Type 95 Gunto - Transitional Tsuba

[stegel]

For the sword guys here, mostly those interested in Type 95's. (also posted at NMB forum)

Over the weekend, i was doing some sword maintenance when i decided to further investigate an old pattern 3 with a transitional tsuba. To clarify to anyone unaware, it is merely the plain black steel tsuba which has both slots to cater for a Top locking or Side locking mechanism. (which is the main difference between pattern 3 and pattern4 in this model)



So far it appears that only the Tokyo Arsenal produced these, involving all three sub-contractors.

These are all fitted with the Top locking mechanism which makes sense as Tokyo Arsenal never produced patterns with the Side lock, but as the tsuba can accomodate both, then one can foresee a possible future change to a Side lock mechanism, so we have the 'Transitional' title.



All have the Jinsen Arsenal acceptance stamps, so these may have been special samples supplied in order to facilitate the new upcoming production of the Type 95 model at the Jinsen Arsenal.



The Tsuba are the thinner version associated with the Tokyo arsenal, not the thicker Nagoya type.

The Seppa are always the same with these pieces, being only 3 parts, consisting of 2 plated and one, slightly thicker, being painted. (for those familiar with Dawson's book, it is neither var2 or var2A)



After dismantling, this particular sample had a few interesting features,

- matching serial numbers between the fuchi and blade itself

- both the 'Jin' and 'He' stamps present

- Solid Copper Fuchi being Nickel plated before the application of paint

- the now well known 'w' stamp on the tang just after the Habiki.



Here's a photo for viewing.

[Bruce Pennington]

Stegel,
It would be interesting to know the year this was taking place. Kiipu and I have been refining the Nanman Arsenal's assumption of supervision over the SMR production and the possible involvement of some Nanman shops and/or arseanl work in finishing Mantetsu blades. This seems to have begun around 1942 (a year after the Army assumed control over all swordsmith production in mainland Japan). It progressed over the next 2 years to some degree. It would be quite interesting to learn whether this Type 95 transition had anything to do with that.

Sure would be nice if some of our Research Gods (Nick, Kiipu) could find something verifying this!

[Nick Komiya]

It would make great sense if this was "STEP 1" of the Tokyo Arsenal's plan to unify specs in November 1944.

Amid intensifying bombing disruptions, we know that production of Type 95s in 1944 was limited to half of what they had planned, due to the inefficiencies of private suppliers making them in varying specs that prevented them from complementing each other's production. The arsenal had been applying pressure to the association of sword suppliers to unify specs, but the association was getting nowhere in achieving this.

Problematic was the fact that some suppliers adopted top locks and others side locks, thus making the Tsuba and scabbard not interchangeable between makes. The arsenal came up with the plan to make all these parts in-house to eliminate the spec difference, but arsenal production of the scabbards would have required investment and transition time, so they started first by in-house production of the Tsuba and made it a "2-way spec" that worked for both types of scabbard configurations.

Documentary evidence for this theory is here.

From 24th November, 1944 Tokyo was exposed to 106 bombing raids that razed the whole city, so it became a life or death strategy for industry to compensate for each other and to move production out of bombing target areas (involvement of Jinsen starts to make great sense also from this time).

Jinsen production in April 1945 was a meagre 100 units, but they planned to ramp that up to 1500 units per month from July 1945.

In belatedly rereading Stegel's post above, I realize that there is a conflict with his statement that the Tokyo Arsenal never produced side-lock types. If that is true, interpretation of archival evidence must be adjusted to explain the reality of what collectors see as production output. But I'm no collector, so I will need to leave reinterpretation to collectors specializing in Type 95s. So what kind of spec variances was pestering production efficiency for the Tokyo Arsenal in November 1944?

[Nick Komiya]

Instead of being silent, can Type 95 collectors please try to help interpret the comments made by the Tokyo arsenal in November 1944? I'm sharing with you key information regarding the evolution of the sword, but it is no fun not being able to relate that to actual changes in the hardware, as I don't collect them and have no idea what they are talking about.

What were the spec differences that reduced production to half of target, and how much production work did they take in in-house to unify specs? The spec deviations they talk about have to be very big and related to the exterior parts, as the inefficiencies they are trying to explain are huge and the document is a high level document where BS will not be tolerated. These points must be evident by comparing your collection pieces.

We are talking about spec differences between Iijima, Kobe and Suya production in the period before November 1944 and how each changed by early 1945. (Iijima did not seem to produce in early 1945)

[Sporter90]

I'm not a Type 95 collector, but I've seen a few here and there. From what I saw, the side-lock T-95 swords were all Nagoya Arsenal related. And, I don't know why. I can take a guess. The side-lock also requires the manufacturing change in the handle. I guess that was too much work for the Tokyo Arsenal. Drilling a hole in the tsuba is one thing. Making an entirely new handle is another.

[Bruce Pennington]

I can confirm that Nagoya, and later Incheon, were the only arsenals producing side-lock 95s. The new info from Nick, though, may indicate that due to war damage and production delays, Tokyo may have been producing tsubas that were distributed to the other arsenals.

As to Nick's question about spec variances, we'd need Shamsy and/or Stegel to comment on that. My meager impression is one of surprise at how truly standardized the 95s seem to be across the arsenals and shops. I personally think Tokyo-produced blades had tighter QC standards than the Nagoya Arsenal blades; but I don't know if that was true of the fittings as well.

[Kiipu]

Over the weekend, I was doing some sword maintenance when I decided to further investigate an old pattern 3 with a transitional tsuba. To clarify to anyone unaware, it is merely the plain black steel tsuba which has both slots to cater for a top locking or side locking mechanism.

In your learned opinion, are these transitional hand guards 鍔 a modification done by Heijō Factory to a hand guard that was made by another manufacturer or are they a brand new hand guard made by the Heijō Factory 平城製造所? The Heijō Factory ヘ inspection mark that is stamped on the hand guard can mean either-or occurred. That is a modification was done or a new one was made by the Heijō Factory. Only a hands on comparison can determine what is happening here.

[Kiipu]

These swords appear at the 28k, 70k, 80k, 120k and 139k serial ranges, and only in small batches.

I have one more 仁 stamped sword for your records. A Kokura/東/Suya, serial 87169東, with an additional 仁 inspection mark on the ferrule. The 仁 was located below and in between the Kokura logo and 東 inspection mark. Alas, the information was from the Internet and no picture of the reverse side of the sword was provided. Thus, it is unknown if it had a transitional tsuba or not.

[Edit: The current owner of 87169 states it does have a transitional tsuba.]