Shamsy

Be careful not to devalue the sword by replacing the original insert. Keep that on hand so the next owner can decide if the would like to restore it. These liners do shrink over time. Adding another seppa (brass washer or preferably leather) may do the same job without removing any of the original parts. I don't see that it'd matter if the handle were loose though.

Your lack of respect for these historical swords says it all really.

While I agree that is better than an old Koto, that's still an irreplaceable piece of history trashed by greed (or 'tidied up' to improve sale possibility). There aren't as many of these swords around as we'd like to think and they are steadily decreasing because of mistreatment by idiots. One day they may be rarer than nihonto, since people take so many more liberties with them. As the last Japanese swords to (hopefully?) ever be used in a military conflict, it is the greatest shame.

Basically nothing at all, though you need to possess either a CCA or exemption to own the sword in Victoria. You must also keep a register of all swords in your possession and records of swords you sell. Not that I've ever seen anyone care and plenty of people have neither. For something valuable though, why risk it? http://www.ballaratarms.com.au/swords-and-daggers.html

Correct, hence them not being ideal. A shirasaya is the best option.

As Greg has stated, a desiccant in a small area will help (moisture hippos from the supermarket (not scented unless you want flowery swords)), or if you're really serious about preventing rust, check out these http://www.zerust.com/diffusers Oh, you said saya... Saya are not ideal for blade storage and don't allow the air to breath, so that could be part of the problem.

I had a wakizashi with civilian mounts and a leather combat cover with a brass shoe. The interesting thing about this sword is that there was a false extension within the combat cover that made it look closer to full katana length. I also have a tanto in naval mounts, properly proportional to the blade. A true crew sword. The real waks and crew certainly exist, but there are plenty of put - together swords and cut down gunto claiming to be 'crew' swords to. They've been flooding fleabay the last year. I imagine that wakizashi were mounted if they were family blades. Remembering that katana were samurai swords, but wakizashi were far less restricted. Why wouldn't a family mount a blade they've had for years between generations? Is there any clear evidence a shorter sword was shameful or looked down upon? As far as I can tell pretty much any sword could pass muster for an officer. In terms of crew swords, some may have been size consideration, but what I've read suggested that a full sized gunto was still commonly taken, so who can say. This is a topic that's been discussed a few times but it seems to mostly be conjecture. The fact is that wakizashi were mounted in army and navy mounts and carried to war. Could be any reason, could be stature, sword training (or lack thereof) or a multitude of reasons.

I think with all the discussion in this thread I'm fairly confident that my original assessment of a put - together was correct. I've seen NCOs with scabbards from other swords but not one that appears (since we've not seen it disassembled) to be put together like these. Hopefully it's just an oddity from someone trying to make quick bucks and the invention of 'new patters' won't become a regular thing.

I think you're right Bruce. Multiple swords with identical stamps. The angle does look different on each drag.

Hi Stegel, all good, the seller was a stand up guy so I'm glad he got a good price for his sword. I'm confident I could get the same easily in a resell so I paid the right amount. I finally completed my base collection! I'm very happy, but the collecting flame still burns bright, to the distress of my bank. Bruce, let's not be too specific on the details of how we spot these impressive fakes. I say impressive as at first glance I'd actually look at the listing before turning away. The brass tsuba aluminum handles have near perfect reproduction already so I suppose it was only a matter of time until they tried wooden ones.

The NCO was a very nice example and fairly priced, hope the owner looks after it (and wear gloves!!). Ed is an increasingly rare breed of seller who remembers what customer service means.

Hi Bruce, it is quite difficult to tell from the photos. It couldn't be an area of cleaned pitting like Hamish suggested or perhaps sharpening? I've seen plenty of NCOs with rough field sharpening. A repair is perfectly possible though. It occurred for commissioned officers so why not noncom? It could be post war to and I'm no metallurgical expert so not much help. It probably doesn't really matter, it looks like a nice sword.

Very true Stephen. But this is not a mass produced NCO blade. It is an older Wak blade in NCO mounts. Bruce: I think that while those theories are possible, they are highly unlikely. There were a shortage of blades for officers, that is true. But NCO swords are mass produced and issued as equipment. I believe NCO did have the option to supply their own sword if they could afford it. I cannot imagine though that someone thought to try and mount a wakizashi blade in supplied fittings. As a replacement, that seems even less likely. The tsuka holes are supposed to be undrilled and the fuchi unstamped. Does it seem plausible that these were just lying aside and easily available for a repair? As a prototype is even more questionable. The NCOs never experienced a blade shortage. Indeed, there were a phenomenal number made. Why mount a Wak blade? Every other prototype I've seen has been an experiment in material or slight design variations. This is completely different. The Japanese were also quite meticulous yet this sword lacks a habaki and feels very put together. That is why I want to see the nakago. It doesn't even fit the saya. My feeling is a Wak in modern made NCO mounts being called a prototype. But unless someone here buys it we'll not be able to ascertain that with any real certainty. So.... After all that, someone please buy :D

Hi all, I'm sure some of you must have seen this pop onto eBay in the last few days; http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPER-RARE-Prototype-Japanese-Army-WWII-NCO-Sword-Katana-Tachi-Dagger-Tanto-Dirk-/302063081264?hash=item46545cd730:g:p2QAAOSwOdpXzgN In my humble opinion it looks very much like a put - together piece being passed off as a 'rare prototype'. I've seen enough real prototype 95's to be leery. My personal opinion aside, if you do decide to try your luck and win, could you please take the handle off and provide some photos of the handle without the wooden inserts and the blade nakago also. When I asked, the seller was not prepared to do so. I don't feel the need to list my reasons for believing this is a put - together, but if anyone wants to open that discussion we can.

I've basically not seen a wooden handled sword that we'll replicated before. Not a great development. Luckily the later war are so rare the Chinese can't get them. I'd be keen to see your swords Wayne. I take it the late war you refer to is the black painted wooden handle version? The one with crude cross hatching? I'm trying to get more examples posted so we have a working reference to benefit us all, so contribute if you can!

Hi Bruce, There are a few differences between #1 and #2. Number 2 has the wooden scabbard, but the blade is also cruder without the finish of #1. Additionally the handle wood is a different variety (can't tell you what exactly but the feel and sound are very different ). The handle is also a lot bigger in width and the fittings are cheaper and lighter steel/iron. The serial numbers are also a different font and punch which is a dead give away, and finally the markings and their placement are different. When you hold the two in comparison it's easy to feel and see the difference in construction and finish. I also have a #1 with the scarce wider tsuba indicative of the Sake arsenal. That allows a good comparison between the late war wooden swords. It was good you did take it apart as I've never seen the wooden handle removed and had no idea that there were/could be markings underneath. I can't bring myself to do the same but perhaps I'll get a cheap example in poor condition to check myself one day.

Good morning all, I think the topic of the markings of the wooden handled series could use discussion, particularly variants #2-4. It seems that the only hard and fast rule is that there are none. Jim Dawsons book seems to have understandably been based on a small sample of the swords, so I'm hoping members with these sword models will contribute here to assist our joint learning. I'll start off with the features of my swords in right to left order; Variant #2: Blade has serial number, the arsenal He mark and the second class arms mark. The 3 on the serial number is an over strike. The drag and fuchi both display the He stamp. Scabbard is, as far as I can tell, painted wood. This is consistent with all other #2 I've seen. Variant #4: Blade has serial number and the arsenal He mark. The 3 is not an over strike. Only the drag displays the He stamp. The scabbard looks like painted wood. This is an oddity. The serial range falls before variant #2 above which suggests that these swords may have originally been produced alongside variant #2. Variant #4.2: Blade has only the He mark. The rest of the sword is devoid of stamping. The scabbard is painted fabric over wood. Variant #4.3: Blade has only the He mark, but it is on the other side of the blade to usual. The fuchi has a faint He stamp but not the drag. The scabbard is painted fabric over wood. Variant #3: Blade has only the He mark, but it is on the other side of the blade again. There are no stamps on the rest of the sword. The scabbard is painted fabric over wood. I hope there will be enough contributions to provide more insight into the production of these swords. Being late in the war and with what must have been a very hurried production schedule, the swords keep throwing up surprises and small contradictions to what I think I know. Very interesting subject.

Happy to help Brandon. International calls from overseas: +61 3 8847 9045 You may like to call Auspost yourself and confirm the status of the delivery. I've received my own sword but the tracking still shows as held in customs. Sometimes the tracking information on USPS does not reflect the actual status of the delivery.

Hi Brandon, I just cleared a sword on Tuesday. The sword will be held pending payment of 10% GST and 5% duties, plus $50 because apparently you also have to pay to have you item held. In around 5 days after it is first held you SHOULD get a postal notification. That contains all the info you need to get the sword released and pay the taxes. I highly recommend using a customs broker. I used ebroker, one of the first brokers that appears in a search after the ads. That costs another $77, but also saves you ANOTHER $90 fee customs will charge for 'manual processing'. It works out cheaper and they offer a 48 hour turn around. They do all the work, easy form, just be aware that the card you use to pay their fee is charged the taxes, so have the funds there! Contact numbers are; Aus Post (contact them, once it is in country they take over from international postal services. Great service to while it remains a public institution). Phone 13 13 18 All they can really do is advise where the parcel is. Border Force (customs). Phone 131 881 or 1300 558 287 to beat the 'call back later' message. BF can explain why the parcel is being held and also provide a unique number and instructions via email that are instant and negate the need to wait for the postal notice. There are no restrictions on sword importation so it's just a matter of paying the taxes. Nothing to stress over. Mail probably got lost. They try email if they can and if they don't get a response in a couple of weeks usually. Just contact them and get it sorted out. I was told they hold a parcel for 2 months before returning to sender.

Hope you've got unlimited data and one heck of a connection...

Hi Bruce, I've not seen that before. Certainly looks deliberately struck as opposed to some of the rust pits and indentations that get mistaken for stamps. I had a look through the books that show a variety of military stamps and couldn't find anything similar.

Hi Bruce, Are you referring to the sword on ebay? I doubt that it's a hidden treasure sadly. Most of the leather covered swords were either poorly made wartime blades or low quality traditional swords. Better question for the nihontonites I think. My leather covered shirasaya houses a signed wakizashi from 1500's but it's not stunning and has a few old rust pits. I just thought it was an interesting example of war time requirements for swords of any kind.

Almost certainly collaboration based on handle or maybe late war leather covered sword. See p77 and p266 F&G hard cover for an example of a near identical tsuka. Also F&G soft cover pg 43. The wooden handle with the big, plain knot loop is pretty consistent. I would call it a pattern based on how many similar examples I have seen (though a lot of small variations ). This is not the same sword pattern, but an example of a leather covered sword if anyone is interested. I have a leather covered shirasaya I bought at one stage as an example, though not as nice as the one Bruce posted a photo of. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Japanese-Japan-WWII-WW2-Late-War-Signed-Katana-Sword-w-Scabbard-/131819001831?hash=item1eb10657e7:g:OTQAAOSwWnFV-xfF

100% genuine and known stamping. The late war Korean arsenal blades all have that large and shallow stamping (where they actually have the stamps). The over strike on the 3 is typical to. The 'tick' is the He stamp, the circle with two horizontal lines denotes a second class arms stamp and was also used on bayonets late in the war. I expect condition of these swords is good because these swords were made too late for most to reach the field. They are precisely made and standardized, crude by Japanese standard but certainly not jeep spring swords. They are too old and rare to be fakes or put together (remembering these were not even valuable 30 years back) but common enough to be a distinct pattern. Hope that helps guys!

Stegel has pretty much covered this question. There are the three wooden handle variants which have a standard wooden scabbard for 95's. Anything else is likely just an NCO slipped into a wooden field saya. That MAY have happened in the field, but unless the sword came from your own grandfather you'll never know. Being pretty consistent with gunto in terms of length and dimensions, a 95 will slip into most field saya. The pictures Bruce provides are of; The brass tsuba model with sleeve for extra retaining ring (which I believe is later stated to be a potential Chinese addition). The crude, field made aluminum handle variant, (which I've never seen an example of) but that one could very well have had a wooden saya and combat cover. The sword on ebay looked like it had a pretty loose leather cover. I admit I've not seen it bar on my tiny phone screen though. Did anyone get a good look to confirm it was tightly shrunken to the scabbard and not slipped over? The foot of the cover looked far too big for a thin 95 saya.