Picked up a Type32 Otsu

[Scogg]

Found this at a militaria show for a great price, and decided to add it to my collection. I know a little bit about these and have read all the ohmura material. Saya number does not match. Can anyone put a date on it based on the stamps and serial number? 
 

Otherwise mostly just show and tell! Enjoy! 
Neat sword. 
-Sam 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

That's a nice one, Sam!  Be careful with putting your finger in the leather loop.  I have one that broke on me after doing it a few times.

 

Some of the stamps can be dates, but I don't think yours are, just inspection marks.  I could be wrong, though.  Best to wait for @Kiipu, or one of the other guys that study these.

[Scogg]

Thanks Bruce! The first thing I did when I got it home was gently apply a thin layer of antique leather conditioner to the leather loop. Hoping to rehydrate and strengthen it a bit so it lasts another ~100 years.

 

It’s a nice addition to have next to my 95’s. A nice visual aid to help tell the story of the inception of the Type 95 sword. 
 

Now I just need a copper that won’t break the bank; and maybe a Ko to keep the Otsu company.

 

I’m sure I can think of more swords that I want too 

-Sam 

 

 

 

[Kiipu]

4 hours ago, Scogg said:

Can anyone put a date on it based on the stamps and serial number?

 

The early Otsu Type 32's were undated.  Later on, a date was added above the arsenal symbol.  The earliest dated 乙 [Otsu] I know of is serial number 66604, dated 明四〇 [1907].

 

Based upon the serial number of 63703, I would guess it was made sometime during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905.

 

As Bruce already indicated, the "stamps' are final inspection marks.  One of which seen is 田.

[Kiipu]

Also, the late Nick Komiya has some threads about the Type 32 Military Sword.

How the Type 32 Sword was born

&

System Kaizen behind the Type 32 Gunto production of the 1930s

[Kiipu]

Can you measure the scabbard drag thickness for me?

Also, does the scabbard throat have an extension lug or is it flat?

[Scogg]

Thank you so much Thomas! Very cool. 

You’ve been a huge help. I owe you big time. 

-Sam 

 

edit, just saw your request. Stay tuned

Edited June 14, 2025 by Scogg

[Scogg]

[Kiipu]

Thanks Scogg.  The drag thickness is 36mm and the scabbard throat is flat (versus having a lug).  In my experience, the flat scabbard throat is more uncommon.  You will learn more about why I asked these questions when you have a chance to read Nick's threads.

 

As a general rule, the following blade and scabbard information is needed when reporting a Type 32.

 

Blade

Length (Version): 甲 Kō or 乙 Otsu.

Serial Number: Sequential serial number starting at 1, stamped in Arabic numerals.

Fullered: Yes or No. (FYI, all are fullered but I ask anyway.)

Finish: White, Blued, Black oxide, Painted black, or ?.  (They all started out as white.)

 

Saya

Serial Number: Original serial number, rematched SN, mismatch serial number, none, ?.

Scabbard Throat: Extension lug, or Flat, or ?.

Drag thickness: in millimeters.

Finish: White, Blued, Black-oxide, Painted black, Chrome, Textered, or ?.

[Godzilla]

Hello I am new here.  I have a pair of the typ32 , sword and sabre.  I have no idea as how clean/polished these should be regarding the collecting mindset, opinions?  Coming from the same arsenal but with a few differences.  The blades are in very good condition.  The infantry version scabbard, the chrome plating has turned black and has being flaking off over time.  It has had the wood grip replaced very roughly as if done in the field.  In the replacement the spring clip has been left out also the two pins that are on the piece between the grip and guard are missing but still has the leather finger button.  The drag is the altered 32mm.  The guard has four marking which I cannot read except the so called canon ball mark.

 

The sabre only has two marks which quite clear to see.  No leather finger button but the hole has not been filled.  Any advice on cleaning and the marking would be nice.  I got these to go with my Soviet Shashka.  My next plan is to find the Italian 1871 sabre which if I am right was used in the last cavalry charge. 

[Bruce Pennington]

Nice set, Tim.  I actually like that replacement grip.  They did a decent job with it.

[Kiipu]

Note how the crossguard markings are reversed on your two swords.  Swords made at the very end are marked like the one with just an arsenal symbol and one inspection mark.

 

Your Otsu looks to be dated 明四四 1911, reading from right to left?

[Krzysio]

Really love these Type 32 sabers. Got one not to long ago but it was cover in rust, not the blade. Had to do a lot of work to saya and hilt to get it clean and looking somehow presentable.

Use a lot of Rem Oil and microfiber cloth. The silver color was already there just cover in light layer of gunk and stains. This saber from what it looks was used a whole lot in the war.

The lines in wood handle are just about ware off. The blade has scuffs and pitting but still in good shape.

I was so impress by the quality of this saber that when I seen another pop up for sale I jump on it.

The new one from pictures that I look at was much better shape. But when I got it and pull the blade out did not believe how good shape it is in. The blade is practically brand new. It looks as if it was never used.

The saya look in the same shape as the first saber. The hilt show very nice old patina and still has the leather loop.

These two are the "Ko" cavalry sabers. Now the hunt is on for the "Otsu"

Still learning about these and been reading a lot. Did check out every post in the message board regarding the Type 32 and some other forums.

Sure these are not hand made or type 95's. They are solid pieces and from what I seen looks like a sleeper.

Feel like this is a good start to many more swords will like to get. If you dont have one of these , you really should check these out.

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

Very nice, Kris!  

I can see the serial number on the second one.  Could you post a clear shot of the number on the top one?

[Krzysio]

Thanks Bruce

 

The numbers on the second one are heavy grind off and only some are visible. 

What is crazy just notice is the swords weigh is different. I believe the sword was heavily refurbish and lost a lot in the process.

Like to hear what is the weight of swords in other collections.

The new shape sword weight is 2.2lb and the other is 1.8lb, very big difference.

 

 

[Bruce Pennington]

I noticed slight differences between the two as well. That’s why I was curious about the serial number. The heavier one may have been an earlier one. Similar to the type 95s where the copper handles were quite heavy and later versions got lighter.

[Krzysio]

That makes sense now. If the earlier were heavier than this may be great condition early example. 

Did see somewhere were they can pin point the date of production from the serial number.

Non of my have matching numbers unfortunately.

 

There was a a nice saber just sold on ebay that I miss it.

Check out the serial number on this one, it sold for $561. The serial number must be worth couple hundred alone, hehe

 

 

 

[Nazar]

A kind of offtopic. Didn't even know that type 32 has a descendant, Chinese Type 65  until this sword surfaced on the local internet auction. 

 

 

 

[Kiipu]

Trystan did a little writeup on these some time back.  The blades were made in the Soviet Union and the rest in PRC.

@BANGBANGSAN

[BANGBANGSAN]

16 hours ago, Nazar said:

A kind of offtopic. Didn't even know that type 32 has a descendant, Chinese Type 65  until this sword surfaced on the local internet auction. 

 

 

 

Chinese cavalry units used captured Japanese Type 32 Cavalry Saber swords, while cavalry troops in Xinjiang Province continued using Russian Shashka sabers until the 1960s. The PLA later decided to develop its own cavalry sword based on the Type 32, with several improvements.

At the time, China was unable to produce blades that fully met PLA requirements. Since the Soviet Union had more advanced industrial capabilities and greater experience in manufacturing cavalry swords, the PLA ordered the blades from Russia. The blades were then chromed, and the remaining components were assembled at the 3521 Arsenal in Nanjing. Because the PLA maintained only three cavalry units in the 1960s — located in Xinjiang, Gansu, and Inner Mongolia — only a few thousand Type 65 Cavalry Sword swords were produced.

Around 1985, the PLA reduced its forces by approximately one million personnel. Only about 1,000–1,200 cavalry troops were retained and reorganized into two units, one in Gansu and the other in Inner Mongolia. Most retired Type 65 swords were exported to North America during the late 1980s and early 1990s along with other surplus Chinese military equipment.

The Type 65 was both the first and the last cavalry sword officially adopted by the PLA, and it reportedly remains in limited service today. Many Chinese collectors would like to own one of these swords, but original military-issued examples are difficult to obtain within China. As a result, several Chinese sword companies began producing replicas for the collector market, although these were not intended to be exact reproductions of the Japanese Type 32.

This sword was significantly improved over the Japanese 1932 cavalry sword in several ways. It was longer and heavier, and the blade received superior heat treatment. The scabbard fittings were redesigned to reduce the risk of breakage during hard use and repeated sheathing. The single suspension ring was replaced with two hanging rings, allowing the sword to be carried over the shoulder. The grip texture was also improved to provide better handling and control.

In addition, the sword had a more imposing appearance than the Japanese Type 32. Chinese cavalry troops reportedly found it more effective for mounted combat involving slashing and hacking attacks, whereas the Japanese sword was considered better suited for thrusting and finer cutting work.

That said, I still believe the overall quality was not as high as that of the Japanese Type 32.

 

[Nazar]

Great info! Thank you!