View Single Post
Old 29th July 2017, 07:35 AM   #13
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,150

Hello Detlef,

I think it's more meaningful.

I really hate these "artistic" pics of many auction houses and sellers. While they may be pleasing (and usually done with professional equipment), they often hide "features" that would otherwise be more obvious. Marius pics were certainly important to verify the true shape of the blade.

I also don't put any trust in descriptions from auction houses but sometimes they have a reason for the age guess, would be worth to call them and ask for any background knowledge they may have. I was going with the patination the blade show at the auction house picture.

Marius, maybe you want to send them an email? The blade doesn't seem to show any wear and I don't see any patina that necessitates placing this into the first quarter of the 20th century.

Agree with you that the "file" work is different from antique blades, maybe a sign that it is maybe not done by an Aceh smith? We don't will be sure about this point.

The duru seuke as well as the taku rungiet and the other features at the bolster are traditionally done; only the shape of the blade and the "greneng" are of a clearly modern style which took a while to develop in Aceh: first the quality of the rencong deteriorated and then the stylistic changes set in during the first half of the 20th century.

I'm quite positive that the blade is Aceh workmanship; the blades which I suspect to be made by other cultures are those gruesome examples with wax resist etching in pseudo-Arabic "calligraphy"...

The forging flaws you can find also by antique blades, see attached picture from one of my pieces

Definitely. If we exclude those which may have become visible upon continued corrosion, major flaws are really rare though.

So why it can't be pre WWII?

It's an estimate - I won't quibble about some years. Yet I'd like to see any solid evidence.

kai is offline   Reply With Quote