Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jean
Hello Alan and Willem,
I understand your difficulty to follow my point and again this is just my opinion from the pictures which are insufficient to make an accurate statement. I will try to be more explicit but you may still fully disagree with me! 
When I look at the pictures of this blade, I feel something wrong aesthetically: for me such a repeating pamor (Bendo Sagodo?) should extend and be clearly visible to the base of the blade such as shown on my pictures, i.e I feel that it does not match with a dapur including sogokans.
Furthermore the sogokans do not seem to be well made, for instance on the top pictures their height is different and the janur does not look straight (and very thin on the back side). Of course this could be due to wear but this strengthens my impression that they were carved later.
Best regards
Jean |
Hello Jean,
sorry, but I also don't think that the sogokan was added later since I agree in this point complete with Alan. That the two sogokan have a little bit different heigh you can found by many blades. You have a numerous collection byself, check your blades and I am nearly sure that you will find this fact by some blades, I have done it by my collection and found it as well.
That the janur is thin seems in my eyes the effect of the age and the wear. That it isn't straight at one point may be the result from a not careful handling of the blade in it's history.
And why should have someone added later the sogokan? I don't think that the work is worth the apprecation value.
I think that Danny have added a nice old blade to his collection with a eccentric dhapur which I can't name.
Regards,
Detlef