Interesting Bugis blade .

capt.smash · 19th February 2005, 07:00 PM

Hi guys i just got this keris and thaught id post some pics for comment and hopefuly expand on my limited knowledge

It looked uniformly gray when i got it but i thaught i could just see a pamor so i washed it in lime and its shown up a treat

Ive seen one similar to it before in the forums but i dont think it had pamor.
Smashy.

capt.smash · 19th February 2005, 07:04 PM

sorry about the picture quality , ill take some more tomorow in the sunlight.

DAHenkel · 20th February 2005, 04:35 AM

This isn't Bugis - its Malay. From Terengganu. Its called a keris malela due to the blade form which is characterised mainly by the deep fullering of the blade. Very unlike the "malela" of Java or even besi malela. Hard to tell with the pics but this could be fairly recently made. Judging from the wood on the hilt and pendokok though - if they are original to the piece - it could be in the +,- 50 year range but could also be considerably less than that.

What are the measurements?

Did it come with a sheath?

littledirtnap · 30th May 2005, 06:09 PM

I'm a newb, so I'll just say "very cool knife!"

nechesh · 30th May 2005, 08:50 PM

Dave is , of course, right about this being a Keris Malela. Nice looking blade and the wood on the hulu looks nice too. Your lime treatment seems to have created a variance in iron color, however, if i am not mistaken, Malela blades have no pamor pattern so this variance is just a deception that you might want to rectify to give the blade it's proper look. I will repeat an already asked question; is there a sheath?

tom hyle · 30th May 2005, 09:22 PM

I could be wrong (photo disclaimer again infinity!

), but I do not think it is correct to characterize the appearance of the surface as a deception. I think the light etch has shown layering that is really there. This layering may not be traditionally shown within the native culture. It might for some technical reason or reasons not be properly pamor. But it is not likely a trick of the acid fooling anyone; it is probably real forged layers.

archer · 31st May 2005, 09:31 AM

Shortly after this thread opened ownership changed and i've been meaning to
ask your opinions as to age, etc. D.A. henkel asked about size. The blade is 11.5" and width at ganja 3". I'm enclosing some shots 1741 shows pitting and perhaps a bit of age

nechesh · 31st May 2005, 12:29 PM

Sure Tom, perhap deceiption was going too far. To be sure, the blade is layered and that is probably what the etch is showing. However, i would say that this blade has no pamor per se.

Alam Shah · 31st May 2005, 05:19 PM

I agree with Dave, the blade is a Malay piece. The sheath is typical Terengganu. The hilt or hulu (in Malay) is pipit teleng form. The silver pendongkok looks new, to me. The hulu and cross-piece or sampir (in Malay) are made from ketengga wood and the batang of angsana wood (Pterocarpus indicus).

I have a similar looking sheath. See here.

There is another piece here with a similar blade form. (err..i think it's your blade Dave).

And another blade here. Just for comparison.

19th February 2005, 07:00 PM	#1
capt.smash Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Devon ,England Posts: 80	Interesting Bugis blade . Hi guys i just got this keris and thaught id post some pics for comment and hopefuly expand on my limited knowledgeIt looked uniformly gray when i got it but i thaught i could just see a pamor so i washed it in lime and its shown up a treat Ive seen one similar to it before in the forums but i dont think it had pamor. Smashy. Attached Images

31st May 2005, 09:31 AM	#7
archer Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 373	Intersting Bugis blade Shortly after this thread opened ownership changed and i've been meaning to ask your opinions as to age, etc. D.A. henkel asked about size. The blade is 11.5" and width at ganja 3". I'm enclosing some shots 1741 shows pitting and perhaps a bit of age Attached Images

31st May 2005, 05:19 PM	#9
Alam Shah Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 1,248	The sheath...and blade. I agree with Dave, the blade is a Malay piece. The sheath is typical Terengganu. The hilt or hulu (in Malay) is pipit teleng form. The silver pendongkok looks new, to me. The hulu and cross-piece or sampir (in Malay) are made from ketengga wood and the batang of angsana wood (Pterocarpus indicus). I have a similar looking sheath. See here. There is another piece here with a similar blade form. (err..i think it's your blade Dave). And another blade here. Just for comparison. Last edited by Alam Shah; 31st May 2005 at 05:33 PM.

19th February 2005, 07:04 PM	#2
capt.smash Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Devon ,England Posts: 80	sorry about the picture quality , ill take some more tomorow in the sunlight.

20th February 2005, 04:35 AM	#3
DAHenkel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 125	This isn't Bugis - its Malay. From Terengganu. Its called a keris malela due to the blade form which is characterised mainly by the deep fullering of the blade. Very unlike the "malela" of Java or even besi malela. Hard to tell with the pics but this could be fairly recently made. Judging from the wood on the hilt and pendokok though - if they are original to the piece - it could be in the +,- 50 year range but could also be considerably less than that. What are the measurements? Did it come with a sheath?

30th May 2005, 06:09 PM	#4
littledirtnap Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 10	I'm a newb, so I'll just say "very cool knife!"

30th May 2005, 08:50 PM	#5
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Dave is , of course, right about this being a Keris Malela. Nice looking blade and the wood on the hulu looks nice too. Your lime treatment seems to have created a variance in iron color, however, if i am not mistaken, Malela blades have no pamor pattern so this variance is just a deception that you might want to rectify to give the blade it's proper look. I will repeat an already asked question; is there a sheath?

30th May 2005, 09:22 PM	#6
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I could be wrong (photo disclaimer again infinity! ), but I do not think it is correct to characterize the appearance of the surface as a deception. I think the light etch has shown layering that is really there. This layering may not be traditionally shown within the native culture. It might for some technical reason or reasons not be properly pamor. But it is not likely a trick of the acid fooling anyone; it is probably real forged layers.

31st May 2005, 12:29 PM	#8
nechesh Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 940	Sure Tom, perhap deceiption was going too far. To be sure, the blade is layered and that is probably what the etch is showing. However, i would say that this blade has no pamor per se.