uwe

I could have guessed that you would be interested in buying this, Gilles 🙂 The smith is not listed under this name….let me have a second look!

I agree with Piers! The description is rather close, ok, one can argue with the name of the haidate… The good thing is, that the sangu is matching and the dō is in quite good condition. Most work requires the hanpō, but the price seems “acceptable” and reflects the condition (more or less ). I can also go into the different kamon, if you like?!

Looking at the last pictures, I can agree 👍

The earliest is rated wazamono!

Let’s try!

Hello and welcome, Paul! It might be not a fake in the true sense. Due to the fire damage, judging the age of this piece remains difficult. What Piers was trying to say is that this piece is a reminiscence of the old daienzan-kabuto, which are dating back to the “glorious old days”. That said, it could be made late Edo or Meiji or also in the Taishō era (or even later). Hard to tell as mentioned above…

I can support Henry’s statement about Andy San! Met him last year in Japan. Very nice guy, but always busy, hence hard to get an appointment

I admit that I can’t remember whether I have ever noticed this character for “nari” before, Jean. Quite rare I guess and “pointing”* to Mino 16th century in this case. Edit: “might point”*. Condition of the nakago (patina) looks not that old. At least on the first two pictures…

I rather think it is “兼得” (Kanenari)!

It reads most probably “Kaneyoshi saku”, Howard!

Not necessarily! There are about 19 smiths listet (Sesko, Index of Japanese Swordsmiths) with this name, ranging from the 13th century to the 17th century… I would support the Edo (Shin-to) assessment!

Thanks, Piers San 🙂

About the “quality thing”. Last year I bought a very old Momonari-kabuto in bad condition (not that cheap as you probably might think 🥲). It is sloppily rivited together from thin scrap metal parts disguised by black lacquer. Of course low level workmanship and no artistic value. On the other hand an contemporary witness of the late Sengoku /Momoyama period and of great historical importance. A reference piece to understand the development of armor from the warring states onwards until the “peaceful” Edo period! And most important….I love it 😊

Hello Colin, sorry for my prolonged silence! Dating masks, especially hanpō, is generally not that easy. Very little is written about the subject and most sources simply stating “Edo period” or similar, without further explanations (I know only one comprehensive book dedicated to mengu). The problem is, that you can find such hanpō in almost identical shape in the early as well as in the late Edo period. The difference is often workmanship among other small details. However, I dare say early Edo!

Eboshi nari kabuto were made over a long timespan. They came in fashion (approximately) from late Sengoku/Momoyama period onwards and can be seen in different forms during the whole Edo period. Usable for show off? Yes of course, but also battle ready! I own two armors from around 1600. Both are equipped with an Eboshi-kabuto. A rather exaggerated shape was worn by the famous Katō Kiyomasa (1562-1611). In terms of the cord you mentioned. These are called kabuto no o or shinobi no o and are indeed rather long…

May I have a side view, Colin?!

Hi Colin, before you give it into Piers care let me say it’s a rather nice “烏帽子形兜” (Eboshi nari kabuto, helmet in shape of a cap, worn by cord nobels). The flaring out hineno shikoro seems original (made for this helmet) to the helmet and is nicely attached with this cool knots. When it comes to the age I still have to made up my mind and will come back later…

Hi Howard, I will stay by my first impression. One could even go back a little further (Momoyama), but that would be guesswork and the tsunomoto speaks against. As a rule of thumb, a lightweight bowl and small fukigaeshi indicating older age. But beware and keep in mind, when it comes to katchū, the main rule is “there is no rule” 😉 However, the way the plates are cut and riveted together (plus other indicators) strengthen my assumption. The shikoro was re laced at some point and sloppy attached afterwards. Whether it is original to the hachi or not is hard to tell (but looks good in my eyes). Maybe the alignment of the holes can give an idea?! On the other hand it was not uncommon to replace a neck guard also back in the days… All in all a honest kabuto from western Japan!

Fuchi (collar) is signed “一柳大里 + kao” (Ichiryū Dairi + seal, Ōsato would be an alternative reading for the last two kanji). Tsuba signature says “武州住正?” (Bushū jū Masa ?). Can’t see the last character properly…

Good luck, Howard! We can try to date it when you have it in hand….

Hi Howard, I would categorize this helmet as an 椎形兜 - Shiinari-kabuto (“acorn”* shaped helmet). Defining age is rather problematic. First impression might be early Edo, but this depends on something. Do you have a shot of the inside (ukebari is loose at the front anyway)? Furthermore it seems the lowermost lame of the shikoro bears a sign in red lacquer. That could point towards okashi…. * literally translated it’s not acorn but this description has become common.

It’s called “kokuso“, a mixture of urushi and fillers!

You can tell if it was polished many times by looking at the back of the blade (munemachi area), comparing the thickness of the blade and nakago (hilt) there.

Your reading is correct, Les (清照作)! Can’t help with the artist, sry…but what about a picture of the sculpture?!

My condolences, RIP!