Why and What We Collect--A Tale of Two Barung

[RSWORD]

Originally Posted by Ian

As expected, the responses so far have been varied and somewhat in favor of the older, and perhaps more refined, example. However, I'm also hearing some compulsive/impulsive urges to collecting that I think probably infect all of us from time to time. Of course, those who visit this site and comment are probably the most hopelessly addicted cases anyway.

While I did not mean this thread to be about the technical aspects of the barung, but rather to use the two examples shown as a talking point about collecting, I will answer Barry's and Detlef's points about the age of Item 2. Robert Cato's book is a useful guide in this regard. He notes:

"Usually only the bottom third of antique tagub [scabbards] were wrapped with cane bindings. It appears that the Sulus altered this practice around the time of the Second World War, when they began to wrap their scabbards from top to bottom." (R. Cato, op. cit., p. 44)

If we look at the pictures of the tagub of Item 2, note the almost complete wrapping of the scabbard with fine strands of cane. (I think it is likely that this one was totally wrapped at one time and has lost some of the wrapping.) This would place it WWII or later. Also, the winding of fine cane around the scabbard in this manner seemed to become much more prevalent post-WWII, compared with plaited strands or somewhat wider cane strips on earlier pieces. However, the point noted by Cato seems to be the best indicator of period for the tagub.

Ian.

Ian,

I wouldn't date the entire sword based solely on the scabbard. It could be a working life replacement. I believe, as Vandoo and Sajen do, that the barong itself is older than WW2.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by RSWORD

Ian,

I wouldn't date the entire sword based solely on the scabbard. It could be a working life replacement. I believe, as Vandoo and Sajen do, that the barong itself is older than WW2.

Rick:

You are absolutely correct in noting that the barung, taken by itself, could possibly date from 1920-1930. This is the period to which Cato assigns the emergence of the kakatua style on Item 2. That style of kakatua is still being made. And yes, it is possible that the tagub could be a replacement. If so, it appears to be an old replacement.

That said, I prefer to deal with the data at hand. I have no reason to believe that the tagub has been replaced; the amount of wear on the scabbard seems commensurate with the hilt, and I think both are likely original to the blade. When a piece has seen some heavy action, as this one may well have, I don't think appearances alone are helpful in judging age. Rather, I prefer to look at the available evidence, as outlined in the original post of this thread.

Having made my case for what I think these two barung represent, I won't elaborate any further. Feel free to disagree. But please tell me also your collecting philosophy.

Ian.

[Rick]

I'd rather have one really good example of something than a few or several of lesser workmanship or condition .

Sometimes it works out .

[RSWORD]

Hi Ian,

Personally I would date the barong slightly earlier but hey we are only talking 10-20 years and in the case of the piece in question a rather insignificant difference. I am digressing from the original question and am happy to provide my own point of view on my collecting philosophy.

For me, it has been a journey that seems ever evolving. I was quite young when I first started and I simply thought they were cool. Didn't really know anything about those first pieces but they were cool. I have always been a collector and treasure hunter. It started with comics and baseball cards and excursions into my grandmothers attic. So I think some of that was carrying over into my young adult years. So after starting out with 4-5 pieces that I knew absolutely nothing about I ran across a book on the subject. Lo and behold one of my early swords was in the book. How cool was that! That sparked a desire to learn more so over the next decade or so I started going to shows, getting more books, meeting more collectors and my knowledge and more importantly my appreciation for these objects began to grow. Herein lies the trap. The more I learn the more I appreciate. The more I appreciate the more fun the treasure hunt. The occasional great buy feeds the treasure hunt to do it again. So again, I am in a damn perpetual cycle of hunting, acquiring and appreciating these objects. Through research on these items I have learned more about history and other cultures than I ever did in school. So that speaks a bit about how I got here. As far as a collecting philosophy I don't have one. I tend to gravitate towards certain regions or style of weapons so I have never been able to narrow the focus to one thing. If something catches my eye and I have the means at that time to get it then that is what I do. My philosophy is to fully learn and appreciate these ethnographic objects for their historical significance, their cultural significance, their artistic significance and finally their quality of craftsmanship. Doing that feeds that inner collector child except instead of Fantastic Four, Thor, Avengers and the Justice League it's Tibetan Ke Tri, Ottoman shamshir, Moro Kalis and Indian Tulwar. I am interested in seeing where this evolves for me in 20 years. I have a feeling the vicious cycle will continue!

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by Rick

I'd rather have one really good example of something than a few or several of lesser workmanship or condition .

Sometimes it works out .

I wouldn't have bought either item for these reasons...patience ;-)

Or at least, complete, without loss or major flaws and aspects that can be restored...

[Rick]

Originally Posted by SwordsAntiqueWeapons

I wouldn't have bought either item for these reasons...patience ;-)

Or at least, complete, without loss or major flaws and aspects that can be restored...

Yeh, and finding stuff like that on the ground is getting scarcer and harder .

[A. G. Maisey]

Although my life-long passion has been the keris, I do collect other things as well, other weaponry of course, but also paper weights, carvings in various mediums, Australian rural paintings, pocket knives, cameras, South East Asian ethnographica, precious and semi precious stones, watches, books, bicycles and so on and so on and so on.

When it comes right down to it, I collect things that I like, I'm the person who has to live with what I buy, and I do not need to satisfy anybody but myself.

For instance, my two favourite paper weight types are at opposite ends of the spectrum:- end-of-day weights, and flower weights, especially flower weights with filigree work. I'll buy any other weights that might appeal to me on any particular day also. I understand the quality indicators in paper weights, and I understand the hierarchy of the various makers, but these things don't influence me when I buy, I buy what I like. I do not buy weights for investment, nor with any intention to resell, I buy because I like looking at them and handling them.

Now, if I consider the things that influence me to buy keris, in fact, my way of buying is not much different to my way of buying paper weights:- I buy those keris that I like. It wasn't always thus, when I began to collect keris I bought every keris I found and that I could afford to buy. By age 30 I finished up with one hell of a lot of keris that I gradually decreased in number over the next 10 or 12 years. But I did learn a lot from that early collection. For about the last 30 or so years my keris collecting has been much more selective, but it is still governed by the principle of buying what I like.

So, my collecting habits are very subjective. I do not collect keris based on rarity, nor on quality, nor on artistic merit, nor on any other consistent, logically defensible factor.

However, it would probably be fair to say that my lengthy involvement with keris collecting does seem to dictate that the keris that I like are almost invariably quite desirable in one way or another, even if it is sometimes necessary to point out to a fellow collector why I find a particular piece desirable.

Desirability in anything is not always obvious, nor is it governed by any single consistent factor.

[Gavin Nugent]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

So, my collecting habits are very subjective. I do not collect keris based on rarity, nor on quality, nor on artistic merit, nor on any other consistent, logically defensible factor.

I am curios, as you are a serious and experienced collector; Where does condition, completeness, faults and flaws sit with you in the wide scope of your collections? I can appreciate a Keris blade may be acquired without further dress but do you like to buy bikes with missing wheels or paperweights with breaks and flaws?