Javanese keris for comment

empu kumis · 13th January 2005, 07:36 PM

Hi Kerislovers,

yeah, the pictures becomming better and better. Thanks to Ria and Blue i like to see that, here you still can differentiate between the iron and pamorlayers. Both pamor are well executed and the surface is not etched to much. Only about 18 layers. with nice contrast and no pamorfree patches. Its a pamor of the order nginden and the name of this pamor PB X. The lower part just above the sor-soran seems to me to small and the greneng are not nice. But anyway if somebody collecting new Kerisses on this standard i`m happy. Please go on. The garapan is also much better but there is still a lot to improve.

Blues keris is nice but also not perfect ( to my experience i always say under 10,000 blades, there is one good blade and i can just sorry for my high standards) i always say there is blade with sheet seems to me very high and the tlamaan (aereal of connection between ganja and blade) is bend in the wrong direction. The outer lis of the tikel alis should not meet with the tampingan and the janur should be more bended. The lambe gajah ahd the jalen is nice too but the buntut and greneng to wide. The sogokan could bee better. The bangkekan is ok but the waduk of the blade is to close to the point. The wrangka seems nice but i would prefer a pendok. The wrangka seems to be new but nice and the handle ? old ?.

The Madurese pande`s has a long break of almost 20 years and its really time their quality improves.

Several month or weeks ago there has been a Megantaro close to this style.

But i`m not sure who made them. Somebody remember ?
Has somebody seen the work of Sukoyo from Surabaya ?

For some time i haven`t been in Madura but i see it will be important to go there again. My next voyage will be soon (hopefully !) and i will have stopover in Singapore wether incoming or on the way back Europe. So i hope to see you in Singapore. For sure I wiil give you a notice by email.

Probably the blade attributed to Ki Jeno is not made by himself but from his pupils. Ki Jeno has already given over to his adopted son. But its not a masterpiece because of the proportions of the blades lenght and ganja. To me the gandik is to short and the buntut to long. But most disturbing are the pamorfree pachtes on the sor-soran and on the wilah. Overall i would say i can`t feel the personalty of this blade. He don`t speak to me.

About the pudak sategal normally sticking two thorns out of the sharpnes and to my knowledge if they look like yours (picture keris Malaysia) has the name pudak sategal bungkem, so far i remember. Lis-lisan is the frame between the landep and the kruwingan. Between you have the gusen. In your picture the pudak sategal and the lis-lisan are connected just where the sor-soran is ending.

Empu Kumis

BluErf · 16th January 2005, 03:21 AM

Just read through some of the posts more carefully and I thought I should say some more things:

To Nechesh -- sorry for not answering your question when you asked. I was starting to question my own understanding of the pudak setegal at that point in time, so I did not want to say anything potentially wrong.

To Empu Kumis -- the gang (Paul, Dave, Adni and myself) here in Singapore looks forward to seeing you again, and I'm sure we have many things to discuss over coffee or dinner.

nechesh · 16th January 2005, 05:45 AM

No Problem Blu.

It wasn't omly directed at you. There were a few others who could have answered as well. So i guess what i currently understand after E.K.s explanation is that it is NOT necessary for this feature to pertrude from the blade profile. I guess i had assumed this was necessary because in all the diagrams that DO show this feature it always does stick out.

Kiai Carita · 29th April 2005, 03:48 PM

All the new keris posted on this thread seem to be good ones to me. At least they are not trying to look old. I say that they are honest keris because they have the tungkakan where the edge of the wilah rests on the ganja it is shaped like a heel (tungkak). The tungkakan seems to have been invented in Solo in the late 19'th century after the Java War (1830). However the first photograph appeared to have a ganja that did not quite fit, this is almost always a sign of an inferior smith.

Salam Keris

29th April 2005, 03:48 PM	#4
Kiai Carita Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 91	Honestly New Keris All the new keris posted on this thread seem to be good ones to me. At least they are not trying to look old. I say that they are honest keris because they have the tungkakan where the edge of the wilah rests on the ganja it is shaped like a heel (tungkak). The tungkakan seems to have been invented in Solo in the late 19'th century after the Java War (1830). However the first photograph appeared to have a ganja that did not quite fit, this is almost always a sign of an inferior smith. Salam Keris

13th January 2005, 07:36 PM	#1
empu kumis Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Germany Posts: 17	Hi Kerislovers, yeah, the pictures becomming better and better. Thanks to Ria and Blue i like to see that, here you still can differentiate between the iron and pamorlayers. Both pamor are well executed and the surface is not etched to much. Only about 18 layers. with nice contrast and no pamorfree patches. Its a pamor of the order nginden and the name of this pamor PB X. The lower part just above the sor-soran seems to me to small and the greneng are not nice. But anyway if somebody collecting new Kerisses on this standard i`m happy. Please go on. The garapan is also much better but there is still a lot to improve. Blues keris is nice but also not perfect ( to my experience i always say under 10,000 blades, there is one good blade and i can just sorry for my high standards) i always say there is blade with sheet seems to me very high and the tlamaan (aereal of connection between ganja and blade) is bend in the wrong direction. The outer lis of the tikel alis should not meet with the tampingan and the janur should be more bended. The lambe gajah ahd the jalen is nice too but the buntut and greneng to wide. The sogokan could bee better. The bangkekan is ok but the waduk of the blade is to close to the point. The wrangka seems nice but i would prefer a pendok. The wrangka seems to be new but nice and the handle ? old ?. The Madurese pande`s has a long break of almost 20 years and its really time their quality improves. Several month or weeks ago there has been a Megantaro close to this style. But i`m not sure who made them. Somebody remember ? Has somebody seen the work of Sukoyo from Surabaya ? For some time i haven`t been in Madura but i see it will be important to go there again. My next voyage will be soon (hopefully !) and i will have stopover in Singapore wether incoming or on the way back Europe. So i hope to see you in Singapore. For sure I wiil give you a notice by email. Probably the blade attributed to Ki Jeno is not made by himself but from his pupils. Ki Jeno has already given over to his adopted son. But its not a masterpiece because of the proportions of the blades lenght and ganja. To me the gandik is to short and the buntut to long. But most disturbing are the pamorfree pachtes on the sor-soran and on the wilah. Overall i would say i can`t feel the personalty of this blade. He don`t speak to me. About the pudak sategal normally sticking two thorns out of the sharpnes and to my knowledge if they look like yours (picture keris Malaysia) has the name pudak sategal bungkem, so far i remember. Lis-lisan is the frame between the landep and the kruwingan. Between you have the gusen. In your picture the pudak sategal and the lis-lisan are connected just where the sor-soran is ending. Empu Kumis

16th January 2005, 03:21 AM	#2
BluErf Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,180	Just read through some of the posts more carefully and I thought I should say some more things: To Nechesh -- sorry for not answering your question when you asked. I was starting to question my own understanding of the pudak setegal at that point in time, so I did not want to say anything potentially wrong. To Empu Kumis -- the gang (Paul, Dave, Adni and myself) here in Singapore looks forward to seeing you again, and I'm sure we have many things to discuss over coffee or dinner.

16th January 2005, 05:45 AM	#3
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	No Problem Blu. It wasn't omly directed at you. There were a few others who could have answered as well. So i guess what i currently understand after E.K.s explanation is that it is NOT necessary for this feature to pertrude from the blade profile. I guess i had assumed this was necessary because in all the diagrams that DO show this feature it always does stick out.