[A. G. Maisey]

Those two blades that I posted images of are my work, as guessed by Marco.

They were forged and carved in Wentworthville, near Sydney, Australia.

The first used a classic Surakarta keris as its pattern, but I did not express the ada-ada distinctly, in order to retain the pamor. The material used was old carriage iron and German nickel.The method used to make the pamor was to fold a single very thin leaf of nickel into the iron; four of these pieces were made, which were welded together and folded five times to give a nominal 128 layers of pamor.The pamor forging was then cut in half, turned miring, and the steel core welded in. This is the usual method employed by most Surakarta makers of the current era---except of course for the turn miring. The thingil is a unique variant. Upon completion the blade was heat treated.

The second keris used a number of different old Javanese keris as patterns. In making this my intention was to produce a keris that would not fit any accepted tangguh.The material used was a tyre from a carriage, which means that it needed to be washed repeatedly, as was old iron, before it could be welded to the core. The contrasting material was Indonesian nickel from Luwu, and it was incorporated into the folding at an early stage, resulting in a distribution similar to that found in older keris.The washing ran to something over 9 welds before the iron was clean, however, the nickel was incorporated on the first weld, so the nickel was folded in at the same time that the iron was being washed. There are a number of variants in the garap which would confuse anybody with a knowledge of tangguh, and as I have already remarked, this was my intention.

The execution of garap in both keris is Surakarta.

Blu Erf has suggested that these are similar to the keris that come from my usual sources. Well, this demonstrates I think that photographs are totally inadequate to allow even somebody as knowledgeable as Blu Erf to distinguish material differences in a blade.

Most of the recent keris that I offer are from the Madura school. I do have the occasional recent keris from Surakarta, but the cost of these blades means that they are normally not offered publicly. The materials used in Madura keris are always modern materials, the pamor is produced by using current era products that has a nickel, or other contrasting material, content.

Madura garap is fairly easily recogniseable, when it is compared to Surakarta style garap. One of the obvious differences is in the gusen. There are others of course,such as the fit of the gonjo, the method used to cut a ron dha, the blade angle, but to see these in a photograph can be quite difficult.

If one were to see the keris I posted images of, and some keris from the Madura school, in the hand, the difference would be immediately apparent, but from photographs published over the internet, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to be too certain about anything. Only very, very occasionally can we be reasonably certain of anything, and then that certainty must be based on what one can see in a single dimension.

This thread has been principally directed at identification of a complete keris with a mixture of features.I gave a firm opinion on origin of the blade of this keris. My opinion was based on my experience, and what I could see in the photograph. I have returned to look at the image of that keris many, many times. Based upon what I can see, I cannot alter my opinion.However, were I to hold that keris my opinion might be qualified. Although stylistically that keris is beyond argument Madurese, a microscopic examination of material could indicate other than Madurese origin, feel of the material could indicate other than Madurese origin, weight and balance could be other than Madurese.

What we are doing here is involving ourselves in tangguh. We may not realise this, but that is what it comes down to:- if you wish to classify a blade in any way at all, you are dabbling in tangguh. In determining any tangguh you need to not only look at the form of the keris, but you need to understand the material, you need to understand how it was made, you need to view the angles and corners of the garap from a number of angles, you need to gauge proportion, you need to look very, very closely, often with magnification, at tiny details. Then to understand what you have seen and felt, you need enormous experience.
Sometimes we can offer an opinion based just on style, for instance in a Javanese keris of tangguh segaluh, or in the classic Balinese straight keris, or in some other tangguh with an over-riding distinctive feature, or features, of form that gives a very high probability that this opinion based on form alone would be confirmed were the blade to be handled.
In most cases, however, an opinion based on blade form alone is not enough.

Ultimately, any determination of tangguh is opinion. This is the meaning of the word. Thus, there may be a number of opinions regarding any one blade, usually when an opinion is offered on anything the opinion that is most likely to be correct is the opinion that can be backed with reasons and experience.But any opinion is only as good as the information provided to base that opinion upon, and as I have already demonstrated, photographic images seen on a computer screen are simply not good enough.

Blu Erf, who is an experienced and knowledgeable student of the keris with, I assume, considerable experience, was unable to discern the differences between current Madura, current Surakarta, and a unique approach deliberately created to confuse somebody knowledgeable in tangguh.However, had he had several current era Madura pieces, and the pieces of which I posted images, in his hand, I have no doubt at all that he would have easily observed the differences in material, garap , and method of manufacture.