Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
78 Posts
I am a total newbie to the site and find your sharing of information fantastic for research. Thanks to all of you who contribute by sharing your knowledge. As time goes on I hope I can contribute. I am interested in this thread because just this weekend I faced the question at hand "Which of these would be worth more? Which would you buy?" (Xed or ground) I was at an auction faced with a beautiful Type-38 rifle, but upon close inspection realized that the mum had been defaced. It wasn't really visible as a 'defacement' as in grinding, but rather a stamping on the mum. At first it struck me as some sort of 'stylization' of the mum, but it became obvious upon further inspection that it was a defacement. In any event, it was not a virgin mum. But, it kept nagging at me that it was the best defacement I had ever seen done, kinda pretty, so I rationalized buying it. So, as previously stated:
I would pay more for an untouched mum, prefer the struck mum to heavily ground, but would not pay any extra for it. It is an all or nothing thing on a premium price as far as I am concerned. The level of mum buggery beyond intact might, on some occasions, impact my decision to buy or not to buy at a set price.
This level of mum buggery actually made me like it. I decided to pay a bit more than I would have if it had been ground or more offensively struck.
In any event, this is the first Type 38 that I have owned in over 40 years, and researching it has been fun. There is a lot more known in this field now than there was when I had previously owned one of these.
Anyway, I'll attach a picture of my 38's mum. It is defaced, yes, but I am understanding that it was not the result of capture, rather the re-purposing of the weapon to a school or for foreign sale. The 'purpose' of this defacement interests me as it is a bit different than 'normal'. I am open to any and all comments about the markings here, as I really know only what I have learned in the last few evenings, and some of that is likely not good either. Thanks to all of the veterans here for putting up with topics that have been beaten to death in the past, but it sure helps somebody like me having your expertise shared.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,463 Posts
And I reckon I'm a little far out.
Not into the Japanese rifles very deeply.....but I will purchase only INTACT mummed rifles.
Don't care if last ditch or whatever.....the MUM is the rifle. That's just me. My ONLY one:
*
*
 

·
Platinum Bullet member
Joined
·
19,392 Posts
JRH51

Your mum was cancelled using either the Tokyo or Kokura Arsenal mark (same marking). Sure would like to see more photos of your rifle. It looks like a beauty! :thumbsup:
I have a Nagoya no series T-38 that was cancelled using the Nagoya Arsenal mark and the "Bun" (school) marking added.
Of course, to Yoda, these rifles are ground :p
 

Attachments

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,430 Posts
Gee wizz you nit-pickers ! :

JRH51's pretty rifle is " cancelled " in other words removed from Imperial ownership to be sold off, Adogs Nagoya was marked for school / training use.
You don't see any 97 or 99 sniper rifles with anything other than full or disfigured mums. This form of cancellation was created by the surrender of the Imperial forces starting in August 15, 1945 upon Emperor Showa's acceptance of the Potsdam declaration by the Allies for the unconditional surrender of Japan.
The fact that some mums are barely touched, while others are obliterated and in some cases the entire top of the receiver is gouged out as the second Franchi picture shows, it is an indication of how hard it must have been for the soldiers to give up the Emperor's sacred rifle. Once disfigured in their estimation it no longer was anything but another piece of hardware.
Since my research and record keeping concerns Japanese sniper rifles and scopes, I have felt that to create arbitrary differences between mum, struck, Xed, gouged, filed, peened, overstamped with circles, removed is way too many lines to keep track of. Worse I would be upon the mercy & interpretation of the reporter as to what degree a mum has been cancelled, and as JB and tenntex32 so ably put it I give up common sense and allow anarchy to reign.
When you look at my data sheets it is simple, if it says mum it should be a full mum ( buyer beware as even here there have been exagerations ), if ground then you know that it could be anyone of a dozen different cancellations.
Vicasoto
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
15,766 Posts
So we are debating the opti-mum method of defacement here? ;)
I find it more of a tempest in a tea pot or closer to "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin"!!

A mum must be more like beauty; it is in the eye of the beholder.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
well, everyone here has an opinion. opinions are what the OP asked for. bottom line is, the answer is different for every collector as it always has been every time we have one of these threads. if you like flowers and want to over look good rifles because they are ground, then thats your choice. if you only buy mummed rifles with mismatched bolts, refinished stocks, etc. only because it has a flower, then your accumulation of rifles will always suit you. just like if you are an advanced collector that wants variations, rarity, etc. and appreciate the actual rifle for what it is, then your collection will always suit you too. i think that many people would obviously rather have a crossed out flower over a ground mum rifle given that the two were identical in every way including price. however, when it comes down to it how many of us would pay extra for it just to say "i have a rifle with a defaced mum!". another way to look at this is if you have a test type 1 carbine with a mum. no one really cares about the mum....its a test type 1 rifle! i would never pass over a rare rifle because of a ground mum, but have been a benefactor of such behavior when mum snobs pass them over at a show.

I also find this to be true of many dealers out there when carrying a rifle to a show to sell. many dealers bug the piss out of you just to ask if your rifle is for sale. you say "yes" and the next question is "does it have a mum?". if you say no, then they go from almost jumping over the table to get a look, to "ok, thanks anyway". there are always people who want a flower and just don't care about how correct or collectable the rifle is. they only want that mum. then there are actual collectors who care more about how correct the rifle is, where it was made, the over all condition and completeness, etc. I am one of those, and the very last thing i check for on a rifle is the mum. my collection suits me, and i always get compliments when i do a display. i doubt i could get those same compliments if i featured ugly or incorrect rifles with mums on my display.

i actually did an experiment a few years ago on this matter. i took two rifles to a show for sale. one was assembled from parts but it had a mum on the receiver. it had no matching parts, but all finish was correct and it had no rod, pod, aa sights, or dust cover. the second rifle was ground, but was all correct with a rod and aa sights. both were common arsenals and series. the mummed parts gun was priced at $200, the ground one for $175. the mummed rifle sold first (within the first hour of the show), and i ended up bringing the ground one home. so, what does this say about the mum issue? nothing other than the mum is a personal preference in your collect/accumulation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
826 Posts
i would never pass over a rare rifle because of a ground mum, but have been a benefactor of such behavior when mum snobs pass them over at a show. ......the mummed parts gun was priced at $200, the ground one for $175. the mummed rifle sold first (within the first hour of the show), and i ended up bringing the ground one home. so, what does this say about the mum issue? nothing other than the mum is a personal preference in your collect/accumulation.
That sums it all up for me. I will buy "junk" rifles with a mum only because I know I can trade them. And I will haggle on rifles without the mum (even if it's a deal) because I know it bugs people. I try to be a rational collector and focus more on the rarity etc. However, I hate import marked rifles. I realized this is just as stupid as not collecting defaced mums, but I can't help it.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
11,770 Posts
All of this tongue waggling still doesn't answer the fundamental question...


How much mum could a struck mum chuck, if a struck mum could chuck mum?
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
15,766 Posts
Thanks Franchi,
I added these three to the "interesting" topic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
I thought I would use this opportunity to display my oddly marked mum on my Type 38 Rifle. I was told that these circles were used on training rifles at military schools. Is this true or is this just a defaced mum? The stock is also stamped in two places with a 3 digit number. Any help appreciated?



Thanks!
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
4,351 Posts
You have what most would call a "cancelled" mum. The supplemental "school" mark is directly below it. It is a school gun used for the military training of roughly the equivalent to ROTC or JROTC students (although for Japanese students in this time period it was mandatory). The numbers stamped in the stock are rack numbers for the school (the Japanese Navy sometimes painted them on; the Army generally did not mark the stocks). The Chinese (and some schools) in subsequent use often branded the stocks.
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top