John C

Looks a bit like a type 19 warrant officer's sword, but the pommel is different (see Dawson page 115 for comparison). John C.

Agree with it being unauthentic. Acid etched hamon; civil tsuka. John C,

The price notwithstanding, is that supposed to be St. George slaying the dragon but with a katana? John C.

Makes me wonder about the fakes we see often (the ones with the number on the habaki). Could they be stage swords made for the movie industry? John C.

Agree with the above... a "cut down" piece from a broken blade with short grinder-made bohi. No habaki? Probably for the tourist trade. John C.

Adam: Just my opinion, however I agree that the blade may not be of Japanese origin. Modern Japanese smiths need to be registered and certified; consequently there are not very many of them. Having gone through their training, apprenticeship, and certification, I would find it odd that it would not be dated as well as signed. Indeed, I believe a modern sword must be dated (this could be wrong, I just remember reading it somewhere). It very well could be a nice sword made in the Japanese style, however I suspect somewhere other than Japan. John C.

@Bruce Pennington Bruce: Any idea what the x above the Suya Shoten mark represents? https://www.ebay.com/itm/256186490944 John C.

Theories are proven OR disproven. Search for evidence and let that guide you. Just in general, many investigators run into trouble trying to "find" evidence that proves their theory. Remember too, that disproving and eliminating a theory is just as important, since you would no longer waste time researching it. IMHO, John C.

I assume so. Nomenclature seems to fit (although I did buy it off of ebay from a dealer in Texas). There isn't anything else special (identifiable) about it, although I believe the scabbard insert has the number 66 written on it in western numbers. John C.

This is the one I own. John C.

First thing is that I think the date is 1945 (2 X 10 = Showa 20) rather than 1941. John C.

@Kiipu Thomas: Could one of the two symbols on my #66 fall into this category? I assumed one was just a number 5. John C.

Just worked for me (Apple Safari). John C.

Sure. I asked because he notes in the description he couldn't identify the stamp and I couldn't either. Was hoping it was going to be of interest. https://www.ebay.com/itm/134755212516 John C.

@Bruce Pennington Any idea on this partial stamp? I looked through the document but couldn't find a match. It's on a Yoshishige showato. John C.

Interestingly, the punch they used to make the dimples was hollow - like a nail set punch. John C.

Do you all mean it's not a real Gassan Sadakazu for under 200 bucks? Golly, I thought he screwed up and sold an actual legitimate item. John C.

Phil: I have read of commanders presenting captured swords to their troops, however I think the other guys are correct. This seems to be someone celebrating their victory by pasting a victory note on the scabbard. John C.

Here is a "gassan Sadakazu" tanto being sold by Komonjo. https://www.ebay.com/itm/145340202045 As you might expect, the kao in particular looks much different than other examples I have seen. But could it be legit?? John C.

Which one is the #45? The bottom one? It looks to have higher quality fittings and a lacquered ito wrap. John C.

Based on the first pic, I believe you are correct. 1) the munemachi and hamachi do not line up, typical of fakes 2) the habaki is numbered, also typical of fakes 3) sarute looks too long = fake John C.

The obvious guess would be the original owner but could it be the polisher? John C.

Not sure. Pic was supposedly Vietnam era. Does look like a single engine prop. John C.

Nasty stuff. Reacts with oxygen to burn extremely hot. Pic from Wikipedia. John C.

Been there. The guy who sold me the souvenir swore it was just a late war kai gunto using left over parts. I knew what I was buying so it didn't matter - this time. But what if someone didn't know. Everyday there are standard soldier's tanto being sold as "kamikaze suicide" knives when the sellers know full well that isn't correct. Just buzz words to catch different searches. John C.