japanese sword help

[štajerc]

Can you help me, what is this ?

Thanks!

[štajerc]

11

11

[štajerc]

22

22

[Bob Coleman]

This is not a Japanese sword. It is a very poor attempt to imitate one. The handle is very poor quality work with a pseudo habaki attached to the bottom which was never done. The habaki was always a separate loose piece. With this construction there is no way to attach a tsuba. This is total junk good only for trimming the weeds.

[oldhonda]

Do you have the scabbard? What's it like? The decoration on the handle looks not bad, although everything of this sword is not Japanese made.

The way the handle and blade assembled reminds me the swords of Vietnam, Burma, and Thailand. I'm not saying it is. The floral design on the handle is clearly Japanese motif. It's also clearly not made by Japanese. The Tokugawa mon made this sword a modern fake. The forgers always over do it. Without the mon, it might be passable as some "islanders work", but with the Tokugawa mon, my conclusion is it is a modern fake.

[gunto]

Tsuka (handle) looks like a late meiji tourist item. The blade is not real Nihonto.

[štajerc]

Unfortunately it have no scabbard?
Thanks all for help!

[Sengoku]

Looking at it I am of the opinion that it is a put-together, as in mainly Japanese parts, some of them even with some quality and age, but assembled to sell to the tourists or troops.
The lower mount even looks like it came from a scabbard, rather than ever being meant for a hilt.

[oldhonda]

Sengoku

Did you notice the tang which had no hole? The blade will eject itself out of handle with some force. No troop would buy and use this sword. Also, the ugly shape of the tang is very much none Japanese way of sword making.

[Sengoku]

Sengoku

Did you notice the tang which had no hole? The blade will eject itself out of handle with some force. No troop would buy and use this sword. Also, the ugly shape of the tang is very much none Japanese way of sword making.

"Troops" as in US occupation troops post 1945.