#1353 Keris
 

For your comments

I don't know for the blade, but the hilt and scabbard is recent for me.
I find that the scabbard lacks finesse in its proportions compared to the antique specimens. :shrug:
But I find the hilt pleasant. :)

Not sure. This was one of my earliest acquisitions and I very much over cleaned it! I have learned not to do this.

I am of the mind that you can't over-clean silver and gold. These metals were never meant to be dull or tarnished on an ensemble IMHO. :shrug:

I agree 100% David. These 2 metals were meant to shine and sparkle. Unlike bronze, they were meant to be cleaned.

White gold gets a nice subdued patina through being worn though. :shrug:

Hello Rick,

Of course, white gold and platin are modern affections though - I doubt they would have stood any chance against polished silver in the good ol' days... ;)

Regards,
Kai

Hello Jose,

I beg to differ: bronze on ethnographic pieces was most certainly meant to sparkle, too!

Actually, decent bronze is much easier to keep shiny than silver. Early bronze was originally utilized for jewellery (obviously as a replacement for gold) and only later for tools.

I'd also assume that even brass was meant to be polished. However, I do agree that it is fairly futile to keep this alloy shiny - even with gentle cleaning most ethnographic pieces will loose too much metal for long-term preservation.

Regards,
Kai

Hello Bill,

I agree with the others that the scabbard is recent. The workmanship on antique pieces also varies widely for genuine coteng.

Not really sure about the hilt - would love to hear from the Malay specialists on this.

The blade is IMHO old and a variant style that may be a Malay offshoot of the (originally Sumatran) Bangkinang style.

Regards,
Kai