View Single Post
Old 13th June 2010, 02:39 AM   #16
A. G. Maisey
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,519

Thank you very much for your response Graham.

You are the most knowledgeable person likely to respond to this question, so I won't delay my response.However, I will make this comment:- your experience is filling in the gaps that cannot be seen in the images --- I do exactly the same thing:- I see things that are not there in the image, because I instinctively know they are there in the object. Somebody lacking our level of experience does not have this advantage.

As would be expected, some of it you've got right, but some of it you're a bit off track with.

This reinforces the point I was trying to make:- images are not good enough to learn from. Yes, they can help, but you need the hands-on experience.

Here is what these pamors are:-

A--- the contrasting material in this is pure nickel, the iron is very hot short tyre . It started as very large pieces of tyre that were not washed at all, and the nickel was welded straight in, it then went through the washing process until it did not throw off sparks, plus a couple of extra welds --- this material was absolutely clean and tight when the core was welded in --- but the nickel had run up into the cracks caused by the hotshortness of the iron. This pamor material was doubled and welded in excess of 12 times.Following completion, this blade was soaked in an erosive medium to give an aged look to the surface.

B--- yes, meteoritic. The meteor was from Arizona and was many small pieces; I welded these many small pieces into one solid , clean lump, this was then combined with iron that came from an old bridge, and that combination of meteoritic material and old iron formed the pamor. This blade was soaked in an erosive medium.

C--- yes, mild and nickel. The mild was bought as second hand material in Solo, and my memory of it is that it was from some sort of old, heavy strapping. It was not washed at all.Yes, mlumah.This blade was not soaked in an erosive medium but was washed heavily with lime juice.

D--- the material used in this blade is exactly the same as the material used in "C", again, not washed at all, however, it is not mlumah, it is miring. It started life as lawe setukal, but did not survive the forging, so the grains realigned and it looks like mlumah.This blade was not exposed to any erosive medium at all, it was only stained.

E--- the contrasting material in this is an iron/nickel alloy; I have forgotten the analysis of the alloy; it was something used in the factory where my son was working at the time; the iron is high quality carriage strapping, it is wrought iron, and it was washed heavily, ie, more than 7 times folded and welded. The orientation is miring. This blade was given a light wash with hydrochloric acid.

I have two other blades that have material judged to be meteoritic material according to Javanese standards. "B" above, and the other two blades all look different, one from the other.

I have had blades with pamor that was judged to have been made from Dutch coins. This pamor looks exactly like meteoritic pamor in respect of colour, disregard the texture in example "B", because that is the product surface manipulation and etching. But the difference between the Dutch coin pamor and the meteoritic pamor is that the coin pamor is smooth and greasy to the touch, the meteoritic pamor is "prickly" to the touch.

I have in my possession and have seen pamors made from bicycle spokes, motorbike exhausts, bicycle rims --- and various other materials. All these oddly assorted materials can look like one or another of the old traditional materials of high phosphoric iron, or coins, or pamor luwu, or meteorite.

I've been misled by a first impression many times, and that's with the blade in my hand.

Images on a computer screen, or even in hard copy, are just not good enough.
A. G. Maisey is offline   Reply With Quote