Thank you all very much for your input! I am glad that this subject have provoked such an interesting discussion. Now I would like to clear some points mentioned after I have looked closer on the Keris:
1. The mendak really looks like it was covered with some kind of let's say old and weared off gold, if you judge from the look, but not much of it left and it doesn't look bright.
2. The sheath probably belonged to the other blade before, because it was fitted with the pieces of wood in the corners, but this wood looks also quite old.
3. The etching is not as strong as it looks on most pictures - I have enhanced them all digitally. In reality it looks like the right picture in the first row, but even more subdued and not blueish but brownish. For the example of the picture directly from the camera look below.
4. There seems to be a steelcore, at least it is visible at some places on the cuttting edge of the blade (you can also see it on the pictures).
5. I was not able to see any chiesel marks anywhere on the blade, also no such marks on the tikel alis and pejetan. The surface there is exactly the same as anywhere else: each nickel layer is much higher then iron layer between them and also sharp, the surface looks like a very coarse and deep file and is a hell to care for. I would like to say that it is not possible to have unseen chiesel marks on such kind of surface. The so called steelcore is also looks pitted and quite old.
6. The outer ridges of the sogokan and tikel alis are also not so sharp as they look on the pictures.
Hope it clears something. Anyway, the keris can still be a new one that was very skillfully made looking old. It was NOT sold to me by dealer as an old, precious, expensive, kraton keris; it is just a keris whose looks I liked and then wanted to know more about it.
I live also in Germany (Chemnitz) and can show the keris in person.
|