A Learning Experience?

[Ian]

H Rob,

Could you show us the grip and backstrap of the hilt, the forte area of the blade, a section of the blade with the fuller, and a clearer view of the tip.

Thanks.

[RobT]

Ian,

Thanks for your help on this. On closer examination, the grip wire appears to be copper not brass. I took two shots of the backstrap. One from directly overhead and the other from the back to show the through tang. I also took a shot of the fuller on each side of the blade. The second shot is the "VOC" side. That fuller appears to be less deep and cut a bit lower than the other side. I also took a shot of the forte and the tip. Hope this helps.

Sincerely,
RobT

[kai]

Hello Rob,

The VOC mark is not genuine (obviously being of much too young age, anyway).

This has shaver cool vibes to me... (Sorry, Jim )

Regards,
Kai

[RobT]

Kai,

Of course, the VOC logo would have been in use much before my sword was made. I should have realized that. I am afraid however that more than just the logo is inauthentic.

Sincerely,
RobT

[Ian]

Hi Rob,

Those additional pictures confirm my initial impression.

First, and most important, is that the blade is not a true maréchausée sabel (aka, Dutch klewang). It does not conform to the Dutch pattern (or swords based on it and made elsewhere). The ricasso is too long and the clipped point is too shallow. The fullers are poorly cut and of uneven width. You may also find that the blade is shorter than the standard length.

Second, the hilt seems to be (loosely) based on a Dutch naval officer's saber (Model 1882). The gilded brass hilt on that sword has a solid D-guard with a lion's head pommel and backstrap, and a segmented bone grip with twisted wire. The hilt on your example is poorly cast and roughly finished. The backstrap shows coarse grind marks along the seam of the mold.

Adding all of this together, what you have is an Indonesian copy of a Dutch klewang blade to which has been fitted a copy of the M 1882 Naval Officer's saber hilt. Indigenous copies of Dutch swords were fairly common, especially as you have noted in Tjikeroeh, so this sword falls into a recognized genre. I think your example was made pre-WWII because it appears to have some age and that was when local copies of Dutch swords were most prevalent.

As for the VOC mark, this is clearly "fanciful" (as Kai has noted). The Dutch klewang was introduced in 1905, more than 100 years after the VOC ceased to exist (the VOC was nationalized in 1796 and abolished on December 31, 1799). Added to that the mark has been struck upside down and does not conform to standard VOC marks. Again, this is characteristic of local indigenous manufacture.

Regards,

Ian


Standard VOC mark: Note the serif font and presence of wider downstrokes than upstrokes.
.

[RobT]

Ian,

Thanks for all your expertise. Your findings are better than I had hoped for (or deserve for my carelessness). The VOC logo should have been a red flag but even more so, I should have recognized the poor blade and hilt workmanship as uncharacteristic for quality Dutch and Indonesian weapons of the period. That you consider the sword to have been made prior to WWII and of actual Indonesian manufacture is a lot better than what I thought likely. One thing for certain, if I ever again venture into the field of Western European or Western European influenced new world arms, I will be a darn sight more careful.

Sincerely,
RobT