My understanding of "wesi pulen" is that it is very finely grained iron, it is not open grain, it is not porous, the surface presents as well packed and smooth.
In keris belief there is whole range of names for supposedly different types of iron, I have yet to meet anybody who can give a consistent opinion on all these various presentations of iron.
The problem is this:- iron can have varying appearances or presentations depending on a number of factors:- a piece of iron can be open pored and yellowish if treated in one way, but if treated in a different way it can be tightly packed, smooth and a prestigious blue-black. In fact, depending on how it is stained, it can even display green or red tones.
In my opinion, the various names given to iron in keris belief refer to the visual perception, and sometimes the tonal (sound) perception, or even the feel of the surface, they cannot refer to the composition or analysis or origin of the iron.
So, in the case of wesi pulen, I feel it is rather unwise to attribute this name on the basis of colour, rather, it might be wiser to use only the tightness of perceived grain as the indicator.
However, it might be even more wise to forget about the names altogether and learn the appearance of iron that is likely to be of good quality, well worked, well preserved.
If we take modern mild steel and work it well in the forge, and pack it well, it will present a smooth, tightly packed surface.
If we take good quality 200 year old wrought iron --- often this type of iron was used in carriage strapping --- fold it 8 or 10 times, pack it well, that 200 year old wrought iron will also present a smooth tightly packed surface.
The colour of both can be varied according to the staining process.
The only way to really know what an iron is, is by using laboratory analysis.
I have not mentioned the "Name Game" for a long time. I was being accused of having a fixation on this propensity of collectors to want to stick a name on everything. However, knowing a lot of names and strange words is not a substitute for being able to recognise quality. To my mind it is not particularly important what we name something, it is much more important that we can recognise it for what it truly is.
|