View Single Post
Old 3rd March 2021, 04:38 PM   #14
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 468

This is the best pics I can do at the moment. My phone is old and the camera not the best. But it shows what I want. The size of the kris under discussion and one of my archaics is spot on. Length, width are the same. As David and others pointed out thee are differences. Interestingly the differences you mentioned are exactly why i think it is a intermediate style between the different styles. I stopped using transition piece as that termis used by Cato to describe going from the smaller Malay keris to the battle kris. No point in trying to redefine terms. It does nor show up in the photo but in hand the steels seem to be very similar as well. The Jungyangan handle is not as large as it seems and is very close or would be very close to the one on the archaic if the archaic one was not broken. I do think it may be a later replacement. With it, the balance on the blade is awful. Definitely no twist core on the kris in question, the archaic one shown does indeed have one, though it took me awhile to see it. That's another story. Another thing I considered though in a different way then the previous discussion is size matters. Or more importantly is has meaning both as a status symbol which kris where and as a weapon. If this kris in question came up against a later part of the 19th century battle blade it would be at a major disadvantage both in reach and strength. I do not disagree at all with the differences pointed out, as I said they are the reasons i think it is a intermediate style. As to who I consulted with I can and will not name names as it was a private discussion. However I value his opinion quite a bit as he has seen an held many more than I can ever hope to.
Attached Images
mross is offline   Reply With Quote