new member, old keris

A. G. Maisey · 19th October 2013, 07:30 AM

Thanks for your vote of confidence Detlef, but I'm afraid that Alan cannot say much about this blade at all.

Using the current convention of count I'd be inclined to give this as 5 luk, not 7; however, that said, this blade does demonstrate very clearly my proposition that the current convention of count adds 2 non-existent luk to the count.

I am not inclined to try to give this blade a classification in accordance with the tangguh system, but I would draw your attention to the very stiff gonjo, lack of erosion at the fine points of the ricikan and the form of the ron dha.

Place of origin is probably East Jawa.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

19th October 2013, 07:30 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,991	Thanks for your vote of confidence Detlef, but I'm afraid that Alan cannot say much about this blade at all. Using the current convention of count I'd be inclined to give this as 5 luk, not 7; however, that said, this blade does demonstrate very clearly my proposition that the current convention of count adds 2 non-existent luk to the count. I am not inclined to try to give this blade a classification in accordance with the tangguh system, but I would draw your attention to the very stiff gonjo, lack of erosion at the fine points of the ricikan and the form of the ron dha. Place of origin is probably East Jawa.