Jump to content

Bruce Pennington

Gold Tier
  • Posts

    13,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    157

Posts posted by Bruce Pennington

  1. Mathieu,

    This peg holds the handle to the blade. 

    417339983_InkedRemoveThis.jpg.af246cbd0a5845fda98b2c06fc2fb0b5.jpg

     

    The end you see is likely the fatter end, so it must be tapped/pushed out from the other side.  The other side is hidden under the wrap, so simply push gently under the wrap to tap it out

    Peg1.thumb.jpeg.022e3c0d4ef9a72c461b69c67e92b99d.jpeg

     

    The handle and handguard should easily slide off the blade at that point.  Sometimes they are stuck with grime and/or a little rust.  Don't let that bother you.  Simply wiggle the handguard and/or tap it some, and everything will eventually break loose.

    • Like 5
  2. Not a "marine" sword.  No official title to this model, but it was an attempt to simplify the Type 98.  Called many things by collectors - Type 44; Marine landing sword; Type 3; Type 100; Rinji Seishiki; Contengency model.  Designed in 1938 off a variation loophole to the Type 98 Imperial Order, introduced in 1940, and sort of finally got popular in 1943/44.  Definitely Army, though, not Navy (or Marine).

    • Like 1
  3. Well, @IJASWORDS, there's a potential Shop logo to find in your book! - "&"

     

    Feeling 90% sure this is a shop stamp, as it is on the seppa/tsuba, this adds to the evidence that shops stamped blade nakago, with logo at least, as well as used painted numbers.  The most famous is the Suya Shoten operation.   But, I feel stongly (75%) that the stamped numbers on nakago are almost always done by the Army (Navy evidence is too scarce to say), so the numbers on this blade COULD be done by the Army, while the added "&" behind the number simply means the fittings shop used the Army number, plus logo, as the assembly number in their shop.  But that's just my current theory.

  4. 22 hours ago, Kiipu said:

    As I linked to above, the wartime zōhei-tō 造兵刀 came about via the Type 95.  Mass production began in earnest in 1943 and more zōhei-tō were made late in the war than Type 95s.  The Japanese army needed officer's swords and they needed lots of them.  Hence the development of the zōhei-tō.  It took the best features of the Type 95 and ported it over to the requirements of an officer's sword.

     

    A noobie question - Murata-to began in the late 1800's.  Did they simply not take off in production?  Were the zoheito derived from Murata's blade ideas or are the 2 completely unrelated to each other?

  5. 17 hours ago, blackpowder said:

    What do you think about how old it can be?

    There are some guys on this forum that may address that, but you'll find a lot more of them at the Nihonto Forum of NMB.  They'll need a full length shot of the bare blade, good close-ups of the blade tip and mid-section, showing hamon (temper line) and steel texture, and good shots of the nakago.  Measurements help too:

     

    measure.gif

    • Thanks 1
  6. Well.  After reviewing several nakago of Type 95s and Zoheito, I'd have to lean toward John's zoheito idea too.  While the blades and blade tips are almost identical, the T95 nakago are longer, narrower, and lack a fully discernable yakote.  This one has the same shape and look of other zoheito nakago I have on file.

     

    Steve, if this were an officer sword made with a Type 95 NCO blade, it would be a rare one to have in hand, as actual ones are very rare to come by.  If it's a zoheito, then it's not all that rare.  Less common than standard Type 94/98 gunto, but there are plenty of them around the collecting world.

     

    Zoheito were an attempt to mass produce blades for officers during the sword shortage years after switching from the western styled kyugunto over to the samurai styled Japanese swords.  Single piece of steel, not made the traditional way.  The look and feel is almost identical to the Type 95 blade.

     

    On a side note: Do any of our zoheito experts know if the factories churning out zoheito were completely separate from the Type 95 ones?  Seems to me the only difference is the shape of the nakago.  Could they have been from the same specs, or from the same factories? 

    • Thanks 1
  7. The '8' is likely part of the assembly team process.  Are there any '8's stamped on the fittings?

     

    The large Seki stamp is likely the inspection mark of the Seki Cutlery Manufactures Assoc. This stamp is seen on blades made from 1940-1945, but the massive majority of the dated ones were in 1942.  So, odds are for this year with yours, but that just the odds.  These tend to be found on some good looking blades.  Don't know if your budget would allow for a polish, as they will run over $2,000.  But if you have it to spend, I bet it would be a gorgeous blade afterward.

  8. I got a bad one in a bunch of 4 bought at auction, a while back.  in the pics, it looked good, late-war, but in hand it was too light and the leather was very thin, cracking all over.  Crappy wood underneath.  Crappy, thin blade, bad nakago.  Sold it off in parts, with full disclosure. 

    Later came to find out the ugly stamp on the nakago put it in the camp of likely island-made swords!  Wish I hadn't rushed to judgement on it now.

    • Like 5
×
×
  • Create New...