Need example of Pamors: Meteor, Luwu, and modern Nickel

David · 10th June 2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo

All these desire to learn about tangguh is mostly because I really hate to get "pretenders". I am happy enough to know that the keris is authentic and so for now, all I'd like get out of the "tangguh game" is to be confident to a certain degree about the approximate *ERA* the kris was from.

I think that Mr. Maisey will agree that it is pretty much impossible to learn to identify the tangguh of keris without hands-on experience with a teacher. The "tangguh game" is also a greatly misused one and tangguh really only applies to a select few keris. Once you get outside the area of kraton made keris tangguh becomes somewhat meaningless.

A. G. Maisey · 10th June 2010, 11:53 PM

Yes David, I do agree.

You need hands on tuition from somebody with a lot of knowledge and experience, and access to examples.

Its not quite meaningless when you move outside the area of quality, it can still be applied to a degree, for instance, tangguh Segaluh is extremely recognisable, it has almost never been copied in later periods, but it is hardly ever a high quality or expensive tangguh; Pajajaran, Tuban, Mataram Matesih, Godean --- and other tangguh --- are generally speaking not of exceptional quality, and not particularly expensive. But when you start to use the system on anything other than very good keris, it becomes more a rough indicator of age and value than anything else.

I personally like to think of it as a system of classification that can assist with an appraisal of value.

In Jawa it is regarded as the foundation of understanding, but in the rest of the world it is pretty much irrelevant.

There is much we can learn about keris without getting too involved with tangguh --- unless we live in Jawa.

Boedhi Adhitya · 11th June 2010, 02:20 PM

Hello Neo,

Some pictures would certainly help, but I believe not as much as you would need. And anyway, you may find that the definition on pamor meteor, Luwu, sanak, etc would differ from one person to another which could end to confusion, no to say frustration. Needless to say, today keris makers have do their homework. They could match today's pamor appearance to the older blades. Not perfect, but the higher the new keris quality, the harder it is to discern, especially to the nem-neman tangguh. But yet, I will not say that studying pamor materials is useless. I just say it isn't everything you need. There is a lot, lot more.

Good books could help, but don't expect that much. What you really need is a hand-on, first experience on handling keris. A lot. The higher the keris quality that you handle, the better. But yes, unfortunately, there are a lot definitions on what so called "high-quality kerises".

Thus, before you invest a lot of your time and fortune on keris, I suggest you define clearly your "underlying motivation" on keris collecting. It is your guide. It will be your collection, not anybody else, and hence, it should serve your purpose. Keris collecting seems simple, but you will be amazed on how many motivation behind it.

Certainly, I'm not discouraging you. But I find a lot of peoples become confused and frustrated in the swirling world of keris. Others get angry from it's fraud. And I don't want it to be you, or any of us.

Neo · 11th June 2010, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I personally like to think of it as a system of classification that can assist with an appraisal of value.

This is interesting. So people can determine the age and value of keris without using the tangguh standards? I thought the tangguh game is the only way to ascertain the authenticity of a keris. I am ten times more interested in authenticity than I am in luxury. While it is great to have a finely made Mataram Senopaten Nagasasra with finely detailed kinatah, I would rather use the same amount of money to purchase several authentic, nicely preserved krisses (with simpler dapur) from Pajajaran, Tuban, Majapahit, and some robust, healthy new kerises.

The thing is, like I said earlier, these days people fake everything - even the simple brojol with pejetan ... I just spent about Rp13jt on what seems to be a "pretender" keris and I'd like to make sure it doesn't happen again.

So, let's say I want to find an authentic simple "Sombro" style or a Tuban tilam upih with wos wutah ... how do I tell if a piece is authentic if I have no idea what the tangguh says about the ricikan, pamor, and wesi characteristics of krisses from the respective style?

Sorry if you find these questions very uninformed ... I'm just trying to be more prepared and structured so I could make my direct learning more productive. Greatly appreciate your info and advices so far ...

Jussi M. · 11th June 2010, 11:30 PM

Greetings Neo,

I guess what Mr. Maisey has tried to bring across is the fact that the tangguh system is such a multilayered and complex system of intertwined and interdependent "things" for a lack of a better word that it is pretty much impossible to get a good grasp of it without a long time real life tutelage of a true expert who knows the breakdown of the system by heart.

I am afraid this is something that will evade most if not all modern collectors.

If I am mistaken please correct me as I do not now if I got this right myself?

Thanks,

A. G. Maisey · 12th June 2010, 12:08 AM

Neo, everything that Pak Boedhi has said has my complete endorsement.

I strongly recommend that you take note of all of his words.

The "underlaying motivation" is important, however, over the time I have studied the keris, my underlaying motivation has changed direction a number of times, and I feel that this could be true of many of us who have devoted a great deal of time and money to the study of the keris. There are many facets to the keris, and those many facets reflect the many reasons that people have and maintain an interest in the keris.

The problem of misrepresentation is a real one. It sounds as if you might have been bitten already, and this is unfortunate, however, if it will make you feel any better, you can be assured that everybody who has had an interest in keris for more than 5 minutes, has also been bitten.This includes some of the biggest and most respected names associated with keris.

In fact, the man who a few years ago was recognised as perhaps the most knowledgeable man in respect of keris, in Indonesia, was also recognised by the Solo Keris Mafia as a very soft target for forgeries. To trap him, all that was necessary was to present something for his approval that had all the appearance of age, but was of a type or style that had not been previously seen.

I could quote a number of other examples of highly respected authorities being fooled, however, all you need to remember is that as long as you maintain an interest in keris, you will continue to see keris being presented as other than what they really are.

The only protection is knowledge, experience, and extreme caution.

It appears that you are resident in Indonesia, and this makes things both easier for you, and more difficult for you.

Easier, because you are within reach of teachers.

More difficult , because you need to apply different and far more difficult standards to your search for knowledge:- that which serves as knowledge within the keris collecting community outside Jawa is only of minimal value for a collector who lives in Jawa.

You have asked this question:-

So people can determine the age and value of keris without using the tangguh standards?

There are a number of answers to this question, all of which are correct, and all of which are flawed.

I suggest that you should keep an open mind.

Tangguh means exactly what it says:- it is an estimate, or an opinion.

Many people say "tangguh nggak sungguh"

In other words, it is not real.

My teacher was Empu Suparman Supowijoyo (Alm.), he was 100% kejawen. For him if a keris was tangguh Majapahit, that meant it was made in Majapahit. However, Pak Parman's standards to classify something as Majapahit were very, very much more stringent than most people apply, so perhaps he was right when he considered a keris he classified as Majapahit as having been produced during the Majapahit era. My own approach is not as inflexible as my teacher's, and this is undoubtedly because my knowledge and experience are only as drops of water, compared to an ocean.

Amongst people who understand tangguh, we can be relatively confident that a keris of an old classification will not be classified as a more recent classification. There can often be differences of opinion as to exactly what tangguh a keris might be, and these differences of opinion multiply when we move away from very good quality keris in good condition, and attempt to apply the guidelines for tangguh classification to lower quality keris in poor condition.

The question of "quality" in a keris can be open to a degree of interpretation, but when we consider the concept of keris quality in purely physical terms, we find that there is remarkably little difference of opinion in respect of this matter amongst knowledgeable people of equivalent experience.

Neo, it appears that you are resident in Indonesia. In my opinion the course of action that you should follow is to find a knowledgeable and experienced person to teach you. This will not be easy, and it could take a very long time to find somebody with the requisite level of knowledge who is also willing and able to teach. Possibly involvement with a local keris study society may be of some assistance in helping to open some doors for you.

You can be certain of this:- there are not enough days of your life to gain even the beginning of keris knowledge.

Jussi:-

Yes, that's one of the problems, but perhaps a bigger problem is that different people have different opinions.

Nobody with any knowledge will ever classify Pajajaran as Mataram Sultan Agung, however, you might easily find the situation where some people will classify Koripan as Mataram Sultan Agung.

At its core, the tangguh system has a solid foundation to assist analysis, but this solid foundation is not widely known or used, and we get the situation where people will say that something is , for example, Pajang, without being able to say precisely why they classify it as Pajang, except that it looks and feels like Pajang.

A. G. Maisey · 12th June 2010, 07:55 AM

Herewith five examples of pamor.

I know exactly what the material is in each case, and exactly how it was made, because I either made it, or was involved in the making.

Would anybody care to identify which examples are mlumah, which are miring, which ones use modern mild steel, which use wrought iron, and the quality of the iron, which use European nickel, and which use meteoritic material?

This is a guessing game. I'm the only one who knows the correct answers. The point of the exercise is to try to show that we cannot tell much from images, especially images on a computer screen.

See how many you can get right.

lemmythesmith · 12th June 2010, 08:28 PM

Hi Alan, I'll have a go............ at getting them wrong.

A-mlumah, iron/nickel. Iron not washed too much.
B-mlumah, meteoric-looks similar in texture and colour to one I did.
C-mlumah, mild and nickel.
D-mlumah, iron, nickel. Iron looks extensively washed and refined.
E-miring, iron, nickel. Iron not washed too much.

Regards, Graham.

A. G. Maisey · 13th June 2010, 03:39 AM

Thank you very much for your response Graham.

You are the most knowledgeable person likely to respond to this question, so I won't delay my response.However, I will make this comment:- your experience is filling in the gaps that cannot be seen in the images --- I do exactly the same thing:- I see things that are not there in the image, because I instinctively know they are there in the object. Somebody lacking our level of experience does not have this advantage.

As would be expected, some of it you've got right, but some of it you're a bit off track with.

This reinforces the point I was trying to make:- images are not good enough to learn from. Yes, they can help, but you need the hands-on experience.

Here is what these pamors are:-

A--- the contrasting material in this is pure nickel, the iron is very hot short tyre . It started as very large pieces of tyre that were not washed at all, and the nickel was welded straight in, it then went through the washing process until it did not throw off sparks, plus a couple of extra welds --- this material was absolutely clean and tight when the core was welded in --- but the nickel had run up into the cracks caused by the hotshortness of the iron. This pamor material was doubled and welded in excess of 12 times.Following completion, this blade was soaked in an erosive medium to give an aged look to the surface.

B--- yes, meteoritic. The meteor was from Arizona and was many small pieces; I welded these many small pieces into one solid , clean lump, this was then combined with iron that came from an old bridge, and that combination of meteoritic material and old iron formed the pamor. This blade was soaked in an erosive medium.

C--- yes, mild and nickel. The mild was bought as second hand material in Solo, and my memory of it is that it was from some sort of old, heavy strapping. It was not washed at all.Yes, mlumah.This blade was not soaked in an erosive medium but was washed heavily with lime juice.

D--- the material used in this blade is exactly the same as the material used in "C", again, not washed at all, however, it is not mlumah, it is miring. It started life as lawe setukal, but did not survive the forging, so the grains realigned and it looks like mlumah.This blade was not exposed to any erosive medium at all, it was only stained.

E--- the contrasting material in this is an iron/nickel alloy; I have forgotten the analysis of the alloy; it was something used in the factory where my son was working at the time; the iron is high quality carriage strapping, it is wrought iron, and it was washed heavily, ie, more than 7 times folded and welded. The orientation is miring. This blade was given a light wash with hydrochloric acid.

I have two other blades that have material judged to be meteoritic material according to Javanese standards. "B" above, and the other two blades all look different, one from the other.

I have had blades with pamor that was judged to have been made from Dutch coins. This pamor looks exactly like meteoritic pamor in respect of colour, disregard the texture in example "B", because that is the product surface manipulation and etching. But the difference between the Dutch coin pamor and the meteoritic pamor is that the coin pamor is smooth and greasy to the touch, the meteoritic pamor is "prickly" to the touch.

I have in my possession and have seen pamors made from bicycle spokes, motorbike exhausts, bicycle rims --- and various other materials. All these oddly assorted materials can look like one or another of the old traditional materials of high phosphoric iron, or coins, or pamor luwu, or meteorite.

I've been misled by a first impression many times, and that's with the blade in my hand.

Images on a computer screen, or even in hard copy, are just not good enough.

12th June 2010, 12:08 AM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Neo, everything that Pak Boedhi has said has my complete endorsement. I strongly recommend that you take note of all of his words. The "underlaying motivation" is important, however, over the time I have studied the keris, my underlaying motivation has changed direction a number of times, and I feel that this could be true of many of us who have devoted a great deal of time and money to the study of the keris. There are many facets to the keris, and those many facets reflect the many reasons that people have and maintain an interest in the keris. The problem of misrepresentation is a real one. It sounds as if you might have been bitten already, and this is unfortunate, however, if it will make you feel any better, you can be assured that everybody who has had an interest in keris for more than 5 minutes, has also been bitten.This includes some of the biggest and most respected names associated with keris. In fact, the man who a few years ago was recognised as perhaps the most knowledgeable man in respect of keris, in Indonesia, was also recognised by the Solo Keris Mafia as a very soft target for forgeries. To trap him, all that was necessary was to present something for his approval that had all the appearance of age, but was of a type or style that had not been previously seen. I could quote a number of other examples of highly respected authorities being fooled, however, all you need to remember is that as long as you maintain an interest in keris, you will continue to see keris being presented as other than what they really are. The only protection is knowledge, experience, and extreme caution. It appears that you are resident in Indonesia, and this makes things both easier for you, and more difficult for you. Easier, because you are within reach of teachers. More difficult , because you need to apply different and far more difficult standards to your search for knowledge:- that which serves as knowledge within the keris collecting community outside Jawa is only of minimal value for a collector who lives in Jawa. You have asked this question:- So people can determine the age and value of keris without using the tangguh standards? There are a number of answers to this question, all of which are correct, and all of which are flawed. I suggest that you should keep an open mind. Tangguh means exactly what it says:- it is an estimate, or an opinion. Many people say "tangguh nggak sungguh" In other words, it is not real. My teacher was Empu Suparman Supowijoyo (Alm.), he was 100% kejawen. For him if a keris was tangguh Majapahit, that meant it was made in Majapahit. However, Pak Parman's standards to classify something as Majapahit were very, very much more stringent than most people apply, so perhaps he was right when he considered a keris he classified as Majapahit as having been produced during the Majapahit era. My own approach is not as inflexible as my teacher's, and this is undoubtedly because my knowledge and experience are only as drops of water, compared to an ocean. Amongst people who understand tangguh, we can be relatively confident that a keris of an old classification will not be classified as a more recent classification. There can often be differences of opinion as to exactly what tangguh a keris might be, and these differences of opinion multiply when we move away from very good quality keris in good condition, and attempt to apply the guidelines for tangguh classification to lower quality keris in poor condition. The question of "quality" in a keris can be open to a degree of interpretation, but when we consider the concept of keris quality in purely physical terms, we find that there is remarkably little difference of opinion in respect of this matter amongst knowledgeable people of equivalent experience. Neo, it appears that you are resident in Indonesia. In my opinion the course of action that you should follow is to find a knowledgeable and experienced person to teach you. This will not be easy, and it could take a very long time to find somebody with the requisite level of knowledge who is also willing and able to teach. Possibly involvement with a local keris study society may be of some assistance in helping to open some doors for you. You can be certain of this:- there are not enough days of your life to gain even the beginning of keris knowledge. Jussi:- Yes, that's one of the problems, but perhaps a bigger problem is that different people have different opinions. Nobody with any knowledge will ever classify Pajajaran as Mataram Sultan Agung, however, you might easily find the situation where some people will classify Koripan as Mataram Sultan Agung. At its core, the tangguh system has a solid foundation to assist analysis, but this solid foundation is not widely known or used, and we get the situation where people will say that something is , for example, Pajang, without being able to say precisely why they classify it as Pajang, except that it looks and feels like Pajang. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 12th June 2010 at 12:20 AM.

12th June 2010, 07:55 AM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Herewith five examples of pamor. I know exactly what the material is in each case, and exactly how it was made, because I either made it, or was involved in the making. Would anybody care to identify which examples are mlumah, which are miring, which ones use modern mild steel, which use wrought iron, and the quality of the iron, which use European nickel, and which use meteoritic material? This is a guessing game. I'm the only one who knows the correct answers. The point of the exercise is to try to show that we cannot tell much from images, especially images on a computer screen. See how many you can get right. Attached Images

10th June 2010, 11:53 PM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Yes David, I do agree. You need hands on tuition from somebody with a lot of knowledge and experience, and access to examples. Its not quite meaningless when you move outside the area of quality, it can still be applied to a degree, for instance, tangguh Segaluh is extremely recognisable, it has almost never been copied in later periods, but it is hardly ever a high quality or expensive tangguh; Pajajaran, Tuban, Mataram Matesih, Godean --- and other tangguh --- are generally speaking not of exceptional quality, and not particularly expensive. But when you start to use the system on anything other than very good keris, it becomes more a rough indicator of age and value than anything else. I personally like to think of it as a system of classification that can assist with an appraisal of value. In Jawa it is regarded as the foundation of understanding, but in the rest of the world it is pretty much irrelevant. There is much we can learn about keris without getting too involved with tangguh --- unless we live in Jawa.

11th June 2010, 02:20 PM	#3
Boedhi Adhitya Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 103	Hello Neo, Some pictures would certainly help, but I believe not as much as you would need. And anyway, you may find that the definition on pamor meteor, Luwu, sanak, etc would differ from one person to another which could end to confusion, no to say frustration. Needless to say, today keris makers have do their homework. They could match today's pamor appearance to the older blades. Not perfect, but the higher the new keris quality, the harder it is to discern, especially to the nem-neman tangguh. But yet, I will not say that studying pamor materials is useless. I just say it isn't everything you need. There is a lot, lot more. Good books could help, but don't expect that much. What you really need is a hand-on, first experience on handling keris. A lot. The higher the keris quality that you handle, the better. But yes, unfortunately, there are a lot definitions on what so called "high-quality kerises". Thus, before you invest a lot of your time and fortune on keris, I suggest you define clearly your "underlying motivation" on keris collecting. It is your guide. It will be your collection, not anybody else, and hence, it should serve your purpose. Keris collecting seems simple, but you will be amazed on how many motivation behind it. Certainly, I'm not discouraging you. But I find a lot of peoples become confused and frustrated in the swirling world of keris. Others get angry from it's fraud. And I don't want it to be you, or any of us.

11th June 2010, 11:30 PM	#5
Jussi M. Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 235	Greetings Neo, I guess what Mr. Maisey has tried to bring across is the fact that the tangguh system is such a multilayered and complex system of intertwined and interdependent "things" for a lack of a better word that it is pretty much impossible to get a good grasp of it without a long time real life tutelage of a true expert who knows the breakdown of the system by heart. I am afraid this is something that will evade most if not all modern collectors. If I am mistaken please correct me as I do not now if I got this right myself? Thanks,

12th June 2010, 08:28 PM	#8
lemmythesmith Member Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 93	Hi Alan, I'll have a go............ at getting them wrong. A-mlumah, iron/nickel. Iron not washed too much. B-mlumah, meteoric-looks similar in texture and colour to one I did. C-mlumah, mild and nickel. D-mlumah, iron, nickel. Iron looks extensively washed and refined. E-miring, iron, nickel. Iron not washed too much. Regards, Graham.

13th June 2010, 03:39 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,736	Thank you very much for your response Graham. You are the most knowledgeable person likely to respond to this question, so I won't delay my response.However, I will make this comment:- your experience is filling in the gaps that cannot be seen in the images --- I do exactly the same thing:- I see things that are not there in the image, because I instinctively know they are there in the object. Somebody lacking our level of experience does not have this advantage. As would be expected, some of it you've got right, but some of it you're a bit off track with. This reinforces the point I was trying to make:- images are not good enough to learn from. Yes, they can help, but you need the hands-on experience. Here is what these pamors are:- A--- the contrasting material in this is pure nickel, the iron is very hot short tyre . It started as very large pieces of tyre that were not washed at all, and the nickel was welded straight in, it then went through the washing process until it did not throw off sparks, plus a couple of extra welds --- this material was absolutely clean and tight when the core was welded in --- but the nickel had run up into the cracks caused by the hotshortness of the iron. This pamor material was doubled and welded in excess of 12 times.Following completion, this blade was soaked in an erosive medium to give an aged look to the surface. B--- yes, meteoritic. The meteor was from Arizona and was many small pieces; I welded these many small pieces into one solid , clean lump, this was then combined with iron that came from an old bridge, and that combination of meteoritic material and old iron formed the pamor. This blade was soaked in an erosive medium. C--- yes, mild and nickel. The mild was bought as second hand material in Solo, and my memory of it is that it was from some sort of old, heavy strapping. It was not washed at all.Yes, mlumah.This blade was not soaked in an erosive medium but was washed heavily with lime juice. D--- the material used in this blade is exactly the same as the material used in "C", again, not washed at all, however, it is not mlumah, it is miring. It started life as lawe setukal, but did not survive the forging, so the grains realigned and it looks like mlumah.This blade was not exposed to any erosive medium at all, it was only stained. E--- the contrasting material in this is an iron/nickel alloy; I have forgotten the analysis of the alloy; it was something used in the factory where my son was working at the time; the iron is high quality carriage strapping, it is wrought iron, and it was washed heavily, ie, more than 7 times folded and welded. The orientation is miring. This blade was given a light wash with hydrochloric acid. I have two other blades that have material judged to be meteoritic material according to Javanese standards. "B" above, and the other two blades all look different, one from the other. I have had blades with pamor that was judged to have been made from Dutch coins. This pamor looks exactly like meteoritic pamor in respect of colour, disregard the texture in example "B", because that is the product surface manipulation and etching. But the difference between the Dutch coin pamor and the meteoritic pamor is that the coin pamor is smooth and greasy to the touch, the meteoritic pamor is "prickly" to the touch. I have in my possession and have seen pamors made from bicycle spokes, motorbike exhausts, bicycle rims --- and various other materials. All these oddly assorted materials can look like one or another of the old traditional materials of high phosphoric iron, or coins, or pamor luwu, or meteorite. I've been misled by a first impression many times, and that's with the blade in my hand. Images on a computer screen, or even in hard copy, are just not good enough.