Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


188 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Toronto, Canada

Profile Fields

  • Name
    John WT

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Very nice - thanks for sharing. Do I see a Nagasone kabuto?
  2. This fragility also contributes to their rarity, since so many did not survive. As both Thomas and Piers have said, good period maedate are like the proverbial hen's teeth. Since they rarely appear, there really is no dealer that would "specialize" in them. Kino is your best bet, but even then, you have to be there when one arrives because it's often immediately sold to one of their regular customers. On each trip to Japan, I scour the dealers (including Kino) and antique shops and manage to score the occasional piece. Good luck in your quest!
  3. I think the correct tariff code is 9706.00.00.90 - at least this is the one I have been using for many years without issue.
  4. Hi Krystian, Welcome to the world of katchu! I think you have done very well for your early acquisition and the kabuto and menpo are well-matched. The kabuto is not a common zunari type but I'm not sure what to make of the fixed wakidate. Regarding the shikoro, it's difficult to say whether or not it's original to the hachi, but judging by the fit and style, it seems original to me.
  5. I did not have the privilege of meeting him and only admired from afar his knowledge, erudition, commitment and willingness to share. Nevertheless, his passing is a tremendous shock and his presence and outsized influence will be missed. Life's too short.
  6. Somewhat skimpy proof perhaps, but the fit of the tsunamoto of the maedate with the receiving haraidate lends credence to the theory that the maedate and kamon on the fukigaeshi are original to this kabuto.
  7. Thomas, Indeed, the points you mention could mean that the dou is from the Early Edo and not Momoyama. The kusazuri could be replacements and there might be ana underneath the lacquer (I have a Momoyama dou with removable kusazuri, but there are ana beneath the lacquer which accommodated the original gessan). However, the shape of the oshitsuke-no-ita and the waki-ita flanges (the lack of the central yama shape notwithstanding) and the existence of gangi-shino are consistent with Momoyama dou. To be sure of course, would require a closer examination of all of these - and other - features.
  8. Dating armours is never easy, especially when trying to draw the line between Momoyama and early Edo, since Momoyama was such a relatively short time frame (and hence my comment that this dou "could" be Momoyama). In any event, I was looking at the shape and composition of the mune-ita, the waki-ita, the oshitsuke-no-ita and the shape of the dou itself to form an opinion. In doing so, I would say that the dou isn't "strongly" Momoyama and could also very much be early Edo (first part). After all, who can say if something was made in 1613 vs. 1618?
  9. Looks like you got a great deal!
  10. Indeed, a very nice gusoku and even better that it's published - congrats! Can you post a picture of the catalogue cover?
  11. Hi Lucky, Welcome to the wonderful rabbit hole that we call armour collecting! Nice kabuto! It seems that the ukebari (the cloth liner) is detached near the front of the kabuto. If so, are you able to peel it back and take a picture of the interior construction? That would help with an approximate dating of your kabuto. I will leave it to other members like Uwe or Piers to comment on the mon. John
  12. Thanks for the additional pictures, Adam. After seeing these pictures, I would tend to agree with your statement that this dō could date to the Momoyama, which itself is notable since pre-Edo dō are not common. As well, the extension plate makes it even more interesting and rare, as Uwe mentioned. The condition seems to be quite good, considering! Well done!
  13. Aside from Piers' and Mark's comments and suggestions, I also noticed that the two dō sections on the right are incorrectly overlapped - the rear section should overlap the front section, not the other way around as you have it. Also, do you have pictures of the back of the dō?
  • Create New...