Authenticity Of Keris

Sepang · 26th January 2005, 05:46 AM

Hello dear all,

I'll try to joint in this thread 'cause need to discus about Keris Budho. So far, I never heard from Indonesian or Malay people that they can give some reason about Keris Budho. Yes..., many people have it, but they don't know about their keris, old or new made.
Look at the Muzium Siber, www.kerisjawa.tk, etc, you can see some image about Keris Budho. But, if I ask them, they can't give a guarantee that their keris is old.
In this thread, I look that some image demonstrate a new keris, although modificated like old keris.
TQ.

Alam Shah · 26th January 2005, 06:27 AM

From the site, most piece looks new. But, I'm not an expert. Just my opinion.

Sakhti777 · 26th January 2005, 06:56 AM

Nechesh, I like you man. Not that we would not believe its authenticity. As Rasdan said earlier, anything that comes from a reliable source, we tend to take it for real even the keris is not. If that source comes from a newcomer, then we may have many assumptions in this forum. More problems would arise when keris is not undressed of its warangan during identification. Let it be clean until you could see fine grains of the blade.

Look at that. Thanks Sepang. Sure, a similar quality of blade as posted by Ria for his k.buda. Try undress the warangan, then you would see the reality.

Sepang · 26th January 2005, 11:14 AM

Nechesh, one of two keris Budha that Alan Maisey presents in his article is a good piece. Knaud keris is a good work from 1342AD, but Budha period, I think before 900AD, or VIII - IX Century. Knaud keris made at 1342AD, same with a Majapahit (in Jawa), so that, the keris (in Jawa) can be called Tangguh Majapahit, Jenggala, Dhaha, Segaluh etc, not Kabudhan.
Tangguh Kabudhan kerisses, more simple with no pamor and any carved or relieve.
I agree with Shakti that the keris Budha posted by Ria in Muzium Siber is a new made. If I look clooser, the iron in that keris have no fibrous, although it made with a kelengan iron (no pamor).
This is just my oppinion, maybe I have wrong, forgive me.
Regards,

nechesh · 26th January 2005, 11:46 AM

Sepang, which of the two keris buda in the Maisey article would you say is good and which is false? Why? BTW, what does TQ mean?

Sepang · 26th January 2005, 12:09 PM

I think

, the Knaud keris is a good piece and older than the Jalak Budho at the top. Jalak Budho like this, I think not made from 13Ctry, but 18-19Ctry. I'm consider that Jalak Budho not realy new, but it just a repro (putran). The Tikel Alis and Sogokan so clear and straight, diffrerent with a Jalak Budho kerisses. More like a Tangguh Sedayu or Sultan Agung kerisses, but I don't think so 'cause it just a Putran.

Sorry, TQ ? I mean thank U (thank qyu

)

Sang Keris · 26th January 2005, 05:15 PM

great explanation , sepang ..

nechesh · 26th January 2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sepang

Nechesh, one of two keris Budha that Alan Maisey presents in his article is a good piece.

Sepang, perhaps you made an error. The keris of Knaud is not pictured in the Maisey article. There are 4 keris there, 2 buda and 2 later developments in keris. Are you confusing articles? Did you mean imply that only one of the keris buda presented here is as described or were you thinking of one of the other links?

marto suwignyo · 27th January 2005, 12:32 AM

The authenticity of a keris can sometimes be gauged from the assessment of a number of factors. In general, these factors would be taken to be, but would not be limited to :-

percieved weight; the characteristics of the iron, steel and pamor; the physical appearance of the keris; the shape of the gonjo; the shape of the gandik; the shape of the blumbangan; the shape of the sogokan; the existence or not of an ada-ada ,its length and form; the execution of the kruwingan; the style of the luk; the shape of the wadidang, the method of construction; the quality of workmanship.

To correctly assess the iron, steel and pamor, a keris should be in stain.
If it is not in stain and all that can be seen is white metal, that white metal could be anything. It may not even be ferrous.

In a photograph it is very difficult to accurately present the three dimensional form of a keris, and the inter-relationship of proportion.

It is not possible to gain any idea at all of weight and the distribution of that weight, unless the keris is handled.

Texture of the material can only be guessed at.

The competent application of the parameters listed above is possible if the person applying those parameters is a specialist in the appraisal of keris.

Such specialists are few and far between and are for the most part found in Java. However, even the very best of these specialists have been misled by forgers.

This discussion began with the presentation of several photographs of a keris of unusual form, with an eroded surface and out of stain.

The person who presented these photographs asked for an opinion regarding the age of the keris in the photographs.

I doubt that any Javanese keris specialist would be prepared to commit himself upon the basis of these photographs to a firm opinion on the authenticity of the keris which began this discussion. Further, I believe it would be unlikely that any competent authority would provide a definite opinion on the authenticity of any keris as difficult to appraise as the keris Buda form, upon the basis of photographs.

The opinions that have been given have provided interesting discussion, but the these opinions should be accepted for the friendly social exchanges that they are.

Alam Shah · 27th January 2005, 01:30 AM

martho suwignyo,
Many forumite would agree with you (i guess).
It had been iterated by some esteem members (eg. nechesh) earlier, that physically assessment of the item is best. But in this forum, it is not possible.

Therefore, (in general) pictures are used to get a visual opinion 'first impression' of the item, although it should not be conclusive. (in my opinion, only).

Rick · 27th January 2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prime

martho suwignyo,
Many forumite would agree with you (i guess).
It had been iterated by some esteem members (eg. nechesh) earlier, that physically assessment of the item is best. But in this forum, it is not possible.

I would submit that in 'any' online forum 'it is not possible' .

So where does this revelation leave us ?

Sepang · 27th January 2005, 12:52 PM

I agree with Marto Suwognyo and any body comments in this thread, but I think, by photos, we can learn more about pasikutan, the iron and pamor, and other ricikan of kerisses. So, we can discus about that and know more which keris are fake or real. Specifically if we need to buy online some piece.

Nechesh, sorry, I was error try to open the link. I mean the Jalak Budho is a putran. Look closer at pijetan or tikel alis, the curve is so sharp. If the keris is old, the curve in pijetan, sogokan and tikel alis is smooth and flexible. I just try give my opinion. TQ

DAHenkel · 27th January 2005, 01:25 PM

Everyone knows you can tell a lot more about a keris (or anything else for that matter) by handling it in person. That said, if you show me a picture of a '78 Pinto, I don't need to kick the tires and take it for a test drive to tell you its a piece of crap car.

DhenTal · 31st January 2005, 07:06 AM

Nechesh, I think all of keris was posted in this thread like a new kriss which was modificated or not real damascan.
My Keris kriss is very fake. It more like a new kriss which low knowledge to make it.
Sepang kriss, although look like a nice piece, but I consider with damascan. It can be made by now. And it look so whole.
BluErf kriss, like a new kriss too, so that he don't post it with close up picture.

perhaps I can made mistake, so please forgive me

26th January 2005, 05:46 AM	#1
Sepang Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 33	Keris Budho Hello dear all, I'll try to joint in this thread 'cause need to discus about Keris Budho. So far, I never heard from Indonesian or Malay people that they can give some reason about Keris Budho. Yes..., many people have it, but they don't know about their keris, old or new made. Look at the Muzium Siber, www.kerisjawa.tk, etc, you can see some image about Keris Budho. But, if I ask them, they can't give a guarantee that their keris is old. In this thread, I look that some image demonstrate a new keris, although modificated like old keris. TQ.

26th January 2005, 11:14 AM	#4
Sepang Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 33	Many photos of Keris Budha but.... ??? Nechesh, one of two keris Budha that Alan Maisey presents in his article is a good piece. Knaud keris is a good work from 1342AD, but Budha period, I think before 900AD, or VIII - IX Century. Knaud keris made at 1342AD, same with a Majapahit (in Jawa), so that, the keris (in Jawa) can be called Tangguh Majapahit, Jenggala, Dhaha, Segaluh etc, not Kabudhan. Tangguh Kabudhan kerisses, more simple with no pamor and any carved or relieve. I agree with Shakti that the keris Budha posted by Ria in Muzium Siber is a new made. If I look clooser, the iron in that keris have no fibrous, although it made with a kelengan iron (no pamor). This is just my oppinion, maybe I have wrong, forgive me. Regards,

26th January 2005, 05:15 PM	#7
Sang Keris Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Indonesia Posts: 46	great explanation , sepang .. Last edited by Sang Keris; 27th January 2005 at 01:53 AM.

26th January 2005, 06:27 AM	#2
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	From the site, most piece looks new. But, I'm not an expert. Just my opinion.

26th January 2005, 06:56 AM	#3
Sakhti777 Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Penang Posts: 14	Nechesh, I like you man. Not that we would not believe its authenticity. As Rasdan said earlier, anything that comes from a reliable source, we tend to take it for real even the keris is not. If that source comes from a newcomer, then we may have many assumptions in this forum. More problems would arise when keris is not undressed of its warangan during identification. Let it be clean until you could see fine grains of the blade. Look at that. Thanks Sepang. Sure, a similar quality of blade as posted by Ria for his k.buda. Try undress the warangan, then you would see the reality.

26th January 2005, 11:46 AM	#5
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Sepang, which of the two keris buda in the Maisey article would you say is good and which is false? Why? BTW, what does TQ mean?

26th January 2005, 12:09 PM	#6
Sepang Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 33	I think , the Knaud keris is a good piece and older than the Jalak Budho at the top. Jalak Budho like this, I think not made from 13Ctry, but 18-19Ctry. I'm consider that Jalak Budho not realy new, but it just a repro (putran). The Tikel Alis and Sogokan so clear and straight, diffrerent with a Jalak Budho kerisses. More like a Tangguh Sedayu or Sultan Agung kerisses, but I don't think so 'cause it just a Putran. Sorry, TQ ? I mean thank U (thank qyu )

27th January 2005, 12:32 AM	#9
marto suwignyo Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 52	The authenticity of a keris can sometimes be gauged from the assessment of a number of factors. In general, these factors would be taken to be, but would not be limited to :- percieved weight; the characteristics of the iron, steel and pamor; the physical appearance of the keris; the shape of the gonjo; the shape of the gandik; the shape of the blumbangan; the shape of the sogokan; the existence or not of an ada-ada ,its length and form; the execution of the kruwingan; the style of the luk; the shape of the wadidang, the method of construction; the quality of workmanship. To correctly assess the iron, steel and pamor, a keris should be in stain. If it is not in stain and all that can be seen is white metal, that white metal could be anything. It may not even be ferrous. In a photograph it is very difficult to accurately present the three dimensional form of a keris, and the inter-relationship of proportion. It is not possible to gain any idea at all of weight and the distribution of that weight, unless the keris is handled. Texture of the material can only be guessed at. The competent application of the parameters listed above is possible if the person applying those parameters is a specialist in the appraisal of keris. Such specialists are few and far between and are for the most part found in Java. However, even the very best of these specialists have been misled by forgers. This discussion began with the presentation of several photographs of a keris of unusual form, with an eroded surface and out of stain. The person who presented these photographs asked for an opinion regarding the age of the keris in the photographs. I doubt that any Javanese keris specialist would be prepared to commit himself upon the basis of these photographs to a firm opinion on the authenticity of the keris which began this discussion. Further, I believe it would be unlikely that any competent authority would provide a definite opinion on the authenticity of any keris as difficult to appraise as the keris Buda form, upon the basis of photographs. The opinions that have been given have provided interesting discussion, but the these opinions should be accepted for the friendly social exchanges that they are.

27th January 2005, 01:30 AM	#10
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	martho suwignyo, Many forumite would agree with you (i guess). It had been iterated by some esteem members (eg. nechesh) earlier, that physically assessment of the item is best. But in this forum, it is not possible. Therefore, (in general) pictures are used to get a visual opinion 'first impression' of the item, although it should not be conclusive. (in my opinion, only).

27th January 2005, 12:52 PM	#12
Sepang Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 33	I agree with Marto Suwognyo and any body comments in this thread, but I think, by photos, we can learn more about pasikutan, the iron and pamor, and other ricikan of kerisses. So, we can discus about that and know more which keris are fake or real. Specifically if we need to buy online some piece. Nechesh, sorry, I was error try to open the link. I mean the Jalak Budho is a putran. Look closer at pijetan or tikel alis, the curve is so sharp. If the keris is old, the curve in pijetan, sogokan and tikel alis is smooth and flexible. I just try give my opinion. TQ

27th January 2005, 01:25 PM	#13
DAHenkel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 125	Everyone knows you can tell a lot more about a keris (or anything else for that matter) by handling it in person. That said, if you show me a picture of a '78 Pinto, I don't need to kick the tires and take it for a test drive to tell you its a piece of crap car.

31st January 2005, 07:06 AM	#14
DhenTal Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 20	Nechesh, I think all of keris was posted in this thread like a new kriss which was modificated or not real damascan. My Keris kriss is very fake. It more like a new kriss which low knowledge to make it. Sepang kriss, although look like a nice piece, but I consider with damascan. It can be made by now. And it look so whole. BluErf kriss, like a new kriss too, so that he don't post it with close up picture. perhaps I can made mistake, so please forgive me