Another wilah for identification.
 

This one came in a Djogya gayaman sheath, but i saw the newly made file marks, so i don't know if they belong together.
the length of the wilah without the pesi is 32,5 cm, and the pesi is somehow square.

regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I have turned one picture since many of us are used to look this way to a blade. :)

Dapur is in my opinion jalak ruwuh and maybe a Surakarta blade but I can be wrong by this.

Regards,

Detlef

thanks for the explanation Detlef, the following wilah's i shall post in the correct way.

regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,
It would be useful also to add a detailed picture of the sorsoran on both sides and a top view of the ganja to see its profile.
Regards

You show us only the blades. Better show us also pictures of the dressed keris.

OK Jean, i shall make the pictures, i can understand that it's very difficult to judge from the bad pictures.

Henk, this one is the only one who's got a sheath, the other ones don't, and i shall place a picture of this sheath as well.

regards,
Ben

I hope that the pictures are good enough.

The strange thing with the sheath is that it's Djogya, but the pendok is in my opinion Solo.
The gandar is one piece with the warangka, but the bottom part of the gandar is to wide for a Djogya pendok.

regards,
Ben

Hello Ben,
Thanks for the picture, no definite conclusion from my side but the shape of the greneng is odd, the ganja line does not match well with the blade (may be replaced later), the carving of the tikel alis does not look neat. A village blade IMO but I can be wrong, other opinions are welcome.
Regards

Hi Jean,

Thanks for your opinion, my knowledge is so little that i can't say anything about it.
I think that most of my keris are the simple(village work?), but i don't mind at all, if they are real ones, i am satisfied, I've read this a couple of times here, you get what you pay for.
But i hope there is someone who knows if this keris would be dressed in a Djoya or Solo dress.

regards,
Ben

Have to agree with Jean! :)

I dare say that the great (and i do mean GREAT :)) majority of the blades we show here are village work. I doubt Harley had any greater expectation... :shrug: :)

No doubt here David :D , those blades are all simple, and even if i can't tell anything about pamor or dapur, but i can recognize the nice blades that i see in some of the old topic's, it's a hole different world.
I said it earlier, for me it is important to save some of the old but simple blades,
I think they deserve that.
But i am glad that Jean & Detlef gave there opinion, because i don't have a clue :o

regards,
Ben

Harley, it doesn't matter whether you dress it in Solo or Jogja scabbard and hilt.

The blades that are found in both types of dress can come from a wide variety of places, including Bali and Sulawesi.

Once a blade from whatever geographic location goes into dress from another location, it becomes that type of keris. This is the reason we tend to describe a complete keris by reference first to its dress, and then to its blade origin or tangguh.

Personally, I would not waste time in redressing this keris. The scabbard and hilt you have shown are more than adequate for this blade. As already advised, this is a keris of very ordinary quality, it lacks characteristics that allow it to be identified as from any specific area. Its just a keris, and can be dressed in almost any way that pleases you, however, the time spent in doing this would be purely for your own amusement.

Blades that come from anywhere in Jawa, and some places outside Jawa, can look very similar, unless they are old and good blades that follow a particular line of design , usually associated with a palace (kraton).

For ordinary, common or garden quality blades, many varying characteristics can be incorporated into the one blade, and quality of workmanship can vary from appalling to extremely high, however, since no established pattern or line of design is being followed, about all we can say is that one of these keris is from Jawa, and even then, that is not always so easy, nor so correct.

Thanks for the explanation Mr.Maisey, i am going to clean it, and try to wash it, and put it back in his own scabbard.

I think i better can make a picture of last 5 wilah's together, before polluting the forum, if there is one recognizable or more interesting, i can make a better picture of that one.

regards,
Ben

Here they are, i think the 3 on the left are more recent.

regards,
Ben

Harley, were I you, I'd do one full length and one one close-up of of sorsoran of all these blades.

After seeing this, we may ask for one or more specific pics of a blade, but what I have just suggested is the bare minimum with which to begin a question.

I would not do the photos in the way you are doing them, but rather try to do them in open shade, by natural light, and assuming you are in the northern hemisphere, with the light coming from the south.

With any camera that has IS, you can get better than OK pics in terrible light.

Incidentally, call me Alan, if you you would.

I get your point Alan,this picture isn't good, David had given me the advise to do one at a time in a new topic, but i feel a little uncomfortable with that.
So i shall try to make better pictures in daylight, and do one by one with close ups, and place them in this topic.
I do feel a kind of stupid, because i don't know what IS means :o

regards,
Ben

Ben, you are hardly "polluting" the forum with these keris. As i previously stated, the large majority of keris that most of us collect are village pieces. These, as Alan states, come in all different levels of quality from appalling to excellent. I would also state that the simplicity of a dhapur is not an indication of quality. So please have no reservations about posting here. It is what the forum is for and you don't need to feel as if you need to have something exceedingly fine or unusual to warrant posting it. :)

IS is "image stabilisation"

Its some new sort of electronic trickery whereby the image produced by a camera using very slow shutter speed still comes out nice and sharp.

Effectively it means that you can take pics on auto setting in really bad light and still get halfway decent images.

Don't understand how it works, but it does.

Off topic Alan, but just in case you are truly interested...personally i prefer to consider it magic.... ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stabilization

Thanks David.

Yeah, its magic.

I don't really have any interest in it, I was only trying to answer Harley's question.

Thank you David for the explanation, as a new member with almost no knowledge about keris (and taking pictures :) ), a felt a little em barest to make all these new topic's for these wilah's, but thats what i shall do now.

Alan thank for explaining the IS, but i don't think i have this on my camera, it's just like the wilah's a simple Finepix S1000fd, but I'll do my best to make better pic's.

regards,
Ben

I'm glad Alan jumped in with his knowledge.

The dressed keris you showed us is just a common decent Jogja keris like most of us have in our collection. For the other blades I would try to find a good fitting scabbard and ukiran with mendak as well.

Thats for sure Henk, but i am also glad with the other who are trying to help.

Henk i don't know of have seen my other topic, but the point is, that i want to try to make the sheaths, for me it is fun doing, but therefore i need to know if they are real, an a kind of indication where they coming from.
It takes a fair amount of time to make them, and I've there not the real thing, i don't waist my time on that.
So that is my reason for posting them, and of course any kind of info on them is welcome.

regards,
Ben

Just reread my previous post David.

It looks rude and dismissive.

Please accept my apologies.

What I should have said is that yes, its magic, and magic happens:- don't try to understand it.

All this technical stuff is simply too hard for me, all I know is how to press the buttons.

No worries Alan, i didn't take it poorly. I don't spend too much time trying to fathom the inner workings of digital technology either. I understand the "analog" chemistry of black & white photography and what was once "magic" is now my common knowledge. Digital i leave to the Mysteries. :)