Scogg

Bummer! Maybe you can locate it on the ground somewhere. If it just fell out easily, it probably was unthreaded or possibly damaged. You can find a replacement or a copy. Not ideal, but the screw is a pretty minor part so I wouldn't sweat it too much. If you were to sell it, I'd just disclose that you replaced the missing mekugi screw. I don't know anything about this particular seller, but this is the part you're looking for: https://www.ebay.com/itm/196866959064?

My apologies, I see now that was a rather cryptic statement on my part. Nothing to worry about, in my opinion. I recently started cataloging type 95 swords that I encounter. I don’t have any others that have those three stamps in that general serial number range. Most around 117k that I have listed have stamps from Tokyo arsenal and Suya sword company. I believe it’s simply because my list is not complete or all encompassing. Your stamps indicate that it was made in nagoya arsenal by the seki sword co. Kiipu’s warrelics link helps explain that a little better then I can. It’s a rabbit hole of info learning about these. I see these swords sell between $750 and $1500 lately. All the best, -Sam

You've got the stamps correct : Seki Corporate Logo, Nagoya 名 , and the Kokura four stacked cannonballs. The kokura stacked cannonball stamp changed in September 1942, so your sword was presumably made prior to that date.. My cataloging and knowledge is far from complete; but your serial number and stamps stand alone on my list - making it difficult to compare to others. That being said, it looks good and in nice condition. A nice looking example, Thanks for sharing! -Sam

Thanks for those photos Steve, While I am no expert, and being able to identify Mumei blades is challenging for me. It REALLY reminds me of a Type 98 Sue Bizen (late muromachi period, bizen school) blade that I once owned. Below are photos of the one that I had. I sold it a while back. Therefore, I'd put my money on Sue Bizen, . https://nihonto.com/a-brief-study-of-bizen-blades-of-the-muromachi-era/ Other, more experienced opinions may vary, -Sam

There may be (or may not be) stamps on the FUCHI, which is the collar piece on the top of the handle, under the Tsuba. It looks like your FUCHI is copper, so there should be some stamps visible. I think I can just barely see one of them on your first images. Here's a photo example of the stamps I am interested in - (Not my photo. I pulled this image from google.)

Cool indeed! These swords are pretty neat, and have become pretty desirable to collectors. Yours has the (NA = 名) NAGOYA STAMP near the serial number , meaning it's a Nagoya arsenal sword. Judging by your serial number, without seeing the stamps, and comparing on my list. Closest date range I can guestimate would be around 1942... Keeping the blade very lightly oiled (sewing machine oil / tsubaki oil / light pure clear unscented mineral oil) will help prevent rust from forming in a non invasive and safe way. Thank you for sharing, All the best, -Sam

Hi Rob, welcome to the forum! Very cool sword. What you have is not a Type 98 - but rather a Type 95 NCO Shin Gunto These swords were machine made between 1937 and 1945, yours is the "Pattern 3" version, with Aluminum handle and Steel Tsuba. If you can show me the serial number, and the stamps on the copper fuchi, I can likely share some more information about it's manufacture and maybe give you a rough date estimate. All the best, -Sam

To address the original question; and apologies if I am preaching to the choir here... I see areas of O-Mokume amongst a lot of Itame. It's my understanding that mokume is accompanied by itame. From Marcus Sesko's site: https://markussesko.com/2015/05/13/kantei-2-jigane-jihada-2/ "Again, I for my part say for the time being that a hada is itame unless there are some obvious burls and then it might be itame mixed with mokume. So please don’t get too much confused about when it is itame and when it is mokume as it is in many cases a mix anyway." And below, an excerpt from Facts and Fundamentals:

Flexing my moderator privileges, and deleting the off-topic back-and-forth arguments. Let's keep name calling off the forum; whether that be in private message or public. Let's stick to the topic at hand, and remember why we're here. Differences of views/opinions/experience and observations is no excuse for hostilities. -Sam

Hi @Jammil, cool sword, and welcome to the forum! Admittedly, I'm a bit less privy to the late-war wood handle variants - I know a lot more about the aluminum handle versions. That being said: Your Type 95 NCO sword is known as the "Pattern 5" version, with the wooden handle (sometimes called a pineapple handle), and metal scabbard. These were manufactured late in the war as resources in Japan became more scarce. I think, conservatively, your sword would date between ~1944 and 1945... B29 bombers took out production by April 1945; and the war ended in the pacific in September. Your blade has the SEKI stamp ( 関 ), from the "Seki Supervisory Unit of Nagoya Army Arsenal". I'd take Conway's and Bruce’s advice about restoration. I am curious though, does it have a matching serial number on the scabbard mouth? Also, is that a silvery paint on the sword? Or is it an eggshell whiteish color? Looks like silver spray paint from the photos, but it's hard to tell. Pretty common to find these NCO swords with an after-war paint job. Thanks for sharing your sword with us, I hope I answered some questions for you. Condolences about your late grandfather, All the best, -Sam

Hi Lev, Cool sword! I’ve always been attracted to these mumei older blades in WW2 fittings. I’ve had a few in my collection over the years. Tough to say much in its current condition, but when I zoom in on some of those photos I can see some activities in the steel. Do you have a good vertical photo of both sides of the nakago? And maybe one that highlights the boshi/kissaki area? All the best, -Sam

Hi Carmine, welcome to the forum! For what it's worth, I am not an expert; I'm just a collector/enthusiast. Your sword appears to be UBU (original length), SHINOGI-ZUKURI (general shape), and MUMEI (unsigned). Based on it's subtle curvature and general profile, my guess would be shinto period - perhaps KANBUN SHINTO (1661-1673) or whereabouts. Unfortunately the condition is poor, and seeing any activity in the steel may not be possible. Brian beat me to it, and like he said, it's hard to say much about it. A great book to begin your journey into Nihonto is: "The Connoisseur's book of Japanese Swords by Kokan Nagayama". All the best, -Sam

The idea that WW2 fitted Wakizashi, or shorter blades, were "Tank/pilot/submarine" swords is a misnomer. There is not documented wartime information that confirms this theory as far as I know. I'm sure it happened, but it was by no means a standard or military issued regulation - and every short sword in war mounts was likely NOT used for tank/pilot/submarine operators. It is often used as a descriptor in FOR SALE listings - as an overly romanticized draw to unbeknownst collectors. Like Jean said, these shorter swords were just fitted on an individual basis. Their length was not tied to any specific military role. Very cool sword. Blade is definitely older. Could we get a photograph of the blade sugata without habaki? I suspect late Muromachi period (just a guess). All the best, -Sam

Here’s a close up of my serial numbers, just for comparison sake. Mine has scratching and some pitting and I believe it received at least one field repair. It would not surprise me if someone postwar did some rust removal to mine. Every 95 I’ve ever encountered has shown signs of age, wear, use or abuse, and I’ve never seen anyone claim an uncirculated factory-fresh example, nor would that claim be possible to confirm with any level of certainty. But for what it’s worth… If I had a nickel every time I heard “the old lady had never touched it before I acquired it”, my sword collection would be much larger No offense intended, but this is my experience in the ww2 sword world. -Sam

I fail to see the similarity of the scratching on the 95, and the barely visible rippling on your officer sword. That rippling could even just be lighting, it's really hard to tell from the photos. Beware of making too many assumptions surrounding the history and manufacture of any antique sword - as a lot of time has passed between then and now, and anything could have happened to explain the features you see. Don't forget, many of these swords were issued and carried in war - they may have been used and/or received field repairs. If these little flaws happened in the arsenals or during manufacture, I would think those kinds of flaws would be well noted and better understood. Then again, I don't have a time machine For what it's worth, your Type 95 is fairly rare. It's of a style during the transition from the copper handle "pattern 1" to the aluminum handle "pattern 2". As you can see, the bolt punctures the imitation ITO wrapping. Shortly after, they adjusted the casting mould, so the bolt would go between the ITO instead. I only have a few recorded like this. Pretty cool, I have one of these too #7249, and it's a personal favorite in my collection. -Sam