Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
I've noted the question but I an unable to reply at the moment. 6.am here and I'm off to answer some very different questions at a couple of meetings in Sydney.
|
Thanks for noting the question Alan. I look forward to your response.
Just to extend this a bit further, when we talk about Keris Pandai Saras they all usually show the same indicators that allow us to make that designation. Some may be straight, some luk, but we expect to see the same diamond cross section, a generally slim blade and similar application of greneng. It is therefore clearly identifiable as a Keris Pandai Saras, regardless of whether it was actually made by the famed pandai himself.
At this point the O.P. has posted 4 keris that in my estimation show great differences in form far beyond the simple lurus/luk question. I note different cross-sections, greneng, even iron types. These 4 keris really couldn't be more dissimilar to my eyes. So if we do not hold the almost impossible provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu himself, how or why should they all hold the same type name?
