Sam Smith

Dear Charles, I once had the chance to examine an Emura blade and, like you, found it to be a thoroughly practical, combat-ready piece. Mr. Omura’s article contains an obvious contradiction: on the one hand he describes a large-scale, mechanised shop, while on the other he insists that Emura-san personally performed every yaki-ire. If the machine totals and manpower figures are accurate, the warden would have had no time left for prison administration—he would have spent every minute quenching blades (•_•). My guess is that he must have trained a small group of inmates to handle at least part of the heat-treatment; the report is probably not as literal as it sounds. (I don’t doubt the existence of the hammers—East-Asian penal institutions have long used similar labour schemes, and a state-sponsored workshop could certainly obtain both machines and men far more easily than it could obtain one warden doing every single quench.) All of the above is only my own speculation and rambling, of course; I hope it doesn’t spoil your mood. Like you, I’m still hoping for hard figures and solid documentation. Best regards, Sam

Hats off to your research！I’ve actually been watching the market for Emura and Nagamitsu blades for more than two years. Judging solely by what turns up on Yahoo! Japan Auctions, only three Emura have changed hands in the past twelve months (Oct–Oct), whereas at least thirty-seven Nagamitsu have sold. The tiny surviving population of Emura—so out of step with the theoretical output—has bugged me from the start, and that’s exactly why I raised my original question about Emura and Nagamitsu.

If Mr. Emura’s account is accurate, the plant—being a state-run facility with top-level priority—could requisition unlimited charcoal and other materials. From 1940 to 1945 it ought to have turned out several thousand blades. If only someone had solid figures! Perhaps Chris Bowen’s research has them? Could anybody please tell me exactly where that study can be found?

Could the training have started even earlier? According to the author’s recollection, sword production was already under way in the fifteenth year of Shōwa (1940).

Thank you for your input, Brian. According to Mr. Omura’s article, Emura’s prison sword workshop was a state-run operation on a considerable scale. The inmates involved were divided into two main sections—about fifty in forging and another fifty in polishing—plus quite a few more odd-jobbers making fittings. The article even mentions “four (or more) forging hearths, two tilt-hammers of 30 and 25 kan each, plus filing, weighing and planing stations,” so output ought to have been huge. Yet the number of Emura blades that survive today is far lower than that capacity would suggest, which strikes me as odd. At the same time, what you say makes perfect sense: Nagamitsu must indeed have been a workshop rather than a single smith. I’m still waiting for firmer information on both points.

Gentlemen, good day. Although I am aware that Nagamitsu and Emura are not the same person and that the two may not even be connected, I still have some questions. Based on my observations, the number of works by Nagamitsu seems to be higher than that of Emura. This is very unusual, considering that Nagamitsu was a single individual (possibly with a few assistants), while Emura had an entire prison with a sword-making team of over a hundred people. I wonder, as the rumor goes, whether Nagamitsu might have been employed by Mr. Emura to provide technical guidance to the inmates in his prison, and whether some of the products made by the inmates were stamped with the Nagamitsu trademark. By the way, would any kind soul happen to have the article by Mr. Chris Bowen about Emura and Nagamitsu? It might help clear up my confusion. Thank you.

A dream collection! Congratulations, Steve, you've got it. I've always hoped to come across a Nagamitsu/Emura with the same specifications. But unfortunately, my luck hasn't been very good.(≧∇≦)

This should be an authentic item.I once saw another sword with the same badge at a certain merchant's place. The merchant claimed that it originated from the Sakhalin colony. I can't be sure whether his statement is correct or not, but the badge does look like some kind of simplified Sakhalin badge. However, I also feel that the craftsmanship is likely to be of Chinese origin, perhaps from the Beiyang period. I hope this can give you some ideas. If you find the correct answer, please do reply to me. I'm very curious about this.

Yes.I can guess who you are just by looking at your profile picture.ʕ ᵔᴥᵔ ʔ

The first column on the left (from top to bottom) is the Army Comptroller Lieutenant (probably in charge of military logistics, I'm not sure if the translation is correct).陸軍主計中尉。 The last column on the right (from top to bottom) is X（勢？） Eighth Maneuver.X第八移動 It might be a unit from Ise.

Hello, the meaning of these Chinese characters is that the material of this sword is specialized steel for swords and blades.

I agree with your opinion.

Great find! It's obvious that they first considered the compatibility of this fake before engraving the inscription, which is the reverse of the normal procedure.

Hahaha, I noticed that too. Actually, I personally feel that for GUNTO on Yahoo, we should be cautious about the Fukuoka & Osaka landing certificates during the Reiwa era and the Osaka landing certificates during the Heisei era. It seems that these two places have relatively lax management, and counterfeit products from overseas can always obtain certificates in these two locations