I don't think that anybody has said that an opinion without a solid stream of reasoning is useless.
Of course it is not, however, if one wishes to put forward the opinion that it is raining, one must be able to either see, hear or feel the rain. Any opinion that rain is falling without some relevant evidence to support the opinion that rain is falling can be regarded as an opinion without foundation. This type of opinion is based upon physical evidence.
Alternatively, where an opinion can be based upon a recognised system, application of that system can be used to support the opinion. This type of opinion is based upon reason and/or logic.
However, in the case of the Javanese keris, no recognised system exists that can be used to support an opinion in respect of true age of a keris, thus such an opinion depends upon the experience of the person giving the opinion, in effect it becomes a subjective opinion, and can only be given in the presence of the subject, which by its presence, provides the evidence.
Where an opinion on keris age is given upon the basis of a photograph, and in the physical absence of the keris it is simply not possible to support such an opinion in any rational way.
Where the photograph is of a keris of very high quality, in excellent condition, and of a recognisable form, probably most experienced keris conscious people would be prepared to give a qualified opinion, I know that under these circumstances I would be prepared to give such an opinion, however, that opinion would not be firm in respect of age, it would be a qualified opinion in respect of classification or tangguh.
I learnt keris appraisal from a man who was probably the most respected authority in Jawa, on the Javanese keris, in the period from the late 1970's, until his passing in 1995. I was taught that if I wish to provide an opinion on a keris I must be able to support that opinion, it is worse than useless to provide an opinion if one cannot support the opinion. This is especially so if a person is already in a position where his reputation is on the line every time he makes a statement.
One must be able to support one's opinion.
I am regularly called upon to appraise keris, and I do not give an opinion unless I can support that opinion.
If we are now looking for tangguh classifications, rather than age estimates, that's a game that I'm quite prepared to play, in spite of the fact that these keris under discussion are not of very high quality, nor in particularly good condition. However, I need some more photos.
I need the hilts to be removed from all keris, and close ups provided of the top of each gonjo, looking directly down on to it, and with the pesi not obstructing the gonjo top.
I also need a close up of each pesi.
I need a close up of the mid-section of each blade , this should be of only about 3 or 4 inches of blade.
For blade #5 I need several close ups of both sides of the gonjo joint (ie, where the gonjo joins the blade), and close ups of the base of the pesi where it enters the gonjo taken from both sides. These base of gonjo shots should be taken at an angle looking down onto the edge of the hole where the pesi enters the gonjo.
If I can see those photos I'll do my best to provide a qualified opinion in respect of tangguh.
Incidentally, where blade quality is concerned, keris #2 appears to be far superior to anything else in the line up. To a degree this opinion can be confirmed by close examination of the entire blade:- if the side we cannot see matches perfectly the side we can see, then this is a very competently made blade. By "match perfectly" I mean that the placement, size and form of all features is precisely the same on each side. "Precise" means exactly that.
|