[Gustav]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Oh dear me Gustav.

Am I being a little too subjective?

Please forgive me. I guess I've spent to much time in Jawa and around people from that place, and sometimes what I say depends on what side of the bed I get out of.

However, maybe you have enough objectivity for the both of us, so yes, of course both these keris are ordinary, and both are old, and both are nice.

But Scott did not ask for a comparison his keris with any other keris, and it is very obvious from his post that he has maybe never seen any keris other than this one, not only that, but it was given to him by his dad.

So what is my preferred response to his question?

What should my evaluation be?

If I were responding to somebody with a reasonable degree of experience my response would be calculated to encourage that person to try to aim just a little bit higher with his next acquisition.

However, in responding to a newcomer to keris, especially one who has asked for some information on a gift from his father, my response will be calculated to encourage him, and to endorse the integrity of the item presented.

It would be very nice if Scott were to become a member of our small community and develop an interest in keris, such a thing would be extremely unlikely to occur were we to denigrate a gift from his father, especially a gift about which many good things can be said.

Gustav, any teacher who is worth his salt will only ever provide information at the level that the student is ready, and able, to assimilate.
The student's level of existing knowledge is indicated by his questions.

Alan, I understand your points, thank you.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Scott's blade has no lambe gajah

Maybe yes, maybe not. The Gandhik is not cylindrical, and if you blow up the picture, there seems to be a tiny bulge and indentation at the place they should be.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I know of no Balinese pakem, but Djelenga does list a dhapur (angun-angunan) for a dhapur that he calls "sempana sanga" (sanga = 9), in other words a 9 luk sempana, but there is a bit of a problem in using Djelenga's indicators, because he does not differentiate between what the Javanese refer to "lambe gajah " and "Jalen", he dumps them both into the same basket:- do both need to exist to be a lambe gajah, or is one sufficient? Do both have the same value, or can one exist alone and still be a lambe gajah, if so, which one --- or either one?

There is a further problem. Djelenga seems to consider that ripandan is the same as greneng (jambul, raeng), but in Javanese terminology a ripandan is only a part of the greneng, so in Djelenga's eyes, is it sufficient for only a ripandan to exist for a keris to have greneng, or is the Balinese concept of raeng and jambul different to the Javanese concept of greneng, or ripandan?

Djelenga is using Lomboknese terms for Keris parts in his book; there are also some Javanese ones in his "Lombok" diagram - I don't know, if they are traditionally used in Lombok, or simply have substituted the original Lombok ones. Or there were none at all.

The Balinese terms are different, I can imagine nobody is using them today. A good diagram (of course quite rudimental comparing to Javanese) can be found in Jasper&Mas Pirngadie, p. 224.

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Are flat luk usual for dhapur sempana?

I rather think not, the form of luk depends upon the period during which the blade was made, not upon the dhapur.

Do you know of some other Dhapur we could find flat Luk so constantly?

In which time period or periods flat Luk are favored?

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So Gustav, when we try to apply dhapur to a Balinese keris, we're up the creek without a paddle. This is the reason I personally prefer not to try to get too specific with names of dhapur, pamor, or ricikan outside of Jawa. In fact, it is perhaps wise not to get too involved in trying to tie dhapurs onto any blade, except those made by Kraton Surakarta mpus after about 1900. One tiny variation in ricikan from a pakem disallows the affixation of any dhapur, and the keris automatically becomes "diluar pakem". It’s a bit like the girl who forgot when to say "STOP":- you can't be a little bit pregnant, you either are or you are not. A keris has a defined dhapur, or it does not.

I completely agree. Maybe I should use something like Balinese "Sempono type" Keris