New keris?

[scratch]

G'day
I like this keris, it is striking to the eye feels nice in hand, to me.
In shape it is similiar to the earliar piece I posted. This keris would be late 20th C? Regardless, it is skillfully executed I think
Are there rules of thumb regarding identifying old v new keris?

Cheers,

Dan

[Rick]

Determining age can be a problem; many new keris are artificially aged and sold as antiques .

Your blade appears to come from Madura and may not have a core; hard for me to tell; if there is a core it is thin .
The blade seems to have been given a fairly heavy etching as it appears topographical . I have a similar Madura blade .
Here is that pamor type with a normal etch see pic below .

I don't think that this was done to deceive , rather more for effect .

I believe this is newer work .

Rick

Could I recommend a book or two ?

Garret and Bronwen Solyum .
The World of The Javanese Keris . (Erik's Edge has it)

David van Duuren
The Kris .

[PenangsangII]

dera Rick,

I can see the steel core in your keris, but Scratch's example looks like having no steel core, or simply the pamor layering is "nerjah landhep" which is considered bad

[Rick]

We must also remember that keris pamor Buntil Mayit is also generally a coreless blade .


Bad or good ?

[A. G. Maisey]

When we talk about blades with cores, and blades with no cores, we need to keep a few things in mind.

First is the age of the blade. Is it old? Current era? Brand new?

If it is an old blade, and it has a manipulated pamor, it will most certainly have a core.

However, a new or current era blade might have a core, or might not.

The blade with the core will be the superior blade to the one with no core, however, the blade with no core could well be a superbly made blade, with no weld flaws, and with beautifully executed pamor.

What you get, should be reflected in the value of the blade.

The new or current era blade with no core should cost less than an equally well made new or current era blade that has been constructed with a core.

Now, if we talk about older blades, and we look at manipulated pamors, those blades will often not be as well made as the more recent blades, they will certainly be in a lesser state of preservation, and if they are any good at all, the value will be multiples of the new or current era blade.

We need to be realistic in the appraisal of a keris.

Its no good simply saying that something is "good", or "bad", or anything else for that matter.

We need to appraise the blade within its applicable parameters.

This blade that Scratch has shown us is a current era blade; it appears not to have a core, however, the pamor has been well managed, and I cannot see any obvious flaws in the welding; the garap (coldwork) is good. Overall this is a good example of its type.

Yes, I agree, if it had been made on a core it would better. If it was pre-WWII it would also be better.

However, I'll put money on it that Scratch did not pay the price of a current era keris made on a core, nor did he pay the price of a pre-WWII keris.

This is a good example of its type, and it should not be criticised for being what it obviously is not.

[PenangsangII]

Thanks for your lengthy clarification Alan. Actually I was not trying to critisize Scratch's keris as being bad as I was rather trying to point out that nerjah landep is generally considered bad - aesthetically and esoterically. Furthermore, though of Jawanese ethnicity, I live in within Malay culture that considers keris first & foremost a weapon. So, I cannot imagine this type of keris being actually used..... I guess it is my bad