Japanese Type 3 IJA Shin Gunto

[Nick Komiya]

MAP, you were only victim to disinformation. Those who should have known better in this case are those Japanese Gunto-Bakas (those who are renowned collectors, and may know a lot about swords, but otherwise lack historical knowledge and common sense of how the army developed things, etc) that create quasi-authoritative history from paper thin collector gossip.

A collector says, "I have never seen an example of this sword made before 1943". Another says, "Me neither. That is proof that they only introduced this sword in 1943."

In the same way, helmet collectors are now saying, "I have never seen a late war navy helmet in small size, they must have stopped making them fairly early in the war." It spreads like school gossip and takes ages to get undone like the German jet pilot's helmet of WW2 or the Chinese collaborator's medal.

Another fatal flaw in the Type 3 theory is that it assumes a way of doing business that simply does not exist on this planet. The Army held a big news conference in January 1941 to announce that the new sword was finally finished and annual production was planned to be 3000 swords per year, etc.

Do the Type 3 proponents believe that the army made a public launch of the sword and only told the Emperor about it in 1943? On earth, whichever society you live in, you first need to get the chief of the tribe to agree to an idea before making it public.

A product launch press conference held as the 1941 New Year's big event means all formalities of establishing a new sword design had already taken its full course before that date. The Type 3 proponents would actually be suggesting that the Army launched the sword by cutting out the top decision maker. On Earth, particularly in Japan that kind of undermining of imperial authority was punishable by several swings of the new sword.

What to call the sword is a matter for collectors to decide, but the official name was Rinji Seishiki Gunto, so knowing that sword collectors have a penchant for exotic sounding Japanese, "Linji Model Shin-Gunto" (L is a more accurate pronunciation as R doesn't exist in Japanese) or "China Incident Contingency Spec Sword" are names faithful to facts of history.

It's time for collectors to get out of bad habits.

[Bruce Pennington]

MAP, you were only victim to disinformation. Those who should have known better in this case are those Japanese Gunto-Bakas (those who are renowned collectors, and may know a lot about swords, but otherwise lack historical knowledge and common sense of how the army developed things, etc) that create quasi-authoritative history from paper thin collector gossip.

A collector says, "I have never seen an example of this sword made before 1943". Another says, "Me neither. That is proof that they only introduced this sword in 1943."

In the same way, helmet collectors are now saying, "I have never seen a late war navy helmet in small size, they must have stopped making them fairly early in the war." It spreads like school gossip and takes ages to get undone like the German jet pilot's helmet of WW2 or the Chinese collaborator's medal.

Another fatal flaw in the Type 3 theory is that it assumes a way of doing business that simply does not exist on this planet. The Army held a big news conference in January 1941 to announce that the new sword was finally finished and annual production was planned to be 3000 swords per year, etc.

Do the Type 3 proponents believe that the army made a public launch of the sword and only told the Emperor about it in 1943? On earth, whichever society you live in, you first need to get the chief of the tribe to agree to an idea before making it public.

A product launch press conference held as the 1941 New Year's big event means all formalities of establishing a new sword design had already taken its full course before that date. The Type 3 proponents would actually be suggesting that the Army launched the sword by cutting out the top decision maker. On Earth, particularly in Japan that kind of undermining of imperial authority was punishable by several swings of the new sword.

What to call the sword is a matter for collectors to decide, but the official name was Rinji Seishiki Gunto, so knowing that sword collectors have a penchant for exotic sounding Japanese, "Linji Model Shin-Gunto" (L is a more accurate pronunciation as R doesn't exist in Japanese) or "China Incident Contingency Spec Sword" are names faithful to facts of history.

It's time for collectors to get out of bad habits.

Nick,
Thanks for the official name, if you posted it earlier, or elsewhere, I apologize for missing it. I will begin using the term "Renji Seishiki Gunto" for this style. Communication is a horrible thing, I always say! Webster Dictionary has officially recognized the non-word "irregardless" simply because people say it!!! I've only been at this for just over 2 years, and the R-S Gunto, as well as the Late-war/possibly post-war/commonly called NLF Gunto have eluded our ability to label them with a name that is easy to use, and/or, a proper name them.

If you say the "Type 3" was officially designated the Renji Seishiki Gunto then you have advanced our world and I appreciate it!

[Bruce Pennington]

Matt & Sean,

As for collectability - these seem to sell for the same price range as the Type 98, even though, as you point out, there were less of them made compared to the 98. Collecting is a fickle world and sometimes fads or impressions can drive a run on prices (like we have seen on the Mantetsu blades and NCO gunto). I have built my collection on the effort of getting 1 good representative of all the official variants of IJA and IJN officer and NCO gunto, but some guys tend to focus on particular types/variants.

[Nick Komiya]

Let's start right. It should be written RINJI SEISHIKI GUNTO, not RENJI and pronounced Linji. To be really accurate, the army did not call it anything but a gunto just like the felt field caps had no special name, so they called it descriptively "field caps made of felt".

In the same principle, the army did not give the gunto any name, so if you needed to specifically refer to it you had to string adjectives together to describe it. "Rinji Seishiki" was how the Gunto was first described in the memo of 16th September 1938, so using that as an adjective clause, a Japanese would call it a Rinji Seishiki No Gunto, which is merely saying "Gunto designated as contingency specification".

For instance, if you want to call the IJA's M44 short jacket by it's official name you have to call it "Jacket based on specially designated exceptions for the Greater East Asia War" as there was no other name for it.

Contingency specs simply did not deserve names in the army, as they had only semi-official status and they were more like pirate editions of necessary evil. Ideally the army would have gladly done without them and preferred to go back to the official model as soon as the situation allowed. When they had the choice they limited supply to troops in Japan and supplied A spec items to the front.

[Bruce Pennington]

Let's start right. It should be written RINJI SEISHIKI GUNTO, not RENJI and pronounced Linji. To be really accurate, the army did not call it anything but a gunto just like the felt field caps had no special name, so they called it descriptively "field caps made of felt".

In the same principle, the army did not give the gunto any name, so if you needed to specifically refer to it you had to string adjectives together to describe it. "Rinji Seishiki" was how the Gunto was first described in the memo of 16th September 1938, so using that as an adjective clause, a Japanese would call it a Rinji Seishiki No Gunto, which is merely saying "Gunto designated as contingency specification".

For instance, if you want to call the IJA's M44 short jacket by it's official name you have to call it "Jacket based on specially designated exceptions for the Greater East Asia War" as there was no other name for it.

Contingency specs simply did not deserve names in the army, as they had only semi-official status and they were more like pirate editions of necessary evil.

Harumph! I wish I could be a fly on the wall of a room in WWII where two IJA officers walk in and one is wearing a Type 98 and the other a contengency gunto, and we hear the guy with the 98 say "Ah, I see you bought a XXXXX gunto. How do you like it?" What would he have said as a name?

[dunit35]

Matt & Sean,

As for collectability - these seem to sell for the same price range as the Type 98, even though, as you point out, there were less of them made compared to the 98. Collecting is a fickle world and sometimes fads or impressions can drive a run on prices (like we have seen on the Mantetsu blades and NCO gunto). I have built my collection on the effort of getting 1 good representative of all the official variants of IJA and IJN officer and NCO gunto, but some guys tend to focus on particular types/variants.

Thanks.

I'm more geared towards buying the best I can afford of each type. Not sticking to one particular model.

[Nick Komiya]

Some might have called it the sword with the Kansukemaki grip or even the 80-Yen special, but they would have gone blank if you said Type 3, that's for sure.

[Bruce Pennington]

.... but they would have gone blank if you said Type 3, that's for sure.

HA! No doubt! LOL! I like "The 80 Yen Special"! We say things like that to each other too!

[tomp]

Japanese Gunto-Bakas

Ha!


Tom

[MAP]

What a great thread!

I'm going with RINJI SEISHIKI GUNTO! Sounds nicer than ¥80 Special