Iekatsu

Showa Period, if it had to guess 1960's. If you post a profile image and one under the chin I will point out some of the things to look out for.

Very nice, could you please share an image of the interior?

Barry, I'm sure it was a typo but your kabuto is by Haruta Yoshihisa, its a nice example of the type and definitely worthy of restoration.

Not quite yesterday, likely Showa period.

I do agree that there are very few dated examples and/or examples with reliable provenance, there is also clearly crossovers in style and construction between the Late-muromachi period and Momoyama period and the presence of later modifications to contend with, which further complicates the task. While signed and/or dated examples exist, the reality is that the vast majority of work was not signed or dated in this period, which is why it is important to compare and study the stylistic features and construction methods used and compare that with known examples. You have presented examples from Joshu Norikuni, we know that Norikuni was working in this period and that there are at least two signed and dated koboshi kabuto that we can draw from (1567 and 1569), there were also other Joshu smiths likely making koboshi in the same period, Norishige for example. But these really only represent a small subset of manufacture, given the number of extant un-signed examples which align stylistically. Unfortunately most of the examples we can draw from are unsigned and do not have particularly reliable provenance, I am in the process of building a library of such examples for comparison. Are you aware of any other dated examples from this period or examples with reliable provenance?

Luc, my point was that it is not an exclusive trait, there any many Koboshi from many different smiths that have three rows of rivets on the front plate.

The Dou, all alterations aside is actually quite interesting, a relatively uncommon form, these Dou are essentially munition/Okashi grade items. The reason it is signed is because the Iwai were often tasked with and responsible for repairing and refurbishing Okashi armour in the Edo period, this is also why there are so many examples of mediocre armour bearing the Iwai inscriptions. Below is an example of similar style of Dou, and another that has an Iwai inscription that sold recently on yahoo. These examples are more indicative of what the Dou originally would have looked like.

The lacquer damage is consistent with the holes being drilled after it was lacquered, generally the surface would be lacquered and then the fittings added (this would be true even if it was refurbished in period). That fact that no lacquer remains intact around any of the fittings, that some of the fittings punch though part of the inscription, that there is evidence of other post period modifications all indicate that there was likely never any fittings originally and that the current fittings were likely added post period.

There are some serious red flags here, it is quite clear that decorative plates and fittings have been added post period. This was originally sold as part of a "set", which was cobbled together from Edo and Showa period components. The Dou has been vandalised, this is unscrupulous behaviour which needs to be condemned. https://www.catawiki.com/es/l/47534071-yoroi-cuero-hierro-forjado-seda-japans-samurai-armor-kyogoku-takatsugu-gesigneerd-1590-japon-siglo-xvi

While this is very true, generally the changes were made to update or repair an item, and these changes/repairs often reflected the styles and conventions of the period the alterations were made. In this case if there were modifications it would likely reflect Edo conventions, which are not really represented in this example (other than the Shikoro). The shape of the Mabizashi is actually quite typical for this period, particularly for Ko-Boshi. The Haraidate-dai is definitely atypical, but is well within the scope for the period in question. There was significant experimentation with different shapes and configurations, by the Edo period Haraidate-dai for the most part fall into standardized patterns.

Luc, What makes you think the Mabizashi and Haraidate-dai may have been replaced?

I actually think the Hachi dates to the late Muromachi period and not the early Edo for the following reasons. The rivets are very fine, quite close to the Suji and not placed with precision. The Tehen is quite small and the Tehen kanamono is very simple, this is very much in line with Ko-boshi of the late Muromachi, where the Tehen was often vestigial. The shape and form of the Mabizashi is in-line with comparative examples from the period and the unconventional shape of Haraidate-dai is consistent with the experimentation taking place in this period.

I totally agree with Anthony, to add further points, three rows of rivets on the front plate is a common convention for Ko-boshi kabuto and not unique to Bamen at all and the placement and shape of the rivets is not consistent with Bamen work.

What does everyone think about it potentially being Gimei? For me there are several red flags: 1. There is doubt that the smith ever existed. 2. There are no other examples for comparison. 3. The work does not appear to align with the working dates of the smith.

I had the same thoughts as Ian. Stylistically it does not really align with the working dates listed either.