pamor wengkon

[Boedhi Adhitya]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us Pak Boedhi.

It is certain the telaga ngembeng ( membeng, membleng) is a well recognised pamor, however, in my understanding it is an accidental pamor (pamor tiban), it cannot be an intentionally made pamor, and it cannot be created by the insertion of a piece of coiled pamor.

Looking at Marco's blade I am uncertain if this effect has been created by insertion of a separate piece of pamor or not.

In the example posted by Gustav, it is clear that the lake is formed by pamor already within the body of the blade, however, the exposure of this pamor is so perfect that I doubt it is an accidental exposure.

I accept that different interpretations of pamor motifs exist, and I accept that what you have posted is your understanding of what constitutes pamor tlaga membeng.

Sorry for being late on replying your post, Pak Alan. When you travel abroad through 5 countries in 3 weeks, you may have something else as your top priorities. Packing and unpacking for sure

Well, as you've said, Tlaga Membeng is a well-recognized pamor. Thus I wonder why no one suggests it for it's name.

Tlaga Membeng simply described as several concentric circles lines pamor which reside inside the blumbangan. To make it happens, it takes two conditions : several layers of paralel pamor deep enough inside blumbangan, and a bowl-shaped blumbangan. Both are controlable. In fact, bowl-shaped blumbangan not that common, so some "engineering" must be taken to make a tlaga membeng. Yet, many peoples think it is a tiban pamor. On some might be, but on the others, I think not.

Regading "Tiban", it is a rather obscure. For example, we always think that Udan Mas pamor is a rekan pamor. But some peoples said, there is a tiban udan mas, and it is the best udan mas. And I've seen some blades with tiban udan mas pamor on particular blades. It's pattern and layering is as such that it is almost impossible to make it intentionally. On the contrary, we always think Raja Gundala pamor is a tiban ones. But I know a blade which belongs to notable keris expert in Surakarta which carries obviously made intentionally by the smith, and it is an old blade. Yet, the owner still called it Raja Gundala. Thus, I see tiban as an option. Surely, you don't have tiban blarak sineret or tiban ron gendhuru.

When I first make a post in this thread, I've never handled Marco's blade before. But last week, Marco showed me the blade, and I asure you it is not made by inserting a piece of coiled pamor. And anyway, tlaga membeng pattern isn't the coiled one. As I've written before, it is made by precise cutting of blumbangan into a bowl shaped, and the bottom of the bowl just touching the wengkon layers (which is parallel to the blade), thus exposing it as a several concentric circle lines.

Penangsang II,
As far as I understand it, tayuh is never really an important factor to appraise keris according to Yogyakarta Court Standart. The first is historical background behind the blades. Then, the workmanship.

I hope I make myself clear.



Best Regards,

Boedhi Adhitya