Javanese keris for comment

[Tatyana Dianova]

Thank you all very much for your input! I am glad that this subject have provoked such an interesting discussion. Now I would like to clear some points mentioned after I have looked closer on the Keris:
1. The mendak really looks like it was covered with some kind of let's say old and weared off gold, if you judge from the look, but not much of it left and it doesn't look bright.
2. The sheath probably belonged to the other blade before, because it was fitted with the pieces of wood in the corners, but this wood looks also quite old.
3. The etching is not as strong as it looks on most pictures - I have enhanced them all digitally. In reality it looks like the right picture in the first row, but even more subdued and not blueish but brownish. For the example of the picture directly from the camera look below.
4. There seems to be a steelcore, at least it is visible at some places on the cuttting edge of the blade (you can also see it on the pictures).
5. I was not able to see any chiesel marks anywhere on the blade, also no such marks on the tikel alis and pejetan. The surface there is exactly the same as anywhere else: each nickel layer is much higher then iron layer between them and also sharp, the surface looks like a very coarse and deep file and is a hell to care for. I would like to say that it is not possible to have unseen chiesel marks on such kind of surface. The so called steelcore is also looks pitted and quite old.
6. The outer ridges of the sogokan and tikel alis are also not so sharp as they look on the pictures.
Hope it clears something. Anyway, the keris can still be a new one that was very skillfully made looking old. It was NOT sold to me by dealer as an old, precious, expensive, kraton keris; it is just a keris whose looks I liked and then wanted to know more about it.
I live also in Germany (Chemnitz) and can show the keris in person.

[BluErf]

Thanks to Empu Kumis for the pointers.

Well, maybe we should give the Madura smiths a little break. At least they are working on improving their keris-making craft... short-cuts or not. And while I hope that would not be the way it goes, but these Madurese smiths may be one of the few last 'bastion' of keris-making. Hopefully out of the chafe, a few of these smiths will rise to be nearly as good as the smiths and empus of old. But 1st they must visit more museums and read more books with pictures of good old kerises...

[ronpakis]

Well, id know it wasn't to old (late 19th) but newly made?? They are getting really good out there. I must say i find it more easy to see that ria's keris is newly made than the other one. Too bad, old blades with this kind of pamor are not easy to find and are not made for the average man. thanks e.k.

[Battara]

On the dress, I would agree with Rick and even suggest that it may be simple brass with less copper in it. Polished brass looks lighter in color than one would think. Nice assessment Rick. Thank you Empu for your observations.

[capt.smash]

I realy like both these blades ....i feel that age isnt that importabt as long as the quality and character are there.

[BluErf]

There are many ways to make a blade look older, one common way is to leave the blade in acid for long periods of time. Sometimes, the blade is buried for a while. All of these artificial aging process has one common consequence -- the corrosion on the blade is too even.

Wear and tear on a keris blade that has taken place naturally is a 'random' affair, meaning that the rust takes hold on a few spots only. When cleaned off, it leaves a corroded spot while the other spots are not so corroded. Over long periods of time, this 'uneven' corrosion becomes more and more evident. Plus, natural corrosion of the blade by rust is also accompanied by constant rubbing of blade against sheath when it is put in and taken out of the sheath, so the blade surface while corroded, is smoothened out and has a 'not so sharp' surface. Artificially aged kerises, especially those with pamor miring, has a 'sharp' surface. Looking at the blade above, it is easy to see the superb evenness of the corrosion.

As for the blade having no slorok, you can see in spots of the blade where there is a gap between the pamor lines, but there appears to be no metal underneath. This is not the 1st time I've seen such a kind of blade with no slorok. The other example I've seen actually seemed to be of Riau or Peninsula origins as the pamor is of the non-contrasting form, and the dapur is also quite un-Javanese or Madurese. But then again, these kerises are meant to be 'lookers' and its not surprising that the modern day smiths take shortcuts to produce better-looking pieces faster.

At the end of the day, its what we are looking for as a collector that determines whether we should buy a keris or not, but we should buy it with our eyes open.


And as to the question of good kerises, it is recommended to read the "What makes a good keris" thread, but it is also true that 'good' is a relative term. When the market is flooded with poorly-made new pieces, the slightly better average pieces would look much better in comparison. While there are good old examples in museums (sometimes museums display questionable and not so good kerises too) and books for reference, they are usually forgotten because we don't see them every day, and there is a sense that those are kerises of a different level and not for the common collector. And so the 'good' applied to the kerises (including all the thousands of Madura Muda pieces) floating in the present world is of a different standard.


Anyway, enough of my ramblings, but just to show why I have faith in these Madurese smiths -- here's my example of a Madura Muda keris with pamor blarak ngirid, made properly with a slorok, and not artificially aged. Think many of you have seen this before.

[BluErf]

Btw, is this keris considered to have a pudak setegal? I know I have seen pudak setegal that sticks out of the profile, but what is the defining feature of a pudak setegal vs a lis-lisan? Thanks.

(Picture taken from previous thread)