Type 3 1945 Blade Production, And "hiro" Kanji

[Sugiyama]

I've come across plenty of sources on the web informing on very general factors for Type 3 production, and some pretty in depth, but none on the blades themselves. What went into the 1945 Type 3 blades? If they were completely machine made, who signed them and why?

 

Also, while browsing various Hiromitsu smiths during the Showa period, I noticed some sources have the kanji for Hiro as 広, but never have seen a nakago signed as 広光, but as 廣光. Are there showato out there signed with the former version of Hiro? The specific smith I'm referencing is Ido Jin'ichi (井戸 仁一), who worked under the name Hiromitsu, but all registries have him listed with the former character for Hiro. If my sword was forged or signed by anyone, he is my most likely candidate, unless the 広 version of Hiro isn't some mistake.

 

Anything any folks can offer to point me in the right direction is greatly appreciated.

[Grey Doffin]

My understanding:  広 is a commonly used in print abbreviation for廣.

Grey

[Sugiyama]

Thank you! I've also seen 弘 used, in the context of Kofuji Hiromitsu. Is that true in this case as well?

[SteveM]

廣 (hiro) is the traditional (old) way of writing 広. The writing was simplified after the war, and now you no longer find 廣 except in historical references. Families have the option to continue using the old/traditional kanji in their family names, but generally nowadays one only sees 廣 in old documents, etc..

 

弘 (hiro) is a different word with the same pronunciation. Actually, it is almost exclusively used in proper names, and has no practical meaning if used by itself, opposed to 広 above which means wide, and is used frequently in everyday Japanese. 

[Grey Doffin]

弘 is a different Kanji with the same pronounciation: hiro.

Grey

[Sugiyama]

Are there swords signed with that version of Hiromitsu, or would he have signed it as 廣光?

[SteveM]

If the smith is a pre-war smith, and if his mei is established as being 廣光, its very unlikely (I would say unbelievable) that you'll find any of his swords that use the simplified version of 廣.

[Rich S]

All three Hiromitsu oshigata I have on my site are 廣光.

There are several known to be nakirishimei.

Rich

[Sugiyama]

Rich, I have been to your website and it has been a massive help to me, so thank you very much. My mei matches closest to Hiromitsu #3 on that list, with the tight, slanted Mitsu with a short tail. 

 

It may help me to know how Type 3 Gunto blades were produced in 1945. I have one that's got the etched suguha hamon, metal saya variant. I've been attempting to deduce where the sword was made and, if Type 3 1945 blades were at all done by hand at any point in the process, who forged it. 

[george trotter]

Hi Mr Sugiyama,

The "Type 3" was made in two types like the Type 98. There were "mass" manufactured showato oil tempered blades with mass-produced fittings and hand-made water tempered gendaito blades most often found in high quality lacquered saya and lacquered tsuka binding.

 

Some photos exist showing this type in 1940 and 1942, and archival evidence shows that it was approved as a "Contingency/Temporary Standard" in 1940, but apart from a few made in 1940 and a proposed 3000 per year for 1941, it seems that production did not become noticeable until maybe late 1942. Certainly, collectors here have only found a very few dates as early as 1942, with most known being 1943-1944 with some being seen in 1945. I am talking here about decent gendaito with the star stamp of the RJT scheme.

The showato version with the "gi" stamp and metal scabbard and cheaper, usually non-lacquered binding type fittings, have dates mostly in 1943-1945.

Maybe owners could let us know if there are any early 1940-1942 among these?

 

I can tell you that the "how" of 1945 "Type 3" production was probably unchanged from the production system used in 1942-1943, but we can't tell you specifically what your sword is without photographs etc.

Hope this helps,

[Sugiyama]

http://imgur.com/a/1U4E9

 

So far as I know, the suguha hamon on this is merely etched, and has a sho stamp.

 

Also, I don't know how well the photos show this, but the blade polish is quite wavy.  

[george trotter]

The blade is oil tempered showato. Date is June 1945. It will not have a 'sho' stamp, but usually a 'gi' stamp, meaning 'Gifu', the place where these swords were made. The signature is Hiromitsu (this is probably the Ido Hiromitsu that has been mentioned). The signature was cut by a professional tradesman (nakirishi) whose job was to sign thousands of swords every year. This style and quality is the most common of the "Type 3" swords we see.

Hope this helps,

[Sugiyama]

This is actually incredibly helpful. Thank you very much, Mr. Trotter. Nice catch on the stamp, I had been told it was a "sho" stamp, but the two are vaguely similar.

 

My only remaining question is how much work went into the production of the blades themselves. Were the Type 3 blades at this point in the war punched out, ground, and tempered, or was there any level of actual "blacksmithing" going on? 

 

Thanks again for all of the help thus far.

[george trotter]

It is difficult to say how much in skill and man hours went into a showato modern steel blade.

It is known that showato were "forged", in the sense that they were shaped when hot using a power hammer and they were tempered in oil when hot, but whether clay was used as the coating or some other means I don't know. The shaping and the dressing  of the nakago was done by the registered "swordsmith" (some were very good, so just because they are listed as Seki WWII smiths does not always mean showato smith).

The signing was usually by the nakirishi. Blades were then sent for polishing (often done by a team of women).  This all happened in private factories and/or government factories. They probably then went to central departments for mounting in the appropriate fittings and were then forwarded to the Army Club for sale to officers.

I certainly think the blade quality is on a par with western swords.

As you learn more about nihonto you will see that the showato do not compare with a properly forged blade of traditional iron that has been water tempered and signed by the smith himself.

 

As to time and man-hours well, the "factory" smiths had power hammers and worked generally with single homogenous bars of iron. I suppose this man could make 100s per month while the gendai smith worked with tamahagane which had to be folded multi times and forged and power was supplied by hammermen. The gendaito smith maybe made about 25 per month*, but output must vary considerably between smiths (*based on the output of Yamagami Munetoshi, RJT of Niigata who had his own shop). Some members here would have better knowledge than me on production techniques and outputs, so hopefully one might comment. 

I hope this helps,

[Sugiyama]

It's wonderful to have this background on my Showato. Thank you very much for your help!

[mauser99]

  I can't add to much technical content to the thread but,  I just want to say I enjoyed reading the posts. Im a newbie here and with swords in general.

 The "type 3" discussion's are of major interest to me.   I'm drawn to that type as they have a great old world look to them.    I was lucky enough to find a real late example with what I feel is a really good blade.  Plan on posting soon..

[Sugiyama]

I'll watch out for it! I, too, like the simplistic fittings of the Type 3 koshirae, but since all of my blade's fittings were either missing or in dismal shape, I'm having it sent to be mounted in new koshirae. I'll post the results when that's done. 

 

So far as I know, late Type 3 are of a lower quality compared to even the mass produced Type 98 gunto out there. Now granted they are still of a certainly usable quality (as seen here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Japanese-Japan-WWII-WW2-Signed-Katana-Sword-Scabbard-/131085117517?hash=item1e8548284d:g:KNgAAOxy4dNSxs4a), they just don't hold a candle in workmanship and beauty compared to nihonto. 

 

-Sugi

[SwordGuyJoe]

There are many good swords in type 3 mounts (or type 0 as discussed in a different thread). They are invariably found only in mounts with the all wood saya, rather than the metal saya (with a wooden core) that was posted in the example above. I've have only ever seen low quality showato in those - like the one linked. I always - and I mean always - stop at shows to see what's There if it's a wooden saya.

[Sugiyama]

Yep, I've read early type 3 swords typically had much better blades, but around late '44 and beyond were metal scabbards and lower quality blades. Like I said, the way I see it is they aren't high quality at all in comparison to a gendaito or even a type 98 mass produced gunto, but they are certainly effective weapons that definitely could hold their own in a combat situation.

 

-Sugi

[mauser99]

I'll watch out for it! I, too, like the simplistic fittings of the Type 3 koshirae, but since all of my blade's fittings were either missing or in dismal shape, I'm having it sent to be mounted in new koshirae. I'll post the results when that's done. 

 

So far as I know, late Type 3 are of a lower quality compared to even the mass produced Type 98 gunto out there. Now granted they are still of a certainly usable quality (as seen here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Japanese-Japan-WWII-WW2-Signed-Katana-Sword-Scabbard-/131085117517?hash=item1e8548284d:g:KNgAAOxy4dNSxs4a), they just don't hold a candle in workmanship and beauty compared to nihonto. 

I attached the pic's to the thread.   So your point is ?  It can handle a major strike ??? 

 

A major misconception of all late war stuff  being Japanese or German is that they were unsafe or unfit for use.   Any late war sword Ive seen is a far above the quality level of a uber last ditch arisaka or type94 pistol  or German Volks weapon.   The Sword being more of a symbol Of Japanese pride than the rifle.

[SwordGuyJoe]

I believe this is beginning down the path of art vs. viable weapon.  Is showato a viable weapon? Yes - in some cases, the modern science that went into creating non-traditional blades were exceptional and produced fantastic weapons, superior to some gendaito (maybe all, but I haven't and am not planning any testing ).  But, are they art?  Unless you define art as demonstration of science moving an art form to better results in the utilitarian functionality of a piece, than your answer is "no".  

 

PS - I like the title of the third photo.  "Nick" might be a little generous!

[Sugiyama]

I think my thing lies in the fact that I see the sword as a weapon first and foremost. I definitely am able to appreciate a sword for its subtleties like a wonderful hada, an elegant hamon, and a high class art polish. The process that goes into making a nihonto is fascinating, admirable, and is something I take great pride in being part of my ancestry. But my school of thought largely is influenced by the late swordsman Nakamura Taizaburo, who looked for practicality in a sword, as well as maintaining reverance to the kami, the spirit of the sword, and the ideology of a warrior not wanting to cut, but to polish their mind and body.

Perhaps I just need to open myself to some literature that admires the sword and its crafting as more of an art form. Where can I start as far as books? I'm honestly (and likely obviously) a bit new to nihonto and should probably give myself the opportunity to look through this new lens.

Forgive my rambling, haha. Maybe I should start a new thread.

 

-Sugi

[Brian]

Need to sign all posts with a name please.

[Daniel]

To illustrate what Joe was talking about. Here are two of my Gendaito in the higher quality Type 3 mounts.

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/12218-another-star-stamped-gendaito/

 

and

 

http://www.militaria.co.za/nmb/topic/10597-kiyokatsu-the-sword/

 

Regards

Daniel

[SwordGuyJoe]

I really like the Akitaka and have a small amount of experience with the Kiyokatsu

[Bruce Pennington]

I really enjoy my Type 3, Aprl 1945, mei Suke Kuni. It has a very beautiful blade.

[Robinson Velasco]

Hello every1. I'm new here, I've had 2 ww2 vintage swords that I have been trying to decifer. I have had some help but not a 100% assured hit. I have 1 that is unsigned and was told that it might be a koto or shinshinto. The 2nd sword is why I'm here. I have, from what I was told and doing my own research on the mitsu and stamps, a August 1945 hiromitsu, but I dont find the signature anywhere to match, the mitsu is a definite. The Hiro is the problem. It also has 3 stamps. One is definitely a gifu (gi) stamp the other 2 are what I think, and correct me if I'm wrong... one stamp is a Ren- Nanman Arsenal Dalion Factory, and 3red I think is another gift stamp or cherryblossom tree... I'm leaning more to figure. I would really appreciate if anyone's expertise, considering that I am only a novice. I will place pics on the next posting

[Robinson Velasco]

[Robinson Velasco]

Is this a hiromitsu August 1945 gifu stamp, Ren Nanman Arsenal Dalian Factory stamp and maybe a 2nd gifu or cherrybloosm stamp?

Thank you in advance.

[SteveM]

Hiromitsu, January 1945.

 

Seki stamp, two Gifu stamps, and I can't make out the small stamp next to the Seki stamp.

I guess there is one other round-ish stamp there, but I can't make it out.