Iekatsu

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.

Hello Jason, If its your first peice it might be a good idea to look at just picking up a kabuto, in the same price bracket you could get something nice and will have less problems with condition issues.

As the others have said, its a reproduction, late Showa period, potentially even later. The quality of the "Menpo" is significantly worse and not even close to the real thing.

That Kabuto looks quite interesting, do you have any other images?

Id say it's Momoyama-Early Edo, a relatively low end piece. At some point it was heavily corroded, which did quite a bit of damage and was later cleaned and stabilised.

Tom, This style of kabuto is relatively common, as Uwe mentioned they were mass produced for Okashi-Gusoku (loan Armour) in Kaga and date to the Edo period. The Dou are far less common though, I have seen a couple of partial sets of these Okashi-Gusoku, they tend to be comprised of a simple 6 plate kabuto, Tsubame Hanbo, Hotoke Dou and simple Sangu with rounded plates. Each element is finished in the same lacquer as the helmet and Dou and the Ie-ji (baking fabric) tends to be light blue or tan Asa (hemp) with Mid blue trim. I have attached a couple of images below for reference, note the Haidate (Thigh guards) and Suneate (Shin guards) do not belong to the set. The damage to the Hachi is likely just from neglect, it appears to have rusted through. While not high end items or in good condition there are things to learn from such items, I hope they bring you joy.

Mark, It's a decent looking Ressei me-no-shita men, Nara style. These are relatively common, yours likely dates to mid-late Edo period. The condition is not bad, but there could be rust forming under the cracked lacquer. Uwe did a good write up of the style in the following thread if you want some more information.

Ukebari were most likely expendable in period and were likely replaced multiple times over the helmets lifetime, but that does not change the fact that intact Ukebari are part of the kabuto and should be preserved with it where ever possible. How many period Ukebari in original condition do you think will be around to study in 100 years if these practices continue?

I agree with Uwe, the Hachi looks like it could have some age. Could we please get some images of the front, rear and underside of the Hachi/kabuto and the inside of the Menpo?

If someone wants to study the construction methods there are plently bare Hachi, or kabuto with compromised Ukebari that can be purchased, I am appalled that ranking members of the Japanese armour society are casually advocating vandalism, we are after all only temporary custodians of these objects.

Ruben, The images are a little rough, but I would say it is the same armour that was posted by Luc earlier in the thread.

The above is an armour model from the showa period, it has no bearing on the topic. But in the same search the other components for the armour appear to match.

A common practice does not mean its a good practice, it's generally done with very little care, primarily to facilitate sale. Given that there is a large portion of signed kabuto that do not have windows in the Ukebari it was clearly not a universal practice. A borescope can be inserted through the Tehen to look into the interior without damaging the Ukebari.

I don't think we should be condoning the practice of cutting windows in Ukebari.

Yas, The work was likey massed produced, given the number of extant examples. The same style of Tsuba are also found in Maru-gata and there are also different motifs and bespoke custom peices that appear to come from the same workshop. As for the age, dating anything pre Edo is pretty tricky as there are so few dateable reference points, that said the Kantei points appear to be consistent with the attribution. All the best, Thomas

Yas, The Tsuba you posted with the fox/squirrel and wave motif are not modern, they are early San-mai and utilise stamped plates in their construction (quite often from the same dies). The marks highlighted on the Seppa-dai are actually rivets that hold the plates in place, this variety was likely produced in a single workshop, given the consistency in technique and construction. They are generally attributed to late Muromachi-Momoyama period. Take a look at the following thread for more examples: All the best, Thomas

Hey Luca, I see what you mean, I thought it may have been a partial stamp with a boarder. Kind regards, Thomas

Looks like "Ten", see below: http://www.users.on.net/~coxm/?page=TsubaII Kind regards, Thomas

This is Kinokuniya mentioned by Uwe above: http://www.kinokuniya.tv/

Luc, What makes you think that the lower section of the Mabezashi was added later?

Hello Dick, The armour was manufactured by a company called Marutake Sangyo CO,LTD, they started manufacturing armour in the 1960's, primarily for film/tv. Given that it was purchased 15 years ago and that some of the features are still in production today I would say that it likely dates to the 90's.