Is this a type 98 with a type 95 blade?

[Adam001]

I've been looking at this piece for a while. This is my first one to add to my collection.  It looked authentic but now I'm starting to second guess my self. I'm definitely not an expert but it looks like a type 95 blade. The blade measures 25 3/8". Im new to collecting and just want to make sure I didn't buy a fake. I'm new to this message board but everybody here seems like experts. I would appreciate anybody opinion? Thank you

[PNSSHOGUN]

Hi Adam, yes it does appear that way, it also looks like it has been assembled post war from various parts. Unless it is extraordinarily cheap I would avoid this.

[Adam001]

I already purchased it. I how I didn't pay to much. Here is a few more photos. 

[Kiipu]

It appears to be a 造兵刀 sword.  The white painted characters on the tang are 七八 [78] and match the fittings.  To rule out a Type 95 blade, the habaki would have to come off.  A Type 95 has offset mune-machi and ha-machi, these are the notches that the habaki butt up against.  I would like @BANGBANGSAN to take a look at this sword as he collects them.  In the meantime, below is a link for you to look at.

造兵刀 Army Arsenal blade

 

Edit:  I forgot to mention that the tang also has a 東 inspection mark.  The 東 inspection mark was used by Tōkyō Arsenal from 1932 to 1945.

[Adam001]

Is this what I needed to do?

[BANGBANGSAN]

It is a later 造兵刀 made by Tokyo Arsenal, the assemble number 七八（78） on the tang matches 鍔&切羽。 The extra hole on the tang and none army standard issue 兜金 indicates the handle was remount. Agree with what John says, don't buy it unless it's cheap.

[Adam001]

21 minutes ago, BANGBANGSAN said:

What is considered a cheap price? 

 

[PNSSHOGUN]

A few hundred dollars.

[Adam001]

Ok thank you everybody for your help.

[Bruce Pennington]

This is an interesting piece for a couple of reasons.  While the inspection mark was used by the Arsenal throughout the war, I was not aware (just hadn't heard nor read) how many years they were cranking out zoheito.  The kabutogane is definitely late-war, so with matching fittings, this could imply the zoheito was made in '44-'45.  Of course, the second ana points to the fact that the blade was re-mounted at least once, so this still could be an early war (late 1920s to early 1930s) and simply refitted toward the end of the war.

 

Anyone know the production date-range for the zoheito?

[PNSSHOGUN]

It is unknown how long they were made but from at least 1934. The tricky thing is they are almost invariably found in early 1934 style mounts. So either a large amount were made from 1934-1938/9 or they continued using the early style of mount into the 1940's. Can only recall seeing a couple original examples with solid Tsuba out of dozens noted. Not sure how much I trust the Tsuka to be original to this sword, the Tsuba and only 2 Seppa are matched but that Tsuka doesn't seem right.

[Bruce Pennington]

The late-war fittings with this type kabutogane usually have the same dull black saya like this one has.  I think the blade was re-fitted late in the war with this koshirae.

[BANGBANGSAN]

9 hours ago, PNSSHOGUN said:

It is unknown how long they were made but from at least 1934. The tricky thing is they are almost invariably found in early 1934 style mounts. So either a large amount were made from 1934-1938/9 or they continued using the early style of mount into the 1940's. Can only recall seeing a couple original examples with solid Tsuba out of dozens noted. Not sure how much I trust the Tsuka to be original to this sword, the Tsuba and only 2 Seppa are matched but that Tsuka doesn't seem right.

I have a solid Tusba one. See the compared with the early one, later one has longer Tsuba . Also, the later 造兵刀 has 東 inspection mark instead of ホ,セ and Tokyo Cannonball mark, and is always one the 裏 side of tang along with the assemble number, the early 造兵刀 has arsenal mark in the 表 side of the tang.