Questions on 2 Javanese blades

[Green]

here's the pics of the two blades with the hilts

[Jean]

Hello Green,
Thank you for the better pics. I will leave Alan to reply about the tangguh issue if he wishes, I would estimate that both blades were made during the 19th century, the 5 luk blade has pamor tambal only (no wengkon), and the 9 luk blade is quite worn-out and crudely made (pejetan, gonjo, upper pamor pattern).
The carved javanese hilt is in a quite rare but legitimate style I think. The janggelan hilt looks too big for the 9 luk blade IMO.
Best regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I would estimate that both blades were made during the 19th century, the 5 luk blade has pamor tambal only (no wengkon), and the 9 luk blade is quite worn-out and crudely made (pejetan, gonjo, upper pamor pattern).

I suspect that the 9 luk might be a bit older than 19th century. I think the blade is more worn-out that crudely made.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

I suspect that the 9 luk might be a bit older than 19th century. I think the blade is more worn-out that crudely made.

Agree complete with you, I think as well that the blade is older as 19th century and think that the blade is too worn to state that it's crudely made.

[Sajen]

For a little better view!

[A. G. Maisey]

Yes, the 5 luk keris has no wengkon, what appeared to be the wengkon, is in fact the steel slorok (core). In respect of the age of this keris I hesitate to put an age onto it. If I were to handle it I might feel more inclined to take a punt, but from a pic? Not really --- but still, how about later than 1700, earlier than 1900?

The 9 luk is definitely an older piece, it is not a Central Javanese style, I feel it may have been quite a decent keris when it was new, and I'm inclined to place it as pre-1800.

However, when we involve ourselves in putting dates AS WE UNDERSTAND TIME onto a Javanese keris we are engaging in a pretty silly exercise.

In many cases we can CLASSIFY a keris according to a Solonese originated system that we call "tangguh". Although this system principally uses the names of historic eras to classify a keris, the relationship of the classification to the historic era is part of a system of belief, it is not reality --- except in the case of later classifications, such as Surakarta, or Hamengkubuwanaan, or Kemardikan.

Another problem with tangguh is that the way it is used now is as a part of a selling system, in that everybody who buys a keris wants to hear a tangguh attached to it, and almost everybody who sells a keris wants to name a tangguh for the keris he is selling. This is modern usage, and has little relevance to the reasons for the initiation of the tangguh system.

This is what Jean meant when he said that the quality of the kerises was not high enough to permit giving a tangguh. In the classical sense Jean was absolutely correct. But in the modern sense I'd say that most current generation collectors would throw their hat into the ring and give an opinion for one tangguh or another. In fact, that is the meaning of the word "tangguh" = "opinion".

Here is a link to a few comments I wrote some years ago that may assist in gaining a slight understanding of the idea of "tangguh".

http://www.kerisattosanaji.com/keristangguh.html

In respect of the hilts, the "corn cob" looks old, the planar I have no idea at all if old or recent, nor of material; in the hand I could say with reasonable certainty, from a photo I cannot. The planar hilt appears to be East Javanese in origin.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This is what Jean meant when he said that the quality of the kerises was not high enough to permit giving a tangguh. In the classical sense Jean was absolutely correct. But in the modern sense I'd say that most current generation collectors would throw their hat into the ring and give an opinion for one tangguh or another. In fact, that is the meaning of the word "tangguh" = "opinion".

Thanks Alan. I realize that Green did inquire about tangguh, so this information will hopefully be useful to him. However, what both myself and Detlef were commenting on was Jean describing this 9 luk blade as "crudely" made. Indeed this keris is no masterpiece and probably technically not worthy of assigning tangguh by more conservative methods, but i don't believe we are looking at a crudely made blade here, just one that has had perhaps more than its share of acid washings. And from what i understand from this conversation on pamors it would seem that the presence of a complex pamor miring as well as what appears to be multiple pamor forms it seems that this was more likely a keris created for someone of means who i can only assume would not have accepted a "crudely" forged keris for the extra money spent.