keris for sharing \2

semar · 8th May 2011, 12:03 PM

keris ladrang solo
comment are welkome

Greybeard · 10th May 2011, 07:08 PM

That's a very nice piece! Dapur Sengkelat I guess -- one of my favourite dapur. Congratulations!

Best regards,

Heinz

semar · 12th May 2011, 04:47 AM

hallo Heinz

thank you for your comment but this is no sengkelat but dapur ; Lung Gandu
tangguh Modjopahit

regards semar

Greybeard · 12th May 2011, 07:02 AM

Hello Semar

Of course, you are right: no sogokan = Lung Gandu.

Best regards,

Heinz

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2011, 08:27 AM

Do we have two lambe gajah?

Is the blumbangan boto adeg?

Greybeard · 12th May 2011, 10:13 AM

Interesting questions, Alan. What dapur do we have if there's one lambe gajah only? I have a keris luk 13 without sogokan and with one lambe gajah -- I always thought that the dapur is Lung Gandu ...

A. G. Maisey · 12th May 2011, 12:07 PM

Simple answer?

I don't know.

This whole business of dhapur, pamor, tangguh has so much variation that it becomes often a matter of which school one attended.

My school has been, and is Surakarta.

My textbook for dhapur is the well known Surakarta pakem.

In that , there is no provision for a dhapur that possesses the features of lung gandhu but has only one lambe gajah. In other words, if this keris has only one lambe gajah it is diluar pakem according to this reference. But that does not necessarily mean that some other pakem will not define lung gandhu with only one lambe gajah.However, this keris has suffered quite a bit of erosion, perhaps in the hand it is possible to see the remnants of two lambe gajah.

I would very much like people to try to get into the habit of quoting the reference for a dhapur when they say that a blade is such & such a dhapur.

If I say that a blade is dhapur whatever, that is my opinion, and I do not have the knowledge nor the authority to determine a dhapur. No, not at all. I rely on a text.This being the case, I should say that the blade is such & such a dhapur in accordance with this or that pakem or other reference.

Similarly with tangguh. If we give an opinion in respect of tangguh, it might be as well to say how we came to form that opinion. If I say a blade is, for example, Madura sepuh, I could reasonably be expected to quote a few of the indicators that have helped me form my opinion. If I am challenged in respect of that opinion, I should be able to quote all of the indicators I have used, and the source of the knowledge. Alternatively, I could perhaps say that I have been advised by Pak Soandso that in his opinion the blade is Madura sepuh.

The whole field of keris classification relies upon very, very minute differences and nuances. I sometimes I think it was invented to allow unending conversation and discussion.In some cases discussion could go on for days without a firm position being reached.

In the interests of clarity, it would assist our discussion of things like tangguh , dhapur etc., if when we say that some classification or other applies, we give the source of our opinion.

Greybeard · 12th May 2011, 12:53 PM

Thank you, Alan. When trying to determine a dapur I use the book "Dhapur", "Ensiklopedi Keris" plus several other books and booklets. Unfortunately, these sources don't always agree when it comes to details.

In the case of my keris, the dapur designation "Lung Gandu" is not mine but the seller's. It is indeed a well worn piece. Even in hand, it is difficult to tell whether there were originally two lambe gajah or not.

A. G. Maisey · 13th May 2011, 12:49 AM

Yes, you have hit the nail on the head.

In almost everything to do with the keris there is no solid, incontrovertible position that one can take and never get an argument.

There are a multitude of opinions, and many people believe that the opinion they hold is the correct opinion.

This is one more reason for providing the reasons and foundations for an opinion when it is given.

Greybeard · 13th May 2011, 08:18 PM

Alan, you are absolutely right -- I should be more accurate when posting here. The seller of my keris "Lung Gandu with one lambe gajah" classifies according to "Ensiklopedi Keris". When consulting my records, I see that he wrote "the dapur is similar to Lung Gandu"; he didn't write "the dapur is Lung Gandu" -- this makes quite a difference ...

A. G. Maisey · 14th May 2011, 12:28 AM

Thank you Greybeard.

Yes, that description I can accept.

Personally I like a description that actually names the keris features, for example:- 9 wave, sogokan, kembang kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, ada2, gusen.

As soon as we start to stick a dhapur on something we get into deep water, because unless that blade comes from exactly the same foundation as the pakem you're using, its likely to be diluar pakem.

drdavid · 14th May 2011, 01:39 AM

Hi Alan
would you mind clarifying the term diluar pakem, am I correct in interpreting this as 'outside the pakem' or 'not of the pakem'
thanks
drdavid

A. G. Maisey · 14th May 2011, 06:16 AM

"di luar" = outside

If we say that a keris is outside the pakem, we mean that the features (ricikan) that it has do not permit it to be aligned with any of the forms (dhapur) listed in that particular guide book (pakem).

However, that does not necessary mean that it is di luar pakem for all guidebooks.

People who have known me for any length of time know that one of my pet peeves is the "name game" :- that seeming compulsion of all collectors --- not only keris collectors, or weapons collectors --- to want to classify and categorise everything, as if that putting of a name on something is all that is necessary to justify the acquisition and retention of something.

Those with encyclopedic knowledge of names and the associated attributes are regarded as absolute authorities in the field.

I personally regard this game of putting names on things as so much nonsense, and a poor substitute for meaningful knowledge. Probably the only time I ever get involved in it is when people want to know what name to hang on a pamor or dhapur.

But don't mind me. I'm swimming against the tide. Everybody else seems to be vitally interested in this sort of stuff, so I'll go my own way, and when I am able, assist others to go their way.

semar · 14th May 2011, 07:06 AM

I have made a new picteur I think that it is easyer to say what the dapur is

regards semar

A. G. Maisey · 14th May 2011, 08:18 AM

In the crop of the gandhik, who can identify the features that we can see?

In the crop of the greneng does everything look as we would expect it to?

Greybeard · 14th May 2011, 02:17 PM

Here's my uninformed opinion: I see 1 jalen, 1 lambe gajah (placed a bit high!). Regarding the greneng, I would expect to see Ron dha, but cannot find it here (might be worn down, of course).

A. G. Maisey · 14th May 2011, 03:10 PM

Yes, I think that is also what I can see.

But I cannot reconstruct the greneng to any correct form, additionally the gonjo appears to be of different material to the material in the blade, so it is probably a replacement done by somebody who did not understand what the greneng should look like.

It is not at all unusual for a worn old keris to have a replacement gonjo, in fact, it is common, but often these replacements have been done by owners or people who are not really trained in keris maintenance, and when that happens it can make a keris more than a little bit difficult to read. One of the reasons why 100% original old keris, even if in a worn condition, can be quite valuable.

8th May 2011, 12:03 PM	#1
semar Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 272	keris for sharing \2 keris ladrang solo comment are welkome Attached Images

14th May 2011, 07:06 AM	#14
semar Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 272	close up picteur I have made a new picteur I think that it is easyer to say what the dapur is regards semar Attached Images

14th May 2011, 08:18 AM	#15
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	In the crop of the gandhik, who can identify the features that we can see? In the crop of the greneng does everything look as we would expect it to? Attached Images

10th May 2011, 07:08 PM	#2
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	That's a very nice piece! Dapur Sengkelat I guess -- one of my favourite dapur. Congratulations! Best regards, Heinz

12th May 2011, 04:47 AM	#3
semar Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 272	hallo Heinz thank you for your comment but this is no sengkelat but dapur ; Lung Gandu tangguh Modjopahit regards semar

12th May 2011, 07:02 AM	#4
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Hello Semar Of course, you are right: no sogokan = Lung Gandu. Best regards, Heinz

12th May 2011, 08:27 AM	#5
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Do we have two lambe gajah? Is the blumbangan boto adeg?

12th May 2011, 10:13 AM	#6
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Interesting questions, Alan. What dapur do we have if there's one lambe gajah only? I have a keris luk 13 without sogokan and with one lambe gajah -- I always thought that the dapur is Lung Gandu ...

12th May 2011, 12:07 PM	#7
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Simple answer? I don't know. This whole business of dhapur, pamor, tangguh has so much variation that it becomes often a matter of which school one attended. My school has been, and is Surakarta. My textbook for dhapur is the well known Surakarta pakem. In that , there is no provision for a dhapur that possesses the features of lung gandhu but has only one lambe gajah. In other words, if this keris has only one lambe gajah it is diluar pakem according to this reference. But that does not necessarily mean that some other pakem will not define lung gandhu with only one lambe gajah.However, this keris has suffered quite a bit of erosion, perhaps in the hand it is possible to see the remnants of two lambe gajah. I would very much like people to try to get into the habit of quoting the reference for a dhapur when they say that a blade is such & such a dhapur. If I say that a blade is dhapur whatever, that is my opinion, and I do not have the knowledge nor the authority to determine a dhapur. No, not at all. I rely on a text.This being the case, I should say that the blade is such & such a dhapur in accordance with this or that pakem or other reference. Similarly with tangguh. If we give an opinion in respect of tangguh, it might be as well to say how we came to form that opinion. If I say a blade is, for example, Madura sepuh, I could reasonably be expected to quote a few of the indicators that have helped me form my opinion. If I am challenged in respect of that opinion, I should be able to quote all of the indicators I have used, and the source of the knowledge. Alternatively, I could perhaps say that I have been advised by Pak Soandso that in his opinion the blade is Madura sepuh. The whole field of keris classification relies upon very, very minute differences and nuances. I sometimes I think it was invented to allow unending conversation and discussion.In some cases discussion could go on for days without a firm position being reached. In the interests of clarity, it would assist our discussion of things like tangguh , dhapur etc., if when we say that some classification or other applies, we give the source of our opinion.

12th May 2011, 12:53 PM	#8
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Thank you, Alan. When trying to determine a dapur I use the book "Dhapur", "Ensiklopedi Keris" plus several other books and booklets. Unfortunately, these sources don't always agree when it comes to details. In the case of my keris, the dapur designation "Lung Gandu" is not mine but the seller's. It is indeed a well worn piece. Even in hand, it is difficult to tell whether there were originally two lambe gajah or not.

13th May 2011, 12:49 AM	#9
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Yes, you have hit the nail on the head. In almost everything to do with the keris there is no solid, incontrovertible position that one can take and never get an argument. There are a multitude of opinions, and many people believe that the opinion they hold is the correct opinion. This is one more reason for providing the reasons and foundations for an opinion when it is given.

13th May 2011, 08:18 PM	#10
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Alan, you are absolutely right -- I should be more accurate when posting here. The seller of my keris "Lung Gandu with one lambe gajah" classifies according to "Ensiklopedi Keris". When consulting my records, I see that he wrote "the dapur is similar to Lung Gandu"; he didn't write "the dapur is Lung Gandu" -- this makes quite a difference ...

14th May 2011, 12:28 AM	#11
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Thank you Greybeard. Yes, that description I can accept. Personally I like a description that actually names the keris features, for example:- 9 wave, sogokan, kembang kacang, jalen, lambe gajah, ada2, gusen. As soon as we start to stick a dhapur on something we get into deep water, because unless that blade comes from exactly the same foundation as the pakem you're using, its likely to be diluar pakem.

14th May 2011, 01:39 AM	#12
drdavid Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Australia Posts: 371	Hi Alan would you mind clarifying the term diluar pakem, am I correct in interpreting this as 'outside the pakem' or 'not of the pakem' thanks drdavid

14th May 2011, 06:16 AM	#13
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	"di luar" = outside If we say that a keris is outside the pakem, we mean that the features (ricikan) that it has do not permit it to be aligned with any of the forms (dhapur) listed in that particular guide book (pakem). However, that does not necessary mean that it is di luar pakem for all guidebooks. People who have known me for any length of time know that one of my pet peeves is the "name game" :- that seeming compulsion of all collectors --- not only keris collectors, or weapons collectors --- to want to classify and categorise everything, as if that putting of a name on something is all that is necessary to justify the acquisition and retention of something. Those with encyclopedic knowledge of names and the associated attributes are regarded as absolute authorities in the field. I personally regard this game of putting names on things as so much nonsense, and a poor substitute for meaningful knowledge. Probably the only time I ever get involved in it is when people want to know what name to hang on a pamor or dhapur. But don't mind me. I'm swimming against the tide. Everybody else seems to be vitally interested in this sort of stuff, so I'll go my own way, and when I am able, assist others to go their way.

14th May 2011, 02:17 PM	#16
Greybeard Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Switzerland Posts: 124	Here's my uninformed opinion: I see 1 jalen, 1 lambe gajah (placed a bit high!). Regarding the greneng, I would expect to see Ron dha, but cannot find it here (might be worn down, of course).

14th May 2011, 03:10 PM	#17
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 6,892	Yes, I think that is also what I can see. But I cannot reconstruct the greneng to any correct form, additionally the gonjo appears to be of different material to the material in the blade, so it is probably a replacement done by somebody who did not understand what the greneng should look like. It is not at all unusual for a worn old keris to have a replacement gonjo, in fact, it is common, but often these replacements have been done by owners or people who are not really trained in keris maintenance, and when that happens it can make a keris more than a little bit difficult to read. One of the reasons why 100% original old keris, even if in a worn condition, can be quite valuable.