davidequis

Thank you John, I’m very new to this field. Am I correct to interpret “nie”, “jihada” & “Gendaito” as, “this Munetoshi is a quality blade, made traditionally (folded and water quenched) and probably from tamahagane”? (reassurance to all, that this is a family heirloom and not for sale. Just seeking to establish its story - heirlooms without stories are just objects)

Further pics. There seem to be faint marks of what might have been paint or ink.

Thought I had better start a new thread, rather than sidetrack other threads. This October 1942, version occupies a window a month prior to the brothers having the star-stamp applied to their swords. The fittings all bear 98, which I assume makes it a 98 version. What are the expert opinions of the steel? Is it tamahagane tradional Or mill steel? Is it an interesting wall hanging or something better? many thanks in advance for your assistance.

Munetoshi was an RJT smith, but apparently the star-stamp was not used on the brother’s swords until November 42 (I forget where I read that, but it was on a thread in here somewhere). This October sword is in an unregulated window.

Thank you Bruce, an amazing document. This Munetoshi, October, 1942 sword pushes the use of the matsu stamp to much earlier than the document states (1944) - new info is good info. According to the document, this sword is a bit of a mystery. Munetoshi was supplied tamahagane and is known for making traditional swords as was his brother. The document states that star stamp indicates non-traditional made sword. This sword has no star. So, is it traditionally made tamahagane or mill steel? is it water or oil quench? There was another post that mentioned a Munetoshi dated aug/sept 1942 and stamped in the low 300s. This Munetoshi is 451 making it roughly 100 swords later and indicating production output of 100/month between the two brothers. A third Munetoshi (might have been his brother) dated May 1943 was numbered a little over 1000, again suggesting production of around 100/month between the two brothers. The question is, what is the production rate of traditional verses non-traditional swords? Finally, is this a quality sword or a wall hanging? Many thanks, in advance, to all those who might offer their expertise. Regards david

Another Munetoshi, October, 1942. carries the same matsu stamp. In addition, all fittings carry the same number as pictured. A final point of interest, there appears to be a set of marks that the experts may recognise (circled on pic) - probably originally ink or paint.

This sword came back from PNG at some time during the war. Acquisition history in png is not known. How to clean, stabilise, restore? blade has sticky grease. fittings showing corrosion. lacquered silk on handle crazed. dimensions 93 cm x 3.2cm many thanks in advance

Thanks Bruce, another question... The fittings need care and the lacquered silk on handle is “crazed” (looks like mouse droppings) clean and stabilise fittings? polish fittings? restore crazed lacquer? aaand suggestions to clean blade? It has a very sticky grease on it - might be gun barrel grease. All guns were shipped to PNG full of the stuff. My Pa’s troops received bren guns on the Kokoda track that couldn’t be used until they were cleaned...not much fun when they were in the thick of battle.

Thanks Bruce and George, There is no sign of a star. What was posted is all we can see. There was another post that mentioned that munetoshi started using the star in November 1942, one month after the production of this sword. I have read that we should not do anything with the rust on the tang...is this correct?

This is additional research info for those interested in munetoshi swords. This sword came back from PNG sometime during the war. Original Australian owner was a medic. its acquisition history is not known. Possibly from Milne bay. blade is in as new condition, which I assume is a reflection of the quality of the steel. Handle, leather scabbard cover and fittings are showing their age.