Bruce Pennington

Kenneth, any chance the tsuba/seppa are stamped with a number? "42" perhaps?

No, because you just don't see many of this last-stage version of the Rinji seishiki.

Agreed, he's not in the same category as The Monkey. I've chatted a little with him too, and a good deal of his stuff, or some of it, he sells on consignment. My only complaint of his business practice is that he seems willing to sell anything, even if it's been faked by his supplier. But I've read that much of what he sells is legit, but like Peter said, maybe lower-end stuff. It's like all buying - Buyer Beware - know what you're getting before you get it.

Ok, thanks! This version is not common, so toward the "rare" side of the collecting category. Here's another with a star-stamped (seems to be a pattern here?) Munetoshi:

Thanks Steve, that's perfect! So no other stamps on the back edge (mune) of the nakago? The other Kanemoto I have on file has stamps there.

Steve, You may not know if you don't have it, but does it have stamps on the nakago mune? Could I get a photo with the star visible? Also, one of the double painted fitting numbers "069" and "189". Re-mounted at some point in the war?

I'm bringing a non-RJT blade to the discussion because it's a good example of how difficult it is to pin down this question of stamped numbers on nakago. It's one owned (or posted) by @Stegel. I can't find the original thread or I'd post the link. It's a late-war Type 95 blade, with the ヘ HE of the Heijō Factory of Jinsen Army Arsenal. No bohi, and the fact that it was made by Jinsen puts it in the last year of the war, most likely. It's in "standard" Rinji seishiki fittings, but with a low quality Type 98 tsuba. I'm discussing it because the nakago is stamped "1285" while the fittings are stamped "21". First glance screams "Post-war piece-together!", but I don't think so. I think it was simply last year of the war, Jinsen, or a shop in the area, used whatever parts were available to get an officer gunto put together for a buyer. To my knowledge, there are no NCO Type 95s with stamped numbers on the nakago. So, if it were made for an officer, or re-purposed for one, why would it have "fittings numbers" stamped on the nakago that don't match the fittings? Of course, like the other mis-matched numbers discussed on another thread, the blade could have been re-fitted after some damage to the original fittings, but, in the last year of the war? Seems a stretch. But if the numbers on the nakago aren't fitter stamped, then why are they there? More examples of Jinsen type 95 blades with numbers would certainly help with answers, but this one example seems to tilt the issue a tiny bit toward the numbers being put there by the factory or Army inspectors. Then again, I may be stretching the whole example when the easy answer is the blade was stamped 1285 by the first fitting shop and then re-fitted with the current set of RS fittings after damage, or even post-war. If post-war, that still leaves a sticky-wicket question of why would a Type 95 blade have stamped numbers on the nakago. Which STILL brings the issue around to "not done by fitters." Thoughts?

@Shamsy and/or @Stegel would be able to tell you. I have no reason to believe the 95s started numbers that high. In fact, I've seen a couple of 3-digit serial numbers and I have a vague memory of a 2-digit one. Here's a link to a comment Steve made about the second screw likely being a wartime repair or re-fit: But I believe I've read from one of those guys some actual serial number ranges the double screw version is seen in. I'll update if I find it, or hopefully one of the experts will answer soon.

Thought I'd post these photos of some ashi (civil) and kakihan (military), mostly made for wooden saya with leather cover. They're owned (and for sale) by Dan Watson of Crimson Mist Militaria, located in Australia. His website is down until close to the end of June. There might be some guys looking for items like this. If so, you can email him at crimsonmistATbigpondDOTcom. I have no skin-in-the-game, just thought someone might want to know. It's also interesting from a collector's perspective, I think, to see the many variations in how these things were made.

No Date Nagamitsu Saka 3978 on mune; "3050" painted nakago; fittings unknown Total 4 with mixed stamped and painted numbers:

Ok, these will blow your head up: 1943 Hiromasa (RJT) Date side - stamped 61, paint - "60"; mei side - paint "19" [fittings unknown] 1944 Kanemitsu (RJT but no star) stamped 24, paint "22"; and "1" on tsuba/seppa

While I believe most numbers are fitting shop numbers, some are really challenging. The few examples of matching numbers on Mantetsu are a good example of fitting shops using the existing serial numbers on blades as numbers for their metal parts. Similar examples exist on RJT blades stamped with matching numbers on both blade and fittings. Yet there are two examples in my survey of RJT blades with numbers on the blades that do not match the fitting numbers. Both are from the same prefecture - Niigata - and have the kana/number system: 1943 Akimitsu (RJT) 2138-nakago; イ536-fittings 1943 Munetoshi (RJT) 松 1080-nakago; イ403-fittings Yet I have a: 1942 Masakazu (RJT) 1129-nakago; ニ1129-fittings But he is from Fukushima. So I don't know if the difference is simply shop practice differences or if the nakago numbers are serial numbers and the shop in Fukushima simply used the existing number for their fittings. The non-matching numbers of the Niigata shop seem to support the idea. But it's still just a mystery.

We would all appreciate some official form of help on this, too. To my knowledge, we do not know any more than before. The practice of painting numbers, in my brief years of observation, seem to span all of the arsenals, all of Japan's wartime sword production. A great many of the examples match the stamped numbers on the various fittings, but not all do. I personally believe the non-matching sets are simply due to post-production replacement parts and/or post-war replacements due to missing parts from bring-home gunto in poor condition. I have just begun examining my files to see how many blades have both stamped AND painted numbers on nakago. This example provided by @george trotter on THIS THREAD has non-matching stamped and painted numbers - and none on the seppa/tsuba! It's my guess that the blade was originally made for a Type 98 (only one mekugi ana) and stamped with numbers, but later re-fitted with Rinji-seishiki fittings, with the painted numbers done by the second fitter shop. But that's pure speculation.

Of course, it could be one of those “trench knife” items. But like Chris said, you have to consider the source too.

Getting back to the original post about the book and the shops listed there, I'm still confused about the inspection marks listed with each shop. Am I understanding that the marks are Army inspection marks assigned to each shop, or used by Army inspectors assigned to that shop? It would seem impractical, to impossible, to be Army inspectors at the arsenal, marking each seppa after receiving an assembled gunto. It would have had to been applied during manufacture or just prior to assembly at the shop. So whether army or shop originated, the mark must have been used AT the shop as each gunto is put together. But I digress - my real question is - Is the mark for each shop an Army inspection mark assigned to each shop?

I like it Kaz! Are your a science researcher by trade, or just a seeker by nature?

That is exactly your answer Steve. And each smith likely varied depending upon the intent of the individual blade - is it special order? is it showato headed for an arsenal? Is the smith's quota ahead or behind, so does he have time for more labor or less? No way to know.

This is from Ohmura's latest book: entitled 真説 戦う日本刀―“最高”と呼べる武器性能の探究 [True Theory, Japanese Fighting Sword]

It would make sense, but that would raise the question of just who was running the Sho stamp, then.

Back to the stamped numbers on RJT blades - Came across a second Gunma prefecture smith with the "Ku" + number. It's on page 167 of Ohmura's new book entitled 真説 戦う日本刀―“最高”と呼べる武器性能の探究 [True Theory, Japanese Fighting Sword]. (the book was a gift from a most gracious gentleman, and is in Japanese, which I cannot read, but I sure can spot a number on a nakago when I see one!). Tsugunobu (RJT), Gunma, July 1944 RS fittings. ク70-5 Here's the updated chart

Three more pilot pics, not one waki among them. From Otto Maxein's book, Samurai Sword for the Material Battle

Not to beat the proverbial dead horse, but Chris Bowen just gave a really good summary of all the things we've been saying about the non-star blades: "There is a simple explanation as to why we see so many unstamped blades from RJT: while they were contracted to produce blades for the military, that neither prevented nor eliminated their making blades outside of that contract. Some devoted all their time to making blades for the military, some made few. I would suspect that those who could make more money selling their blades privately did so in the majority. Those whose work was in high demand-who were famous- could make a great deal more than what the military would pay, thus it is only logical that they wouldn’t spend their time making 75 yen blades when they could be getting 150 yen for the same thing. We see very few star stamped blades from the more famous smiths of the day, and none from the leading lights. Smiths like Tsukamoto Okimasa, who was young and becoming famous, made a lot of swords during the war but I have only seen 1 with a star stamp. The other reason we see smiths with a small number of star stamps is that this program launched rather late into the war- the earliest star stamp I have seen as I recall was on a blade from 1942. A lot of swords were made before then. I have seen very few star stamped blades from 1944 and 1945, mostly 1942 and 1943, so the program seems to have started late and was ramped down after a short time."

I have in-laws that name their cars too.

I have 6 dated and 7 undated "Saka" stamped blades, whereas undated blades of the other arsenals are rare. Although, all 7 of the undated ones are Nagamitsu. What are you thinking in reference to Osaka? I did some checking of the rest of the 60+ Star-stamped blades on file and the massive majority of them ARE dated. Interesting. The undated ones seem to be evenly distributed between Nagoya, Seki and Kokura with no clear pattern. Here's my Saka record:

After running the issue by Chris Bowen, his objection to the stamp simply being an Army Material stamp, verifying the steel in the blade was Army supplied, is that it isn't seen on any other blades outside the RJT program. I personally don't know enough about the Army's steel supply operation to know who else might have been supplied with their tamahagane, but I have come to the idea that regardless of the origins of the stamp (yes maybe it was invented and codified into the regs as a Material stamp), it seems to have been adopted by the RJT inspectors and therefore, it became a mark of the RJT program. If no one else in sword-making-world was using the stamp other than RJT guys, then essentially, for swords, it is an RJT stamp. On the issue of so many un-stamped blades by RJT qualified smiths, Chris proposed another option: "Here is something else to think about: Yoshihara Kuniie was the inspector for the Kanto region. He was also the head smith/instructor at the Army’s Number 1 Tokyo arsenal, where several smiths made swords as RJT in house, so to speak. I have seen many of these blades, always signed Tokyo Number 1 Arsenal, without star stamps. I think I have several. If the star signified tamahagane usage, they should all be stamped. I have seen a few Kuniie (Nobutake) blades with a star, but the operating theory as to why only a few are found with the star is that these were most likely made at his home forge, rather than at the arsenal itself, and “inducted” into military service the same as all the blades made by RJT smiths working at their home forges across the country." Yet, as I just re-read that, I can see it doesn't work for smiths in other prefectures. This idea only works for the smiths in the Tokyo 1st area. But it could still be one of several potential reasons for un-stamped blades by these smiths. Like other areas we know of, there could very well be more than one answer to the question.