previous colour or sometimes at worst, the original paint seems to have black slapped straight over the top) There are a number of modern repaints to black to muddle this further There is no official documentation at all about the use of black or any particular reason to use it ('supply' doesn't cut it. As Nick stated, the army had a ready supply of 'red bean' paint which was used on equipment) At this point I'd like to state that I tentatively support the idea that A LIMITED NUMBER of black saya may be period and a further limited number of these appear to possibly original, with no traces of a previous paint under the black. However, just like EVERYONE else with an opinion on these, there is no primary evidence nor reasoning explaining why black may have been used. That is something where we are still looking for answers. All we have are a mixed bag of examples, not very conducive to a neat explanation.
  12. Already replied in black saya thread, think this is cloth. You can see where it lifts away in three spots on the left where the background leg is darker.
  13. To me, it looks like white cloth like the handle. You can see the edges of cloth in the lower left side of the saya against the dark boot.
  14. That's not one you see every day, Trystan! LeBar actually has a few unusually painted scabbard that he lists as souvenir pieces. I'm thinking that the same thing likely applies to Type 95s and some of the less common colours or fancier combinations.
  15. Thus one was pointed out to me by Kiipu and first appeared on Warrelics. It's a little different again, mostly in that some of the stamps and serial numbers are upsidedown and a unique combination.
  16. Thank you for the extra links, Thomas. A bile thrown from both sides, but I liked and will copy the words in post #82 here as they seem most respectful, IMHO provide the most likely alternative scenario to a full-blown bubba and the author speaks with some authority on traditional swords, which I am sorely deficient in. From Edokko on Gunboards.com - Post #82 "I had just been made aware of this thread about the Masatsugu in T-95 mounts, and it’s an extremely interesting read to say the least ! I don’t see any issue with the description that the seller listed on his auction as he has mentioned clearly that the analysis of the sword is his own and not guaranteed, hence all bidder has been notified that the claim of originality and rarity is just an opinion of the seller. Therefore, as such, potential buyers should formulate his own assessment of the rig to place a bid value to it. Besides, it was a dollar starting auction, and who could fault that ! Having said that, here is my “opinion” and nothing more nothing less, “opinion”. This set up was probably created post war, but since the workmanship of the fitting is pretty good, I might make a guess that the slap together was done using un-issued T-95 mounting parts (hence unnumbered koikuchu) over a shirasaya’d Ki Masatsugu by a Japanese mounting craftsman under order of occupying souveniring GIs, or was created by the craftsman to sell as a souvenir to said GIs. The issue here is that Ki Masatsugu was an extremely highly regarded smith, of an IJA Jumei ranking with a second from the top highest being “Kihin Jo-I (distinguished in the highest), and his swords were “Sai-jo Oo-waza (top class quality)”, this being in the same ranking with smiths such as Gassan Sadamitsu. The only level higher than that were given to the likes of Gassan Sadakatsu, and Masatsugu’s dad Ki Masayuki (these smiths were ranked as “distinguished in the divine)”. A high level sword like Masatsugu’s cost a LOT of money back then, and no officer in his right mind let alone who could afford such a blade would force it on to a lousy lowly NCO T-95 mount like this. Moreover, as some of the posters here have mentioned, the lack of a Habaki is an absolutely fatal flaw as far as correct sword mounting is concerned, and no good sword fitter or an officer would let an expensive blade like a Ki Masatsugu be mounted without a habaki. A Habaki is one of most important of all components out of koshirae parts, even the tsuba and tsuka is considered secondary to the habaki as far as the functionality of the mounted sword is concerned, and this is just the way it is traditionally with Japanese swords, no exceptions. I have read the argument about navy dirks, parade sabers and Meiji era souvenir junk swords made without the habaki, but that argument will not hold water, as habaki-less dirks and sabers are originally derived from western designs and does not follow the Japanese sword design tradition to require habakis, and of course Meiji junk souvenir swords were…. exactly that, junk. The two T-95 mounted Masatsugus presented were dated April and June on 1945, both very very late in the war, but as you can see from the original peg-hole position, they were not made to fit the dual-ana Type 3 mounts, and were made to fit ordinary non-gunto mounts or perhaps a Type 98 mount but which were already obsoleted by then as far as military mount standards were concerned. So my guess is that both these blades were made late war by Masatsugu as perhaps by order of some sword dealer or wealthy individuals and placed in a shirasaya to be mounted on a newly made koshirae in the future when a wealthy customer would come around for a purchase order, which probably never happened as the war came to an end soon after and all hell broke loose as far as sword business was concerned. Then comes the occupying force, every allied officer and GI thirsty for a nice souvenir, so ok let’s slap together these Masatsugus (which no one in Japan can afford or wants anymore) with these junky T-95 spare parts mount components, and sell ‘em to the GIs to make them happy. Habaki wont fit ? lose it then, no matter, them GIs wouldn’t care nor will know the significance anyways ! (says the enterprising post war Japanese sword seller). Of course this is all pure conjecture on my part. In regards to paratrooper spec question. Regardless of what some long time collector may have claimed, so far I have not seen anywhere in original documentation where T-95 mounts were used specifically for IJA paratroopers. Of course if the paratroop was an NCO, he might have carried a T-95 on board, but that just about as much as it would go in terms of a paratroop connection. I’ve seen photos of IJA paratroopers with swords, and they carry whatever they had, not restricted to T-95 mounts." Please be aware the discussion goes on, but this reply at least I think we should capture here for posterity. What comes before and after is less pleasant to read.
  17. Not a bad one, but the numbers and bohi are a good give away.
  18. There is already an example of this batch in the fake 95 thread. I think these pictures are better so I'll add them there as another example.
  19. That's about how I feel. Never believed that fittings from 95s and officer blades were ever legitimately put together in wartime. The mixed 95 fittings ... no habaki... there is too much variety between these, not uniformed enough... plenty of examples that are absolutely crude bubbas... most likely just a coincidence that two have the same blade maker, but since we don't have any primary evidence, can't rule anything out. This one reminds me of all those 'last ditch naval swords' that were post war assembled to be sold as souvenirs. Just not as well done. Anyway, I've seen enough in Japanese military sword collecting to be cautious of creating very tenuously supported rumours which through word of mouth somehow become 'facts'.
  20. We may never know, but coincidences like this do make the idea more plausible and interesting. Could there be some sort of record about the smith that might shed some more light on this?
  21. It won't be numbered on the saya. It is the pattern 6 which had a wooden scabbard with unstamped, sheet-metal throat. They start at 300,000 serial range and are stamped on the blade. Best you'll likely find for stamps on the saya are the little, inverted ticks, as with the blade (that's what is after the number, thanks Bruce for the better pic). Just to confuse things, I have seen ONE single pattern 6 with a numbered throat before. But I didn't buy it so never got a good look). What you have posted, Rob, is the far more common pattern 5 with metal scabbard. Here are comparison pictures from Ohmura.
  22. A topic already long debated. I'm sceptical, others aren't. I've already presented a logical argument covering the points I think most meritorious in a previous thread and won't repeat it here, unless someone can find that thread so it's a simple copy paste job. I'm going to say it as clearly as I can here. There was a shortage of swords. Some early NCO were privately sold due to this shortage. Most were issued equipment, owned by the Emperor, not owned by the officers. There is ZERO primary evidence of privately owned blades being fitted in NCO mounts. Not one account I've seen, nothing. No photo. Nothing in archives, accounts, period news papers etc. There are a number of such swords in existence. Some are crude hatchet jobs, other like this very good, though lacking a habaki. It's entirely a matter of opinion and in no way can anyone claim otherwise, UNLESS new evidence has been found to show it was common or even the rarest practice. Some would have you believe otherwise, but it's all conjecture.
  23. Lovely and completely genuine pattern 6 Type 95. They are quite rare, so nice to have one in such great condition. Could you please take a close up of the serial numbers and stamps and try to get good light and focus? The combination of lines and circle has different meanings as to what the blade was intended to be used for. Can't quite see what the mark before the numbers is...
  24. Thanks, I have read about mei being 'folded back' onto the nakago when the nakago is shortened, I don't recall hearing about them being inlaid. A great bit of information with an example.
×
×
  • Create New...