Comment?

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Marcokeris

I am interested Jean

I am also interested in keris hilts. I think posting these do not violate the privacy of the keris as the hilts are often shown when a keris is worn by its owner so the Public can see that part.

On many of my keris the greneng can be different than the pamor so that the pamor of the blade is not visible by the public. Here is one of my Balinese.
I guess that showing the overall dress is appropriate.

[A. G. Maisey]

I have been intending to enter this post with images since Gustav made available the image of a part of the Jayasukadgo, but I kept forgetting to do it.

The images I have posted are from Haryoguritno's book "Keris Jawa", probably the most definitive work on the Javanese keris that we have seen.

We believe that the way in which a genuine empu cuts his greneng, and most especially his ron dha is more or less his signature to his work, and that it does not vary. Thus, the ron dha is the indicator of the empu who has made the keris.

Compare the Jayasukadgo ron dha images that I have posted with the ron dha that we find on the keris that is attributed to Jayasukadgo in the image that Gustav has posted.

Are they the same?

The word "same" in this context does not mean "similar", it means "identical".

The variation in spelling of Jayasukadgo's name is due to the observance of differing conventions, neither spelling is correct, neither spelling is incorrect, both are an approximation.

[Jean]

I have a preliminary opinion but it would be easier to assess if Gustav could post a pic of the greneng on the ganja tail & wadidang

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, the ron dha on the jenggot should not vary from the ron dha on the gonjo or wadidang. The ron dha we can see is the ron dha of the maker.

Is this ron dha identical to the ron dha shown by Haryoguritno?

I'm not asking if the keris is truly by Jayasukadgo, it is not possible to do that, I am only asking if Haryoguritno's Jayasukadgo ron dha is the same as Gustav's Jayasukadgo ron dha.

[kai]

Hello Alan,

I'll play...

I'm not asking if the keris is truly by Jayasukadgo, it is not possible to do that, I am only asking if Haryoguritno's Jayasukadgo ron dha is the same as Gustav's Jayasukadgo ron dha.

Setting aside vagaries of relying on drawings (even if fairly accurate), It certainly doesn't look identical. I'll try to post a comparison pic later...

I would expect the ron dha of the jenggot to be the last to yield to any erosion/restoration (followed by any on the gonjo while any on the wadidang are likely to fade into oblivion first).

I can see how one would expect a 100 year old keris (or any well-preserved blade, especially from museum collections) would be expected tolook original. However, any worn blade will have seen several revisions over its life time. I have a hard time to believe that any "signature" would survive unscathed; and, if so, the artisan(s) doing the revision(s) would need to be able to "fake" the signature. Seems like opening Pandora's box to me...

Regards,
Kai

[Jean]

My reply is: no, they are not identical, see pics.

[kai]

Often fotos are not taken at the right angle (exactly vertically from the main features) - this one seems to be fairly ok though.

Regards,
Kai

[A. G. Maisey]

Yeah, that's easier to compare, I should have done that myself, didn't think of it.

Thanks Kai.

Yes, a blade can become worn over time, however, the wear on a Jayasukadgo is going to be minimal, if there is any at all. With a Jayasukadgo we are are considering a blade that has been made in modern times, more or less 100 years old. It was a very expensive blade to begin with, and it is reasonable to assume that it has only ever been used as a dress accessory, never as a weapon, and never subjected to rough treatment.

Given that the Haryoguritno drawings show the perfect signature, it seems to me that the extremely wide variation between Haryoguritno's ron dha, and the ron dha on Gustav's keris suggests that either Haryoguritno's representation is incorrect, or the attribution of Jayasukadgo to the detail that Gustav has shown is incorrect.

Let me be clear:- I am not suggesting that Gustav is incorrect, he is only reporting that which somebody else has provided an opinion for.

That which I have attempted to do here is to demonstrate the need for extreme care whenever we attempt to identify origin of a keris blade, be that a geographic origin, an origin in point of time, or an attribution to a particular maker. We need to pay very, very close attention to minute detail.

Certainly, some blades are easier than others to put into a particular classification in geographic terms, but as we move up the register of quality and attempt to place a precise location, time, or maker onto a blade extremely comprehensive knowledge is required, as well as very great attention to detail.