New Made keris, dhapur Mundarang

A. G. Maisey · 25th June 2009, 03:57 AM

Ferry, please do not misunderstand me.

I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you.

I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem.

Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem.

Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno.

By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

25th June 2009, 03:57 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,019	Ferry, please do not misunderstand me. I am not criticising your keris, nor am I criticising you. I am simply saying that if a dhapur is fixed, then that dhapur cannot vary in the assemblage of its ricikan. It cannot vary by even the slightest degree, if it does, it no longer conforms to the parameters for that particular dhapur, within the relevant pakem. Your keris is a very nicely made keris, no doubt of it. The pawakan and ron dha are Surakarta, thus it must be considered to be a Surakarta keris. However, regretably it does not comply with the Surakarta pakem. Perhaps we could avoid this small deficiency if we were to say that it is a keris of dhapur mandhurang, in accordance with the pakem of Mr. Haryono Haryoguritno. By giving the pakem for reference all difference of opinion can be avoided.