Koboshi Kabuto and Menpo

[Tengu1957]

62 ken Koboshi Kabuto with 2000 rivets

Edo Jidai with Tokubetsu Hozon paper ( doesn't mention school ) 

Russet iron Menpo 

[Tengu1957]

[Tengu1957]

[Bugyotsuji]

Bamen, no？

[Tengu1957]

[Luc T]

The nkbkhk papers don’t mention a school easily without a reliable signature.  Not because the don’t have an opinion, but simply because it is tricky.    
this kabuto could be momoyama too, but it is certainly early edo or earlier.   Also here, they stay prudent.   No space for a wrong guess.

again a fine old warbeast Gary!

[Luc T]

2 hours ago, Bugyotsuji said:

Bamen, no？

Piers, you are looking at the iron hachimanza, not?   It looks like the ones on Bamen kabuto,  but here I think we see a Soshu product again.

[Luc T]

Gary, here the explanation of the Nkbkhk paper

[Luc T]

And on the back, very important, the name of the judges.   Transparency  and responsability.

[Bugyotsuji]

 

The paperwork does say 江戸時代初期 'Edo Jidai, Shoki', which means early Edo, or beginning of Edo, Gary. (Their safe bet, maybe!)

Other than the brief description, no further actual information.

 

[uwe]

Yes Piers (and Luc), 

early Edo is a save bet! 
What might speak for Bamen are the simple iron tehen-no-kanamono and the three rows of rivets on the front plate. The shape of the rivets, on the other hand, is not typical Bamen school. Although there is (at least) one helmet by the hand of “Masayuki” with similar hoshi....so further discussion is needed!

Hard to tell from the pics if the shikoro (with “副” on the fukigaeshi) is a later addition or refurbished in Edo times.

The ressei-bō, however, seems to be mid/end Edo....

 

PS: Maybe it’s only the picture, but the longitudinal axis of the construction seems not clean?! 

[Anthony de Vos]

Hi!

 

My believe is that this kabuto is not typical for Bamen school. The iron hachimanza is rather large compared to the general size from the Bamen. The mabesashi is not typical for Bamen koboshi of the period (could be a replacement). The koboshi should be more conical. There is no gunbai pattern typical for Bamen koboshi (few exeptions are extant). The harai date doesn’t feel right. 
Lovely old kabuto but I think the origin is from somewhere else. Nice find.

 

Anthony

[Iekatsu]

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.

 

 

[Iekatsu]

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.

[Bugyotsuji]

Thanks guys for the valid detail, reviving my memory banks.

 

The lack of deep side shielding on the mabisashi should have been a warning.

My bad. I glanced at the top and thought I saw a gunbai or butterfly, nothing deeper than that. 

[uwe]

Well,

I can agree with Anthony and Thomas here! 

I was not stating it's Bamen at all, but liked to drew attention to some points...

As we know, older helmets are sometimes undergone several changes during time. Hence mabizashi, haraidate as even koshimaki...etc, are not neccissarily reliable indications for an proper judgement.

 

A while back, we discussed this kabuto:

 

 

It bears remnants of a Bamen signature and was allegdely attributed to Masayuki. Yes Anthony, we have this "gunbai-thing" here!

But the rivets as also the mabizashi are not typical Bamen, IMHO.

What I'm trying to say is that in many (if not most) cases, we can only make an assessment on a basis of the accumulation of probabilities. Especally when it comes to older pieces whitch mostly lacking a signature. Whereby a comparison between mei and workmanship becomes impossible....

 

[Luc T]

Interesting discussion.

what do we have:

a 62 plate koboshi

number of koboshi per plate?   Gary?

no hibiki no ana

no shiten no byo

Small but perfect finished tehen no ana

no nonsense but functional hachimanza.

irregular shaped koboshi

irregular aligned koboshi placed close to the suji.

a probably replaced haraidate dai.

a mabezashi that is possibly replaced too.

According the style, we have a Kanto kabuto 

who did we have there:

the Joshu.   This is not a Joshu kabuto

the Yashu. There are no koboshi known by them.

the soshu (Sagami, Odawara) there was an Ietsugu who made koboshi +-30koboshi per plate.  I have seen several of his work and it looks very much like this one.   Ietsugu is recorded in the shin katchushi meikan as early edo. But there must have been several Soshu smiths with this name during the end of the momoyama-early edo period by my humble opinion. 
Gary, is it possible to post a picture with the names of the shinsa members?  Some of them know these schools very good.   But I am not sure if they were in the shinsa for this kabuto.

there is a fair chance that this old boy is signed.   Then we could be sure.  Now we have to judge on what wee see.

 

 

 

[Tengu1957]

Luc

There are 32 rivets per plate. I do not believe it is signed. Thank you for the information. 

 

 

[Iekatsu]

Luc,

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

[Luc T]

Thomas, look at the corrosion and patina.  They are different.   The haraidate dai seems atypical for the region, and a bit too flashy for the period.  The mabezashi normally has cut-outs on the koshimaki.   But I have seen this type before.  It could be original, but  it’s possibly an edo replacement.

but all your arguments are valuble Thomas.

[Shogun8]

Great discussion, gentlemen!

[Luc T]

the shinsa members were Takemura san, Matsumoto san, Nishioka san, Nagata san, and the last one I can't read, but I think it was me.

Nagata and Matsumoto are the specialists for this kind of kabuto.   (Orikasa is always very sceptical to date these kabuto muromachi, but that is his opinion).

[Luc T]

But before we continue, I just want to say this is no contest nor a quiz, It is about sharing knowledge and a passion.

[Iekatsu]

On 6/6/2021 at 9:31 PM, uwe said:

As we know, older helmets are sometimes undergone several changes during time. Hence mabizashi, haraidate as even koshimaki...etc, are not neccissarily reliable indications for an proper judgement.

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).
 

On 6/7/2021 at 10:02 PM, Luc T said:

 The mabezashi normally has cut-outs on the koshimaki.

The shape of the Mabizashi is actually quite typical for this period, particularly for Ko-Boshi.

 

On 6/7/2021 at 10:02 PM, Luc T said:

The haraidate dai seems atypical for the region, and a bit too flashy for the period.

 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 T]

thomas, here 2 late muromachi koboshi, signed joshu Norikuni. 

One with original mabezashi and haraidate dai, the other one nicely converted according the West-Japanese momoyama fashion.

[Luc T]

another one, late muromachi.

 

[Luc T]

My point is, and I quote Orikasa sensei:

‘The most prolific age of Kabuto was the Warring States Period Sengoku Jidai, (in the later stages of Muromachi), when clashes and conflicts were affected by the arrival on the scene and the general adoption of guns, meaning that methods of warfare had to change. For protective wear, i.e. Katchu, this was a revolutionary challenge. In such a world, Kabuto too had to change, and all kinds of unusual Kabuto appeared, including 62-Ken suji kabuto, 62-Ken koboshi kabuto, Hineno Zunari Kabuto, etc. It is thought that the increasing frequency of armed clashes must have required kabuto to be made in large quantities, but there are very few extant examples that can be trusted to carry reliable provenance. We can speculate that most original examples were degraded in subsequent warfare, or were refashioned into new replacement kabuto, etc.’ (Koki no Shiori, Teruo Orikasa, 2019, JAS edition)

as such, it is necessary to have the item in the hand to examine the patina, corrosion etc.  And even then it is tricky.

Now, about the style. The Eastern warlords did not like fantasies.   They even skipped the hachimanza on their most precious kabuto’s.  Their kabuto were hightech at the moment, they did not need  frivolity. This kabuto has a very basic hachimanza,  which does not correspond with the fancy haraidate.    The mabezashi,  I have no first class material to compare, but I presume you have some? For the record, the kabuto by Yukinoshita Masaie had such mabezashi, but that’s a completely different style of kabuto.

[YOJIMBO]

my 

[Luc T]

1 hour ago, YOJIMBO said:

my 

tosei Mabezashi,   Kansai, not Kanto

tsunamoto -> Kansai, not Kanto

but possibly a Kanto hachi

btw, in the modern literature about armor, Kansai is a generalism seen as the region west of Japan, without Kyushu and Kishu

Kanto is the Tohoku region, Sagami, Joshu.. east of Japan.

[YOJIMBO]