Keris putut Kembar

[Jean]

A similar kris from my collection, the blade has picit (thumb) marks and I am not sure about its age either...
Regards

[E-brain]

Gentlemen,
THanks for reacting.
For as far as i know the blade is supposed to be a few centuries old. The hilt is old and the gandar is to. The waranka is supposed to be newly cut. This is what is told to me by the previous owner who is a highly regarded collector for almost 50 years. But he couldn't tell me where this keris is made. He suggested somewhere West Java. By the way, I replaced the 'carnaval-mendak' with a bronz cast one.
Jean, It's always difficult to estimate the age of a blade, but I gues that yours isn't hundreds of years. But some age it has. It's not karamadikan (excyse me for my spellling) but little older i guess.

[David]

Could we see a photograph of the pesi of this blade E-Brain?

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by E-brain

The hilt is old and the gandar is to.

Hello E-brain,

first welcome to the forum! May I ask you what is your understanding of the term "old"? This hilt may be old a few years but I don't see any signs of handling. And it isn't a masterwork of art, I think that I will be able to carve a better one. I personally would replace the handle. I wouldn't pay one Euro for this piece of wood, sorry! This seems to be harsh words but this is what I think about this handle.

Regards,
Detlef

[kai]

Hello Karel,

I find these type of keris terribly difficult to evaluate - it's a bit like keris sajen where examining the metal becomes paramount (something that is next to impossible to do from even good pics).

From looking at the pics only, I'd rather tend to see more wear at Jean's example (which doesn't necessarily translate into age, of course) and patina on the fittings. I don't know the provenance of your piece, but this would be perfectly preserved if it were antique and even early collected...

Likewise, I don't see any signs of the gandar being old - it's certainly possible/likely to have been worked over when the wronko/gambar got replaced. Either way, it doesn't make much of a difference, I guess.

The hilt is certainly an unusual combination and doesn't look that old to me, too. Despite its somewhat "tribal" feel, the figure seems to carry an arm in the right hand. In old hilts from Bali (associated with Rangda) this seems invariably carried left, doesn't? Also the arm has been separated from the indistinct carrying hand by making a cut with a saw (inadvertantly cutting into the hanging left arm, too); in really old hilts I'd expect such features to be carved, even when done under more "tribal" circumstances. If an pre-WW2 origin can be established by provenance, this hilt is certainly worthy to be kept for future research though!

Regards,
Kai

[E-brain]

Gentlemen,

It took some time te respond.
I'm not very handy, so i'm not very keen on dismantling a keris.
(puting it all back together is not an easy task for me.)
Knowing some fellow keris-collectors will visite me later on today made me take the opportunity because at least one of them will be willing and able to put it back together again.
Old for me is at least 100 years.

Regards,

Karel

[A. G. Maisey]

Current era, Aeng Tong-Tong

[David]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Current era, Aeng Tong-Tong

Thanks for confirming my suspicions on this keris Alan. Can you elaborate at all as to what specifically identifies this keris as having an Aeng Tong-Tong origin as opposed to any other current era keris making center?

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Current era, Aeng Tong-Tong

Thank you Alan, it did not look obvious to me and I assume that my piece is from the same origin in spite of the authenticity guarantee from the seller....
Regards