Help please with Kabuto mei

[Matsunoki]

Please can someone help with this Mei purportedly on a Muromachi Kabuto? I’m trying to learn about armour!

Many thanks.

All the best. Colin. 
 

EDIT….is it a date? Manji? 1658? I can see the kanji for day and month…..I think

 

[uwe]

It’s a date as you already mentioned, Colin! “元治二乙丑五月吉日” (5. month second year Genji = 1865). 

[Matsunoki]

@uwe

Many thanks Uwe…..I was hoping it was older but as I know virtually nothing yet I’m not surprised to be hundreds of years out!

Purely for interest here is the Bachi…..anything special about it?

Appreciate your time and help!

 

[uwe]

Good hachi, solid workmanship from what I can see 👍

Do you have a top view?

[Matsunoki]

Just now, uwe said:

Do you have a top view?

Thanks again Uwe.

Top view….

 

[uwe]

Maybe of Myōchin origin…?

[Matsunoki]

18 minutes ago, uwe said:

Maybe of Myōchin origin…?

Thanks again Uwe

Why would this be dated but not signed? 

Whilst my knowledge is minimal, this looks a well made hachi worthy of a Mei?

[uwe]

I can’t tell, Colin.
The manufacturing date is quite late. Maybe it never had a customer, so no need to sign the work. The patina is very evenly no wear, no signs of a once mounted shikoro or tehen no kanamono…however, I don’t know. 
 

BTW, it’s not that uncommon that helmets, although of good quality, weren’t signed by the maker. Mumei, so to say, for what reason ever. Occasionally you also find merely dates or/ and invocations are inscribed…

[Bugyotsuji]

Well, it depends also on how you read that poorly-inscribed date.

Is Genji 2 really possible, as it only lasted a year from 1864 to 1865... (?)

Manji does not seem to fit the kanji.

Another possibility is Koji, 1555-1558. 弘治 

[Matsunoki]

@uwe

That has all been extremely helpful. Thank you. It  has explained a lot in a short few words. 
It’s nice to start a new journey, armour seems quite challenging!

[Bugyotsuji]

As a suji kabuto, everything is there. It has four shiten-no-byo and four hibiki-ana.You have some of the rivet heads showing. No hachimanza, but some people prefer it in the raw state, and quite well finished even without the tehen kanamono. The haraidate-dai has two holes in vertical alignment and iri-hasso in the top edge. The shikoro would have been.. manju shikoro? The mabisashi is fairly steep and has a good shape.

[Matsunoki]

4 minutes ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Manji does not seem to fit the kanji.

Hi Piers……seems Manji has more than one Kanji for “Man”???

From this Forum…

Now I’m confused again!🙂

 

[Bugyotsuji]

Yes, that is the one that does not fit, imho, Colin.

[Matsunoki]

Just now, Bugyotsuji said:

As a suji kabuto, everything is there. It has four shiten-no-byo and four hibiki-ana.You have some of the rivet heads showing. No hachimanza, but some people prefer it in the raw state, and quite well finished even without the tehen kanamono. The haraidate-dai has two holes in vertical alignment and iri-hasso in the top edge. The shikoro would have been.. manju shikoro? The mabisashi is fairly steep and has a good shape.

Thanks Piers, I’ll sit down and translate all this later🙂

……whole new vocabulary for my old brain to attempt

[Shogun8]

My first impression of this hachi is that it has some age (the excellent condition not withstanding). The shape, koshimaki meant to fit a manju shikoro, the robust haraidate with fairly deep irihasso and the mabezashi connected by iron sanko no byo would not point to a late Edo dating for me. Do you have pictures of the interior of the hachi?

[Matsunoki]

2 hours ago, Shogun8 said:

Do you have pictures of the interior of the hachi?

Herewith…….all further views most welcome. 

Thanks for looking 

 

[uwe]

As mentioned above, a well made kabuto!

The view inside and the overall appearance might support the date and I stick with my assumption that it was probably never been “completed”.

 

Open for other opinions and comments…

[Iekatsu]

An Edo period Hachi for sure, I think you can rule out Koji.

[Bugyotsuji]

9 hours ago, Iekatsu said:

An Edo period Hachi for sure, I think you can rule out Koji.

What fixes it to Edo for you, Thomas?

[Iekatsu]

For me it is how clean the plates, construction and the finishing of the rivets are, both inside and out.

I agree with Uwe on the translation and also agree that it has likely never been mounted or perhaps only mounted once.

It is possible that the date is Gimei, but I would still place it on the later side of the Edo period, even without the date. 

It is a really nice looking Hachi by the way, good shape and form, and being dated is rarer than being signed.