Lookin4answers

Thank you all for your time, knowledge and information you provided. Being a complete neophyte leaves my head spinning a bit when I see the depth and breadth of information there is about these swords. Thank you sir. I'll try that approach on any further picture attachments. I can not find the number 819 on any other part of the sword. Thank you for the translation information.

Sorry, the pictures were actually as you described when viewed on my phone and computer, but when I moved them to the site the app turned them sideways and I couldn't find any way to correct them. I'll have to investigate further before posting next time.

I was just taking a closer look at some of my swords and decided I would finally try to get some information regarding the information on the tang of one of them. Please see the attached photographs. I tried to make some headway myself, but the complexity of the problem is a bit daunting. I would appreciate any information anyone could provide. I'd also be interested in knowing what the kanji script in white paint says as well. Thank you for your assistance.

I definitely believe the Portepee to be original. The guy who originally owned the sword was a retired Sergeant needing medical care at Madigan Medical Center in about 1970 where my father worked as part of the medical corps and made his acquaintance. The Sergeant fought in the island campaigns and personally took the sword as a trophy. I got to meet the guy and hear some of his stories. One of the many true heroes of that generation. He just brought the sword back and stuck it in a closet. I'm 99.9% sure he didn't modify the sword in any way, including the portepee. I'm now liquidating some of the swords I have in my possession because frankly, my kids don't have the interest and I'd rather see them go to someone who can appreciate them. Seeing Kolekt-To's comments above regarding the relative rarity of the portepee's, I may have to re-think my pricing of the above sword, or sell it as a separate item. Thank you for the information.

I never would have recognized that as a possible explanation. Thank you very much for the reply and reference.

Forgive me, I'm a newby to this forum and hope I don't cross any lines or violate any rules. I have what appears to be a Type 95 NCO sword that was obtained from a retired US NCO in about 1970. He said he had personally brought it back from Japan after the war. I've been reading the posts in this forum and have gleaned some insight into the history of these swords and their manufacture, however, in looking at the sword I have, I am confused. The fuchi has an Iijima makers mark, a Tokyo arsenal stamp, and a Kokura arsenal identification stamp. The tsuka appears to be aluminum, but does not have a second hole or retaining screw, and appears to be retained only by the nut and bolt (both notched) that the sarute is inserted into. You will note that there appears to be a round flat spot in the "pebbling" of the second full diamond between the "wraps" on both sides of the tsuka. They're not filled in, but look like a possible modification in the casting. The numbers on the blade and scabbard do not match, so the scabbard is not the original item that went with this blade. I don't have any idea what clue the serial number (93458) on the blade gives in regard to it's manufacture date. The blade and scabbard are in pretty good condition and fit together very well, although with all of them being machine manufactured I'm sure this is to be expected . I'm also interested in trying to determine if the portepee is original. It came with and has been attached to the sword for the 50 years it has been in my possession and has been kept in a decent protected environment, so it's still in very good shape. I'm reaching the point where I need to become more informed about my collected items since my wife and kids have shown very little interest in them and they'll ultimately have to be sold. Any thoughts on this sword would be appreciated. Thanks for any information anyone can provide.