Japanese Armor Society Forum

Peter,

The small size of that hachi and the shape of the mabesashi would classify that kabuto as a ko-zunari.

John,
Yes, I would agree with you but can an Etchu zunari dating from the Momoyama period be officially classified as a ko zunari? It seems there is a confusion surrounding the dating of these helmets.

I think Luc was saying that he would classify kabuto from the early Momoyama as "ko". Of course, it's difficult enough to determine if something is from Momoyama/early Edo, much less early vs. late Momoyama - especially when you're speaking about a period that is only 23 years long (assuming one uses the 1573-1596 vs. the 1573-1615 dating)!

True!!
I’m always sceptical when I see armour described as Momoyama. Unless you have documented evidence or are a recognised authority how do you know? Well you don’t really it’s all an educated guess, but it is fun learning.

Peter Jones wrote: ↑Tue Nov 21, 2017 1:56 pm True!!
I’m always sceptical when I see armour described as Momoyama. Unless you have documented evidence or are a recognised authority how do you know? Well you don’t really it’s all an educated guess, but it is fun learning.

Peter,

During the shinsa an armour was submitted that was clearly Momoyama - gold-lacquered urinari kabuto of small circumference and a wonderful hotoke dou with gold lacquered Buddhist designs on the front and back and mother-of-pearl inlay on the watagami (which I had never seen before). I liked it right away and it was gratifying to see it papered as I had thought.

A nice selection on sundays meeting.

I was in the excellent meeting and was able to make pictures. Several of these will be added in a next pdf (together with partial translations of the magazine) for JAS members.

Jo

Awesome, Jo - can't wait!

Very nice (and typical) examples, Luc!
Jo, I'm in the row of the guys who can't wait....

the one from the Royal armories in Leeds.