Bruce Pennington

If it was a stamp, it's too partially struck to make out, for me. So far, I have only seen that stamp in conjunction with the Toyokawa anchor stamp.

Ziggy, I'm not a nihonto guy, but I've seen a lot of Chinese fakery. The practice of stamping numbers on habaki is a Chinese practice, whether legit military sword or a reproduction, period. The nakago and tsuba/sepppa set appears to have been coated with some brown substance. You can see where it has flaked off several spots on the tsuba. Also the one shot of the combined tsuba/seppa has 'track' marks, maybe like it was held in a vise? The nakago mei is uncharateristically low towards the end, not normal for Japanese swords unless the nakago is shortened after it was made. My two cents Like the other guys said, seeing the blade might add some clarity.

Welcome back John! Hope all is well. I want to post the photos of those last 2 swords before the links go dead 61 68

It's the Gifu variant of the idea. You can see it in the top photo of Stegel's diagrams. I wish he, or Steve Shamsy, were here. They could clear it all up. But I do think you are right that the years prior to '41 had slightly lower production numbers.

No one knows for sure, as there were several smiths working during the war that are not documented in any reference material. However, we think there's a good chance this is a forge. Found an Inaba Forge reference The darkened fittings and the 1-piece fuchi/seppa on your kai tell us this was a late war kaigunto, probably in the last year of the war.

Dang, just when you think you've seen it all! Since it's painted in the same paint as the number, my complete guess would be that it's from the fittings shop. You've been researching painted numbers, ever see anything like it?

I've had 2, serial numbers 9811 and 10506.

The only production chart I have is from 1941-1945 If 1200 is a fair number for previous years, then that should be our estimate for these. Thomas, or Erns has a good idea of the ending copper number, 6700ish?, so if we have a know highest number for the version 1 tsuka .....

Adding photos for those new, coming into the topic From Stegel: I just realized the second photo, middle image, shows production of these from July '38 - June '39. So, knowing how many 95s the industry was making per year would tell us something.

@Kiipu @Stegel

Your blade isn't dated, but most blades with the large Seki stamp were made in 1941 - 1943, with most of them made in 1942. So a little reference on age. The style is called the Type 98 Japanese officer sword. You can read about them on this great site: Army commissioned officers Shin-Guntō (Type 98 Guntō) 1938 (ohmura-study.net) The blue/brown tassel was used by Company grade officers (Lt's and Capt's). The stamp was used by the Seki Cutlery Manufacturers Association as an approval stamp. Blades with this stamp are usually pretty nice quality. If you don't find an appropriate organization to donate to, mount it on the wall, with a framed document laying out it's history. After all, you are in a school!

Thanks Thomas! Thought you might have that data. And it checks with the two numbers we see here. The auction blade, with Seki, is number 202455 while Thomas' blade, with NA, is 133xxx.

Make him an offer. Posted prices are usually high, expecting lower offers.

Something I've never pursued, Thomas, interesting question. You see the same thing on the wooden handled 95s, too. Maybe @Kiipu Thomas has serial number ranges on two stamps? Really @Stegel or @Shamsy are the guys to ask. Neither are hanging out at NMB much lately. I'll check with them via email to see if they know. In the meantime, since these have steel fuchi, it's hard to see a shop stamp on them. When visible, though, the only shop I've seen is the Seki Token Co. My chart only tracks stamp use on officer blades, so I don't know how relevant it is to the 95s. But you can see that the use of the "Na" stamp was heavy in '43, tapered off in '44, and gone in '45; whereas, the small "Seki" began in '43, was heaviest in '44, and tapered in '45. So, it might be as simple as these blades might have been made in '43-'44 when both stamps were being used as they transitioned to the small Seki. Serial number ranges would tell us something. If they are randomly interspersed, then maybe they were both being used, but if the numbers show all Na in one group, and Seki in the next, then there might have been a clear transition from one stamp to the next. Na 3 8 77 20 4 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 Seki, small, 3mm 9 26 15 2

The issue with the saya is going to be a personal thing. If you plan to re-sell, I would consider the fact that it bothered you, so it's bound to bother potential buyers. If you're keeping it, again, that's a personal taste issue only you can answer.

I think John's right about this one. It's got the double release buttons, which are normally found on higher-end Rinjis with gendaito blades in them. They usually have that textured coating on the wooden saya (there's a name for that), and it's missing on this one.

Thanks, Lee, still could use shots of the stamps to confirm, but I was worried when I saw the serial number range. Numbers in the 30's, 40's, and sometimes 50's are often found on Polish reproduction 95s, with Iijima Token contractor stamps. And I think I see one of those on the middle sword. I was also concerned when I saw the start point of the fuller grooves. They are tapered, more like blades made for Nagoya. These claim to be Tokyo 1st blades, which bear more squared beginnings and ending that closely match the shape of a kissaki. Here's an example: You can also see a small distinctive "square" shape of the end of the saya where it meets the drag, whereas yours is more rounded, again standard for Nagoya swords.

I agree with Colin, nothing to be gained by removing the leather, at at it's age, will probably do some damage. Those are just black, wooden saya, quite often used to house older, family blades. Be sure to update us when they come in!

Washu is another name for Yamato, which if I'm correct, was a province near today's Nara. There was a Kanetomo from Yamato, that signed Washu but he was in the 1400s KANETOMO (包友), 4th gen., Eikyō (永享, 1429-1441), Yamato – “Kanetomo” (包友), “Washū Tegai-jū Kanetomo” (和州手掻住包友), the 4th gen. Kanetomo was still active in Yurugi (油留木, als written with the characters [由留木], [動] or [動木]), suguha or gunome-midare in ko-nie-deki with sunagashi, wazamono. I doubt this blade came from the 1400's, but you are welcome to post it, best with all the fittings removed, over on the Nihoto forum - Nihonto - Nihonto Message Board (militaria.co.za) - where they are more skilled at making those judgements.

Thomas,, you never cease to amaze! So this could be one of those swords made in Malaysia? Lee, could I get clear photos of the stamps on the two swords on the right? Also, photos of the blade tips of the two on the right?

I did wonder about the fuchi pattern, whether it could be Manchurian But I checked, and the Manchurian pattern is this: But like I said, the Damascus steel is still the biggest problem. Sorry for the bad news, my friend.

Fumei, This sword was made in China, attempting to appear Japanese. A few reasons: - 5 digit number on habaki. The only swords used by Japanese with numbers on habaki were Railway swords, and this is not one - One way folding on tsuka wrap. Standard Chinese method. Japanese used alternating twist directions - Fuchi decorations are not Japanese - Biggest tell of all: Damascus steel blade. Damascus steel was not used during WWII by anyone, neither Japan, nor their collaborators in occupied areas. Maybe someone can attempt to translate the mei. I don't read Japanese, nor Chinese, but it doesn't look like a real smith name. Maybe @BANGBANGSAN can help? There were swods made in occupied territories during the war that had poor quality fittings, similar to yours, but none of them would have a Damascus steel blade. I guarantee it.

Sounds logical, thanks Steve. What made me think the 9 was a 5 was the small horizontal line on the top of the kanji. I just assumed the bottom horizontal was incompletely struck. We have seen other late war inscriptions with questionable skill. Your theory is probably spot on.

Ok, not THAT kind of a date! Ha! This kind: It looks like Showa 10 10 5 year 12 month, but that would be December, 1950, which doesn't jibe with a WWII Rinji

I did not, John, thanks! Both are mumei duplicates of named blades of the same numbers. Both 61's have no anchor stamps, strangely.