I consider this keris 100% authentic, but I have never seen a Bali keris with this type of ornamentation on the gandhik. Usually if there is a gandhik carving it is a Bhoma or something similar, not a human figure in a yoga position.To my mind there is not really any place for this figure in the keris culture that is associated with Bali. I guess it probably qualifies as a puthut, but I've never seen a puthut rendered like this.
But that does not make it non-authentic, nor a forgery. Most definitely not a forgery.
My first thought on the carving was as I said, enhance sale value, but it may have been put there or ordered to be put there by a yoga practitioner.
As to "old collection", well, if I die tomorrow --- Heaven Forbid!! --- my collection can be sold as an "old collection". My personal collection dates from 1953, but it incorporates my grandfather's collection which was put together immediately after WWI, around 1919 through to around 1930.
The tourists started to find their way to Bali not long after the puputans, and by the 1920's it was certainly on the tourist map.
Yes, it is a nice pamor motif, but not uncommon.
On the question of when does an alteration become a forgery, or perhaps, let us say, when does an alteration remove legitimacy from a keris. That's a hard question to answer. I think I must consider any blade that has been deliberately altered, rather than enhanced must be considered non-legit. For instance, the straight keris that is turned into a waved keris, the big old Tuban keris that is recarved to make it look like a more prestigious classification. This sort of thing. Not the addition of a good quality skilful carving that does not alter the body of the blade.
|