Dear Marco,
Before we define the real and fake kendhit, it would be better if we define the proper wrangka’s cut first.
The properly cut sheaths/warangkas should have slightly angled wood grains/fibres, about 45 degrees, usually ascending from left to right if we look at the ‘face’ side of warangkas. Traditionally, it is called ‘ngiris tempe’ (slicing the tempe, in the ordinary way of slicing, certainly) or ‘mayat miring.’ (So, Mas Ganjawulung, ‘mayat’ not necessarily means corpse, but might also means ‘roughly 45 degrees angled.’ Mayat might also used to define the ‘condhong – leleh’ of the keris blade).
Another alternative to ‘mayat miring’ is slightly vertical grain. The sheath maker should decides the proper angle according to the ‘pelet’ (in Timoho wood) or the grain’s pattern (in Trembalo, Sandalwood, or any other woods) for the best artistical/aesthetical appearance. These grain directions are also the best from technical point of view.
Other alternatives, such as ‘mlumah’ (‘lay down’/’sleepy’, that is, the horizontal grain), is not acceptable in traditional standar.
A special exclusion is for ‘gembol’ wood, that is, the wood which come from the lowest part of the trunk, on the ground level, just before the root. It has a very twisted grain, so ones cannot easily define the grain’s direction. The Cahaya’s picture, left side, is an example. Regarding this wood, the sheath maker would be more concern to the holes it bears, as the gembol wood usually has many holes.
Now it comes to the real and fake kendhit.
To meet the traditional sheaths cuting standard (mayat miring or vertical grain), a real kendhit pattern should be perpendicular to the wood grain. In the other words, the pelet direction should cross the grain direction. It should also pass through the warangka, as Ganjawulung said. But as the dark pattern (pelet) in timoho wood tends to grow following the wood grain direction, a straight and perpendicular pelet would be quite rare. The same condition also apply to the ‘sembur’ pelet, which is, in fact, rarer than kendhit.
Thus, which one is considered as the fake kendhit ?
1. The kendhit pattern which is parallel to the wood grain (so we have a kendhit pattern on ‘mlumah’ sheath). Remember, the kendhit pattern may also go through the warangka in this circumstance
2. The kendhit pattern which was made by drawing it (certainly a fake).
3. The kendhit pattern which was made by patching the wood with pelet from another wood. Some minor patches in kendhit pattern would be acceptable, but if the majority of the pattern come up from patching, well, it can’t be classified as a real kendhit, can it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ganjawulung
Hi Marco,
.. with "mendak" (hilt ring) of "meniran" type. Yogyakartanese hilt, is better without selut. Simplicity, is the philosophy of Yogyakarta. Contrary with Solonese, which is more "gebyar" or glamour than Yogyakartanese..
|
Mas Ganjawulung, I believe the proper name in Jogjakarta’s style mendhak you previously referred as "meniran" type is ‘mendhak lugas’ (lugas = plain, that is, without stone). Mendhak with one tier stone is ‘mendhak kendhit’, and three tiers is called ‘mendhak robyong’. A one tier mendhak with alternatively white-and-red stone (diamond and ruby) is called ‘nyonyah nginang’ (a lady chewing pinang/sirih) and those with diamond, ruby and emerald (white, red and green) is called ‘rujak wuni’ (rujak=a fruit salad). IMHO, selut on the Marco’s first hilt is also reflecting Jogjakarta philosophy : simplicity
Actually, IMHO, the mendhak on the Marco's second hilt isn't Jogjakarta's style mendhak. If I'm not mistaken, it is Surakarta's 'bejen'. The first one is Mendhak kendhit. See carefully at the 'ungkat-ungkatan' (the tumpeng/gunung/ cone-shape between the ball/stones)
wish may help
boedhi adhitya