Scogg

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

Interesting one Burt; I've been focusing a good chunk of my study on this type of sword. This is an NCO Type95 Shin Gunto. This particular example is a "Pattern 2" version, with the brass tsuba and aluminum handle. Looks in great shape, and with a leather tassel to boot! These were mass produced and machine made blades, made from ~1937 to ~1945. Your example was made between July 1938 and June 1939. The scratching you highlight is just that: minor scratching; and is pretty typically found on these from years of reckless handling. The serial number... Is it missing it's third digit? Or is it being censored? Do you happen to have a photo of the other side of the handle? Does it have a matching number on the scabbard mouth? This is a very early tokyo SUYA aluminum handle type 95, that is of particular interest to my study. Very cool, and all the best, -Sam

I've always found these stickers interesting. I once had the remnants of one on an Osawa Kanehisa made gunto. Here's a discussion that has the same sticker as yours. See the photos on this link from IJASWORDS and beyond: https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/21190-seki-inspection-tag-on-combat-saya/ Here's a neat list of sword company logos: https://www.japaneseswordindex.com/logo/logo.htm Hope this helps, All the best, -Sam

That image is a little busy and blury, and it's hard to determine which letter and line is pointing to which feature. The "h" that you've boxed in, is in reference to FUKURE which is a blister, and is depicted by that dark lima-bean looking mark right below your red box. Here's a good link that separates each flaw, with an image. https://japaneseswordindex.com/kizu.htm Hope that helps. All the best, -Sam

Hi Burt, The area you highlight on the MUNE near the KISSAKI, is typically where you would find "Polisher Marks" known as "NAGASHI". When the blade was polished, the polisher created that area with the distinct line. Usually NAGASHI look like a series of lateral lines beyond that distinct line into the tip. They are also often found under the habaki between the mune-machi and the nakago corrosion. To address the rippling effect with the ridges, in your previous comment - I would look into blade flaws like SHINAE. Although, to me, it looks like an artifact from a less-than-professional polish. If this sword had received a non-professional polish sometime in it's lifetime after the war - it could explain those ridges, and also what appears to be an erasure of the finer NAGASHI lines near the kissaki. Just my guess and two cents; I'm just a collector not an expert. -Sam

@Bruce Pennington

Hi Catalin, Your observation that the engravings will not identify a swordsmith is correct. This is one of those blades, that due to suriage and condition, it's really hard to ID - especially from photos. You may not be satisfied with any ID we can offer - short of sending it to an expert. Muromachi jidai is believable to me. Still hoping someone else comments and offers some more insights. All the best, -Sam

Here’s an ongoing thread right now with a World War Two sword that has some “old” looking nakago corrosion

Burt, I’d be curious to see the results of any testing you do. That being said, I see nothing to suggest this sword is any older than what mecox’s original translation purports. Of all the World War Two swords I’ve handled, they’ve all had varying degrees of rust on the nakago from very pitted to shiny clean. The hash marks you see on the nakagojiri is a typical wartime method of keeping the blade and fittings organized during manufacture or assembly. See below a sword I handled this week. A wartime blade with hash marks to match it to some fittings. Your sword looks very nice and personally, I’d be proud to own it. All the best, -Sam

Thank you Bruce! I would have thought this were a frankensword if the fittings weren’t so well fitted. But also, the hashmarks found on the spine of the nakago and on the habaki (5 and 1), match the numbered fittings (51). Nakago also has TO stamp, and blade is numbered 857. Pretty interesting! -Sam

Thank you for the comparison. When seeing them side-by-side like that, I would agree, it does seem most likely

SUKEN horimono on one side, Bonji characters on the other - and suriage. Sounds like you've got that part understood The bonji character is hard to identify. I think your guess of Monju Bosatsu is as good as any. Maybe Dianichi myorai, Kwannon, or Marichiten? Really hard to tell, and I am just pulling from the link below... I'm not very familiar with BONJI, and they are typically just religious symbolism as far as I understand. Here's the link to compare some bonji characters, from Ray's website (a great resource). https://swordsofjapan.com/nihonto-library/Japanese-bonji/ I'd recommend against using lemon juice, or any other acidic solutions or chemicals on your blade. It can cause problems, damage, and promote rusting. What's done is done, but it's generally taboo and should be avoided. High proof isopropyl alcohol with a non abrasive cloth, wiped dry, and followed with and a very light coating of light oil should be used instead (blade only). https://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/faq/1-care-and-maintenance/ Very hard to judge a blade based on photos, especially if the condition is not superb. This might be a candidate that you'll have to get into the hands of someone knowledgable to learn more. All I can really say with any confidence is what has already been shared: I believe it's a genuine nihonto that's been greatly shortened. If I had to guess based on just the images, I'd probably go SHINTO period - but that's really a shot in the dark. Hope others provide some interesting feedback. All the best, -Sam

Let’s keep it civil, and not allow this to devolve into a battle of egos. Jacques is who he is, and nobody is going to change him. I’ve struggled with him too; but he’s very knowledgable, and I absolutely believe he’s held and studied many good swords, with a far better memory than I will ever have. We can go back and forth and disagree all we want, so long as we keep focus. Sincerely, -Sam

A very nice Type 98 showato nonetheless. A complete package with tassel, extended kissaki, and in good condition. I wonder… did you think that the clasped hands sarute was standard? It’s not a typical feature, and to see so many from one person is kind of wild. It must have been something that was sought out. Very cool! -Sam

Hi Caitlin, I believe that you have a genuine Nihonto. Like you suggest, it appears to be o-suriage (greatly shortened). It's hard to put a date on your item, especially from photos. It's made even more difficult because it's been shortened, and the original shape has been lost to time. If you are interested in restoration, please keep in mind that it's a very expensive and long process. I would recommend finding a well respected and recommended TOGISHI to have a look at your sword, and help you determine if it's worth the price to restore or not. Unfortunately, I am in the USA and not the UK, and am unfamiliar with togishi over there. Maybe someone can chime in, and help. Best of luck, cool sword, and welcome to the forum! All the best, -Sam

It's my understanding that it's not a distinct mune-machi, but rather the oshigata showing what the style of mune is, by "unfolding" it on the illistration. See other example below:

Here is an interesting thread about museums and tsuba. All the best, -Sam

I imagine it’s frustrating for those of you involved in the discussion - but the back and forth is actually pretty interesting, a learning opportunity for the rest of us

A lot of red flags with that one, Steve. The nakago and mei really doesn't look right. The hamon looks bad, either faked or an amateur polish. The yakote is gone. Fittings look late war OK, but the leather looks new... Personally, I don't see enough positive to overcome the negative. -Sam

Amazing work Markus and Rayhan That was quite an addition to my digital library, and it's going to take some time for me to digest Much appreciated! -Sam

Speaking personally; absolutely! Of all the WW2 koshirae types, I've always admired the "Type 3" fittings

Bruce got you covered Just to add, "SAKU" basically means "Made By". So the smith name is simply KANEYUKI. Muromachi period is believable based on what I can see. I would think the later half of the Muromachi period. Looks like an older blade, fitted with the leather saya cover, to be carried during WW2. The menuki is not clear enough for me to determine what it might be. I see where you're coming from with "volcano", but it's just a little too small/blurry for me to confidently identify. Might be a good question for the TOSOGU section, if you can get some good photos. All the best, -Sam