Shogun8

Glad to hear, Nicolas!

Hi Nicolas, The annual yearbook is one of the perks of being a member of the Japanese Armor Society and a lot of time, research and cost goes into writing the articles for the yearbook and many of these articles (including Takemura-san's) are ground-breaking in the field. Just the printing and delivery costs of the yearbook alone are a major loss-leader for the JAS. The fact that we make the yearbook available to be purchased by non-members is really a boon.

True Piers, but I find the snakes more freely moving than the dragons.

As a maker yourself, which would you find more difficult/impressive - the dragon or the snake?

Hi Jan, Beautiful box indeed! Ok, I'll bite - what's inside?

Piers, which one looks like a nijūbako?

Did a little bit of reorganizing today and pulled these out...all from jizai okimono.

Indeed, a very nice hanbo, nonetheless.

Agree with Luc.

Lewis, This style of shikoro is called a manju or o-manju, which was mainly used in the late Muromachi/early Momoyama (although of course, there are Edo examples too). It was in the Momoyama that the hineno jikoro came into being, with the shikoro having a more downward slant and the last lame being shaped to the shoulders, which ostensibly offered better protection. I also agree that Pier's observation is another partial explanation - the kabuto probably sits a bit higher than normal. This armour is a very well-known and often published example - it's a high level armour (as is evidenced by its being on display at the TNM).

I would agree with the previous comments. Several features would indicate staying away from this one.

Most later haidate incorporated flat plates and were often made in leather. The curved, interlocking ones made of iron like these were likely of Eastern or Kanto origin as used by the Date clan.

The extra long frontal kusazuri were meant to defend the rider against the typical weapons wielded by foot soldiers such as yari and other polearms. Similarly, the construction of the haidate - namely the iron composition and the curved, overlapping plates designed for strength - were meant for defending against ground-based attacks, as were the solid plate suneate.

What these details do suggest is that the suit of armour was certainly custom and not off-the-shelf, which usually means that the samurai who commissioned it had some means. The length of the frontal kusazuri, the construction of the haidate plates (can you confirm if they are iron?) and the tsutsu suneate point towards an armour meant to be worn on horseback - again suggesting a higher-ranking samurai.

Lots of very interesting details on this armour that I have not seen before including the aforementioned lack of kanmuri-no-ita, the meidicine box on the point of the elbow and the extra long frontal kusazuri and tsubo sode. Even the haidate are different. Cool armour.