Oddball - Incomplete Date?

[Bruce Pennington]

Came across this oddball on Military Items dot com.  Claims to be a 1938 Kanekuni, but the date kanji are incomplete, maybe?  And why the sellers decided it was "1938" is beyond me.  "Showa Ishi San" is not a legit way to write a date.

 

The mei looks pretty horrid too.

 

Sarute is fake or post-war.

 

I would call this a fake, but it's got a showa stamp, is isn't normally faked, and the blade & koshirae look good.

 

It sold for almost $2,000! (don't know when, though)

Found here:  http://militaryitems.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=4166

 

Thoughts?

[Shugyosha]

Because Showa 13 would be 1938? 😀

[Dave R]

Looks legit, but the vendor could have described it better. Also seems unaware of what the Sho stamp really meant.

[Bruce Pennington]

2 hours ago, Shugyosha said:

Because Showa 13 would be 1938? 😀

Yes, but that's not how they wrote thirteen.  It should be "showa 10 3 Year"  I've attached comparisons.  Also, there seems to be a single stroke, where the kanji for "year" should have been started. 

 

Honestly,  I think the (what's the word for guys that did mei for the smiths?) got to the word "year" when he realized he messed the whole thing up and simply stopped!!  I've made posters for my daughters school projects, and realized halfway through, that I had spelled something wrong.  I think this is what happened here!  The mei is so sloppy, I think we're seeing the work of a rookie mei cutter!

[SteveM]

In addition to being wrong, the way the year is cut is also horrible - as in unskilled, amateurish, clumsy. Meanwhile, the actual mei, Kanekuni, is skillfully done. The two sides are done by different hands. 

 

Note,  the kanji character 一 (one) can easily be made into a 十 (ten) with the addition of a vertical stroke, so even if the person who wrote the year mistakenly wrote 一三 instead of 十三, the mistake could have easily been fixed. But on this sword the mistake is just left there, unfinished. It makes me think someone, maybe non-Japanese, was using this sword to practice carving in steel. The single stroke after the 一三 isn't placed in the right spot or the right angle for 年, so that mark also makes me question who was holding the engraving tools and what their intention was. 

 

Plus, I think  the language used to describe the sword is intended to deceive, and is in its own way, horrible. The dealer is playing a shell game with words; is it a samurai sword? a katana? a gendaito? He is adamant that it isn't a showato. Already the newbie is being bamboozled by buzzwords. Was it picked up off the battlefield, or was it assembled afterwards from various parts? It has an arsenal stamp, but it is "clearly, and without question" a handmade blade?

 

The stamp alone causes us to question it. The funky 一三 for the date causes us to question it. It seems to be a frankensword that the dealer is trying to sell as something more than what it actually is, and I guess he was successful. I also have several complaints about syntax and grammar used in the description. And my pet peeve is using the word "samurai" to describe swords of the 20th century, but these are petty compared to the other complaints. 

[Bruce Pennington]

23 minutes ago, SteveM said:

The stamp alone causes us to question it. The funky 一三 for the date causes us to question it. It seems to be a frankensword that the dealer is trying to sell as something more than what it actually is, and I guess he was successful. I also have several complaints about syntax and grammar used in the description. And my pet peeve is using the word "samurai" to describe swords of the 20th century, but these are petty compared to the other complaints. 

Well said, Steve!  You put into words the very feelings that were bugging me about this!

 

I've browsed their website occasionally and give him credit for trying, but he looks like a generalist militaria seller and knows only little about swords.

 

Then there's THIS (hope everyone is sitting down!!!):

 

I sent them an email about it.  It's SO BAD it had to have been a mistake.  It's like he had an overlay and grabbed the wrong photo to put it on.

[raaay]

Mantetsu  -  obviously 

 

 many years ago an antique dealer tried to sell me a Mantetsu blade  ,   the dealers  translation was it said ,  leaping tiger in the spring time 

[Gilles]

According to me you have three guys who "worked" on that blade. First the swordsmith. Second a non Japanese wise ass put a sloppy showa, then a third rocket scientist who was non Japanese also and obviously not far from the second ladd added the figure one and three and stopped short not convinced himself of his dexterity.

I will add that even the swordsmith kanjis are somewhat suspicious because they are carved quite deep which is not common. You will have to compare with other swords made by the same smith.

[Bruce Pennington]

Here's a comparison.  It's the "kuni" kanji that is the worst.  I don't know how many Kanekuni smiths were working WWII.  There could be 3 different ones.  I've seen that before.

[IJASWORDS]

The Kanji on the suspicious sword are stamped in with tool like a screwdriver point, not cut or chiseled as is normally done. 

[Bruce Pennington]

7 hours ago, IJASWORDS said:

The Kanji on the suspicious sword are stamped in with tool like a screwdriver point, not cut or chiseled as is normally done. 

Yes, fat and course.

[PNSSHOGUN]

It is clearly a period Seki-To......why on earth would someone go to the effort of putting in a fake Mei of a low level smith? Not to mention the presence of the Sho stamp, I can't recall seeing an unsigned/dated blade with just an acceptance stamp before.

[Gilles]

Dear John,

 

You are right, over the years or decades I've handled quite a few guntos but I never saw a sho stamp alone. At least, the swordsmith name is present.

[Bruce Pennington]

6 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

It is clearly a period Seki-To......why on earth would someone go to the effort of putting in a fake Mei of a low level smith? Not to mention the presence of the Sho stamp, I can't recall seeing an unsigned/dated blade with just an acceptance stamp before.

Which is why I feel like this is original, but with a rookie doing the mei cutting.  With sword shortages, possibly they just pushed it through.  The blade was good, screwed up writing would be covered by the tsuka - let it pass!

[Mato san]

So this sword is familiar to me.. I bought it!  I have been looking into it lately and ran across this thread.  Your questions are valid making me think I overpaid for this particular piece.  Yes this is new to me, and yes I should have done a bit more research.  Now that I own the blade I might as well reach out and hear some more opinions!  I have some questions to anyone willing to answer and help me educate myself.  Thanks in advance!

[PNSSHOGUN]

Hi Matt, welcome to the forum. Looking back on the pictures the sword looks fine, good mounts, blade is in good condition. You probably overpaid by a few hundred dollars, no big deal if you enjoy it.

[Bruce Pennington]

Matthew,

So cool to meet the real owner!  I'm with John.  I think you've got a legit WWII gunto.  And in a collector's perspective, more valuable BECAUSE of the uniqueness of the date.  In the coin collecting world, a double-struck coin is more valuable because it is so rare. 

 

The image of Japanese precision in their craft can create this false aura that they were flawless.  I like to see things like this because it brings the humanity back into focus.

[Sunny]

I've had the same sorta thing once.

A legit Osuriage blade shortened by the early Ichimonji school.

The guy started on the wrong side for signing.

He stopped and then put the full mei on the left side for a remaining long wakizashi length blade

[SteveM]

Hi Matt, I was/am critical of the date engraved on the tang, and critical of the sales pitch used on the site, but the sword itself is an authentic, typical WW2 sword, so if that is what you were after I think you did well.

 

I disagree with Bruce regarding any added value the date may impart. I think this date is so bad that it is likely a later addition. Could have even been made by some western person not used to writing kanji. But it doesn't change the fact that the sword looks to be a genuine WW2 sword.