Bruce Pennington

Yes, and it adds evidence that this “style” or mix was possibly “normal.”

It’s all part of the history of the era, so thanks for the pics Peter!

Thanks Didier. Yes definitely a reproduction. And agree with Dave on the interchangeability of saya - sometimes. I tried it on my Type 95s and some would switch and some wouldn’t, and those blades are more standardized than Officer gunto. But even with officer gunto there were some basic overall specs on dimensions, so always a chance of getting a fit on a saya made for another blade.

With WWII gunto, all the above options are possible. I have learned to never say "never" or "always" with gunto. Didier, as the owner will have to decide where he thinks this one lies on the spectrum of options and customization. Dawson has pictures of NCO's carrying civilian swords, NCO gunto, and officer gunto (as officer candidates). I was trying to find my reference for the officer candidate issue. Dawson has a couple of pics of NCO's as officer candidates carrying both Kyu- and T98 gunto, with officer tassels, but I thought I had seen some with NCO tassels on officer gunto as well, but cannot find the reference. Although my mind might be melding in the NCO T95 with Officer tassel instead. Didier, if you want to post some close-ups of the tassel barrel and the stiching on the buckle area, we might be able to help with ID'ing it as reproduction or original.

Here's a Mantetsu gunto with a bullet strike on the fuchi: https://japanesesword.com/archived-pages/2017/7/28/mantetsu-to-in-34-pattern-shin-gunto-mounts-hit-in-the-fuchi-by-bullet

HA! I guess my head was somewhere else when I was looking at this! And the anchor is lightly stamped not showing all the detail, but it is Tenshozan.

Can't help with the smith, but the date is 1945. Month is really messy, but I think it's "5", so, May.

Significant find! One of these for sale that comes with it's bring-back certificate. It's written out by the 8th Army Exchange and says it's a souvenir not a war weapon. By all appearances, it was sold by the PX! I think these were being made as part of MacArthur's post-war effort to keep businesses running. You can see more of it on this thread: http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/showthread.php?t=984036

I’m thinking 清次 (Kiyotsugu), but I’m not good at the smith names!

You can find the logo's and names of several of the contractors here: http://japaneseswordindex.com/logo/logo.htm

Steve, Thanks for this continuing education. We really depend on you (and Stegel when he's around) as the residant experts on 95's! This is one of the most accurate reproductions I've seen. For all the reasons you listed, though, I would have rejected it as fake, but can see that a rookie could easily be duped by it. I'm curious about your comment on the bohi. In my limited experience, the Tokyo/Kokura bohi end in a shape that mirrors the kissaki, where the rounded ends seems to come from Nagoya contractors. Have you seen rounded bohi ends on Tokyo blades?

Ha! But I think you misspelled ‘Murcans’! . But I not a gud spellur.

Mine is 3.5 in or 9cm from the top.

Here ya go Steve:

Here's mine, Steve. Additionally, as you might image of me, I took the handle off and found what I believe to be a date stamped on several of the parts, including inside the backstrap. Using the dot as a seperation between the year and the month/day, it's 1918 January 21.

Steve, I have one very similar but I am in my car and will post pictures when I get home. No stamps on the hand guard, serial number beginning with zero, and restamped numbers on the drag. These blades often went to the factory for rehab. It was common to see filed off numbers on the drag and new numbers restamped. Pictures to follow.

This is discussed on several current threads, but relevant here, in case someone is only seeing this here: The mystery of the "W" stamp on Mantetsu blades may have been solved. Nick Komiya, on Warrelics, posted a document requiring the Dalian factory to supply 5,500 unfinished blades to the Tokyo 1st Arsenal. Se had already narrowed the source of the stamp to the Tokyo arsenal, and this would explain the stamp on some Mantetsu blades. Four of the 6 smiths with W stamps are also associated with the Tokyo area, so only 2 smiths, from Seki, have W's that seem unexplained.

This has been discussed on other threads, but as this one is turning into All-things-Mantetsu, I'd like to add it here as well. Nick Komiya, on Warrelics, posted an order from 1944, requiring the Dalian Mantetsu factory to supply 5,500 unfinished blades to the Tokyo 1st Arsenal (in addition to their own quota of 6,500 finished blades!). Sporter90 ovserved that this probably accounts for the presence of the "W" stamp on some Mantetsu blades. He also proposed that the Ren and Nan stamps on some blades may mean that Dalian was supplying the Mukden and Nanman Arsenals with blades too. I had been assuming (there's that dangerous word!) that Mukden/Nanman had simply been placed over Dalian as quality control inspectors, but it wouldn't make sense that 2 arsenals had authority over a factory. So, I think Sporter's idea is more logical - Dalian was probably supplying unfinished blades to them as well. No documentation to prove that, though. found on page 4 of this thread: http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/very-unusual-konan-essei-mantetsu-713654-4/

Updated to include new evidence that unfinished Mantetsu blades were being supplied to the Tokyo 1st Arsenal, explaining the presence of the "W" stamp on them.

Update: Got a great piece of information from Nick Komiya, Warrelics, on a production order to the Dalian Mantetsu factory. They were to supply 5,500 unfinished blades to the Tokyo 1st Arsenal for finishing. It is likely how the W stamp got onto Mantetsu blades. They may have been doing this other years as well, but this was a 1944 document. "I have released these figures already once, but here is the 1944 production plan for Kou-A-Isshinn Swords. They were to produce at a rate of 6500 swords/year of which 500 were to cover the shortfall at the Tokyo Arsenal. A further 5500 partially completed blades were also to be supplied to the Tokyo arsenal."

William, Yes I agree. This style could accurately be called an NLF gunto, as opposed to the army/navy mix that commonly gets called that name. Yours seems to have been a family sword converted to combat service.

And having it in hand can tell way more info than simple pictures ever can. I’m keeping it in my study, thanks!

I do recall a discussion years ago about an appearant fake Mantetsu for sale (haven't looked for the thread), so it's not out of the realm of possibility. I like the kanji style, it appears identical to standard Mantetsu writing. Unlike Chris, the file marks are the only thing that really bothers me. I've posted one from Ohmura's site, a '38, and it's marks are perfect Mantetsu. And actually, one would expect the early blades to be more exacting than, say, a '45, as they were still in their prime and touting their superior product. I wondered if the kanji were imprinted OVER the rust, which would indicate a recent faker, but the rust does appear in the depths of the kanji cuts on the rusty side of the nakago. So, I'm going with original I also took a close look at the railway stamp. At first, it appeared that the circle was a full cirlce, which would indicacte a fake, but on closer examination, it breaks properly at the top and bottom of the "I". The lack of serial number is bothersome, however, it could be covered in corrosion, or as Chris suggested, this blade could have been used for testing, or cutting, or who knows what, and therefore didn't have a contract/serial number. Executive summary: Like the kanji, stamp, and blade; don't like the file marks, lack of serial number, unusual nakago jiri and ana. My vote is legit Mantetsu with strange/unknown history. But hey, I could be wrong!

Semar, The tsuka (handle looks legit), and possibly the blade. The saya (scabbard) seems to be a local reproduction. They've copied the style of a kyugunto saya. The blade is of the Type 94/98 Officer gunto.

‘Jason, good to see you here! Thanks for the expanded view of that. Although one might think it raises more questions then it answered!