Gustav, Alan, & David, many thanks for the replies
I'm still traveling at the moment (in Europe), and I continue to sift through hundreds of pics I've taken and counting (all about edged weapons, and which I'll post on separate threads later -- but just the ones I'm allowed to post). Hence, it may take some time before I can reply in more detail.
But here's a few quick ones --
1. first of all, I'm glad that these friendly 'debates' amongst forum members can be made: as said, if people are always agreeing, then no new knowledge can possibly arise;
2. I still think that your (Gustav & David's) definition on what makes a blade a keris-kris is very restrictive; and
3. but rather than debate on my no. 2 above, would there be a 3rd party definition we can all resort to? (e.g., from an authoritative book on kerises, so that it's not my own definition vs. your own definition) -- but this is not to say that I doubt what anybody here is saying; I'm just trying to borrow a principle that's used in business, wherein whenever there's disagreement, then one resorts to common industry practice or to a third party definition (e.g., via the judicial courts' previous clarifications).
On the other hand, I also realize that defining what a keris-kris is, can be tricky even among experts. But still, it might be worth a try.
Also, another way to resolve the matter (at least in the case of Moro krises), is to ask the old timers & smiths (i.e., Moros), on what makes a Moro kris a Moro kris. And whatever definition they'll give will have to be it I guess, since these are the very people that make these. I'm really meaning to interview Moro old timers soon. Thus, everybody please wish me 'luck'!
Finally, I just like to kindly reiterate that coming up with a definition as to what makes a bladed weapon a 'keris' [Javanese] or a 'kris' [Moro], etc., is the crux of the matter.
And my humble assessment of the current state of the 'debate' is this, and I'd like to use an analogy:
a. first, let's liken the kingdom of blades into the animal kingdom, where you have all sorts of birds, insects, fishes, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, etc.;
b. now for me, I define a "keris-kris" to be like the "primates", i.e., apes of all sizes & variations (all the guys we see below), that is, even though there are variations in these apes' looks, yet they are unique enough compared to the other mammals, & much more vs. the other animals;
c. and if I may be a little redundant just for the avoidance of doubt, I similarly think that the keris-kris form factor is unique enough vs. other blades, such even though the Bohol kalis may not have the finer details of a Javanese keris of the same age, yet compared to all the other blades out there, the differences between the Bohol kalis & Javanese keris will not be that significant relatively speaking; and
d. but on the other hand, my understanding of what David & Gustav are saying, is that they are alternatively defining a "keris-kris" (and still using my same analogy), to be a "gorilla" and nothing short of it.
In summary, in my own view a keris or kris stands out enough within the 'blade kingdom' by virtue of its unique shape. In the same manner, primates by virtue of their unique features, similarly stand out enough.
And for somebody to define a primate as equal to a gorilla only, is being too restrictive
Thus in conclusion, a definition [of a keris-kris] that would be the consensus of most experts should be had first IMHO, before further meaningful discussions can continue.
Just my two cents, and thanks to all.
PS - Like all analogies, at a certain point my analogy will fail. But I do hope that my little illustration above helps clarifies things a little. Thanks.