variation of tok chu

[David]

I asked a question earlier and i am still not sure it has been answered. When we refer to a keris as "Tok Chu", are we speaking of keris actually made by the pandai Tok Chu or are we talking about keris that seem to be merely in his style of making? Frankly the designation seems rather dubious at best without any hard provenance and i see more than variation difference between the three keris originally presented.

[keriswarisanpattani]

Originally Posted by David

I asked a question earlier and i am still not sure it has been answered. When we refer to a keris as "Tok Chu", are we speaking of keris actually made by the pandai Tok Chu or are we talking about keris that seem to be merely in his style of making? Frankly the designation seems rather dubious at best without any hard provenance and i see more than variation difference between the three keris originally presented.

hi david,

i believed nobody can claim this originally made by Tok Chu..same as for Keris Pandai Saras...nobody can claim it's made by pandai saras..but of course somebody can identify it's old or newly made....

[A. G. Maisey]

Jean, its all in the proportion, not the actual measurement, and to my eye this blade is slim and elegant.

As I have tried to say:- it looks like something made from a description or a quick look at a Mojo style blade:- the elements are there, but the result is different.

Additionally, let us not forget this:- what people think of as a Mojo blade today is not really the way Mojo blades were. Here we're into tangguh again, and I'm not going to go there, so please just accept my comment in the spirit in which I made it:- a personal observation, if you don't see this blade as I do, that's because you're looking at it with your eyes, not mine.

[Karttikeya]

I got interesting point here where I'd like to ask since so long regarding tangguh system. Pak Alan, once again figure out that keris Mojo in fact does not like what we are applying on playing tangguh till date which are longish, slim, elegant, waved gonjo, tall, narrow, upright blumbangan, tight greneng, two grooves starting at the blade base, kruwingan, another little greneng under the kembang kacang are features of Mojo blade. So if we assume that tangguh can represent production date of blade, these features should fit which era? I remember that you ever mentioned that most of keris today seems to have blossomed as an arm of the population as whole after the advent of Islam so there should be very less blade of Mojopahit period with uncommonly appearance and finally we may accept that blades above can be assumed as Mojo blade. The problem is most of the people, mainly here in Indonesia is still aligning tangguh with era.

[David]

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

hi david,

i believed nobody can claim this originally made by Tok Chu..same as for Keris Pandai Saras...nobody can claim it's made by pandai saras..but of course somebody can identify it's old or newly made....

Thank you for finally addressing this question. I understand that the term Keris Saras has come to be used to define a keris of a particular form which is said to be based upon a design created by Pandai Saras. We see many Keris Saras which obviously are not the creation of the famed pandai. It has also been my understanding that the same is true of Keris Tok Chu. My reason for pursuing this line is that in this thread you have presented 3 very different forms or dhapurs of keris and have claimed them to all be variations on Keris Tok Chu. I don't see how this is possible. None of them look like my own understanding of this dhapur which is more like the keris presented in BluErf's post #8. So i am wondering what possible claim these 3 keris have to the name Keris Tok Chu? If there was some provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu i could understand them holding the name (though they would still need some kind of name extension to distinguish them). But too my eye these look like 4 completely different dhapurs with BluErf's being the only one that fits the generally accepted design for this particular form.

[keriswarisanpattani]

Originally Posted by David

Thank you for finally addressing this question. I understand that the term Keris Saras has come to be used to define a keris of a particular form which is said to be based upon a design created by Pandai Saras. We see many Keris Saras which obviously are not the creation of the famed pandai. It has also been my understanding that the same is true of Keris Tok Chu. My reason for pursuing this line is that in this thread you have presented 3 very different forms or dhapurs of keris and have claimed them to all be variations on Keris Tok Chu. I don't see how this is possible. None of them look like my own understanding of this dhapur which is more like the keris presented in BluErf's post #8. So i am wondering what possible claim these 3 keris have to the name Keris Tok Chu? If there was some provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu i could understand them holding the name (though they would still need some kind of name extension to distinguish them). But too my eye these look like 4 completely different dhapurs with BluErf's being the only one that fits the generally accepted design for this particular form.

dear david,

like my earlier post, at beginning i was taught keris tok chu is a straight, broad as same like Bluerf's posting. but after met few seniors, attending seminars, forum about keris tok chu, it's have variations. And it's accepted here. it is believed that Tok Chu same like pandai saras did not produce only 1 type/dapur of keris. The problem and different with javanese keris, most northern keris, pattani etc did not classified according to dapur...if it's been classified, like keris tok chu dapur aaa, keris tok chu dapur bbb, it's much easier to understand.

my private collection for keris tok chu with wifiq/arabic

[David]

Originally Posted by keriswarisanpattani

dear david,

like my earlier post, at beginning i was taught keris tok chu is a straight, broad as same like Bluerf's posting. but after met few seniors, attending seminars, forum about keris tok chu, it's have variations. And it's accepted here. it is believed that Tok Chu same like pandai saras did not produce only 1 type/dapur of keris. The problem and different with javanese keris, most northern keris, pattani etc did not classified according to dapur...if it's been classified, like keris tok chu dapur aaa, keris tok chu dapur bbb, it's much easier to understand.

my private collection for keris tok chu with wifiq/arabic

Could you please explain then what indicators are used to identify it as a Tok Chu blade?

[A. G. Maisey]

I've noted the question but I an unable to reply at the moment. 6.am here and I'm off to answer some very different questions at a couple of meetings in Sydney.

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

I've noted the question but I an unable to reply at the moment. 6.am here and I'm off to answer some very different questions at a couple of meetings in Sydney.

Thanks for noting the question Alan. I look forward to your response.
Just to extend this a bit further, when we talk about Keris Pandai Saras they all usually show the same indicators that allow us to make that designation. Some may be straight, some luk, but we expect to see the same diamond cross section, a generally slim blade and similar application of greneng. It is therefore clearly identifiable as a Keris Pandai Saras, regardless of whether it was actually made by the famed pandai himself.
At this point the O.P. has posted 4 keris that in my estimation show great differences in form far beyond the simple lurus/luk question. I note different cross-sections, greneng, even iron types. These 4 keris really couldn't be more dissimilar to my eyes. So if we do not hold the almost impossible provenance that these keris were actually made by Tok Chu himself, how or why should they all hold the same type name?