george trotter

Mmmm...4000 eh. Well, I know I like the examples I have seen, but not that much. Wonder where these heart-stopping prices come from. Oh well, back to reality land...

A good maker Stephen, well thought of in WWII and also post war...only died c. 1996? I have always searched for one for my collection but never found one...only had one in hand. His usual work is in Bizen style with active choji/gonome/saka choji hamon,.also suguba, but of course usually plainer and shorter in Gunto style. (I prefer his gunto work but you already know I'm weird Stephen).. Be nice if you could maybe get your friend to do a pic of the hamon etc? Your friend is lucky IMHO. Regards,

Also not sure of the exact translation, but aikuchi seems to mean "ai" (meet) and "kuchi" (mouth), so aikuchi means "meets the mouth" as in "no tsuba". I could be wrong literally, but this is what I've always thought aikuchi means. Hope I haven't messed up too much. Regards,

My head hurts...3 years writing a book on local military/civil issue arms here and just when I thought it was safe to NMB again... Thank God someone invented rum & coke. Speaking of whiskey, when I worked up in the SW Pacific (Bougainville Island and Guadalcanal etc) we used to drink a whiskey called Hankey Bannister (great). The weather here at the moment is as bad as the islands...maybe I'll have another R&C on the verandah tonight (for medicinal purposes of course). Regards,

Bruce, I just typed in "star stamp" and up came about every matter we are discussing here. On Matsu, that pesky guy Trotter showed a Tokyo sword mounting shop advert from 1942 and it was run by a guy named Matsuyama...sooo...? Maybe he had the contract to do the Yamagami brothers? In relation to those small numbers on the mune of the Takayama Kunihide of Kyoto blades I found two more smiths from that area (same high class area distinctive Rinji mounts) and they were marked: Sugio Matsumoto star 19/9 93 on mune. Endo Tomonari star 19/7 24 on mune. Since both these smiths are mounted the same as my Takashima Kunihide of Kyoto and share the same numbers on the mune...they can't? be smith numbers but must be RJT or mounter or polisher. You have a big job here of figuring out what's what! Time for a rum & coke on the verandah! Regards,

Found another pic of my mumei blade's fittings/habaki numbers with O and 0. Something tells me there is a mountain of research to do to get answers to all this.

Hi Bruce, Yes and no...I must correct/clarify my post, the letter "O" on those fittings is probably a zero. That pic with "O" in romaji and the numbers in kanji is not "the other NMB member's sword fittings" it is on one of my swords Doh!!! That discussion on NMB was with a member who had "O" fittings (if I remember correctly) but on a different high quality mounted sword. I think we agreed that his/my swords were probably mounted in the same shop. The 'i' 403 number on fittings...as it differs from the tang 'matsu' 1080...is probably a fittings shop number, like 'O" number is. Those fittings in pic come off a gunto mounted mumei blade by (I assess) Aizu Kanesada 11 dai c.1890. High quality mounts, cut-through guard and 8 seppa (as was the NMB member's sword). Looking at it again and the numbers behind the habaki, I can say the "O" certainly seems to be used as a zero. The fittings look like a romaji "O" but the arabic numbers on the rear of the habaki look like "0314"...so it appears to mean "0" when used with arabic numbers, not "O" . Maybe, the western "O" is just a punch they used as Japanese numbers don't have zero and they just grabbed a 'zero' looking punch? My "gut feeling" is it means ZERO. The katakana on tangs (in front of numbers) is a RJT code...I assume they mean prefectures as I have seen a couple of smiths with them and they do seem to be "grouped" in the same area (I did keep notes, but where?). They do not 'phonetically' mean the prefecture, they are just allocated as an "alphabetic" identifier IMHO (such as in USA they would use A = NY, B = Calif, C = Ill. etc?. I own the following: Nagao Kunishiro Aomori star katakana 'o' 154 dated 19/2. Type 98 Very little info on him...need to see more RJT swords from Aomori RJT smiths to check 'o' prefix theory (memory says I have seen a couple). Yamagami Munetoshi Niigata star " 'ta' 2356 dated 19/3 Rinji Have not seen many late war blades but when this 'ta' starts there is only a star stamp with it, the 'matsu' stops (number still the smith's tally number with a new prefix?)... Just some other observations for your interest: Takashima Kunihide Kyoto star (on mune ) 98 dated 19/8 Rinji GT Coll. " " " " 90 dated 19/8 " NBTHK hozon " " " " 99 dated 19/8 " I have looked through my notes but can't find any more references to RJT tang numbers. I think this is a job for you Bruce. Look up as many RJT (late war) blades as you can find and see if they have a "katakana/number" code and see if they are grouped. From my own casual observations over time I can say that: Osaka/Okayama/Kyoto area RJT seem to have small numbers on nakago mune, but whether a RJT mark or a polisher or mounter or smith tally mark I can;t say. Gifu/Seki/Nagoya RJT smiths seem to only have a small 'seki', 'na' (Nagoya) or 'gi' (Gifu) stamp. Don't recall any 'tally' code/numbers here. I remember seeing a Seki RJT in Type 98 dated 1944? with the 'fittings numbers' in kanji tho' (from memory Seki Mitsunobu fittings O127? this was in last 6 months on NMB) . Final word...Just thinking out loud (Nick hates this)...but could these tang marks be the RJT 'shinsa' record number? I mean, each RJT blade was 'shinsa'd" so maybe this is the RJT shinsa-in's record number in case a sword should fail in the future the inspector who passed it would be identifiable...just thinking...sorry all! Hope there is something of value here, Regards

Amazing what turns up for sure...That scabbard looks good Dave,should turn out nice. Hard to tell if there is any "special purpose" to the fittings like these. Maybe, as you say Neil, just special order fittings...I think that is certainly the case with my Rinji Seishiki above, but these green bindings, maroon saya and silvered fittings, although rare, seem to stand out as a bit of a 'type" don't they. Maybe one day we'll get a firm fact on them. Regards,

Hi Neil, That binding looks like the dark green type.Who is the smith? Any idea why some swords are silver plated fittings and green binding? Nice quality. Regards,

Thanks for fixing article. About the koshirae stamping...left style of matsu is close but I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the style, after all, those 2 examples you/Nick show are just printing type. Take a look at mine below...this may be (pretty certain) the stamp of the Yamagami bros. themselves...pretty sure it is the same on all their tangs - I think they put it on, but really, I don't know, other than to say that only the Yamagami bros swords have it (so far as I have seen). Here below also is a pic of "the other nmb member's" fittings...you will notice they are 'O' with kanji numbers except on the back of the habaki where they are arabic numbers. I can't remember who this nmb member was or the post. I haven't got a pic of mine (swords packed away just now) but my Rinji Seishiki mounts markings are the same except all my fittings are kana 'i" with arabic numbers as "i 403". These are on the blade now discussed below. Matsu stamp on Rinji Seshiki mounted blade by (Yamagami) Munetoshi with RJT star, dated 18/5. All fittings incl habaki stamped "i 403" but tang stamped "Matsu in circle 1080". This matsu stamp appears on his and his brother Akihisa's swords, both private order and RJT. It is seen as follows (in date order). Most are from pics of swords or swords I have seen, but don't own: Akihisa 17/2 star matsu 542 Rinji " ? matsu 61 Rinji Munetoshi 17/4 matsu 11 Rinji " 17/11 star matsu 422 ? " 17/11 star matsu 433 Rinji " 18/1 star matsu 508 Type 98 * Akihisa 18/3 star matsu 819 Rinji Munetoshi 18/5 star matsu 1080 Rinji fittings/habaki stamped i 403* Akihisa 18/10 star matsu 1377 Rinji 19/3 onwards the RJT kana/number on tang system is seen. * = GT coll. These are the tang markings that precede the list above. I don't know why some numbers in these lists are "out of number sequence" and "out of date sequence": Munetoshi 16/7 106 (no star or Matsu) Akihisa 16/9 249 " Type 98 Munetoshi 16/9 308 " " Akihisa 16/12 566 " Rinji Hope this helps. Let me know if you MUST have pics of my koshirae markings and I will dig them out. Regards,

Hi Dave, I know we've strayed a bit from TOCHO, but binding is interesting too. That style and colour is interesting. I had a sword years ago (when I was still in nappies) and it also had that deep green binding (but 'normal' style). Fittings were standard Type 98 BUT it had silver plated guard/fittings etc and the metal saya was a deep red / maroon colour. The blade was by Ishido Teruhide. I have seen pics of the same style of mounting only about twice in the last 3 decades...wonder if it was a special mounting style for a special group? Interesting stuff - this is another one for Bruce haha.. Regards,

Just read through your pdf compilation on markings etc Bruce...great work. I have a couple of comments on the Yamagami Munetoshi blades (Niigata RJT smith) in the page titled "stamped numbers". In this part I contributed to the Munetoshi "Matsu" stamp information and I now see that the "matsu" in a circle is mentioned in the very last pdf page as being (researched by Nick Komiya) to be a "private purchase & rental' number. If so, then Yamagami Munetoshi and his brother Akihisa, both great smiths of Niigata, sure hired out a lot of their swords, including those with a star on them. I say this as of the 15 blades by them I have seen in hand/or pics, 7 had 'matsu" stamps., Also in this same 'stamped numbers' paragraph I mention the use of "o154" on another tang by Kunishiro, an RJT of Aomori prefecture..on this I messed up...I said a couple of times that 'o' was a code for Aoyama prefecture...of course it is actually Aomori prefecture (can you correct?). Another minor point on fittings markings that is not included (that I could see) was one I think we discussed on NMB once...it was the stamping of small "kana and arabic numbers" on the fittings of Rinji Seshiki mounts on a Munetoshi blade I have (Rinji with star) numbered "matsu 1080" on the tang, with the number "i 403" stamped on all fittings (tsuba, 3 seppa, sayaguchi, hacho clip) and also on the base edge of the habaki itself...just thought I'd mention it as another NMB member posted pics of the same thing in a discussion once, so it is a "variation" to look for. I'm guessing, but probably just a fittings shop number as it is not connected to the tang mark "matsu 1080". Mine and the one on nmb (can't remember smith) are the only two I know about. You're doing great work Bruce...keep it up. Regards,

Nice binding Neil. Oviously an officer with a few extra yen could get his sword mounted to his personal taste (wouldn't be cheap!).That Ikkanmaki on a Type 94/98 is one I have never seen in hand, so very rare. While rare on Type 94/98 mounts it is the standard for Rinji Seishiki mounts (it was also called 'katate-maki' wasn't it?). It comes in both lacquered and unlacquered style. Within the Rinji Seishiki types I would think that the rarest of the rare is the binding I show on the tsuka in the OP...it is a leather binding called 'gangi-maki'. I have only seen it on mine and in another two pics of Rinji Seishiki mounts...so also rare. Interesting pic Neil, thanks for sharing...I do like 'variation' discussions. Thanks also to Thomas for that "Tocho" source reference. Regards,

AAARGH! I see Ed has that book also....maybe I should just shut up!

Doh! It always happens...I spoke too soon again.! Good library Guido.

Sorry John, I just saw that I had not answered your question. This is a difficult one. All I can say is (1) "probably" the RJT smith signed the work as he finished and they were either inspected and stamped at his forge when collected (monthly?) or (2) stamped at HQ after they were collected by the inspector (monthly?). As this RJT system worked over long distances, this would mean that some blades finished/signed and collected would be rejected and so would get no star.... meaning there are signed blades out there with flaws and no star...maybe he got paid a lesser fee for a flawed sword but it would be permitted to be sold on without a star or, if too flawed it would be recycled into the next supply of RJT tamahagane...I am only guessing here but it seems a logical assumption. As the RJT regulations say, and as is supported by Chris Bowen's experience with RJT, the inspection process was carried out on every sword in terms of workmanship, shape, mei and date cutting etc, but testing for actual performance/quality was only done on samples selected periodically. This means that every sword must meet all standards all the time! Visual in-hand inspection decided whether the sword got a star, but only a 'percentage' of each smith's work was taken to be physically tested (maybe to destruction?) at random from monthly bundles of star stamped 'passed inspection" swords. This system would mean that RJT smiths would always strive to produce good work because (I presume) they never knew when one of their finished swords would be taken for physical testing. So...to give you your answer, I think the RJT swords were signed/dated before collection/inspection. I say this as I don't think an inspector would have time to go to 50 forges around the country every month to inspect unsigned RJT swords and then, having passed them, wait at each forge for each 50 smiths to sign them before he stamped them and took them back to Tokyo...he would never get through them all. The same applies to the other system, meaning that the inspector collected the swords of 50 smiths around the country (or they sent them in?) and then, after he inspected them as OK back at Tokyo he had to send them back out to be signed/dated according to RJT standards and then wait for them to come back so he could check them again and star stamp them....no, I think they were signed/dated at each forge and either inspected/stamped there or sent in to Tokyo where they would be inspected/stamped. As I said, I am only assuming this as we have little archive proof. I know Nick Komiya hates guessing and rumour but this is really all we can do at the moment. This really is a task for Nick I think...he has already shone so much new light on the Rinji Seshiki Gunto area of study, I hope he "finishes" the small details of the RJT part of the story also. Regards,

My office is too 'discombobulated' to take a picture, books all over the place, but nice to see the members' books. Some very good libraries there...but one thing I noticed (maybe I missed it?) is I don't see any copy of 'NIHONTO MEIKAN' by Homma & Ishii. A very good research tool for members - I prefer the pre-1996 edition. Regards,

Hi Dave, Yes I guess in the end it must all come down to what we have actually seen ourselves. In my case, never having seen faults, I still have high regard for RJT. Keep up the good work,

Your comment prompts me to say that Morita sans "regulations for RJT' doc I translated has a line which states that any left-over bits of tamahagane had to be returned to the govt. I think this would also mean that 'failed' swords would also be 'recycled' by the govt. into new tamahagane for supply to RJT smiths. I think I remember seeing a pic of a box of tamahagane for the RJT scheme that had a 'level of quality' note on the box. This must mean (if my old memory is correct) that various grades of tamahagane were supplied to smiths. This stands to reason as every smelting cycle would likely use slightly different raw material sowould produce several levels of finished metal (or each smelting cycle produced one uniform level of metal, but each cycle's output varied from the next?)...so over time there were various grades of tamahagane used...some 'good, some better and some best', so it is probably correct what Dave said...the quality of the tamahagane varied so the quality of the sword varied....but whether this is connected to "thin skin" (which is a construction matter) I don't know. Thin skin would seem to be a 'choice' matter for the smith? From this I suppose it would be reasonable to say that the quality of RJT work varied as the Yasukunito varied (I wonder if they were supplied with the same tamahagane? Maybe there was only the one smelter?). Anyway, I think the standard of gendaito varies (as swords always have) but whether 1932-1945 swords are generally, or more often, inferior I have to say that I think Yasukunito and RJT are in general of superior / uniform quality, as is their forging.. Just me...

Hi Dave, Yes I see what you mean (if I have got it right)...the "average gendaito" is sometimes found with "thin skin" as gendaitosho don't always work to high standards. On this subject there will be varying views I am sure, all based on personal findings. I haven't got that book you mentioned but in order to assess some aspects of gendaitosho work I looked up the book 'The Yasukuni Swords' p.73-74. I did this to check both 'differing standards of gendaito quality' and to see if there was any mention of swords failing on the battlefield for weaknesses and structural problems. This book gives the Yasukuni inspection process and states that they had an inspection process that identified the Yasukunito as being rated as 3 grades, that is: 'good, better, best'. Swords could also fail this inspection. Prices were set on "good, better, best" and the variations are given on these pages. It doesn't say what happened to the rejected swords, neither does it mention any failures in those that passed inspection. Although not addressing faults or failures, this is a valuable record when you get discussions like this one. So, if Yasukuni blades had 3 gradings and prices (and failures), then it seems reasonable that RJT system may also have done this (failure does not get a star) so your discussion with Alan about seeing low quality in some gendaito seems reasonable. But there is more to it than this. Whether gendaitosho intentionally made differing grades of sword I don't know...but it occurs to me that in the sense that Yasukuni and RJT had rigid inspection standards it could be said that they are less likely to have intentional low quality than the "average gendaito" and as for flaws I suppose Yasukunito and RJT at least were assessed on whether they affect the serviceability of the blade in use? I mean, they wouldn't let a blade through that was structurally liable to fail in use would they? Thinking out loud about the original question of gendaito having 'thin skin', while Alan said "the average gendaito" did he mean to include Yasukunito and RJT? I ask as I think it less likely to be the case with Yasukunito and RJT due to the government control of tamahagane production and the two sword inspection systems put in place for Yasukunito and RJT. Since production quality was the result of dedicated smiths, government control and rigid inspection standards, then it would be fair to say that, unlike the Yasukunito and RJT (can't say about the "average gendaito") all swords made from say 1250 to say 1932 would be more likely to have low quality metals and structural flaws than Yasukuni and RJT blades wouldn't they?. I say this as it would be fair to say that no swordsmiths before Yasukuni in 1933 and RJT in about 1942 had to pass rigorous official metal controls and blade inspections by trained swordsmiths and metallurgists and technical experts. While flaws and several levels of quality may exist in Yasukunito and RJT, I think logic says they are likely to be superior to "the average gendaito", if not the average nihonto also. Having said that, I think we need more information/facts on why/how is it that the "average gendaito" (including Yasukuni + RJT) has gotten a reputation for having "thin skin"? Hope I'm not rambling or missing the point, Regards,

Hmmm, what to say. Firstly I agree with Dave that RJT are weapons...in fact the last nihonto made for war on the battlefield (that's why I collect them). Now about the quality...As I have never used a RJT blade for its intended purpose and have never had one polished, I am a bit 'under qualified' to make any profound statement here regarding this above view on quality. I can say however that I have never seen a star stamped RJT blade with flaws (presumably because they had to pass inspection). I have seen private order gendaito by prominent makers (eg. Suetsugu Shigemitsu - Fukuoka) with the worst open hada I have ever seen, yet still signed, dated and mounted for military use. Although the sample is small, this suggests that a star stamp would not appear on such a flawed sword. As to the 'hidden' quality, which only appears after a second polish, well I have not had such a sword in hand. What I have collected, based on my assessment: I have 4 RJT blades, all excellent quality (no flaws). I have 3 gendai gunto which would be classed as private order, also of excellent quality (2 not dated and 1 a private order by a RJT smith (no star). I have one 'mystery maker' which looks good but still has some unanswered questions about it and its quality. Some of these swords need a polish but I like them too much to submit them to modern Hadori polishers...I'd rather look at the WWII polish even with scratches etc. Because of this fact, I will never see my swords in a repolished state, so can only defend their quality based on my 50 years of sword knowledge (I am not saying the above view is wrong, I am just saying I have not seen it myself). You can look at my swords in the 'Japanese Swords in the Trotter Collection" document that Brian attached at the bottom of the index page. I wrote it just as a record of a small group of swords...some might enjoy a read, some may have the same swords and give us their opinion on their quality.. So, in closing, I can only say that "from what I've seen", the classifying of RJT into "good, better, best" is not something I have actually seen myself. The closest I suppose I could come is that not all RJT blades appeal to my taste. I have let a few go (even Yasukuni) because they didn't 'inspire' me...but I never saw a flawed or inferior piece of work amongst them...just didn't meet my taste. I will be interested to see what sort of feedback comes from this discussion. I have spoken as a collector who focuses on collecting "the last true fighting swords made for the purpose of war on the battlefield" Everything after 1945 is art...not for me (just my opinion). Knowing the dedication of the Japanese when they put their mind to it, it is hard to think their swordsmiths would make dodgy swords...maybe cheaper types based on clearly stated metal variations...but, will be interested to hear opinions. Regards to all,

Brian, I looked through the posts and don't think anyone answered your question...so here goes. Yes,when the Occupation forces decided to destroy all the confiscated swords held at the Akabane arsenal in Tokyo (not sure what year...1949?) there were about 5000 swords selected by the NBTHK for preservation and these were taken to the NBTHK (at Ueno?) and stored away and forgotten. About 20? years ago they started re-polishing these swords and as they got through them all it was proposed to return them (on loan?) to the original prefecture or city from whence they came. When I was in Hiroshima around 2010 I saw a display called "Akabane Swords" there. These were part of a sort of National Akabane Return Display. Whether they went back to NBTHK after a time I don't know...maybe they were actually returned to their original homes throughout Japan. Hope this helps.

Hi Thomas, Yes that is the series...I notice I said Shoshin rather than Shoshi (short/small history)...just more proof I am getting more ga-ga as I get older. The series of articles ran in TOKEN BIJUTSU ssues #146 Mar. 1969 #147 Apr 1969 #148 May 1969 #149 Jun 1969 #151 Aug 1969 #152 Sep 1969 #153 Oct 1969 Sequel/Addenda #166 Nov 1970 #167 Dec 1970 #498 Jul 1988 #503 Dec 1998 You are welcome Stephen, sorry I couldn't find any more info. Regards,

Hi Steven, I know what it' is like to have an "unknown" smith. I your case there is little known beyond.his name and location., but I did find this... Looking at the 'Nihon Gendaito Shoshin' Chap. IV p.10 and Addenda p.7 he was KOBAYASHI (Shigenori) NARIYUKI of Tokushima. He studied under Morita Masamichi of Kyoto. This Masamichi was a student along with Sumitani Masamine, both students of Sakurai Masayuki of the Sakurai school. Not much, but it might give you some leads... Regards,

Well, dang, I think you nailed it Jean. First time I have seen a tsuba mis-used in this way. BTW, sorry to have "butted in" to the original topic. Regards,