I_Kendo_It

I guess it's a mistranslation from "folded forging", for example kitae-ware whilst a kizu is also proof of kitae forging. Though even in that case, the article isn't all that well written. For example, hakobore, yakizu and kirikomikizu are typically damage from combat and not evidence of folding.

I've hit a bit of a dead end for now, they seem to only have a phone number. I'd rather try to see if they have some documentation or primary sources. 🤔 I think in the current situation we need as many primary sources as possible, since the secondary sources and tertiary sources we have seem to have some contradiction and unclear points. I'll call them when I'm in Japan and see if they still have any information. And if they do, I may go to Gifu ! (Edit : still sending some other emails to other organizations...)

It still exists. Here is a copy of the email I received with names censored for anonymity : Here is the new name of the organization. 岐阜県利器工匠具工業協同組合 (Gifu-ken riki kōshō-gu kōgyō kyōdō kumiai). I'll try to get in touch with them next and hopefully see if there's anything they know. 🤔

Thanks @Bruce Pennington, in that framework, the Sho stamp is just an industry stamp. So knowing whether all the swords stamped are non-traditionally made or some are traditionally made depends on industry practice. I doubt there are many documents left from the Seki Cutlery Association publicly available (関刃物工業組合). But it may be worthwhile to check if still exists, or merged/was renamed into a new association. I'm contacting similarly named associations in Seki to see if they have any useful information.

Thank you for sharing the material. After reviewing all six pages, I find that two prevailing theories emerge. 1. The theory based on the 1937 "Letter from the Chief of Police & Security Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior to the Police Chiefs of Prefectures" This interpretation suggests that shōwatō and chō-nihontō (“super nihontō”) terms tied to stamped blades were promoted and advertised as being of excellent quality. I love the chō-nihontō term, it's such a kansai term and sounds so funny to me. Basically, that this stamping business was initially a business ploy. And so far, it appears the "Sho" stamp and "Seki" stamps were initially stamps issued by private manufacturers, before the "Seki" stamp later being tied to the army as well. That is unlike the star stamps and "Na" stamps tied to the army. As the stamps originated from private manufacturers, they could be applied to any blade, regardless of the actual materials or production methods. The police mentions that some of these swords were in fact made with inferior materials, resulting in products that were brittle and prone to breakage. Thus, a stamped sword might or might not qualify as nihontō, and each blade would require individual examination to determine its status and quality. That is, unless a law is found proving the contrary. That would also require establishing from primary sources that the stamps were / were not reserved to non-traditionally made swords. 2. The theory based on my previous interpretation, supported by Ryujin Swords’ article on tang stamps This theory basically follows my earlier interpretation of Ohmura's writing and is supported by Ryujin Swords’ article on tang stamps. It holds that it was required by law that blades forged from tamahagane were not subject to inspection and therefore did not receive tang stamps, while blades made from non-tamahagane steels did. So according to this theory the distinction between stamped and non-stamped sword would be the use of tamahagane. Ohmura’s wording hints at this distinction (by my reading), but Ryujin Swords explicitly supports the claim. If correct, it would align with their classification system: Tamahagane gendaitō: “true” nihontō Mill-steel gendaitō: forged traditionally but without tamahagane, occupying a borderline status and sometimes managing to pass shinsa by chance Abura-yaki-ire-tō and similar blades: mass-produced, lower-quality swords at the inferior end of the spectrum The main difficulty with this theory is the lack of primary sources establishing such a rule. Ryujin Swords refers to a 1933 law, but unless this law can be located, the claim remains unverified. I will continue searching Japanese sources to confirm whether such a law existed and will update this post accordingly. EDIT: I can conclusively assert that no such law exists. It seems like a myth solely existing in the English-speaking environment. So the stamping isn't based on legal provisions, and there is no law that asserts non-tamagahane blades should be stamped. Now the question pertains to industry practices. These stamps originated with craftsmen and the industry association as guarantees of quality. The army subsequently adopted them, and they were formally regulated by a Ministry of Home Affairs ordinance in 1942. While that ordinance is frequently cited as the origin of the “Sho” stamp, Bruce’s research and the memoirs cited by Ohmura prove the stamp existed earlier. Next, I will research primary sources to determine whether or not the Seki Cutlery Industry Association only used these stamps to non-traditional blades.

No worries, I'm not coming to any definitive conclusions, but rather investigating and making theories.

Interesting input, thanks, @SteveM! I wasn’t aware of the variation between prefectures. I had read that it’s difficult to determine whether a sword is tamahagane or simply traditionally forged without scientific testing. So, while de lege and formally the rule concerns the base material, in practice it seems to mean that the sword must convincingly resemble tamahagane, and the stamp then serves as evidence against that. @mecox Thanks for the information! I was also surprised by the roughness of a meishiriki-mei. Even the 友 tomo of kanetomo looks a lot like a 女 jo. I doubt it’s gimei, since although Ujifusa is a recognized and experienced smith, he wasn’t among the top-level masters whose signatures were commonly faked. And the fact it carries two names makes me even more curious indeed. Edit : Btw I'm impressed by your research after reading the files. Both regarding you, mecox and Bruce's work.

Thanks, Bruce! I’d be glad to take a look at the documentation. From what I’ve gathered, the Shō stamp was in use between 1935 and 1942. Since this is a Type 98, that would place the sword’s manufacture between 1938 and 1942. So far, I haven’t found evidence that the “Shō” stamp itself corresponds to a specific manufacturing process. Is that understanding correct? As for Ohmura’s page, I read the same passage. I’m fluent in Japanese (though not at an academic level), and what stood out to me was the phrase 「鋼材から生産する新作日本刀」. The word 鋼材 (kōzai) means “steel material” in a general sense. If the intent were to include all swords, even those made from tamahagane, then specifying 鋼材 seems unnecessary, even superfluous. My impression is that this wording was used deliberately in contrast to tamahagane, which would align with Ōhmura’s point that gendaitō were not subject to inspection. From this, my sense is that stamped blades were not made of tamahagane, but could have been produced through fully traditional, semi-traditional, or entirely modern methods. That may explain why the NTHK and NBTHK sometimes recognize exceptionally well-made examples as nihontō, though of course, that remains controversial among collectors. * EDIT: The document Brian kind shared appears to concern swords made to very high standards for officers. It's not indicated in the translation but it dates to 1942 (Shōwa 17). The “about this file” section refers exclusively to Rikugun Jumei Tosho, though I haven’t found that designation explicitly mentioned within the document itself. So it's something to confirm. The swords in question were commissioned officers’ swords (Types 94 and 98). They were required to meet high production standards, mandatorily using tamahagane, hochō-tetsu, and charcoal. If it solely refers to Rikugun Jumei Tosho, Shinoda Ujifusa (篠田氏房) does not seem to have been among them. According to Ōhmura’s website, he is instead listed as Dai-san-seki (第三席, 優秀), “Great Third Seat”, an award of excellence granted at an exhibition. However that award doesn't mean anything about how he made his other swords. It just means that he was highly skilled. The source is easy to locate by searching his name: 戦時下の日本刀匠と序列. EDIT n°2 : Here I have found that Ujifusa worked in Saguchi Tōken Seisakusho (佐口刀剣製作所), as the sole smith of that workshop. 関の軍用日本刀 Syōwa-tō of Seki It indicates that 関刀剣株式会社 (Seki Sword Co., Ltd.) and 株式会社濃州日本刀鍛錬所 (Nōshū Japanese Sword Forge Co., Ltd) used traditional forging techniques. But the technique of Saguchi Tōken Seisakusho isn't described. I have found one of his gunto to be papered as NTHK-NPO Kanteisho (2nd highest rank). But the Nakago isn't shown : https://new.uniquejapan.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/18-5-Antique-Japanese-Swords-From-Unique-Japan.pdf This sword of his has also the "Sho/Sakura" stamp and was registered without issue in Japan, though it doesn't have NTHK-NPO or NBTHK papers. 【研ぎ上がり・大業物・関脇格】「氏房」68.2cm 、鑑賞に・居合・試斬刀として！！！

Thank you Brian, I do trust your and the forum's experience. I'm just a very inquisitive person with legal and investigation specific training. I hope my questioning comes off politely, the way I mean to. In any case I'm particularly interested in the original production instructions, procedures you talked about. I'll look into it. The 50 pages on arsenal stamps are daunting. I have advanced up to page 22, and so it's clear Bruce Pennington did a lot of research, and I can't reach a definitive conclusion... Let's keep going ! I also found his booklet, version March 2025 which I'll read.

Thanks ! It may be wishful thinking, but here are multiple seki-stamped swords that have passed shinsa and been papered. In practice it seems that those swords are not automatically excluded from being considered "nihonto". 🤔 And given Ohmura indicates that the Sho-stamp and Seki-stamp are basically the same thing : examination stamps guaranteeing a quality threshold can be met ;I feel like my analysis isn't unreasonable. I guess Brian is quite right, saying : "Looks like a decent sword, and would probably still paper on a good day. One of those "in between" swords we come across that is high end 'arsenal' made by a smith." It's in between, and could also be, like you said, a higher-quality Showato.

Okay thanks ! I wasn't sure if just initials would be fine. It's updated now. I have two first names. One is very identifiable, so I used the second one. Good to know ! In that case Kanetomo could be the polisher. Thank you. Thanks for the info ! After your message I decided to do some research. If you don't mind let me share my findings. Notably the Ohmura website says this : This indicates that the stamps were inspection marks, rather than distinctions of production processes. And that the "sho" stamp proves army inspection, the "seki" stamp proves seki cutlery manufacturer's association inspection. That means that swords carrying these stamps can be made by any production process. However, there's one more nuance to be made. In the first quote, the word "steel" is used (鋼材) as opposed to tamahagane (玉鋼). As such, it is likely these stamps show tamahagane was not used, though I can't confirm this definitely unless we have primary sources of regulations or legislation. As for the classification as "Gendaito" or not : 1/ NTHK : The NTHK appear to base their classification on the technique and authenticity of the signature rather than the material. Hence the NTHK giving papers to stamped Nihonto that are likely not Tamahagane. NTHK papers aren't extremely strick and can attest authenticity (Shinteisho). I had seen examples of "seki" stamped gendaito papered by the NTHK. 2/NBTHK : NBTHK is a stricter body and only papers "preservation" swords and "special swords" and above (保存刀剣, 特別保存刀剣). Even so, their rules do not at any point mention tamahagane but rather quality of worksmanship, condition, and historicity, and are significantly stricter on newer swords. (31-3 審査規程第１７条第１項に定める審査基準 27.5.19~.pdf) It even says that "work by living artists are not eligible fur judging" (生存する作家の作品は審査対象外とする。) so I guess tough luck for modern gendaito smiths, they need to literally die to have their swords even be considered. In fact, the NBTHK even accepts non-tamahagane steel in their sword-making competitions 2025, saying that Tamahagane is preferable but not required. (作刀の部については、日刀保たたらの玉鋼を使用することが望ましい。) 現代刀職展（作刀の部） | 日本美術刀剣保存協会 All that seem to show that mill-steel gendaito exist, they can probably get NTHK papers attesting to their authenticity, but not NBTHK papers attesting to their special historical value. These finding seem to meet what the expert I had initially contacted said, that the real standard to determine what is gendaito is production process. In conclusion that this sword could be classified as mill-steel gendaito, if it indeed turns out it's made with mill-steel, forged in the kitae method, and water-quenched. However personally I don't know if it's folded and water-quenched. Of course I'd be happy if it turns out to be of the standard that could get NTHK papers.

Yes, looking more into the difference I've come across this, saying that some gendaito also look like they are oil-quenched, and that even some were first water, and later oil-quenched at Yasukuni... It's a rabbit hole I didn't expect. The gendaito linked in the initial message by Ujifusa also doesn't have a lot of hataraki, nioi or nie, and indeed it's quite similar, so it could be the smith's style... I guess the only way to be truly sure is by scientific testing, or time-travel. Anyway I'm getting confused. Maybe the NTHK shinpan who give papers are hiding secrets ?

I can confirm that it has no such dark spots, and the person I contacted compared this hamon from the linked Gendaito by Ujifusa (area with two "hill-like shapes" with a thin nioi side by side) : To this same pattern with two small mounts visible here In my case I'm in the European market. I'm not looking to sell, I'm just curious and love to learn about these things.

I recently acquired a Type 98 Shinguntō and have been researching its history, classification, and potential value as a collector’s piece. I’d like to share my findings here, and would greatly appreciate any feedback, feel free to prove these findings wrong with your expertise and experience . I'm fortunate enough to be in touch with a few Nihontō specialists in Japan whom I met while living there. While I am limited to sharing photographs rather than the blade itself, they were kind enough to tell me a lot of things. Below is the information I’ve gathered from one, (translated from Japanese using AI, so it may sound a bit weird or off): 『On the tang (nakago) of this blade, one can observe the stamp ‘Shō’. This stamp indicates acceptance by the army during the Shōwa period and is most often found on non-traditional Shōwatō (oil-quenched, made from industrial steel). However, the presence of a stamp does not automatically make a sword a Shōwatō, since the only true criterion is the method of manufacture. Some swords bearing a stamp have passed shinsa and classified as gendaitō. On this blade, kitae-ware appear, signs of folded forging ; and the nioiguchi of the hamon stands out and shows similarity to other niedeki sanbonsugi hamon produced by Ujifusa. These characteristics are typical of blades produced using traditional methods, by water-quenching and folded forging. It is shows similarities to gendaitō No. Tokyo 189513 by the same smith (Ujifusa). It is therefore possible that this sword is a gendaitō, although further examination is required for a definitive answer. Photography may not capture all details, and aged or rough polishing may hide nie, nioi and hada. The tang bears two signatures: ‘Shinoda Ujifusa’ and ‘Kanetomo.’ Ordinarily, a sword carries only a single signature, but when two names are inscribed on the same blade, this generally indicates proof of joint work or a master-disciple collaboration. Here, the signatures on this blade do not appear to have been carved by the smiths themselves, but are meishiriki-mei, that is, inscriptions traced by a professional engraver commissioned for this purpose. At Seki, during the war, such a practice was not rare due to the demands of rapid production; nevertheless, the presence of two mei on a Shinguntō remains very unusual. Shinoda Ujifusa was a prominent smith of Seki during the Shōwa period, an award-winning craftsman of great skill within the Mino tradition. Kanetomo was also active in the same region at that time. The presence of both signatures on this blade suggests a collaborative work, with Ujifusa as the master smith, and Kanetomo in the role of assistant or disciple.』 Here is the referenced gendaito : Katana - Ujifusa - Uchigatana Koshirae - Ubu Nakago - Gendai Era - Tok | Tozando Katana Shop I'll also include some pictures ! He advised me to take pictures with a 45 degrees angle as they reveal the nioi better than straight-on pictures on swords with aged polishing. Here you go ! 1/ Overall pictures 2/ Nakago details 3/ Sho-stamp 4/ Hamon details (those pictures are quite hard to take, it's clearer in person... detail gets lost in pictures)