Kampilan with MOP dots

[Maurice]

Here a heavy kampilan with a total length of 41 inches.
I discussed this MOP dots on the handle with other collectors and I still have this curiosity...........

The best that came up IMO was that they where later implacements to cover the "eye" and the holes where the iron guard were fitted.

I would like to hear other suggestions.



Kind regards,
Maurice

[Battara]

I agree - MOP done later.....


Looks like a short blade....

[Maurice]

I agree - MOP done later.....


Looks like a short blade....


Hi Jose, it is not a short blade.
But I must agree it lookes like it on the attached pics above. The blade itself is 31 inches.
I couldn't stand right above it when I took the picture because than it wouldn't fit because of the length of the blade. (and also because of my own body-length, when I was taller I probably would get it done :) )

I made a new picture of the kampilan hanging on my wall from a more distance, so the length can be seen better.

[Battara]

OOO, I see your point (get it, point? :D )

[Dajak]

Nice Display Maurice


Ben

[Rick]

The lack of embellisments on the handle is notable .
I've not seen many undecorated hilts before .

A nice sword !

[Maurice]

Ben and Rick, thank you for your compliments.:)

Jose, it is not that I am that small, it is that the kampilan is that big.:cool:

[kai]

Hello Maurice,

Your Moro display is filling up nicely! :)

Does the blade show any evidence of laminations?

IMVHO, the rather roughly carved hilt, no considerable wear, and the large size of the blade may point towards the 20th century. Also the MOP on the crosspiece seems to be too close to the outside to be covering original guard holes (not strong enough). I'd guess that the MOP may be the original decoration.

I'm not sure about the blade - I'd like to see a close-up of the tip if possible.

Regards,
Kai

[Maurice]

Hello Maurice,

Your Moro display is filling up nicely! :)

Does the blade show any evidence of laminations?

IMVHO, the rather roughly carved hilt, no considerable wear, and the large size of the blade may point towards the 20th century. Also the MOP on the crosspiece seems to be too close to the outside to be covering original guard holes (not strong enough). I'd guess that the MOP may be the original decoration.

I'm not sure about the blade - I'd like to see a close-up of the tip if possible.

Regards,
KaiHi Kai,

I see no evidence of laminations on the blade...

I also thought that the guard normally is more to the middle of the crosspiece....However than I studied some pics and I found some guards at the position where the MOP is at mine...But maybe you are right and they might be original MOP.

Maybe another forumite has a kamp with MOP??

The picture attached of the tip of the blade is the only one I have available right now.
Let me know when you need more or better pics than I will make them tomorrow.

Kind regards,
Maurice

[kai]

Hello Maurice,

I also thought that the guard normally is more to the middle of the crosspiece....However than I studied some pics and I found some guards at the position where the MOP is at mine.
Ok, there is some variation; I still have a hard time to see this as a 19th c. piece...

Heck, it's weird enough to be from Borneo... :rolleyes: :D [duck and cover... :o ]

Let me know when you need more or better pics than I will make them tomorrow.
A close-up of the tip without shadows would be great - thanks!

Regards,
Kai

[Battara]

Acutually I have seen staples that far out before.

I think that Kai has a point though in that it may be 20thc - the carving seems later now that I look at it again.

[Maurice]

Ok, there is some variation; I still have a hard time to see this as a 19th c. piece...Thank you for your info kai. The seller told me the age would probably be late 19th century/early 20th century. So you are probably right about the age.



Heck, it's weird enough to be from Borneo... :rolleyes: :D [duck and cover... :o ]:) The seller told me also this kampilan would come from Borneo. The seller bought it from late Hank Spankernelli, who told him it would be from Borneo................................... :rolleyes: :D [duck and cover... :o ][/QUOTE]

A close-up of the tip without shadows would be great - thanks!OK. Here it is. Not one of the sharpest pics, but the sharpest one I could make. (look at the end of this post).


Acutually I have seen staples that far out before.:confused: Sorry Jose, I do not understand what you mean. Probably my bad english.


Kind regards and thanks all for your input,
Maurice

[Rick]

:confused: Sorry Jose, I do not understand what you mean. Probably my bad english.
Maurice

I believe the 'staple/s' Jose is referring to is the missing guard piece/s .
They are sometimes called staples due to their shape and method of attachment to the cross guard . :)

[Maurice]

I believe the 'staple/s' Jose is referring to is the missing guard piece/s .
They are sometimes called staples due to their shape and method of attachment to the cross guard . :)Ofcourse Rick........now it makes sense to me. Thank you for explaining.
Jose, thank you, now I know what is meant by staples.

Regards,
Maurice

[kai]

Hello Maurice,

Also the tip doesn't look like 19th c. to me (just a hunch though).

I think it would be interesting to etch the blade...


The seller told me also this kampilan would come from Borneo. The seller bought it from late Hank Spankernelli, who told him it would be from Borneo.
Can any of the long-time collectors confirm that it really came from Hank's collection? Ben, Michael?

Regards,
Kai

[Maurice]

Also the tip doesn't look like 19th c. to me (just a hunch though).Are you looking at the spikelet?

I think it would be interesting to etch the blade...When I have time I will etch the blade. I'll sent you the pics than, but it will take some time................to be continued :)




Can any of the long-time collectors confirm that it really came from Hank's collection? Ben, Michael?The only thing I know is that the seller told me back than in an email that Hank spankernelli had listed it as a Borneo sword back than. But an affirmative of Ben or Michael is ofcourse more than welcome....(however, I know Michaels opinion already ;) )

Regards,
Maurice