What pamor is this?

[David]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

well I must say I'd like to be entertained.
we must not consider the sandangan as a guide to 'tangguh'
lets just observe the keris.

Let us see the gandik, its tall and "rubuh"....which mean this gandik must have a "kembang kacang''. and it have kembang kacang indeed.
the question is " should it be POGOG or the normal shape?"
the front wadidang looks funny to me. I can imagine if only it has a normal shape of kembang kacang. it would be much-much better in shape. specially tha shape of front wadidang. its quite common that kembang kacang pogog would be a so nicely combined with a straight gandik. in other hand...kembang kacang pogog and a gandik rubuh (sloping gandik) like this one is a terrible combination.

then we can see the ODO-ODO.
it looks quite tall since the sogokan is also very very deep, tall, and looks wide also. the blade is thin so the odo-odo looks tall.

we can say that since the blade it self looks clean, (needs warangan).
but we can see the pamor is applied in a thin layers. this style of pamor application is very balinese .

how about the greneng? is it indicate an original shape or not? in my opinion its fine alright. its still original in shape.

honestly, I dont see any thing at all that indicate this keris revers to blambangan.

So Ferrylaki, if i understand you correctly, from this one overall photo viewed on a computer screen you have been able to determine the following:
1. The gandik has been re-formed
2. the pamor layers are thin, which means this is a Bali keris
3. the blade is thin which makes the odo-odo look tall
4. The sogokan are "very, very deep"
5. the greneng has not been re-formed (does this look like Bali greneng to you?)
6. the tagguh is not Blambangan (though that was never stated)

You can really see all that in this one photograph? I am quite impressed by this skill.
Do you have any provenanced Bali keris to show us to help support your belief that this is an old Bali keris? Can you support your ideas in any way other than your own observations based on this one photograph?
Do you have any response to the fact that the very keris in question apparently appears in a notable book on keris attributed to Mpu Supo and described as Dhapur Pasopati with pamor Wos Wutah?

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by David

So Ferrylaki, if i understand you correctly, from this one overall photo viewed on a computer screen you have been able to determine the following:
1. The gandik has been re-formed
2. the pamor layers are thin, which means this is a Bali keris
3. the blade is thin which makes the odo-odo look tall
4. The sogokan are "very, very deep"
5. the greneng has not been re-formed (does this look like Bali greneng to you?)
6. the tagguh is not Blambangan (though that was never stated)

You can really see all that in this one photograph? I am quite impressed by this skill.
Do you have any provenanced Bali keris to show us to help support your belief that this is an old Bali keris? Can you support your ideas in any way other than your own observations based on this one photograph?
Do you have any response to the fact that the very keris in question apparently appears in a notable book on keris attributed to Mpu Supo and described as Dhapur Pasopati with pamor Wos Wutah?

I must say that
1. the gandik it just fine. it hasn't been re-formed.
2. the pamor is consist of only a few layers of thin pamor which indicate it is a bali keris. since bali keris applied this method of pamor making cinsistently.

3. yes I can see that all in a slight view from a photograph. and I've been study keris like crazy this last three years. I found that there is a very remarkable consistent keris making method is applied in each era and tangguh. even in the same periode of time and the same region as PBIX and mangkubumen the keris making methode on appliying pamor is quite different.

Lets continue abaout the picture of pasopati.I'd like to ask you all to observe the pamor. how many layers are they? howe thin every layer is. how is the tipe of wos wutah pamor applied? in point of view, the wos wutah is quuite different from javanese wos wutah , sultan agung or senopaten or majapahit tipe of wos wutah. off course this keris can't be a nomnoman .

these are some picture I found from the internet shiwing the consistent Bali wos wotah would look like.

[David]

Well Ferry, i would not argue that any of these examples you have now posted are from Bali (or Lombok). That much is clear in these examples though none of them are the same pasopati dhapur. I will continue to argue that the original example in this post is not from Bali....that there is very little you can discern from the one image we see about the true nature of the pamor...that it is a blade out-of stain anyway and could use some warangan to show it's true form and construction....that the dhapur of this original keris does not look Balinese and that when you compare the gandik, the form of the lambe-gajah, the form and shape of the greneng, the type of pamor present on the gonjo, the over shape of the gonjo.....sorry, this just does not read as a Bali blade to me at all. Even if it were possible to tell more about this pamor from the photo and it does use the lesser layers of the Balinese technique, i would still doubt a Bali origin for this.
Of course, you have also failed to address the fact brought forth by Jean that this very same keris is identified on page 132 in Tafsir Keris and that the blade apparently has some provenance. The book apparently lists not only the owner, but claims to know the Mpu as well.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

Of course, you have also failed to address the fact brought forth by Jean that this very same keris is identified on page 132 in Tafsir Keris and that the blade apparently has some provenance. The book apparently lists not only the owner, but claims to know the Mpu as well.

David,
If it is OK on the copyright point of view, I can scan and show the full page of the book, as Neo already showed the picture... The owner is identified by his initials only so it should not be a problem. The original picture in the book is good but the blade is quite dark and the pamor does not appear very clearly and is not a very fine nor a typical Beras Wutah.
Best regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

David,
If it is OK on the copyright point of view, I can scan and show the full page of the book, as Neo already showed the picture... The owner is identified by his initials only so it should not be a problem. The original picture in the book is good but the blade is quite dark and the pamor does not appear very clearly and is not a very fine nor a typical Beras Wutah.
Best regards

Thanks Jean. I don't think that you need to scan the entire page since we do already have the photo, but i would like to read what is actually written about this keris if you can rewrite it here. For educational purposes copying a bit of text with credit to authorship is just fine with copyright laws AFAIK.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by David

Thanks Jean. I don't think that you need to scan the entire page since we do already have the photo, but i would like to read what is actually written about this keris if you can rewrite it here. For educational purposes copying a bit of text with credit to authorship is just fine with copyright laws AFAIK.

The English version of the text in the book is as follows:
"A kris titled Kanjeng Kyahi Seneng Pareng, which according to several verbal informations I gathered, was formerly the property of (the late) General Gatot Subroto (?). However the scabbard is already replaced. This kris has a Pasopati dhapur and a Wos Wutah pamor, and it is the work of Empu Supo while he was still in Blambangan. This can be verified from the sloping gandhik (collapsing backwards), and the lambe gajah occuring in the middle of the gandhik. This kris had been in the preservation of a collector from Surakarta named Hong An. Then the kris moved from one hand to the other. KRRA. Sukatno Purwoprojo, a former penjamas or bather of the Keraton Surakarta heirlooms (2004-2008) who had once menjamasi (bathed this kris), explained that the Kanjeng Kyahi Seneng Pareng always chooses its own master. Not everybody is suitable to keep it. Its warangka is of the gayaman bener design made of timoho wood (Kleinhovia hospita) with a diamond studded silver pendoq blewaq. Its hilt is a Tunggak Semi of the wanda (model) Yudhawinatan made of tayuman wood (Cassia laevigata)."

I take this opportunity to recommend to the forum members to purchase this excellent book from Toni Junus!
Regards

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by David

Well Ferry, i would not argue that any of these examples you have now posted are from Bali (or Lombok). That much is clear in these examples though none of them are the same pasopati dhapur. I will continue to argue that the original example in this post is not from Bali....that there is very little you can discern from the one image we see about the true nature of the pamor...that it is a blade out-of stain anyway and could use some warangan to show it's true form and construction....that the dhapur of this original keris does not look Balinese and that when you compare the gandik, the form of the lambe-gajah, the form and shape of the greneng, the type of pamor present on the gonjo, the over shape of the gonjo.....sorry, this just does not read as a Bali blade to me at all. Even if it were possible to tell more about this pamor from the photo and it does use the lesser layers of the Balinese technique, i would still doubt a Bali origin for this.
Of course, you have also failed to address the fact brought forth by Jean that this very same keris is identified on page 132 in Tafsir Keris and that the blade apparently has some provenance. The book apparently lists not only the owner, but claims to know the Mpu as well.

Well David. I have to admit that I 've fail to give you a reasonable explanation. I'm pleased to have this discussion with you. Let's continue this fun .
I do have a picture old dhapur pasopati with similar over all shape. and I guess its has the same majapahit tangguh.only with a slight different tipe of pamor. the gonjo also fill with pamor, which I can guarantee for sure that its gonjo is the original. I also attach the picture taken from the gonjo. to show you all the peksi hole which still has its "peg" . and I must say it is a very nice shape of "wuwungan gonjo" hope you enjoy it. but plesa do not put any comment about its kembang kacang.

But I do agree the keris we discussed could be categorized as majapahit era .
once again I must admit that I was too hasty laying my eyes to the thin pamor layers.
Please continue this remarkable discussion. I will always feel pleased to join keris warung kopi.
I hope Alan would like to join us here. What You say Alan?

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

I do have a picture old dhapur pasopati with similar over all shape. and I guess its has the same majapahit tangguh.

Dear Ferrylaki, if we are looking only on Blumbangan on both keris (your latest picture and the initial one): I am fairly sure, yours isn't Boto Adeg, and the initial one also don't look like boto adeg. Tangguh Majapahit should have Boto Adeg Blumbangan.

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Dear Ferrylaki, if we are looking only on Blumbangan on both keris (your latest picture and the initial one): I am fairly sure, yours isn't Boto Adeg, and the initial one also don't look like boto adeg. Tangguh Majapahit should have Boto Adeg Blumbangan.

I must say that mboto adeg and mboto rubuh is a fair expression for gandik.

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

I must say that mboto adeg and mboto rubuh is a fair expression for gandik.

Dear Ferrylaki, may I turn your attention to #4 here:

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...adeg+majapahit

and to the page 166 in Haryoguritnos "Keris Jawa"?