Japanese nco sword from ww2

[Stu W]

If anyone is looking for seppa sets you can usually find them on Doug Austin's site Gunto Art Swords ...

gunto art swords

The photo is of one such set he has for sale. Keep in mind that not all swords will accommodate a full set. They are basically washers used to fill space but the large seppa on each side of the tsuba are pretty standard. You may also need to do a bit of filing to accomodate the blade/tang width.

Regards,
Stu

[pereirafl]

Thanks for the diagnosis and the tip, bob and stu! Do you have any idea of a fair price for such a sword?

Regards,

Felipe

[BOB COLEMAN]

Thanks for the diagnosis and the tip, bob and stu! Do you have any idea of a fair price for such a sword?

Regards,

Felipe

Stu has replied to your question in post #39.

[stegel]

The type 32 NCO swords did not have any habiki, being machine made they would logically be the starting point of any 'new' type 95, (along with the newly introduced type 94 ShinGunto to provide the pierced tsuba variant and the scabbard) would this then not make the 'possible' prototype more plausible?

Ernst

[Stu W]

The type 32 NCO swords did not have any habiki, being machine made they would logically be the starting point of any 'new' type 95, (along with the newly introduced type 94 ShinGunto to provide the pierced tsuba variant and the scabbard) would this then not make the 'possible' prototype more plausible?

Ernst

Hi Ernst,

I agree with you that the Type 32 do not have habaki and are assembled with a machine made blade. I do not subscribe to the theory that they were the staring point for the development of the Type 95 nor the Type 94. I think the 94 was patterned after the traditional slung tachi and the 95 was patterned off the 94. The Type 32 was, in my view, patterned after the swords of several western nations and was not a starting point for anything that followed.

You also mentioned prototype. Is your question referring specifically to the sword that this thread was started to analyze or prototypes in general?

I'll check back for your reply later. If I have misunderstood your comment let me know.

Regards,
Stu

PS: For those not familiar with a Type 32 here are a couple photos of the "Otsu" version.

[Stu W]

I've been asked about my use of the term "Otsu" when referring to the pictured Type 32. Here is a brief explanation of the two types.

The first version, "ko", has a blade length of 32 3/4 inches. The "otsu" has a blade length of 30 1/2 inches.

The ko was issued to NCO and EM in Cavalry whereas the shorter otsu was issued to NCO and EM in Military Police, Transportation Corps and Master Sergeants in Infantry, Engineers and Artillery.

Regards,
Stu

[stegel]

Hi Stu,

Sorry for the late response to your reply made to my post, i don't get as much time to spend here as i would like, so my apologies to you.
Firstly i did not wish to create confusion here, but only wanted to join in the discussion being made and offer my opinion with best of intentions.

I'll begin by stating that i agree that the sword at the start of this post is a fake, albeit a good one, however, i think Filipe should have known this as he supplied the link to Ohmura's web page as a reference, which is quite detailed and if he had of read it, would have answered his own question's, in relation to serial number ranges, scabbard drags, tsuka screws and mounting points, the serial number stampings and their orientations... all obviously incorrect in his potential purchase.

Then i'd like to say that the two links provided by Filipe, are to well known and respected sites,
--The NMB caters for japanese militaria (swords in particular) even though they are primarily focused on traditionally made Nihonto. There are lots of knowledgable people here
--Bill Rannow has been collecting and trading militaria for a long time, he is no fraud or con man. Along with the collectors militaria site (predominantly German) he also runs the Artswords site (Japanese).

With the referal to Jim Dawsons book, i'm of the opinion that the link provides the 'exact' sword documented in the book. you will not find any fake being sold even remotely similar in overall appearance.

Bob's patience may have been tested with Filipe, but i suggest you both look into the 'prototype' being suggested (both in the book and on Bills site) before you perhaps hastily dismiss it as a fake. Just because you haven't seen one, doesn't mean they don't exist.
I'm talking about Bob's comment here:
"[ The sword in your first link is proof positive that these are fakes. It is likely a 1st generation of these reproductions. ]"
This being made in reference to Bill Rannows link provided by Filipe.

I then would like to quote yourself:
"[ I've reviewed both the photos supplied through the one and the comments in relation to that sword through the other. Having done so I must respectfully disagree both with Bill Rannow's assessment that his sword is a rare prototype and the sentiments of those who support that position.] "

Now i agree that each to their own, and we are all entitled to an opinion, having said that, i respect you having yours, however, in this case. by implication you are then also questioning Jim Dawson's opinion in this matter, He published a book and mentions this rare sword (admittedly as a 'possible' rare prototype) and also provides visual evidence. In his defense, Bill has only stated the obvious, that he has found one exactly the same as the one published.
As i already stated, after a close comparison of the two swords, i personally tend to agree with Bill.

In the review of Bill's linked sword, i am again of a different opinion to yourself, that is the cast handle tsuka does differ to the officially released copper one, just in minor detail, but not in the lack of detail as with the original one posted by Filipe at the start of this Posting.

A close look will reveal that the imitation wrap is 'identical' to the copper ones....something no fake presented has ever done. Also the mounting is identical, another feature you won't find on any fake being sold.

The blade is polished Aluminium as seen by the mirror finish in the 15th picture on Bill's link, not lacking in lustre at all. Yes there is no Habiki (just like the type 32) but look at the scabbard throat and compare that to any of the fake metal ones with respect to quality. Overall it is far from being poorly made as you describe. In contrast to the one originally presented by Filipe which is of a much poorer quality.

You time line is a good approach to some understanding here, post 1878 with the Modernisation of Japan, the military forces adopted Western 'sabre' style of mountings on their edged weapons, this was common to both machine made and traditional blades used. The Kyu Gunto was the standard and continued to be used even with the introduction of the type 94 which was the first in the return to traditional japanese mountings (hand made blades differing in length and curvature)
Next to follow a retrofit was the machine made type 32 'sabre' to become the new type 95 with traditional style handles. this is where the 'prototype' would logically fit in.
Hence my comments on the lack of habiki (similar to type 32, and the possibility of matching the already released type 94 in scabbard and pierced tsuba)
This was then followed by the type 97 Kai gunto. which appeared as a distinctly naval tachi along the lines of the type 94.
The type 94 then essentially transformed to the type 98 by going to a single hanging mount.

Well i think i've said enough and hope i've been clear enough to prevent misundersatanding.
I anticipate your review of my comments and look forward to your reply.

Cheers
E

[Stu W]

[QUOTE=stegel;933405]Hi Stu,

Sorry for the late response to your reply made to my post, i don't get as much time to spend here as i would like, so my apologies to you.
Firstly i did not wish to create confusion here, but only wanted to join in the discussion being made and offer my opinion with best of intentions.


Hi Ernst,

No need to apologize. I welcome a response whenever the time is right. I'm also appreciative of the views of others, even if I do not agree with them, as they often provide a learning experience.

I am currently traveling and away from both a computer screen large enough for me to work with as well as without my copy of the Dawson reference so will have to hold off on a detailed reply for a couple of days till I am once again home.

I'll close though with two comments. First, that I'm familiar with NMB and agree its a great site for the Nihonto enthusiast. Less so for gunto but that's not a criticism as that's not the focus of the site.

I've known Bill Rannow, through the Internet, for several years and found him to be both knowledgeable and cordial. In fact we have had numerous email conversations all of which I've enjoyed. My comments with regards to his sword are in no way a suggestion that he is a fraud or con man. They simply reflect my difference of opinion on the sword.

As mentioned above, I'll reply more fully when home.

Regards,
Stu

[Stu W]

Hello Ernst,

I've now had time to access my Dawson and go back over this thread. In no particular order I offer this reply.

To begin, I did not hastily dismiss the linked Rannow sword as a fake when replying as I did in post #35. If you get to know me through my postings I believe you will see that I tend to be on the conservative side and although I might well be incorrect on some matter I'm certainly not rash or hasty in my replies. Nor do I believe Bob Coleman jumped to a conclusion on this one although he can speak to that himself. I also recognize that just because I have not seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Again, I'm sure Bob knows that too.

Perhaps there is a miscommunication between you and I but when I follow the link to Bill's prototype I see a substantially different sword than the possible prototype shown in the Dawson reference in plate 15-23 on page 192. To me it is not the "exact" same sword at all.

As to your comment about my questioning Dawson, through implication, that was not my intent nor do I feel I have done so. I don't see the swords being the same, therefore, no implication.

To me there is a leap of no small distance between possible and probable. Then still another to confirmed when we discuss these types of items. I also put little faith in someone just because they have authored a book or have a web site. In this particular case I happen to hold the Dawson work in high regard and as mentioned above my interactions with Bill Rannow have always been most cordial. But I can also recall some of the early publications regarding, for example, Third Reich edged weapons and belt buckles, to name two, where items that were later shown to be fakes were included as authentic period pieces before the truth was known. As to web site ownership, well that takes but a few dollars to implement and doesn't guarantee expertise. They may go together but not necessarily. Each must withstand scrutiny and the test of time.

In conclusion, after additional review, I don't see the linked sword as anything more than a reproduction so will be staying with my original opinion at this point in time.

If you see it differently that's fine by me. Perhaps you are correct but I'm certainly not convinced from what I see. Regardless, I look forward to your contributions to further sword analysis threads. Opposing viewpoints are what make us study these items in depth and from that we often learn. That's a good thing.

Regards,
Stu

[BOB COLEMAN]

I personally agree with what Stu has written. The I have never seen before reasoning is seldom but can be a valid point of contention. Over the years, I have purchased a few items that were incorrectly adjudged fake due to that reasoning. After seeing literally 100's of NCO swords throughout my collecting career, I must say I have serious doubts regarding a fairly recent discovery.