Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DhenTal
Nechesh, I think all of keris was posted in this thread like a new kriss which was modificated or not real damascan.
My Keris kriss is very fake. It more like a new kriss which low knowledge to make it.
Sepang kriss, although look like a nice piece, but I consider with damascan. It can be made by now. And it look so whole.
BluErf kriss, like a new kriss too, so that he don't post it with close up picture.
perhaps I can made mistake, so please forgive me
|
Hey... be nice to my kerises ok...
You can insult me but not my 'babies'.
Anyway, out of that collage, I only reckon 2 to be 'new'. By 'new' I mean 20th century work. 1 is early 20th century, the other late 20th century. The others should be 19th century or earlier. Incidentally, both of these 2 newer kerises are of Javanese/Madurese origins. My collection consist mostly of Bugis/Sumatran/Malayan pieces. Problem of 'fake' (new made to look old) kerises are not as rampant as Javanese/Madurese kerises (although the Madurese are beginning to fake Bugis kerises, but I think they still suck at it
). That's one of the reasons why I concentrated on those areas. Anyway, when a good keris come along, I am extremely indiscriminate.
So DhenTal, are you a collector of Javanese/Madurese kerises, or do you collect Bugis/Sumatran/Malayan kerises too?