Hi Nechesh,
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nechesh
Kai, wouldn't the specifics you mention have more to do with the SKILL of the smith than the actual age of the blade. Smith of many different skill levels have always been around.
|
Very true - just wanted to point out some features which hadn't been mentione so far. While later blades often seem to be crafted with less attention to detail, the reverse doesn't hold true.
Quote:
It does seem to me that this particular dapor (if i may borrow a Javanese term here  ) is much more common in 19thC blades than 20th.
|
Yup, but can we differentiate between the "original" and Bill's "revival hypothesis"?
Quote:
|
There does seem to be a seperate gangya, so if pressed i would guess this was 19thC work.
|
Many of the available blades with seperate gangya are from the early decades of the 20thC, so this doesn't really help to argue a late 19thC vs. early 20thC case, does it?
Quote:
|
The sheath also looks like older work.Was it made for the blade (i.e. how's the fit?)
|
Good point. (Can we differentiate between old vintage and antique wood work in a tropical climate?)
This easily could really be a (late) 19thC blade with later replaced clamp and ferrule (40ies?) while the horn hilt seems to be more recent. As Rick points out, this may be mainly guessing and I wouldn't want to base a buying decision on this scenario. Thus, my conservative guess to be on the safe side.
Since we seem to agree that this is a refitted kris without established provenance my main point is to concentrate on the blade and its quality: IMHO a few decades older or younger won't effect the collectors value as much as the quality of the blade. If an etch were to reveal nice pattern-welding, I would gladly pay a "late 19thC price" even for an 20thC blade. If I really like the blade, I may even obtain it regardless of any "resale value" considerations.
Been there, done that...
Regards,
Kai