WWII Officers Sword - Tell me what I have?

[BurtMayer]

So I’ve read all these topics about oil vs water. Dull hamon vs bright glowing hamon. This one looks like it has electricity flowing when hit with a bright light in a dim room. No dark shadow spots. 
 

[BurtMayer]

Active Hada. I think that’s pretty active. Still don’t see any dark shadows. 
 

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

Also found this frosted area. Also located three more number “3s”. 

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

This number 3 has the same shape as the painted on 3. 

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

On this one of the side of the blade are small ridges. Obviously something built into the blade while being made. Is this any type of indication? They are something not seen except at certain angle under certain lighting. 
 

[BurtMayer]

[Scogg]

Hi Burt,

The area you highlight on the MUNE near the KISSAKI, is typically where you would find "Polisher Marks" known as "NAGASHI". When the blade was polished, the polisher created that area with the distinct line. Usually NAGASHI look like a series of lateral lines beyond that distinct line into the tip. They are also often found under the habaki between the mune-machi and the nakago corrosion. 

To address the rippling effect with the ridges, in your previous comment - I would look into blade flaws like SHINAE. Although, to me, it looks like an artifact from a less-than-professional polish. If this sword had received a non-professional polish sometime in it's lifetime after the war - it could explain those ridges, and also what appears to be an erasure of the finer NAGASHI lines near the kissaki. 

Just my guess and two cents; I'm just a collector not an expert.
-Sam 

[BurtMayer]

Its only in that one spot, on one side. It is almost impossible to see it. I took 50 pics to get this one.

 

I do have a past background in metal work. I found what I believed it to be. And it’s on this page. Leftover slag buildup. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 1 by BurtMayer
Fixed the underline in the photo

[Scogg]

That image is a little busy and blury, and it's hard to determine which letter and line is pointing to which feature. The "h" that you've boxed in, is in reference to FUKURE which is a blister, and is depicted by that dark lima-bean looking mark right below your red box. 

Here's a good link that separates each flaw, with an image. 
https://japaneseswordindex.com/kizu.htm

Hope that helps.

All the best,
-Sam

[Geraint]

Dear Burt.

 

 

Your photography is really good, I wish I could capture some of these features.

 

The diagram you show is very dated and indeed even in this one the dotted line for slag inclusions points to the gourd shaped darker area.  Slag inclusions typically show as a dark spot or area, not ridges.The marks on your blade are mukade shinae, often caused by having a bent sword straightened.  Just to add to what Sam has suggested, polishers usually place a demarcation like the one in the red box at the point where the kaeri or return of the hamon in the kissaki, meets the mune.  If you follow the line of the boshi you may see this.

 

Much more detailed information about flaws,9 and indeed so much more that might be of use to you on this site), here, http://www.ksky.ne.jp/~sumie99/flaws.html

 

There is so much to learn and so much to see, that's partly why this study is so fascinating!  Enjoy the journey.

 

(I see that Sam beat me to it!)

 

All the best

[BurtMayer]

This is the exact section of the blade. I found a junk sticker to get camera focus. In person to the eye the ripple can’t be seen. 

[BurtMayer]

Another very hard to capture area. At angle, appears to be frosted. 

 

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

[Scogg]

Interesting one Burt; I've been focusing a good chunk of my study on this type of sword. 

This is an NCO Type95 Shin Gunto. This particular example is a "Pattern 2" version, with the brass tsuba and aluminum handle. Looks in great shape, and with a leather tassel to boot! These were mass produced and machine made blades, made from ~1937 to ~1945. Your example was made between July 1938 and June 1939. The scratching you highlight is just that: minor scratching; and is pretty typically found on these from years of reckless handling. 

The serial number... Is it missing it's third digit? Or is it being censored? 

Do you happen to have a photo of the other side of the handle? Does it have a matching number on the scabbard mouth?
This is a very early tokyo SUYA aluminum handle type 95, that is of particular interest to my study. 

Very cool, and all the best,
-Sam

[BurtMayer]

So I've also got this early NCO sword. It has similar marks exhibited from most likely a fast finishing to expedite manufacture. These are slightly angled from dragging across a machine sander, my guess.

 

ETA - Scogg, the marks I highlight were made during the manufacturing process, not from rough handling. Yes all matching.

 

I wouldn't call the officer sword ridges a result of a bad polish, but a lack of preparation. I'd imagine when these swords were manufactured by hand or machine, they may not be perfectly straight. So there was probably a straightening process. At least I've seen that on "Forged in Fire", lol. Then the process is continued before it goes to the final polish.

 

You wouldn't paint a car, to see marks in the paint, then blame the painter. You'd look back at who did the prep work, the body guy.

[BurtMayer]

[BurtMayer]

[Scogg]

I fail to see the similarity of the scratching on the 95, and the barely visible rippling on your officer sword. That rippling could even just be lighting, it's really hard to tell from the photos. 

Beware of making too many assumptions surrounding the history and manufacture of any antique sword - as a lot of time has passed between then and now, and anything could have happened to explain the features you see. Don't forget, many of these swords were issued and carried in war - they may have been used and/or received field repairs. If these little flaws happened in the arsenals or during manufacture, I would think those kinds of flaws would be well noted and better understood. Then again, I don't have a time machine 

For what it's worth, your Type 95 is fairly rare. It's of a style during the transition from the copper handle "pattern 1" to the aluminum handle "pattern 2". As you can see, the bolt punctures the imitation ITO wrapping. Shortly after, they adjusted the casting mould, so the bolt would go between the ITO instead. I only have a few recorded like this. 

Pretty cool, I have one of these too #7249, and it's a personal favorite in my collection.
-Sam

[BurtMayer]

One more late model for you. 
 

My point is that those marks have more than likely produced and been there since manufacture, not necessarily the fault of a polisher. Overall the blade indicates it is in impeccable condition. The gentleman (other potential buyer) inspecting it pointed this out to me. He was only looking for specific signatures.
 

I’d even go as far to say that upon super close inspection this may be more often seen on other blades. Cameras have gotten so advanced, and can pickup stuff even unseen with a loop. This isn’t the only stuff I collect. I have found many mystery marks using cameras that usually go unseen to the eye. 

[Brian]

I would put money on the fact that this was redone at some point on a knifemaker belt sander or arsenal level. The Japanese were fussy about quality, even late war. Fairly obvious if you are in the knifemaking world. Sharp edges on all the stamps and grooves shows it too. Plus the surface finish is a belt finish, not the usual buffed one. Not serious though, since they are monosteel I don't think it detracts much. Nice sword and as Sam said, a rare one.

[BurtMayer]

I would have always thought this is what it looked like at the time of making. What I do see is some collector maybe using something to clean it up. Considering WWII Japanese rifles, pistols, bayonets, helmets, etc are pretty much the most crude forms of manufacturing. Even early Japanese Type 38 rifles have tooling marks which are night and day better then Type 99’s. 

 

Who knows. I'll take this officer sword to be looked at soon.

 

[BurtMayer]

No sharp edges on these numbers or anywhere for that fact. I took it back to check. Only the sharp edge, and that’s sharper than I expected. 

 

I usually block out a digit. Don't need someone claiming they own my item.

 

ETA- Brian I had to reread your comment. I assure you neither of these NCO swords were arsenal reworks, or belt sanded on some knife makers shop. Again, the camera is playing tricks. When I bought these two swords I had guys chasing me asking me to resell them to them at the militaria show. I knew enough to know what they were a jumped on them. Buy the item, not the story. But the story was that the guy I bought them from (who walked into the show with them) picked them up directly from an old lady. Said they have been in his collection for over 10 years or so. It was just time to start letting some things go. You’d have to see them in person. 

Anyway, enough about this. I’ll report back when the Officer sword is inspected. Another one you have to see in person. Hint, the show I purchased it from was an auction showing. Many people inspected the officer sword. Many people bid. Only one was successful. 

 

[Scogg]

Here’s a close up of my serial numbers, just for comparison sake. Mine has scratching and some pitting and I believe it received at least one field repair.
 

It would not surprise me if someone postwar did some rust removal to mine. Every 95 I’ve ever encountered has shown signs of age, wear, use or abuse, and I’ve never seen anyone claim an uncirculated factory-fresh example, nor would that claim be possible to confirm with any level of certainty.

But for what it’s worth… If I had a nickel every time I heard “the old lady had never touched it before I acquired it”, my sword collection would be much larger 

 

No offense intended, but this is my experience in the ww2 sword world. 
-Sam