uwe

I never had the chance to meet him personally, but always admired his craft! A truly artist passed…RIP Ford!

There is indeed a problem with the preservation of some objects…😏 Otherwise a stunning collection!

That’s a problem, Hamish! I know only one publication dealing with Jingasa. Unfortunately, I don’t have it… From time to time some info pops up from different sources, but reliable…who knows…

Last part of the signature is probably not visible. What one can see might read “龍英之口” (first two - Ryūei or Tatsuhide). But I’m not sure!

I think there are no bells at the mon in question, Piers 🤔

As expected, I couldn't find an exact match Here are two examples which, however, differ in the arrangement of the paper strips: To simplify, guess we can call it "丸に違い幣" (Maru ni chigai hei).

Thanks for the input Moriyama San! Haven’t checked the pedigree of the Sakai family, so I didn’t notice that fact…strange thing

That might be the reason Yoshikatsu isn’t listed. I wasn’t sure in which context Muneyoshi was mentioned, but “招“ gave a hint…

As said above, Gilles. This smith (川村吉勝) is not listet in the Meikan! The only clue we have is this certain Muneyoshi, but even for him there is little info, except that he was working around late Edo/Meiji for the Shōnai fief….

“元寒中” early (beginning) cold season! Regarding the four kanji above the mekugi ana I guess “義兵切物” (kiremono gihei)…no warranty!

I also read “甲冑師明珍宗吉 招 “. Are there some relations to Myōchin Muneyoshi? He was a Shōnai craftsman!

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!