Ok, since we are talking about Madura Muda pieces, here's one more. They have their attractions, but the main problem with them is that they do not conform totally to traditions. Its like a hotch-potch keris pulling together bits and pieces from various origins and putting it together. Its like a stitched-together chimera. I suppose that puts off collectors with a more traditionalist preference. This piece for example, has a dapur with Solo origins (I believe), a Madurese gayaman sheath which was not originally made for it, but refitted well enough. The mendak is not Madurese in style, for sure. The ukiran is Madurese, and with some age, but this style is most commonly found on Madurese or E Javanese ladrang sheaths. There you have it -- the cons, but then, take a step back and look at the keris for what it is.
I think the present-day Madura smiths had been concentrating on pamor in the past. Only recently have they put in more efforts into the dapur. But still, their kerises have the 'stiff' look. Also, because time and money features heavily in their production, 'shortcuts' are taken, and they show, like pamor lines that can go broken half-way through the blade. With a traditionally-made keris, I believe this would not happen. And because time spent is limited, the smith does not have time to comtemplate the really minute details and lines that makes the keris truly graceful. But I think they are slowly picking it up. Who knows, maybe they are reading this forum right now and taking down all that we are saying.
