Type 95 NCO Sword for comments

[Kaiser21]

I picked this item up as part of a trade a year or two ago. I think it’s a legit one. I’m assuming it saw some use as the scabbard paint is worn away in the area where one would grasp it to pull the blade. The paint on the handle is also well worn.  

It’s the first Japanese sword I acquired. A couple of years later I’m up to three and still looking.  My Imperial German collector colleagues are starting to worry.

The brass Tsuba is 9.3mm thick. The serial number on the blade and scabbard is 96428. 

The marks on the Fuchi  are (I think) From Left to Right

Maker’s mark = Kobe Shoten, Arsenal Inspection Mark,  Tokyo Arsenal Mark

From the research I’ve done I believe the sword was made in the 1941 period, however, I’m no expert when it comes to these swords. 

 

If anyone can be more precise I’d appreciate your insights.

[Shamsy]

Looks like the blade has been polished (I mean that in the non-Japanese sense). I don't like the fact the saya mouth has been sanded. That's what unscrupulous individuals do to 'match' numbers. I'll compare the font of the saya to see if it's the same as the arsenal numbers.

 

Edit: Numbers look good, other than the kick up at the end of the 2, but I think that's a scratch or dent. Shame the stamp on the saya was removed when it was sanded.

[paul griff]

Hello,

         You are correct it’s  100% genuine and a very nice example....I’m sure other members of the forum who are very enthusiastic about these will  be able to elaborate...nice find,well done..

Regards,

               Paul..

[lambo35]

Is it normal for the fonts on the saya to be different from those on the blade, the above looks to be different, blade from saya.

 

Chuck.

[Shamsy]

1 hour ago, lambo35 said:

Is it normal for the fonts on the saya to be different from those on the blade, the above looks to be different, blade from saya.

 

Chuck.

 

It can be. There are a few small variations in font across arsenals and time periods. If it weren't for the sanding, I wouldn't have even checked because they look right to me. Most of the re-stamped numbers are very obviously a totally different font, but other than the 2, these are spot on. The 2 also looks fine but for that tail which I think is a dent or scratch.

 

A long time ago I had a nice picture of several fonts together as a demonstration of the differences and how much they can vary. If I ever find that again, I'll post it up.

[Kaiser21]

Thanks for your comments gentlemen.

 

The one thing I found odd (and I didn't even notice it until I was Photo shopping the picture) is the fact that the 4 on the blade is a smaller size than any of the other numbers.

 

My background is Manufacturing Operations in the Aerospace and Defence industry, so I have some appreciation of the things that happen when managing serially numbered production.  Probably lots of ways that could happen. I'd think it would be a lot easier to put a bogus number on the Saya than the blade so I'd be inclined to say that the blade number is legit. Maybe that Production Plannner/Inspector lost one of their number 4 stamps and used a smaller one temporarily?

[Shamsy]

Re-stamping a blade would be extremely difficult. The steel is very hard, so it'd be nearly impossible to sand away enough to hide old numbers and then get solid, deep stamps like that. I've seen a sword with the numbers removed and it has an obvious dip when viewed from above. I don't recall every hearing of blades being re-stamped. The saya mouth is much easier, but is usually obvious as the paint is gone, the brass shiny, the arsenal stamp is removed and scratches remain. It's near impossible to match paint and patina so you don't often see anyone try.

[Stegel]

Nice sword and welcome to the Japanese side of collecting!

The ‘2’ is the correct font used by this contractor in the serial number range you have.

the ‘4’ is also normal

[Bruce Pennington]

26 minutes ago, Stegel said:

Nice sword and welcome to the Japanese side of collecting!

The ‘2’ is the correct font used by this contractor in the serial number range you have.

the ‘4’ is also normal

And this one is by the same contractor! Look at the screw and nut. It is the standard kind.

[Shamsy]

3 hours ago, Stegel said:

The ‘2’ is the correct font used by this contractor in the serial number range you have.

the '4' is also normal

 

Goodo, we agree on our assessment of the 2. I still wonder at the sanding of the saya throat though. No idea why that was done and it appears to have obliterated the arsenal stamp.  I didn't realise there was any question around the 4, but it took only three photos before I found similar 4s. As I said above, would be difficult to deeply re-stamp a hardened steel blade so I only ever look at the saya for tampering unless the blade numbers stuck out like dogs balls. Some 4 have the bottom horizontal line, but there are plenty of examples without this across a range of swords.

 

I also found that picture with a few serial numbers that really highlights the difference in fonts, how neatly they are applied and how deep or shallow the strike is. Could probably get a better picture, but it is just a quick look for interest purposes.

 

Worth noting that as your sword demonstrates, there are differences between saya and sword numbers too.

 

[Kaiser21]

Interesting discussion.

 

So, these serial numbers were stamped by hand or machine?   There is such a variety of alignments and depth of impressions I'd conclude hand stamping?

 

I was drawn to it because unlike pristine examples, this one looks like it was used in the field.

[Shamsy]

The location of the wear on the saya strongly suggests carry for your sword. Around that suspension ring is very typical, where a hand would go, boots or leg rub occurs... very common. No guarantee of field use, but I prefer a sword like that to a perfect 'mint' example (which i would always feel a little sceptical off). Patina is the best indication for true age and it's hard to get right.

 

There was some discussion and debate regarding how number were applied years ago but I don't think there was much in the way of definitive conclusions. I think Dawson suggests the deepest numbers were done pre-temper and shallow ones are post-temper. Seems reasonable. F&G talk about numbers being 'rolled on' by machine if memory serves.

 

I actually know a lot less about the manufacturing process for 95s than I would like. Some numbers are very straight and even. Others are all over the place. I'd suggest that some were done by hand, not sure if any were done by machines.

 

Anyone got any info about this backed by empirical evidence?