[A. G. Maisey]

Pak Ganja, I believe that Pak Haryono Haryoguritno has already declared his position in this matter:- he would not have published pictures and named the keris in those pictures as dhapur pasopati, had he not believed that dhapur pasopati could have a ron dha nunut.

I have no problem at all with this:- Pak Haryoguritno has decided that the Surakarta Pakem does not suit him, he has adopted a different pakem, or perhaps even written his own.

This is of course his right.

However, when that Surakarta Pakem was compiled in 1920, it clearly had the endorsement of Pakubuwana X.

Dhapur pasopati in that Surakarta Pakem has no ron dha nunut, thus, if a ron dha nunut is in evidence on a keris that bears sufficient other characteristics to classify it as a Surakarta keris, then clearly that keris fails to comply with the relevant Pakem, and it cannot be called a Surakarta Pasopati.

It can be called a Surakarta keris of un-named dhapur.

It can even be called a dhapur pasopati according to a different pakem, and in the style of Surakarta.

But it cannot be called a Surakarta Pasopati.

Each individual ricikan has a specific esoteric value. Variation of the allotted ricikan for keris alters the intended value of that keris.

This is not a matter of artistic appreciation , nor of opinion. The rules have been set, and within the area where those rules apply, they should be followed.