[A. G. Maisey]

Penangsang, its nobody's "bad"---whatever that might mean.

My comments were general, and not aimed specifically at you, had they been, I would have made it clear.

May I suggest a little less sensitivity?

As to the question of suitability of Scratch's keris as a weapon, again, we need to be realistic in the appraisal of a keris. This is a current era keris, made as art, not as weaponry. It is unrealistic to apply standards to this keris which the maker did not apply.

Were it an old keris, made with probable intent to be used as a weapon, it could be criticised for failing to satisfy this function. As a current era keris, made as artistic expression, such criticism cannot be applied.

Agreed, if the pamor enters the edge of a blade, or even enters its gusen, that is evidence of less than wonderful skill---or perhaps care--- on the part of the maker, however, in Javanese and Madurese keris, this deficiency will be found 9 times out of ten. The only blade form where we can almost certainly rely upon this fault failing to occur is the Bugis, and often the Peninsula forms, and this can be easily understood, as these blade forms have prioritised weapon functionality above artistic expression; the manner in which these blades are carved virtually guarantees that the pamor will not enter the gusen.

Realism in appraisal calls for standards specific to the blade identity being applied to the blade in question.

We do not appraise a keris of Pajajaran classification according to the same standards that we apply to a keris of Surakarta classification.Nor do we apply the standards of a Javanese keris to a Bugis keris--- or vice versa.