Quote:
Originally Posted by David
As they say (whoever "they" are  ), there are always exceptions to every rule. I am not convinced that means we need to throw the rule away completely. If the majority of kris with separate gangyas still turn out to be pre-1930s and the majority of kris that are one-piece still turn out to be post 1930 then the rule can still be a useful one in determining probability. You have seen two archaic kris that are one-piece blades. Consider how many we have seen with a separate gangya.
This kris of mine i have always wondered about. The photo does not reveal a very faint line which on some days has led me to believe that there is a separate gangya. If that suspicion is true it has a rather amazingly seamless fit. But even if this is a one-piece blade i still remain confident that it is a pre-1930s kris. So i completely agree with you that we cannot date a kris with any certainty based solely upon whether the gangya is separate or not. But i also think it can still be useful as a general guide. |
Point taken and agreed on sir.
I have a trick to check if it's really separate gangya...I aim a heat gun around 4 inches above the line. After around 15 seconds at 400 Celsius setting, the galgal should start to melt, and if it's a 2-part kris, you'll see a telltale sign from the line. Either liquefied black ooze, or in other cases smoke (for those that only had minimal adhesive placed).
There's always the risk of melting the adhesive at the hilt with this tactic, that's why I keep it at 15 seconds tops (usually it takes 30-70 seconds for the hilt's adhesive to wear off in my experience).