VOC marked pedang
 

Saw this VOC mark on a pamor pedang. No date or other stamps. Blade is marked on both sides near the hilt. It seems a bit odd to me. what's your opinion? The hilt looks like a replacement, is not as worn as the blade. Unfortunately I do not have more photos. The pedang is not in my possesion.

My first impression is that it looks sketchy. The blade doesn't appear old enough for one and the mark doesn't look quite right. But i think it is impossible to form any defendable opinions with the photographs you have provided. We really need to see images of the entire blade and clearer, better lit close-ups.

Thanks for your response David. Unfortunately I don't have more pictures. The blade is old, I've seen it. The blade shows much more wear than the grip. That's why I think it was replaced at some point. I have doubts about the absence of a date and the, despite the fact that it does look old, somewhat different version of the VOC stamp.

it may very well be a real VOC blade but if there is something that is regularly faked is precisely the VOC designation , so be careful

Previous thread VOC
 

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...+comprehensive

I agree entirely with David, the VOC marking here seems a bit off, and we do need better and more comprehensive photos to offer more detailed opinions.
I think it is important to note that while the Dutch East Indies Company seems to have been fairly consistent in their manner of marking blades with their trademark VOC, the variation in this example does not suggest it simply being an older version.

As I have noted before in discussing this topic (attached thread) the weapons of these regions are far outside my regular fields of study. However what I have learned is that this VOC marking seems to have held a degree of talismanic value for these regional peoples, and applying it to blades would have been somewhat expected. As Alan Maisey noted in one of his entries, he had little doubt that indiginous smiths produced VOC marked blades with this in mind.

In this case, the mark seems out of character for the usual VOC version, and authentic marks typical had the kamer (six chambers of the VOC) marked above, as well as the typically seen year placed laterally on the blade.

As blades were of course commonly remounted, the disparity between the age of the blade and its dress would not be unusual.

These images of authentic VOC blades illustrate the character and configuration noted, the first with majescule 'A' (Amsterdam, the most commonly seen); the next with 'M' (Middelburg)...........the other chambers were Delft, Rotterdam, Enkhuisen, and Hoorn.

Thanks Jim, that is indeed what you would expect. The absence of a year and the letter of the city is also suspicious to me. It was offered to me but I think I will pass on this one.

You bet Cel, glad I could offer some help. This piece might be of some speculative value in the sense of the traditional character of these being put together, but a good measure of optimism is needed.
It seems I've been looking for a good example of a VOC blade forever, but remains on my bucket list :)

Hi cel7,

As others have noted, this sword was entirely made in Indonesia and unrelated to the VOC. The VOC mark is clearly spurious; for example, the "C" is horizontally not vertically oriented. There are further aspects of the mark that are incorrect, but I won't help the "forgers" by pointing out other errors. The mistake in transcription likely reflects a craftsman unfamiliar with Anglo-European alphabets. This does not necessarily mean that there was an attempt to pass the sword off as Dutch in origin or directly linked to the VOC. Sometimes these foreign inscriptions were intended as a mark of quality, or, as Jim suggests, as a talisman.

Regards,

Ian.

Like the eyelash marks and half moons etc seen on Arab and North African blades?

I believe that we are dealing with a matter of perspective:- if one is a collector of European edged weapons, then this pedang is not a European edged weapon, thus it has no place in a collection of European weaponry, however, if one is a collector of ethnic edged weapons, or perhaps only Indonesian or Javanese edged weapons, then this pedang is a good example of such a weapon.

The VOC mark is talismanic, placed there by a person & for a person indigenous to Old Jawa.

In accordance with Javanese practice, when any part of a weapon becomes shabby, or even if one wishes to give one's old or inherited weapon a facelift, then the hilt or scabbard is replaced, not to do so is an insult to previous owners and to the man who made the blade.

Exactly in the same manner. Various markings on European blades might be perceived in many different ways symbolically in various cultural spheres.
For example, the cross and orb often used on German blades, in the Sudan may be seen in tribal parlance as drum and sticks, important in tribal status.
The half moons often have key symbolic relation in the cosmology in tribal folk religions, much as the other astral symbols such as sun, moon, star .
The dual moons on takouba blades (dukari) are seen as imbuing magic in the blade.

As Alan has noted, the merit of this weapon depends entirely on the perspective of the person observing it, and it is a good example of a Javanese weapon following the traditions of that culture. This is the very manner in which most ethnographic weapons should be viewed, with consideration toward its likely place in the cultural traditions of the people and regions it is from.

I am agree with you sir and also to Ian, it is from Java. Most likely western part of Java. The hilt if i am not mistaken named as variant of makoro, a common hilt from Cirebon to Banten. At least i have two of it.
I do have several golok which stamped just like Cel7's blade.
I think one of the reason is to convince people that it has quality as good as VOC's blade.

Thanks again for your wise lessons! I didn't buy it but I did gain knowledge.:)

Hello,

I like the words you used in your first post
'' The pedang is not in my possesion.''
''Now'' we now why 😅🙃 ( cousu de fil blanc...)

I remember my first posts time ago. we were told that we should only comment on items taken entirely in photos and especially which were no longer for sale...
In italian it's called '' make thé finto tonto''

but it's normal to test

My understanding is that we should not discuss items on the public forum that are broadly available (e.g online) or to gain information prior for selling an item. PM such enquiries. I would consider questions on items in small antique shops/malls, thrift/junk stores, garage/estate sales etc are fair game for discussion. However, in my opinion, transparency up front is important.

Important reminder
 

cel7.

JeffS raises an important point! The forums do not allow discussion of items that are for sale. Your original wording was ambiguous and could be interpreted as you requesting an opinion for a friend's item.

Please do not repeat this practice. Posting discussion of items up for sale would ordinarily draw a suspension of posting privileges for several months. I'll give you a pass this time. Please read carefully the Forum Rules (at the top of the Forum Directory page).

Ian

It is understandable to 'test the waters' before buying an item, (caveat emptor)and wise to check the expertise of others with more experience with a certain field before any transaction.

While this ploy was clever, it was unnecessary and puts the forum and its members in precarious legal position, which is not hard to figure using the common sense axioms.

It is perfectly acceptable and prudent to contact the specialized members via PM to ask these questions on 'live sales', just not publicly. Opinions expressed privately remain just that, but aired publicly become matter of record and potentially litigous.

Yep.

Sorry, I wasn't aware this wasn't allowed. It won't happen again.