Quote:
|
Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey
.
The point I wish to make is this:- it is simply not possible for any person who is not an insider in the keris trade of Central Jawa to know with any degree of certainty what is likely to be a forgery and what is not likely to be a forgery. I use the word "likely" because the only way to be certain is if the forgery was observed whilst in production. It is not possible for any collector, and most second or third level dealers to have any certainty at all in what is and is not a forgery.
The gonjo is unlikely to be original to the wilah. The material is different to the wilah and the degree of erosion to the underside of the gonjo is not consistent with overall blade erosion.
This keris could have been re-manufactured from a much larger keris, that possibility exists, but the only type of keris that I know of that could give sufficient material to create what we see in this keris is the very large old Tuban keris, and the material in this keris is nothing like old Tuban material.
|
Hi Alan,
Thank you for you very interesting and detailed reply and I fully agree with you.
Actually the possible gonjo replacement was the first observation which I made (fancy shape, different metal, and impeccable interface line with the blade) and this seems confirmed by the additional pictures from Auk (rebuilt peksi base, perfect peksi hole, lock).
And I also suspected that the blade may have been re-shaped from a larger one because of the strange gandik and the pamor which fully extends to the edges of the blade.
Is there a way to assess if the luks at the tip are original or not?
Best regards
PS: Sorry, I did not read your last post before sending mine