Jump to content

RobCarter3

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location:
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA

Profile Fields

  • Name
    Robert C

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

RobCarter3's Achievements

Contributor

Contributor (5/14)

  • One Year In
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

16

Reputation

  1. Thank you for the translation! That makes sense -- I know the strict Navy Type 97 spec mandated hiramaki wrapping. Just don't know why it looks like they ran out of ito.
  2. Greetings all, This is a Toyokawa anti-rust kai gunto that I picked up last year because I wanted a representative stainless Type 97 with a sharkskin saya. Just got around to photographing it. One thing that's strange about this sword is the ito. It doesn't cover the whole tsuka, but ends about exactly one tape's width above the fuchi, leaving the wood core and sharkskin panels exposed. The ito is otherwise well-done, very tight, and with obvious age to it. I don't think it's appearance is due to shrinkage because the wrap changes to hiramaki over the menuki, and there's no indication that the menuki have moved. The mekugi-ana is also unobstructed and everything lines up well. The tsuka, saya (inside the throat), and fittings are all numbered "166," matching the nakago. So it appears that the sword was made this way. I could swear I've seen this exact same thing before on NMB but I can't find it. Maybe the tsuka was originally had a leather or canvas cover? Another thing about this sword is that someone has scratched writing into the habaki. One side appears to say 中村 "Nakamura," a common surname, but the other side is too deteriorated for me to try to decipher.
  3. I wanted to share with you the last (and best) of my recent acquisitions. The sword is a IJN 1883 pattern officer's sword with the "eleven-leaf" guard variation. Other than the second suspension ring being missing (perhaps deliberately? w/ evidence of repair), the naval mounts are in great shape. The blade is suriage muromachi mino-den signed "兼升 " (Kanemasu). I bought the sword for the complete package in the naval mounts, but the blade in hand is quite beautiful and worthy of appreciation on its own. To my eye, the IJN 1883 in fighting kyu gunto form is the best-looking military pattern sword ever fielded, and I'm happy I was able to pick one up. The appropriate tassel is in the mail. A few quick questions -- This pattern was in use for 54 years. Are there any signs or tells that date a sword more precisely within that time period? Also, I see a lot of kai gunto offered for sale with shrunken, peeling, and deteriorated sharkskin or rayskin sayas. Is this because they were neglected in hot attics for decades, or do I need to take some kind of proactive action to keep the saya preserved in its current condition?
  4. Hamish, I was hoping you would weigh in as the resident kyu expert. My intent with this purchase was to acquire a Type 8 fighting sword or something close to it, so I'll take your "late Type 8" impression all day long. I agree with all your points about the hodgepodge features of this sword. I might have passed if the exact same thing wasn't also pictured in Dawson. Same backstrap with the same non-standard cherry blossom, same silver ferrule, same guard, hard to say from the picture in the book but it looks like there may even be the same guard/backstrap color mismatch. Whoever made this made at least two of them. FWIW the one in Dawson appears to mount a proportionally wider blade.
  5. Greetings all, Wanted to share this new acquisition for your observation and comment. This is from the Plimpton collection and is published on pg. 64-65 of SotE as the 6th example of an "Army 1886 NCO Grade (Type 19)." Plimpton does not explain how he reached this identification and pages 54-65 contain no citation footnotes. It appears that he is identifying as NCO swords examples with solid guards and undecorated or less-decorated pommels. A materially identical example is illustrated in Dawson pg. 62-63 (right down to the silvered ferrule/fuchi) as a transitional Type 19 company grade officer sword with a mix of Type 8 and Type 19 characteristics. According to Dawson, of the six "1886 NCO" swords illustrated in Plimpton, Nos. 1-4 are actually just Type 8 company grade officer swords, and Nos. 5 and 6 are early or transitional Type 19 company grade officer swords. Dawson seems better supported to me, but wondering what you knowledgeable folks think of the conflicting IDs. 25.5" nagasa, blade is machine-made mumei that appears to be through-hardened and spring tempered.
  6. This is what sucked me into the military sword space. So much still unknown and actively being uncovered this board and similar ones. Bruce, I've read your mantetsu article, your stamps article, and Ohmura-san's mantetsu pages. Also scanned through the prior threads on "w" or "m" and on the "nan" stamp. So, if I'm following all of this correctly, commercial officer sword production comes under army supervision in 1942. There are competing theories of whether blades are being made at SMR and being "nan" stamped by Nan-man arsenal inspectors now overseeing things at SMR, or if mantetsu blades are actually being made or finished at Nan-man. Then there's the "w" stamp in the mix, now thought to be a "halfway" inspection stamp. One theory links the "w" with unfinished mantetsu blades sent to Tokyo 1st Arsenal under contract for final production, and the competing theory points to unstamped examples as the contract swords. The finished sword would then be retailed to officers as a private purchase item through a shop supplied by or associated with the final producer/assembler? Edit: I think I'm getting closer to up to speed and finally grasped what you meant. One theory was that "Koa Isshin" signed blades were made at SMR, while "Mantetsu Tanzo Kore" were made at Nan-Man. Ohmura-san says that the mei "after March 1943" was "Mantetsu Tanzo Kore," but '43 and '44 "koa isshin" have been observed. The nan stamp appearing in 1943 simultaneously with the "Mantetsu Tanzo Kore" mei appeared to corroborate the Nan-Man connection and offered an explanation for why two different mei would be used simultaneously. Nan stamp on at least two '42 "Koa Isshin" blades makes things messy. FWIW, upon closer inspection this sword has a half-struck Tokyo 1st Arsenal inspection stamp on the kabutogane. On the other side are two stamps so half-struck as to be illegible/inconclusive, but not inconsistent with Tokyo 1st Arsenal logo. Thanks to Kiipu we know that the tsuka was on the sword before Showa22 started swapping parts around.
  7. Great catch! It looks like Showa22 added a habaki, seppas, and mekugi and unfortunately "cleaned" the blade. I'm sure he thought he could make an easy flip. It looks like he ended up losing about $200 after eBay's cut.
×
×
  • Create New...