Comment?

[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.