[tom hyle]

Well, other than to point out that some of the lines are actually a little bit wiggly and that this is very likely a traditional design and not invented by the carver, I guess I've said my say on the skill level; believe what you will, but let me ask, can you justify the claim of mastery? What is it that anyone thinks requires a master's hand here? Because I, an experienced cutter of wood, see nothing like that. Why are the fingers so bulbous? If that's master's work then it's intentional and meaningful. Abstract lines, curved or straight, are much easier than fingers. I think the concept of master artisan/first rate work is misunderstood and considerably over-applied by modern people, BTW; to say something is not masterly does not mean it is not good. To hark to the European guild system, journeymen typically must display a level of skill and knowledge that would generally be considered very impressive. The typical professional working craftsman is a journeyman. Most firms in the past (usually family operated of course) did not have a single master craftsman. Most craftsmen never in their lives became masters. Most of us may have never seen master's work outside of musea and books (though there's a confusing and distressing tendency where the boss's name goes on it no matter who made it). Perhaps the term "mpu" is/was given out more lightly, but I somehow doubt it.
Bluerf, I'm not sure what point the hilt you show us is supposed to make about the hilt we're discussing, or at least how it's supposed to make it? The two are quite different.
My point with the whole mastery question was that the general level of carving skill seen here is such that an error of the type proposed, especially in an area of difficult grain, is believeable.
It often seems pointless and almost silly to discuss "quality", since judgements of it tend to be highly cultural and subjective and often do not seem suceptible to logic; Andy Warhol? Terrible painter; no good at all; No skill, no ability, no depth, no soul; recently saw some of his work in person; junk; very poorly made; see? Subjective. There are people that would about throw a brick at me for saying that, and consider it proof positive that I know nothing about art; I might say the same of most of them for saying it's any good.....who paints a million soup cans without learning to depict the curve believably?.....subjective. Therefore, back to the subject: I note something I didn't earlier, and that's that the left leg has many lines, and the right leg none (the lines I'd noticed, of course, but the none I hadn't; in all fairness it was the left hand to which our attention had been directed.). This in mind, and with the thought that these lines represent fabric wrinkles (?), possibly including the one that descends from the hand (is it the same shape of groove?)? The shine on the piece really makes it hard to see the wood or the surface; a fairly common difficulty with photos. She could be reaching two fingers into the fabric to scratch her leg, or to hike up her skirt. I don't know how that would tie in to any myth or standard gesture, but I think I've seen statues of Kali exposing herself, and the fingers do look more like they are disappearing into the skirt than as if they are curled in to the palm. Don't dismiss too quickly; Mjolnir the lightning-hammer has a short handle because an assistant smith got distracted by a biting fly (though it was not actually an ordinary fly, but in art.....). This is a very important part of that myth; one of its main moral points, without which it would almost never be related or depicted. Gods are often scratching their butts in stories....or maybe she's reaching for something. Aren't Durga and Kali the same/aspects of one being/etc?