Jump to content

Timeline Type 3 Gunto


vajo

Recommended Posts

Sorry mates for my angry answering. I was thinking about it once again and i will try to find a different view.

I dont want to offend any of you.

Best

Chris

No worries and no need to apologise, I don't think anyone felt offended by this topic. We're here because we want to teach, share and learn a subject we love; Japanese swords. We won't always agree and we won't always be right and that's the nature of forums.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2702938&d=1512607377&thumb=1

http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2702946&d=1512606871&thumb=1

It Seems Type 3 has all kinds of blade in mount,I had 2 of these late war Type 3 Mantetsu ,all made in 昭和甲申春(1944  Spring),and saw at least 2 others .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of Mantetsu in Type 0 mounts. I know they hold a variety of blades, from average to top range. I'm personally a big fan of the utilitarian style mounting. I find it very... stylish in a minimalist fashion. Like the guest at the party that is missing the frills but stands out because of it. Were I not collecting 95s I'd probably be after 0s

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of Mantetsu in Type 0 mounts. I know they hold a variety of blades, from average to top range.

Steve,

I JUST saw one, but for the life of me I can't remember where it was. Seems like it was on a Facebook group, but a quick brows through didn't turn it up. It's the first one I'd seen in Rinji mounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never heard of Mantetsu in Type 0 mounts. I know they hold a variety of blades, from average to top range. I'm personally a big fan of the utilitarian style mounting. I find it very... stylish in a minimalist fashion. Like the guest at the party that is missing the frills but stands out because of it. Were I not collecting 95s I'd probably be after 0s

 

Yep, a nice example will have to be my next purchase I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sword which Mantetsu made is classifiable into the following three sorts. 

 ① The blade before being named "Kōa Issin". This blade has only Mantetsu's trademark stamp in a Tang. 

 ② A blade with "Kōa-Issin" Mei named the Kōa-Issin sword .

 ③ A blade with the stamp of the "Nan" of a Nanman Arsenal, and the stamp of "Ren" of a Nanman Arsenal Dalian factory.      

There is no Mei of "Kōa Issin" in this blade. The blade made in Nanman Arsenal from the middle of 1943 is seemed. The difference in these three sorts of blades is not known. http://ohmura-study.net/998.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I JUST saw one, but for the life of me I can't remember where it was. Seems like it was on a Facebook group, but a quick brows through didn't turn it up. It's the first one I'd seen in Rinji mounts.

If it's on Facebook then that probably explains a lot Bruce! I don't have/use/know how to use any of the social media sites. It's good to know though that Mantetsu can be found in other mounts. I absolutely didn't know until yesterday!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The sword which Mantetsu made is classifiable into the following three sorts. 
 ① The blade before being named "Kōa Issin". This blade has only Mantetsu's trademark stamp in a Tang. 
 ② A blade with "Kōa-Issin" Mei named the Kōa-Issin sword .
 ③ A blade with the stamp of the "Nan" of a Nanman Arsenal, and the stamp of "Ren" of a Nanman Arsenal Dalian factory.      
There is no Mei of "Kōa Issin" in this blade. The blade made in Nanman Arsenal from the middle of 1943 is seemed. The difference in these three sorts of blades is not known. http://ohmura-study.net/998.html
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

The Balde wrote 昭和甲申春(1944)shouldn't have 興亞一心 on the tang!

 

http://ohmura-study.net/222.html

 

なし※

 なし

 なし  満鐵鍛造之

 満鐵鍛造之

 満鐵鍛造之  ●昭和甲申春

 ●昭和甲申春

 ●昭和甲申春  セ 一三一0

 ? 四五

 モ 七九九  連

 連

 連 W

 

  ※21

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

I JUST saw one, but for the life of me I can't remember where it was. Seems like it was on a Facebook group, but a quick brows through didn't turn it up. It's the first one I'd seen in Rinji mounts.

Bruce

You might saw the Mantetsu here 

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?889497-Type-3-1944-Pattern-Shin-Gunto-Sword-Pictorial-Show-us-your-Type-3&p=8038026#post8038026

Type 3 1944 Pattern Shin Gunto Sword Pictorial: Show us your Type 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not big on gunto, but I also love the type 3/44 mounts. Oddly enough, I stumbled across one for sale here in Canada about a week ago. Paid a very good price for it. Still waiting for it to arrive. It's an oil tempered showato blade. The 44 standard version tan aluminum saya, leather wrapped & lacquered Ito w/ celluloid same on tsuka. Had to buy without seeing nakago.. but the blade said it all anyways..

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah it's the redish toned leather.. it's the lesser quality version of the higher quality dark brown leather, and heavy lacquered saya with what feels like a "rock" finish. I owned a high quality 44 years ago that housed a RJT kiyokatsu blade.

 

Edit: sorry it's not leather.. it's a lacquered dark red-brown Ito. With tan aluminum saya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry guys i cant follow the 80 yen argument in that link not longer. Maybe for the cheapish showa-to in type 3 mounts ok. But not for the expensive RJT blades in high quality type 3 mounts. Never.

Chris, the 80 figure comes from the original official documents drafting the order to produce them. Naturally, any personalization/upgrading would up the ante on price.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bruce said it. That was an artificial price imposed on smiths. Bearing in mind that it was still a handsome sum to pay back then.

 

That's not particularly relevant to the date debate though, which is the determination of the ‘Type’. Official records from the Japanese national archives show the date the pattern was approved, which is contrary to the now very dated information from Ohmura, F&G and the like. I really don't understand why there is so much reluctance to believe that something written 5 years ago could be wrong (and if people don't believe the National Archives then it's a pointless debate). A lot of the recent research Nick has completed has answered some interesting questions other researchers weren't able to answer. It's all backed up by original documents. I don't believe you'll find much better sources than primary documents.

 

I think enough has been said. People can make up their own minds now. I will call it the Type 0 (and get funny looks I'm sure). Type 3 is the common designation, if incorrect designation, so I don't see it changing any time soon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

NMB needs a good, dedicated thread to the "Type 3", Contingency model, Rinji Seishiki, Type 0, Type 100, and this is one that has a good title.

 

There has been some good discoveries and much discussion since this thread began. The lion's share of it is on the follow threads at Warrelics:

 

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/deflating-another-myth-type-3-army-officera-s-sword-expanded-version-584796/

 

and

 

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/1945-rinji-seishiki-icu-ventilator-762330/

 

and

 

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/legally-rebutting-existence-type-3-army-officers-sword-708745/

 

and

 

http://ohmura-study.net/286.html (in Japanese. Google tranlate for details)

 

The model was discussed earlier than 1938, but in 1938 orders went out from the Army (not an Imperial Edict, which would have created a "Type" designation) that had several proposed improvements to the Type 98, making it more durable in battle, and at the same time, making it cheaper (remember officers had to buy their own gunto). The model was considered temporary - 臨時制式 Rinji-Seishiki (Contingency Spec) - with the idea that battle-proven modifications would be incorporated into Type 98 design.

 

In late '42 the order was drafted, went out in '43, to make this permanent (Ohmura's link). Ohmura discussed theories as to why it wasn't incorporated as an official Type, one being that the Emperor had already adopted, and worn, the standard Type 98 version and therefore couldn't be imposed upon to modify his stance. But no one knows. I personally think that by 42/43, so many units had been purchased, and variations in quality and style, from cheap to high-grade custom with RJT stamped blades, that there was no "incorporating the mods into the 98". It had taken on a life of it's own. Plus, though it was "temporary", the sword shortage was so great that there was no way the Army could afford to cut production of any model. But that is just me speculating.

 

P.S. If anyone has that copy of the draft specs, showing the drawings of the mods, please post here!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wanted to document, here, that is was a Japanese magazine article that first coined the term "Type 3" (Ohmura). There was a magazine the Army Dept used to release official statements, but his one, "Ranru" was just a magazine catering to antique lovers and no publication with any authority." (Nick Komiya)

 

"A total of 300 issues of government gazettes were released in 1943, and only 4 issues out of that announced changes in the Army Uniform Regulations (Gunto was part of the uniform regulations). The 4 announcements were----

 

1. 1st April 1943 Army Ordinance 23 regarding alternative materials allowed in uniform related production

2. 19th August 1943 Army Ordinance 66 regarding arm patch insignia

3. 13th October 1943 Edict 774 announcing the Type 3 uniforms

4. 10th December 1943 Army Ordinance 99 regarding further alternative materials allowed in uniform related production

 

Thus all 300 issues for 1943 has been checked to verify the Type 3 Gunto claim, which only served to prove that there never was such a designation as a "Type 3" for the simplified contingency spec alternative to the Type 98 Gunto." (Nick Komiya)

Ohmura, himself, recognized that the Rinji model did not make it into the 1943 Regulation changes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Star Stamp Gendaito in Type 3 (late '44) mounts, Nakago no. 315

forged Showa Juhachi-nen Ni-gatsu hi (February 1943)

 

I found another Gendaito from the same smith sold on Ebay in Type98 mounts, Nakago no. 320

forged Showa Juhachi-nen San-gatsu hi (March 1943)

 

I thought the type 3 came after the type 98. 

 

Very interesting for me.

Type 98 were manufactured til the end of war, Type 3 did not replace Type 98. They just manufactured Type 3 from 1943 till 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Type 98 were manufactured til the end of war, Type 3 did not replace Type 98. They just manufactured Type 3 from 1943 till 1945.

That's correct Bruno. Ohmura's point, though, was that the initial production of the Contingency model was to field test proposed modifications to the Type 98. Once proven, it was the goal of those promoting the model that the modifications were to be permanently incorporated into the Type 98. But for unknown reasons, they never were, and the "temporary" model, "Rinji-seishiki", simply continued being produced as a stand-alone model, yet was never officially declared a "Type."

 

Nick's revelations make the model sound like is was intentionally produced as a simpler and cheaper sword than the 98, and was a "contingency" modification.

 

Either or both may have been true at the same time, but whichever the case, it was never accepted/declared a "Type", but was always considered a contingency model.

 

Clearly some officers liked it so much they paid extra money to spice up the model and fill it with quality blades.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And within this model there was a good better best range.

Different wrap materials 

Some had German silver seppa, some had dust cover seppa. 

There were one and two button latches

Same ranged from ray skin, celluloid, canvas 

Sayas were painted metal to fancy wood. 

Some had screw mekugi, some bamboo 

A great variety.

post-3858-0-71811600-1586481395_thumb.jpg

post-3858-0-53133400-1586481410_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think now, after the finding and release of all these archive documents it is quite clear that what we have is a WWII IJA  sword blade / mount variation called a RINJI SEISHIKI GUNTO (Emergency / contingency Type Military Sword).

For discussion...as well as the mounts, I, from observation, also think that the blades in these mounts has shortened by c.1- 2 cm, the kissaki has also shortened, the sori slightly straightened and the tang has sometimes lengthened by 1 cm or so and invariably has 2 ana (of course there are always exceptions). These changes, with the sturdy Ikkan-maki lacquered binding etc, has produced a very good "field use" hand combat sword inspired by those used by foot soldiers in the Sengoku Jidai. While we have no documents declaring these changes to blade shape / length / tang etc., I think they must be part of a "revision" in thinking for battlefield use swords by IJA HQ. The need for these revisions undoubtedly came from battlefield experience in China 1931-1940. I hope one day we might find such evidence in the archives. While we may still use the various incorrect "Type" classifications "O", "3', Late 44", Naval Landing" because they appear so often in books, on-line etc, I think we need to concentrate on using the correct title from now on...maybe just Rinji? or Rinji Seishiki? 

Edit to Add meas:

Munetoshi (Niigata) Type 98 dated 9/41: blade length 66.0 cm, tang length 21.4 cm. 

Munetoshi RJT         Rinji      dated 5/43                      64.0                           21.8

 

We also  need to thank Nick Komiya and Bruce for all their work on this area. Well done (Brian...maybe we should recommend them for the Order of the Rising Sun for services to cultural understanding?).

 

Just for interest (hopefully) ...here in Australia the Rniji mounts were never seen until the advent of on-line buying (at least I never saw one until the late 1980s). Others here may have seen them but I never did. I have a theory on why (call this Trotter's Doctrine #803...I have many): Australian troops fought the Japanese from 1941 (Malaya-Singapore), in this region 1942-1945 (New Guinea, Netherlands East Indies, Borneo, SW Pacific). Our troops were actually opposed to the same troops all this time...relatively speaking, few "new" troops from Japan came down here with new equipment...those who did usually were transferred from fighting areas where they had already been for several years (China, Burma etc.), and with the US entry here in mid-1942, we generally became confined to fighting / holding this area while the US began to "island hop" to Japan. The US troops met with these Rinji swords, but generally, we did not. IMO that is why they were unheard of here until ebay. I stand to be corrected of course. Of the 4 Rinji I have, and say the other 20 I have had in hand...all came from on-line after the 1980s.

 

So, good topc, great work by Nick and Bruce...

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have known that the sword should not be called a 'Type 3' or '44' for 5 years now. Nick wrote his original article in 2015, which was linked here around that time. I remember a good number of people arguing that it was the 'Type 3' because the books said so. This was despite Nick providing all the documents from the archives to support the different dates and debunking the Type 3 designation. There were some iterations, but I think the Rinji Seishiki designation is finally the correct, proper term. I'm glad everyone is finally starting to use the correct term too, but the realisation that Type 3 was incorrect really shouldn't be news to anyone. The only new information is the identification of the Manchurian version of the koshirae. Anyway, this thing feels a lot like the old 'pilot' swords debate we had a year or two ago (time really flies), except the insistence on retaining that name was dropped a lot earlier. If anyone hasn't read all of the articles on swords, I recommend starting now. Here's a link http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/Japanese-militaria/master-index-reference-articles-written-nick-komiya-691796/

 

Sorry, I'm starting to sound like a grumpy old man on a rant, but I find it quite frustrating that it's taken this long for most people to even consider that the common term is wrong and needs changing. The 'book experts' always know better though! I've said my piece, back to learning! Don't get me wrong, I am enjoying the treads, but perhaps we can consolidate them under a single thread, with the proper designation? Just the fact this thread is titled with 'Type 3' is a great disservice to new members who should start with correct terminology.

 

Bruce or Neil, you guys are leading the transition of Nicks information to NMB, maybe we can take anything useful here and make a new thread, as Neil did with the MRS?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NMB needs a good, dedicated thread to the "Type 3", Contingency model, Rinji Seishiki, Type 0, Type 100, and this is one that has a good title.

 

P.S. If anyone has that copy of the draft specs, showing the drawings of the mods, please post here!

 

 Posted before, but is this what you were wanting?

post-2218-0-15437100-1586508615_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's bear in mind that the average collector out there isn't going to learn the name "Rinji Seishiki" anytime soon, and like most things with Japanese swords, sometimes a name is adopted just so that we all know what is meant.
For example Showato vs Gendaito... that is for convenience, but doesn't mean what we use it for.
I think Type 3 works for the average guy, as long as we know that isn't the official name for it, just a collector short-cut.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one, unless your post is really relevant and adds to the topic..

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...