The fittings are of the 1914 revision of the 1883 Naval dirk. But it could have been made anytime after that, up to 1945. The blade seems to be a replacement. Fairly crude in manufacture. But it looks old, like it was done during the war. Unusual piece.
The handle is covered with plastic, imitating the skin of a stingray.
Rings on the scabbard, made of copper-plated iron.
There is no habaki on the heel of the blade, but in this case, it looks like it never was there.
It can be assumed that this is a product of the late period of 1944-1945, when there were already problems with materials.
Interesting! There does seem to be remnants of a temper pattern on the blade. The nakago (tang) was ground/filed down to fit the dirk fittings. The 2 sets of 3 hash marks are something we see on Japanese nakago from time to time. We were discussing one yesterday on NMB with ten such marks.
The finish of the metal fittings is still a bit rough for a dirk, so the idea it may be late-war still fits what we are seeing.
Interesting piece.
Of course, I am not so experienced, because this topic is present in Ukraine - but not as common as in the West, and from everything read about Roman numeration in production, is it possible to assume that this dagger is related to Toyokawa Naval Arsenal?
I have no expertise with dirks. I only relay what I find in the Fuller and Gregory reference book. But, I have not heard of them being under the control of of the Toyokawa arsenal. There must have been some sort of supervision, but I've never heard who was doing it.
Thanks for your help.
Similar Threads
Bookmarks