Kai Wee, I do not challenge your opinion in even the slightest degree, you're swimming in one pool, I'm swimming in another.
However, in the matter of keris aesthetics, as they apply in the Javanese sense, it is not a matter of personal preferences, it is a matter of certain very specific criteria being met. The Tok Chu blade quite simply fails in many respects to meet those critieria, however, the other blade, although it does have some shortcomings, does meet those criteria in many important respects. The biggest single point of difference in the two blades from my point of view, is the total and absolute failure of the Tok Chu blade to create a viable poyuhan:- in this blade the poyuhan just does not exist, and this ---from a Javanese perspective---destroys the entire blade. Secondary is the pawakan---slim women , well endowed ones.
I can easily understand how in a discreet environment the Tok Chu blade could be highly regarded for many reasons, but appraised by Javanese criteria, it doesn't make it. The other blade almost does make it.
However, the main point of my previous post was this:- in respect of these two specific blades, I accept that all my comments could be totally irrelevant, however , using these two blades as examples, I have been able to comment on a couple of very important aesthetic factors. If I were to try to use two Javanese blades to carry out the same exercise, the difference between superb and terrible would be so slight that no untrained person could see it.
|