Is This A Tradition Made Blade?

[Guntoguy05]

Curious if this is a traditional made blade in Gunto mounts? No showata stamp or signature on the Nakago. Curious about the snakeskin same’ as well?

[reeder]

I do not believe the blade is traditionally made.

[ggil]

Shark skin or lizzard skin I think. Pointy scale ends not as rounded like a snake. The blade could be inspected for hada (I see none or muji, but the pics aren’t like looking at it the sun with eyes, for sure), or the Harmon for nie (large/visible hardened crystals near the Hamon), as these things are unlikely or impossible in highly refined non-tamahagane. “Traditionally” means tamahagane and water quench. With as many non-traditionally made blades from the era, this blade isn’t too likely to be traditionally made. the blade being in real Japanese polish would help to study its properties. The wider (the mune-saki at the kissaki gets wider a bit... someone please help me with the terminology) kissaki is nice and is a point that contradicts the above, and I hope the picture is causing the taper to ‘“look” poorly shaped at the kissaki. If the taper does actually make a steep observable change just a couple inches below the kissaki (as the lighting makes it seem), then that fact would again support the conjecture that thisblade is non-traditionally made, which it likely is.

[ChrisW]

The patination also supports the idea that this is a gunto.

[Guntoguy05]

Do the file marks look ok? They are on longer angles than my other shin guntos.

[Andrei]

I have no knowledge in this field, but my type 98 also has file markings. I would like to know if the ones on mine are machine made, since all the markings look parallel. 

 

Your file markings look more natural. 

 

 

[ChrisW]

Hey Andrei! You're look new-ish to NMB. Welcome! Be sure to put your name or how you want to be addressed in your signature! (its in settings)  Also, you should start a new thread for your own blade! Be sure to include full photos of the blade, nakago, and close-ups of any mei and the hamon.

 

As for Josh's blade, the file marks were done by hand I presume so there will be some variance in how they're done. I imagine its possible to trace style of file marks on a gunto to a particular smith or region of manufacture even! However, I am not even close to being an expert on this. I don't see anything that jumps out as a red flag to me, it looks like you have a decent quality gunto in original mounts. Everything looks in pretty decent shape and the only thing missing is the sarute ( sword knot loop) and the sword knot itself (which is decorative anyways).

[David Flynn]

The Hamon looks like, Ko choji midare based on suguha.   I'm going 60/40 for Gendai.  Not the usual Hamon for Showato.

[Bruce Pennington]

You can see some different file styles here: http://www.japaneseswordindex.com/terms/terms2.htm

[ChrisW]

Bruce, our man! If anyone was an expert on gunto. That guy would be him. I'd ask Bruce any questions you have on guntos.

[16k]

Doesn’t look traditional to me, but I’m no expert. Yet, file marks look gunto and, though we’d need more pics of the blade, Hada looks muji. A better view of the Hamon would help too.

[PNSSHOGUN]

The lack of stamps gives it a better chance of being traditionally made.

[Bruce Pennington]

I have no knowledge in this field, but my type 98 also has file markings. I would like to know if the ones on mine are machine made, since all the markings look parallel.

 

Your file markings look more natural.

 

Andrei,

 

That's definitely some precision-looking file marks! I still have much to learn about the WWII swordmaking business, and there is very little historical information to glean from. All I am aware of for machine work during the war was hydraulic hammers for pounding out the steel and rollers for one-piece blades like the Type 95s. It's certainly possible the smith who made your blade used some sort of mechanical guide for his file, but I haven't heard nor seen info on a machine that was doing it.

 

There is a video out there of a smith filing a nakago, but I did a quick search and couldn't find it. It is my impression that these guys were just that good!

 

I'll defer to the nihonto/gendaito collectors on the traditional or not question. There were 9 different ways blades were made, and a few of them, non-traditional, still produced nice hamon. Like John said, the lack of stamps COULD mean it was traditionally made, however, most blades made before approx 1940 weren't stamped (the law requiring stamps on non-traditionally made blades came out in '38 but it wasn't widely practiced until '40ish). So it could simply mean your blade was made before '40, but still non-traditionally made.

[Guntoguy05]

I tried getting better pics of the hamon.

[vajo]

Josh the fittings look not as they should look. The tsuba is very bad made. The Menuki looks inverted. The seppa and fuchi looks in way that i would not expect to a Japanese Gunto. The kashira looks badly cast. Sorry i can not go with this. But I'm not a expert. The blade is made maybe very late in war. The kissaki mune is out of form.

 

Sharkskin was used with Gunto.

[16k]

I tried getting better pics of the hamon.

Well, it’s hard to say but it looks like a real water quenched Hamon, so maybe semi traditional... once again, I’m no expert.

[Shamsy]

I would put the most weighting behind Mr Flynn's opinion.

[Guntoguy05]

I really appreciate the info.

[Gang Wang]

I think it is a half machine-half traditional one.