WilBru5

A quick example for you to look at

Too busy to spit; but this one pulled me out....

Chad; check real closely the blade in front of the habaki, the flat of the tsuba, the fuchi (opposite side of the latch), The suspension ring mount on the saya, and the drag of the saya... you will probably find what looks like a check mark, this is the "HE" mark of the Jinsen arsenal.... there are many posts about Jinsen.  good reading take care

For thoughts on quenched navy blades read this article by Mr. Komiya

 http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/ideal-geometry-cutting-performance-715257/?highlight=geometry

Brian

He will.  I have been in discussion with him regarding information for the pinned post on the Type 95.  Nick is very accommodating about sharing.

By the way; Things are coming along,  I am getting things together and organized for a quality post on the T95... also notable is Nick keeps finding relevant info which I add into appropriately.

I almost wish I was wealthy enough to just hire him for a couple months to deep dive the archives for anything and everything related and relevant.

How about pinning this post??

The other day I was looking at a type 95... and knowing I had read this post before, scanned down to reference it again.

There is a great amount of discussion and photographic evidence here which is very helpful to all.  Someone new might miss this post.

It would be great to have it right up front.

Rich J.

I have found the knowledge base of the members here to be very extensive and by and large factual.   Given their experience as collectors and researchers, they openly and freely will share their knowledge and opinions.  Sometimes the answers and opinions the O.P. gets are not what they were hoping for.  But the answers and opinions given are not typically disrespectful, they are just bluntly honest.

As for your tanto, I think it looks nice.  If I found it for sale at an agreeable price I would likely buy it.  In all probability I would use it to cut my sandwiches at backyard gathering, just to enjoy the conversations it would spark.

As for the sword original to the post... Thank you Stegel.  Once again your knowledge base has proven valuable.  

I think I will catalog this one as a fine example of what new collectors should be wary of.

In any given collecting arena I approach pricing collectable items in this manner;

1. Fair market pricing
   A price range as dictated by the market, (as noted by Neil).  The focus item should be a condition of being correct as originally produced for use.  accompanying attachments and components may or may not be original to the item,( serial numbers may or may not match), but are correct in design model and production run of the focus item.  Focus Item may or may not show wear consistant for its age and use.
2. Premium pricing
   A price range at the top, or high end of market value.  The focus item should be in exemplary condition as originally produced for use.  accompanying attachments and components are desired be original to the focus item,(matching serial numbers), but may not be original,(non-matching serial numbers) are exemplary condition and again are correct in design model and production run of the focus item.  Focus item, attachments, and associated components show minimal wear.
3. Discounted pricing
   A price range at the bottom,( or slightly below), market value.  The focus item should be a condition of being correct as originally produced for use.  focus item may or may not be missing accompanying attachments and or components.  accompanying attachments and components may be correct to design, but incorrect to model and or production run of focus item.  Focus item and or accompanying attachments and components show heavy wear and or slight damage.  and of course no expectation of matching serial numbers.
4. "Junk" pricing
   An amount I am willing to toss down a hole and walk away... The core of the focus item and or just the attachments and components being correct as originally produced for use.  However, the focus item and or  accompanying attachments and components, (if any), are of such misused and damaged condition as to render them unserviceable.  The condition and construction of the focus item and accompanying attachments and components are such a bastardized amalgam as to not be representative of any definable model or design.   "Why would I buy anything in this condition....sometimes I just want to put the poor thing out of its misery, give it a decent burial in a box where no one will ever look apon it again."
   
   And then there is:
5. Madonna pricing
   There is no justification for the price.  The market value doesn't matter... I am going to have the focus item.  You can see the fever glaze in my eyes and see the shaking of my hand as I quickly pay the money I can't afford for the item which I scoop up so gently and hold so lovingly that my love/wife becomes jealous...  An item of exquisite pristine all original as produced condition.  Or an item of such historical note or rarity as to be either a one of a kind, or one of only a few known to exist.  An item I readily and proudly display with such flushed excitement that everytime I start going on about it my love/wife rolls her eyes and leaves the room.... and I don't even notice she has gone...
    

Thank you for bringing this up Bruce P.

There was someplace else,( I don't recall where), I read a post about this ebay seller... The 1st thing I did was go on to his ebay store and take a look.  You are confirming again what was reported, and what I believed I saw,  that some of the items he sells are a hodgepodge of parts.  And that potential buyers are not being informed some of the swords are not of original completeness... 

I don't want to say the seller is intentionally attempting to misrepresent or defraud... But given the volume of Japanese swords and related items, one would think the seller to be knowledgeable enough to know what they are selling.  

Just giving an update.

The project is moving  forward.  I have received permissions from most sources and have started collecting, and consolidating the various references materials.  

Please note; even as we look forward to having this pinned and available... remember it will take time to produce a quality document.  

In fact Brian...

I have the time software and inclination.  So, if you don't object... I'll PM Nick Komoya and Stu W.  over at WarRelics, ( because they have already compiled and posted very informative and factual posts) and Bruce P, Stegel, & Shamsy here, ( because they have a wealth of information contained in and as evidenced by their posts).  I will seek permission from these persons to repost the information they have, (crediting them for the information of course).  Once I have their information combined and consolidated into a draft, I will PM or e-mail you and each of them the draft.  That way, (as the learned historians & experts), they can provide tweaks and modifications to the draft so we can provide the community a quality informational and educational fact based pinned report on the type 95 swords.

Do you approve of me proceeding with this endeavor?

Sincerely

Bruce W.

LOL... indeed

Looks great Neil

We don't have a single all-encompassing thread with all the info on them in it.

In order to pin a certain post, we need ONE post with all the info, as I don't have the time to cut and paste and compile from different posts.

Instead, if someone has time...copy and paste the relevant info into a single word doc and I'll create a pdf from it. Would need to add the pics into the doc though. A lot of work for anyone.

Brian could we put out a call and see who here is interested in doing this?

Bruce

I agree with you 100%.  Plus having those contributions from Shamsy, Stegel, and others combined and right out front allows amending and adding information as new discoveries are verified... instead of bits and pieces of the history becoming lost and buried as old posts become cold stale and archived. 

Hello all.

I have heard it suggested.  And I agree with the thought.  there is enough interest in the subject to warrant a pinned informational post on the Type 95 swords.  There are several very informed, well respected, long time members here who have information and photos gleaned from years of dedicated study of these particular swords.  A pinned post would certainly help new admirers and researchers with readily available information.

What say yee??  

Shall we try to prompt Brian into adding one?

Shamsy(Steve)

You are a well respected member of this community.  And evidence has shown you have a wealth of knowledge gleaned from study and research.  Evidenced by your posts; you also have an interest and passion for the items discussed here.  For my part; when I develop an interest and decide to immerse into a subject, I readily plunge into the deep side of the pool.  I am an avid and tenacious researcher.  I also enjoy involved discussions and debates, even when they involve opposing positions and conclusions.

As you and I enjoy sharing our thoughts, there are going to be times we are both going to be providing comments within posts.... We get to decide whether or not our interactions are adversarial, or met with mutual consideration and respect.

I for one would rather not have Members here concerned with whether broaching certain points of interest was going to incite nonproductive exchanges.

Sincerely

Bruce W. 

Stegel

I am pleased to meet you.

I very much like the manner in which you discuss topics.  Even when you disagree with my opinions and when you are pointing out my inaccuracies, you do so in a non-confrontational, none demeaning or debasing manner.  This is the type of dialog I thoroughly enjoy when  researching discussing and deciding conclusions pertaining to topics where in parts of the "real" history has been lost or obscured and collectors/researchers are left to interpret the existing evidence the best they can.  This type dialog I enjoy even when opinions and conclusions drawn oppose each other to the point of impasse.  Mutual consideration and respect is afforded.

Again, it is a pleasure... I look forward to, and I hope we have, many more conversations.

Sincerely

Bruce W.

Bruce P

You truely are an Ambassador of this arena.  And a credit to the hobby. I do have intentions of sticking around here, this group contains a vast and valuable amount of knowledge. 

In response to member Shamsy’s  reply;

Sir.

• You may have missed the beginning of my post so here is how I started this.
  “I am still new to the learning curve of collecting Gunto, so please excuse if this is al ready a well known and covered topic”…
• Also due to a poor word choice and sentence structure I may have confused you into believing I was attempting to claim “discovery” of  “already known established facts”.  I assure you that was not my intent.  I will attempt to better cite preestablished works in the future.

Let’s get right to the points I was trying make:

Excluding any reproductions and fakes, for obvious reason. Excluding any unmarked or indistinctly marked, for it can be said that even tho they may have a distinct pattern suggestive of origin, they could be said to be of indeterminate origin.   And excluding exceptions, for they are by their very nature not indicative of a “norm”.  The Theories I was trying to express, (which I have not seen you or any other historian express is):

1. The origin of the “distinct pattern” which appears to be the norm for swords, (which you designate as), pattern 6 and pattern 8, and the “distinct pattern” wooden saya, (which I have shared pictures of).  I am theorizing the origin of this distinct pattern of production, and swords and saya which are easily identifiable by it, is the Imperial Japanese annexed region of Korea known as Jinsin.  That Jinsin was the singular point of origin.
   If this be a “fairly obscure but established truth”, then bring it forth and display it in print…  If you believe this theory to be “wrong or wildly speculative”, then disprove it with factual data showing a “norm” of pattern 6 and pattern 8 swords and distinct pattern wooden saya not only being produced in Jinsin but being produced elsewhere as well…
    
2. Regarding the two distinct patterns you designste as pattern 5 and pattern 6:  I agree with other historian’s designation the two are an intent of the same handle design. (Please consult bullet point 2 above)
   But I theorize the distinct pattern difference in appearance and construction is because of theory 1 above, you provide support for this thought by showing pattern 5 is not from Jinsin. 

Only a sizable enough survey of swords and saya refenced in theory 1 will lend credibility to, or disprove the theory…

Now about other points:

• The reason I omitted direct referencing of the distinct pattern you term as pattern 7 is because I have not seen enough examples of pattern 7 to apply reference or any thought to them.  If you believe Jinsin did make pattern 7 this is something I should be able to find examples of as I continue to research.
   
• To my comment of “At this late date in the war when the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing swords, I am guessing was necessity due to lack of supplies and support from main land Japan”.
  You state “I concur and this has been the assumption for many years”.

Seems my comment is neither “already known, established fact”, nor “wrong or wildly speculative and missing several fairly obscure but established truths”.
 

Regarding the pattern 8

• We could debate the rates of production of a trained worker making handles on a Blanchard lathe,( or similar wood turning machine), with a spiral jig – vs – a trained worker hand applying a ito wrap… but without direct evidence the debate would only be speculation.
• I took a statement, which I do believe I credited Mr. Dawson’s book with where I first encountered it, and expanded into a theory “I think it is plausible the sword we are referring to as a pattern 8 has been mischaracterized... I think it plausible the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing "at the same time" their versions of "both" the type 95 NCO sword and the contingency variation of the type 98 Officer's sword”…

This is a Theory and only a theory, not an attempt of claim of fact…

Your position of relating this theory to the myth of the type 3 is a fallacy of relevance.  Mr. Ohmura claims the type 3 designation to be fact….

I could be wrong, (and I am sure you will tell me if I am), but as far as I have seen Mr. Dawson did not claim the sword, (which he designated as variation #4 and you designate as pattern 8, to be in fact an officers sword… He merely mused about the possibility.

Now you inform me published authors Richard Fuller & Ron Gregory also expressed this theory…. BUT, not that they claimed it to be FACT.

Thus again a theory is only a theory, waiting to be given credibility or proven incorrect.

And while I address this; included in your educational reply to my post you state:
 “There is some evidence that pattern 8 may have been concurrent or perhaps earlier than pattern 6.” “ Could it be that they were for commissioned officers? Perhaps”, & “Agree though that either theory is possible, but I think that a little tsuka-ito is not a good basis for a theory.”

So… Is my guess of the pattern 8 possibly being made as the same time as the pattern 6 and plausibly intended for officer use “already known, established fact”, or “wrong or wildly speculative and missing several fairly obscure but established truths”.

A word of advice, (not that you want my advice, but I ‘ll give it anyway),

Musing about the possibility of, and saying some evidence exists supporting a theory you adamantly denounce is counterproductive to your argument.

One last thing.

In a previous conversation I with due courtesy and politeness asked how you preferred me to address you.  You have not provided such.

Let me introduce myself;

Formally:  In Academia and legal arenas, the Professional business environment, and to acquaintances I am addressed as Mr. Williams

But as this is an informal environment:  Friends, close family, & associates address me as Bruce.  As there are multiple members here named Bruce, Bruce W. is fine…

I extend the opportunity for you to decide the decorum of our interactions.

Mine late stage..

 

sugata_typ95_last_stage_small.jpgkissaki_3.jpgseki_stamp.jpg202817_tsuka_a_small.jpgblade3_detailed.jpg

Thank you Chris.

Yours very definitely is what Shamsy lists as a pattern 5

One of my pattern 8. 

Thank you Neil.

Yours follows the pattern of stamps I thought it would.

Thank you Trystan

your pattern 5s are continuing to reinforce my thoughts.

which are:

1. Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory did not make any pattern 1 through pattern 5 type 95 NCO swords, or the corresponding koshirae & saya of those swords.
2. All pattern 6 & pattern 8 with original koshirae & saya are easily identifiable by their less refined, (cruder) construction.  All pattern 6 & pattern 8 original saya will be as easily identifiable by their construction, (metal parts originally painted black and wood originally painted green).
3. All pattern 6 & pattern 8 , and their original corresponding koshirae and saya, will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo Factory stamp.  All pattern 6 & 8 were made by/for the Jinsin Arsenal and were not made by/for any other Imperial Japan Arsenal,(and will therefore not bare any other arsenal stamp as the maker).

Since I am already out on the limb, I'm going to go a little bit further;

• The pattern 5 and the pattern 6 are essentially the same pattern,(the 5 being more refined better construction than the 6) having different saya and coming from different Arsenal makers. 
• So; I am betting, apon further study, Shamsy will need to expand his pattern list to include another pattern... a "less refined" construction ringed handle with a wooden saya, and it will bare the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory stamp,(just wild speculation here).  Or maybe The Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory didn't make any pattern 7??

While I am this far out on the limb...

• I don't believe there will be a pattern 8 with original saya found which will not bare the Jinsin arsenal Heijo factory stamp... As I am speculating ALL pattern 8 were made soley by/for the Jinsin Arsenal.

And since I am merrily wondering down this path; "why is the pattern 8 tsuka ito wrapped??  The pattern 8 is supposedly the very last version... the last ditch, when all materials and time was in short supply... And yet, the pattern 8 uses more valuable supplies than the pattern 5,6, & 7.  Plus the tsuka of the patterns 6. & 7 were already being made, and we can see an obvious decline in quality... so why try to improve the quality of the pattern 8 by taking the extra time and supplies to wrap the tsuka??  

At this late date in the war when the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing swords, I am guessing was necessity due to lack of supplies and support from main land Japan.  I think it plausible just as necessity dictated the Jinsin Arsenal Jeijo factory produce their version of the type 95 NCO sword,(pattern 6 and a possible ringed handle variation), necessity also dictated they produce their version of the contingency( B substitute) variation of the type 98 officer's sword... That being what we are calling the pattern 8.

Jim Dawson's description in his book referred to this variation as variation #4.  And in his description he postulated as to whether these were intended for officer use.  I think it is plausible.

I think it is plausible the sword we are referring to as a pattern 8 has been mischaracterized... 

I think it plausible the Jinsin Arsenal Heijo factory began producing "at the same time" their versions of "both" the type 95 NCO sword and the contingency variation of the type 98 Officer's sword.  This would account for additional effort and supplies applied to the pattern 8.  Also; NCO swords were issue items, thus the numbered blades of the pattern 6 being the norm.  But Officers had to buy their uniform accompaniment, thus the reason almost all pattern 8 sword blades are not numbered,(no need for inventory control).

I admit at this time I have no hard evidence to base this on. So I offer these thoughts up for open discussion... prove it right or wrong with verifiable evidence.

Hello all I am researching something and would appreciate help from the members here. I am looking to see examples of the ito wrapped wood handled variation #4 described on pg 205 in swords of Imperial Japan by Jim Dawson.  Others know this as the "Late War", "last Ditch" NCO sword.  Or as described in the Ohmura study as "The maximum Last stage type".  It is also known here by Shamsy's description as "Pattern 8". 

In particular I would like to see good clear pictures of the tsuka and wooden saya,  And any arsenal/inspector stamps on the blade tsuba, fuchi, suspension ring mount, and chape/drag.

Here are my pictures( I already attached them on a previous post of related subject, but am reattaching them here for clearity )

I agree with your comments regarding research and references.  From a collector stand point; it is a shame so much information was lost to us, but that is the way it goes.

After closely inspecting the stamp; I dont think the cresent is the outer edge of the stamp. The depth of the impression of the cresent and the HE appear to be consistant with each other with out any crushing  of the file marks between them.  If the stamp were badly struck at an angle to the point the edge of the stamp imprinted into the metal the file marks between the crescent and the HE would be crushed by the resulting imprint of the stamp face.  Plus the raised HE portion of the stamp would be imbedded deeper, than the face(crescent), into the metal.  And you are correct about the firearm arsenal mark.  I have seen many circle connected  on rifles, but no Mukden arms corp "HE"... interestingly, I have seen many rifles baring both the Mukden rifle stamp and the Jinsin rifle stamp,(which is different from the jinsin HE).

Also very interesting to me;  this post by Stu W http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/ija-type-95-nco-sword-info-228172/shows a pattern 6 which has the Jinsin HE stamp followed by circled two line stamp.  The two lines are very consistent with the Nanman arsenal stamp.  accounts from multiple sources describe a very patterned flow of equipment and military between the Imperial Japan Jinsin Korea  and the Imperial Japan puppet state of Manchukuo (Manchuria).  It is entirely plausible these duel stamped swords were manufactured at/for the Jinsin arsenal, then sent to the arsenals in Manchuria, inspected and stamped there.  Rambling a bit, but there is also much said about the chosen-gun (Koreans military of Imperial Japanese Army).  And the use of these troops in Manchuria and as guards for the Japanese POW camps of allied POWs., camps in both Jinsin Korea and Mukden,Manchuria.  Any correlation between these crudely constructed swords and use by the Chosen-Gun, I have not found.