[VVV]

I don't think it's possible to always clearly draw the line between what is a Tumbok Lada and what is a Sewar. Also these blades show up in several regions and the reference works sometimes contradicts each other.
In van Z the blades he show as examples of a Tumbok Lada all are clearly that. But some of the blades in van Z that are examples of Sewars are "inbetween".
When I tried to classify before posting my examples I looked at three features; the upper sheath decoration (shorter and rounded vs longer and rectangular), the hilt (compressed and chubby vs longer and slimmer) and the blade (thicker and straight vs slimmer and curved).
I have enclosed two examples of what I believe is clearly a Tumbok Lada and a Sewar on this.
But what happens when a knife is 2/3 correct according to the orthodox classification?
Like my third example that clearly looks like a Tumbok Lada when in the sheath. But then the blade is more like a Sewar?
Either you can call them hybrides or you could classify them on which one of the two styles it's closest?
The problem is that very few blades I have seen do fit the strict classification. So if a knife has all the Tumbok Lada characteristics except the blade I think it's a Tumbok Lada, like f.i. Shahrial's example.
It seems as if the Tumbok Lada vs Sewar is more a collector's classification dilemma than locally used terms based on the contradictions in the original reference works?
Like the Tenegre, Binangon, Sundang, Pinuti, Bolo discussions going on within this forum on the Visayan weapons.