[Dieter]

Just received an Aisan Kogyo bayonet and scabbard. Saw a scabbard on sale on eBay, and I'm sure many of you saw it. Didn't think too much of it, then I saw an Aisan Kogyo bayonet from the same seller, about 4 days later. My guess was that he got these two pieces and was attempting to sell separately in hopes of making more money (?). I emailed him and he said the two indeed had come in as a pair. I don't know if that was true or not, or just a reply to entice me into buying both pieces. I went with the "came together" explanation and bid on both pieces, I didn't want to see them broken up if they had belonged together, and I didn't have a blued Nagoya Triangle anyway and wanted one. At the time I didn't realize it, but the scabbard wasn't quite normal. It's in excellent condition actually. The bayonet is not bad, but a lot of the blue is gone from the blade., otherwise excellent condition. Anyway, not sure if these two really belonged together. This looks like a scabbard as seen in LB-291 page 395 for the Siamese Type 46. Frog band doesn't have a provision for a "typical" Japanese frog strap - it's just a round band all the way around the scabbard. Screw is on opposite side of usual. Doesn't appear to have an y special markings or characters. Bayonet appears quite normal, no unusual markings at all. Sort of doubt they were originally mated. What do you guys think?

 

[Bushido101]

That is a odd one, Very interesting !!!

 

[albacore]

From the pictures it sure does look a lot like the Siamese Type 46 scabbard.

 

[Ojiichan]

Well, people usually jump to conclusions and judge the unfamiliar as being incorrect or a fake without having the information to justify that conclusion. Too much emphasis is placed on the correct scabbard for a particular bayonet as is also the case with blue versus bright blade.

Siam was noted as a cobelligerent with Japan by the Allies during WW11, at war’s end they quickly changed back to the Allies, as quickly as they had originally sided with Japan upon being invaded. A large amount, more than any other Japanese manufacturer, of Aisan Kogyo bayonets turn up with Siamese markings and numerals replacing the original Japanese.

Siam had a long history of using European arms, mausers, enfields, etc, example Japan producing European style weapons for their Siam contract T46. There was no protracted Allied invasion of Siam by the Allies. The Japanese forces in Siam, with few exceptions, surrendered intact the same day the British came ashore.

Siam came into a large amount of Japanese arms, along with post war reparations from Japan. This scenario would allow for a Japanese Bayonet to be reworked by the Siamese to fit their use, another example 38’s being turned into police carbines, Japanese helmets with the Siamese crest. Their bluing is much more blue than the Japanese blue black.
This can explain your bayonet /scabbard combination, but actual proof will always be beyond reach unless you find some Siamese markings.

Now may I ask, your Aisan Kogyo will have a Kanji character denoting series, it will be a one eyed happy face or a two eyed happy face. Would you be so kind as to tell which one and the serial number.

Thank you

 

[Mike Rockhill]

I thought I had heard before of a decent amount of aisan bayonets being sold to siam, maybe to complement the type 38s they bought (type 83s).

 

[Dieter]

Now may I ask, your Aisan Kogyo will have a Kanji character denoting series, it will be a one eyed happy face or a two eyed happy face. Would you be so kind as to tell which one and the serial number.

42nd series (シ), serial#72238, with a good Tokyo inspection stamp. Grips are "normal", matched to each other (in pencil, ヰ44), no markings at all on tang or any other part of this baby.

So the pieces may not have started out together, but maybe through the course of action in Siam, ended up together?

 

[Edokko]

Many of the Siamese imported and/or Siam marked bayonets were indeed Nagoya Triangle bayonets.
Not sure if this sub-contractor is Aisan though. Only connection to Aisan is that the T-89 KM documented to be made by Aisan Kogyo has a "triangle design" logo, but the design is not exactly the same as the triangle on the T-30 bayonets. Another thought is that this mark is the former Riken Kozai logo before they changed to the "Nagoya Diamond" mark, but this is also a guess and not documented yet.

 

[Dieter]

Not sure if this sub-contractor is Aisan though. Only connection to Aisan is that the T-89 KM documented to be made by Aisan Kogyo has a "triangle design" logo, but the design is not exactly the same as the triangle on the T-30 bayonets. Another thought is that this mark is the former Riken Kozai logo before they changed to the "Nagoya Diamond" mark, but this is also a guess and not documented yet.

Interesting stuff! Do you have an image of the T89 triangle? On the triangle possibly being of Riken origin, what led to this theory?

 

[Ojiichan]

Edokko, opened a very slippery slope. In short two theories of thought.

1st theory: Nagoya Triangle is early Riken Kozai mark. Reasoning: 1)Triangle mark dissapeared sometime in the 48th series around 24K or later. Riken mark appeared in the 48th series around 31K. Because of this supposed link, there are those who believe Triangle mark turned into Riken mark. 2) Aisan Kogyo in post war reports indicated they did not make bayonets.

2nd theory: Nagoya Triangle is Aisan Kogyo. Reasoning 1) Kaneshiro, Riken, Toyoda, and Aisan all made bayonets in the 48th series, the sequential link does not prove or disprove a Riken association. In my correspondance with Shigeo Sugawa he doubted this logic. (Shigeo developed the Aisan Triangle link in 1992 Banzai). 2) post war reports are notoriously inaccurate as so much information, documents were destroyed on Japanese HQ orders. 3) Toyoda was the majority share holder in Aisan Kogyo and I believe Toyota still is. 4) Aisan Kogyo used the triangle mark during the war and variations of same post war, a technology subsidiary of modern Aisan uses the triangle mark with a hummingbird in it. 4) Aisan Kogyo mark is essentualy kanji A and I inside the triangle for AIsan, I had the pleasure of corresponding with strangems on knee mortar arsenal markings a while back and noticed that in the later production mortars the A and I marking inside the triangle were very weak and sometimes almost illegible, leaving a triangle. 5) I have measured both late Aisans and early Rikens and basic dims are not the same. Why would the tooling change if Triangle and Riken were the same company? 6) and last, I noted an Aisan Kogyo 48th series, serial 75889 in my old logs, I do not own this bayonet or have a picture of it, just field notes at a gun show and because of this reason, I have to wait until another turns up and is physically documented as in photo.

I did a line drawing of the Knee Mortar Aisan mark, I hope it loads.

To the frozen mainland Banzai, it was sunny and 82 degrees today with a gentle breeze, Brrrrr, think I will put on a sweater.

 

[Jareth]

I'll defer to Takehito but all the Siamese marked Japanese bayonets that I've seen have been Nagoya Triangle. I'm thinking this particular arsenal/subcontractor had an authorized contract for export to Siam. My example has Siamese numbers on pommel end.

 

[Dieter]

1st theory: Nagoya Triangle is early Riken Kozai mark. Reasoning: 1)Triangle mark dissapeared sometime in the 48th series around 24K or later. Riken mark appeared in the 48th series around 31K. Because of this supposed link, there are those who believe Triangle mark turned into Riken mark.

Could this be explained if say the Triangle maker was needed to focus on some other product so they terminated production and then deferred continuance to the Diamond maker?

2nd theory: Nagoya Triangle is Aisan Kogyo. Reasoning 1) Kaneshiro, Riken, Toyoda, and Aisan all made bayonets in the 48th series, the sequential link does not prove or disprove a Riken association.

You state that all above arsenals made bayonets in the 48th series. I certainly do not doubt what you say. I only have the Labar book as my sole reference, the rest is inexperience and ignorance. But what I see according to Labar is (solely with respect to 42nd and 48th series)

Star-K = 42nd, 48th
Triangle = 42nd (not 48th)
Diamond = 48th (not 42nd)
Toyoda = 42nd, (not 48th)

(I do know that just because it isn't in the book doesn't mean it isn't so, I'm just trying to put the pieces together!)

5) I have measured both late Aisans and early Rikens and basic dims are not the same. Why would the tooling change if Triangle and Riken were the same company?

And to further that, why would they change the symbol? I mean, it is similar, but still a significant difference between a Triangle and a scored Diamond.

6) and last, I noted an Aisan Kogyo 48th series, serial 75889 in my old logs, I do not own this bayonet or have a picture of it, just field notes at a gun show and because of this reason, I have to wait until another turns up and is physically documented as in photo.

Again, I don't doubt it, but is it possible that you saw what appeared to be a Triangle 48th, but it was maybe a poorly or mis-stamped 42nd, with the characters being very similar and all? However, if you did see a 48th series in the 75,000 serial range, wouldn't that would put a hole in Theory 1?

I did a line drawing of the Knee Mortar Aisan mark, I hope it loads.

Hmmm. Is is significantly different than the triangle on the bayonets, ain't it!? Hmmm......

Thanks for engaging me on this. Stuff like this is what makes collecting a lot more interesting for me!

 

[Dieter]

I had some email correspondence today with a Riken Corp. representative. Part of an email:

"The Riken Corporation today would have no information and history as in regards to what Riken Kouzai manufactured back in the days, at least not officially. However, my understanding of Japanese military history tells me that Riken Kouzai did make the Nagoya Diamond bayonets, but not the other. This is why, the symbols, diamond and the upside down triangle have their own significance to the individual companies. The diamond shape is a spear, while the triangle in Japan means WEAK/AVERAGE, the meaning reversed as the triangle is flipped. The company logo is sacred with Japanese companies throughout the entire Japanese history and will never change unless the company no longer exists or turns into something else. But at the time of turmoil during WWII, chances of this happening was remotely slim. So what I can say for sure, is that Riken Kouzai is NOT the manufacturer for the upside down triangle marked 1897 bayonets, especially when there are some big difference in manufacturing quantities comparing the 2."

 

[Ojiichan]

Dieter,

Your questions are too numerous, and would require more space than this forum needs to endure. As far as Riken Kouzai, most Japanese companies still have a stigma about their war time participation as does Germany etc etc. history is written by the victors. Please note that all my research and referrence are at my home California. I am running on memory.

Riken Kouzai has a long history, started in the 1900's by goverment sponsership, it was the Physical and Chemical Scientific Reasearch Institute or something on that line. It was to bring Japan into the age of Technology. Riken's accomplishments are remarkable producing patents that the West sought to receive manufacturing rights to. From synthesizing vitamins to photographic paper and set up numerous subsidiaries such as Riken Steel which was nationalized by the Japanese Military, I believe in 1942 as were all other industries. Ricoh is a well know name today.

Aisan Kogyo was most likely set up by Toyoda, the Japanese Zaibatsu system left no other means for independent companies to start, they produced auto motive parts (carburators) for Toyota, Toyoda's auto and truck manufacturing venture. It is speculated that this is why there are no records indicating Aisan produced bayonets because they were produced under Toyoda's name. Aisan is now the leading manufacturer of fuel injection systems.

Why symbol contractor markings, number 1 to not allow the Allies to locate the manufacturer and bomb them out of existance, number 2 and maybe most important the Japanese military had to keep track of who's equipment broke or blew up and which companies manufacturing plant supervisor needed to be shot.

I worked the Zaibatsu side for quite a while to confirm manufacturers, this was hopeless, the Zaibatsu's are so intertwined that basically they move as one entity, everyone made everything.

Back to series and serial numbers, my information is correct, it is based on more than thirty years of Banzai members previous documentation, I have only added more entries and reorganized it. I do not have Ray's book, so I can not comment on the information contained there in, but if it has some inconsistancies, so what, what book doesn't, it has expanded the interest of many collector's in Japanese arms.

Dieter, you need to get more written information, joining Banzai and getting the previous issued newsletter CD would be a great start, there is more information in those issues than anywhere else. Next get Jerry Price's book on Japanese Bayonets and Machetes, all the serial number information is in there. I think Jerry's info is on the Banzai site and last I heard he had produced a new revised edition.

Finally rethink your interest in Japanese militaria and get out while you can.

 

[Dieter]

Please note that all my research and referrence are at my home California.

Are you in the S.F. Bay Area by chance??

Back to series and serial numbers, my information is correct, it is based on more than thirty years of Banzai members previous documentation, I have only added more entries and reorganized it. I do not have Ray's book, so I can not comment on the information contained there in, but if it has some inconsistancies, so what, what book doesn't, it has expanded the interest of many collector's in Japanese arms.

I would figure most works will have inconsistencies, and like I said, I've only got Raymond's book, so I lack any other info! Would love a copy of the Johnson book too, but I'm never in the right place when a "cheap" copy comes up for sale!

Dieter, you need to get more written information, joining Banzai and getting the previous issued newsletter CD would be a great start, there is more information in those issues than anywhere else.

Joined Banzai, but only just last year - I'll have to contact Doss about getting all of the previous issues on CD like you suggest.

Next get Jerry Price's book on Japanese Bayonets and Machetes, all the serial number information is in there. I think Jerry's info is on the Banzai site and last I heard he had produced a new revised edition.

I'm looking, can't find his info on Banzai, can somebody point it out or have contact info for Jerry?

Finally rethink your interest in Japanese militaria and get out while you can.

Too late!

 

[Edokko]

Dieter, give me an e-mail and will get back to you on Jerry's contact info. Tak

 

[Dieter]

Sent! Thanks for the help!

 

[Ojiichan]

Dieter,

No, I am not in the San Francisco area, live in San Diego County and Hawaii, pretty much only in San Diego for holidays anymore. Got into my collection and documents, the 42nd and 48th series both (were Aisan occured) are very scattered as far as manufactures.

Usually Japanese or any military for that matter, have a consistent method of asigning series and serial numbers, 42 and 48 break that pattern down to the serial number blocks being broken up. It would be anticipated that you would order (this would have been Toriimatsu) a block of 5 thousand or a block of 20 thousand, so forth and so on.

The serial number record on these manufactured series does not follow this pattern, my theory was that, Toriimatsu may have received crates of bayonets from different manufacturers and applied the series and serial numbers one after another, say a crate of Kaneshiro's ran out at 45678, and then a crate of Riken's came in, it started at 45679 and then a crate of Toyoda's, and so on.

If you remember that these were very trying years for Japan i.e. China Incident in full swing as well as stock piling for the invasions of Pacifica, IndoChina, Dutch West Indies etc. etc. Nagoya made their quota's by any means.

Just a thought

 

[Dieter]

Usually Japanese or any military for that matter, have a consistent method of asigning series and serial numbers, 42 and 48 break that pattern down to the serial number blocks being broken up. It would be anticipated that you would order (this would have been Toriimatsu) a block of 5 thousand or a block of 20 thousand, so forth and so on.

The serial number record on these manufactured series does not follow this pattern, my theory was that, Toriimatsu may have received crates of bayonets from different manufacturers and applied the series and serial numbers one after another, say a crate of Kaneshiro's ran out at 45678, and then a crate of Riken's came in, it started at 45679 and then a crate of Toyoda's, and so on.

Very interesting, and sounds like a plausible theory! So, it was the final inspection arsenals that applied the serial#s and inspection marks, not the sub-contractors? That would seem to explain the ranges of serial#s. I think I was under the (mis?) impression that a given sub-contractor would simply make 100,000 units for each series, though now that I think about it, that doesn't make complete sense.

Though something else I also fail to understand; the Nagoya subs all have the Nagoya stamp on the ricassos, so what is the deal with Triangles and Diamonds having Tokyo pommel inspection stamps and Star-Ks, TALWs having Nagoya stamps?? Was the load simply too much for Nagoya to inspect all on its own??

 

[Ojiichan]

Dieter,

I fully believe that full 99,999 blocks were the original intent and is pretty much the norm, the 42nd and 48th as well as other series are the exceptions. For arsenals/contractors who were given full 99,999 blocks, in this case the serials were put on by that entity. But how would you sequantially number any munitions or product with mutiple manufacturers unless they were brought to one source.

As far as who placed the final inspection stamps, that is a question that dogs many researchers. Many munitions, rifles specifically have this same problem, why different inspection marks than the final assembly/arsenal? and what arsenal really did do the final assembly?

As far as Inspectors, all Arsenals and Contractors quite often shared inspectors and their particular stamp, Kokura, Osaka, Nagoya, Tokyo etc. and that these inspectors were at the individual plants rather than the prime arsenal. Look at Kokura subcontractors, why do so many have the Osaka mark and not Kokura, proximity, who was closest or available.

This is what makes it so interesting

 

[Dieter]

This is what makes it so interesting

Indeed!! There is something to be said for known production, but the element of mystery does add to the fun of collecting.