My first Kerises
 

new territory here, fellas. i'm hoping i didn't get blinded by the bling associated with these beauties, and that i made the right choices. as far as i'm concern, they're all Bali pieces, and from the way they look, it took a lot of man-hours to make these beauties. they are very, very intricate, so without further ado, here are my first krises. i will break these up into three different posts, since it's going to be photo-intensive. i would love to hear your comments on my first acquisition.

here we have the detail on the dress. the first on is covered with silver, and it has a very intricate design all over. i was wondering if the crown on the wrangka means anything.

the second one has a wrangka carved out of a solid piece of ivory. all i can say is, "Wow!". very detailed; so much so that there are life lines on the figure's palm. both sides appears to be of mirror image.

the third one has a beatifully carved what looks like a wayang puppet on the side. these carvings are interspersed with metal, and it appears to be gold washed.

the third part are the blades. i noticed keris aficionados tend to post the blade pointing up, and David has explained the reason why. two of the blades still have the original stains, while the third one needs to be stained, i think. each one appears to have a different pattern, and i would to know what they are, and what it meant (if there's any meaning behind it). any comments is welcome, and i would love to hear it, as i'm still learning. thanks for looking :)

Welcome to the family Ron! There's no going back now… ;) :D
I do love that silver dress. This is the one out of the three that i find most attractive. I'm not sure that i read that as a crown exactly on the wrongko, but i guess that's a possibility.
You ask if you were blinded by the bling and i would say that perhaps just a little. The silver dress looks like very good quality to me. The ivory Kala carving is nice, but i'm not sure the whole ensemble works for me. I haven't seen the fit on these keris in their sheaths (other than the silver one) to know if they were made for the keris, but i suspect they are newer than the blades (nothing wrong with that). Do you feel all these sheaths where made for these blades (i think i remember the silver one had a nice fit).The blades are respectable, but they are not extraordinary examples of the classic Bali form. But that doesn't necessarily make these less collectable. Still a much nicer start to a keris collection than most of us ever had. ;-) You'll remember in our discussion yesterday that for me it is always the blade that is most important. I would probably choose an extraordinary blade in very plain, understated dress over a average blade in fancy gold and ivory dress every time.
….but i do really like that silver dress. :)

Agree with the most David has written. Some thoughts more: I really like the carving at the ivory wrongko, beautiful! But like David I think that the ivory and silver wrongko much newer as the blades, nothing wrong by this like David write. The wooden scabbard seems old but modified to let it become more fancy, means the metal sleeve and carving are of newer date.
Good start! :) ;)

Regards,
Detlef

Ron, all three of these are very nice keris, and I congratulate you on their acquisition.

Yes, it is accepted that the correct way to view a blade is with the point up, and the gandhik to the viewer's left.

I was told that this is the only way in which it is possible to assess the pawakan, the overall visual impression.

This is because when we view a keris, we view it as if it were a man, we apply similar parameters to the ones that we use when we view a man.

Ideally, according to the Javanese ethic, a man will appear to be strong, graceful and humble. If we look at a keris, these same qualities should appear.

When the keris is viewed point up and with the gandhik to the left, the result is that the keris leans slightly to the left, this lean is likened to the posture of a man in the presence of his lord, indicating his humility.

The opposite of this is if a keris too upright, and this upright position in a man would be interpreted as arrogance.

Possibly the most disliked personal attribute of a man in Jawa is arrogance.

I'm talking "Jawa", this is because I know Jawa best and most of my knowledge and understanding comes from there, but much of what I have written can be applied to other places in SE Asia.

There is a widespread belief amongst keris collectors in the world outside Indonesia, that unless a keris is in a scabbard that has been made for it, the integrity of the keris is in some way lessened.

To a degree, this is so. In Javanese philosophy as related to the keris, the keris itself is male, the wrongko is female, the two together are male, and at the same time represent the community as well as the man, just as the man represents not only himself but his community.

Thus, the scabbard as the female companion of the blade should be as a wife to her husband:- his and his alone, however, while a wife may have only one man, a man is expected to have more than one woman.

A man who can accommodate only one woman is regarded as lacking virility, strength, a pleasant personality, and the ability to maintain harmony in human relationships. From this point of view, a man with only one woman is something less than a complete man.

So, just as a man is expected to have more than one woman, so a keris is expected to have more than one scabbard.

In the case of a man, one woman will be (hopefully) his ideal companion and they will fit each other perfectly, this woman may or may not be his first ranked wife. However, the man will have other women who will be more desirable than his ideal companion in some way or another, this may not necessarily be sexual.

Even where a man is unable for some reason to maintain more than one permanent woman in his life, it is accepted that he will inevitably know many women throughout his lifetime. It is no different with a keris:- an old keris will have been in many scabbards, and the one that we find it in when we come across it, is only the most recent of a chain of scabbards.

So, when we align this mode of thought to the keris, it is quite acceptable for a keris to be in a scabbard that was not made originally for that blade, if the fit is acceptable, the beauty of the scabbard can compensate for small inadequacies of fit:- exactly the same as with, say, a man's second or third wife.

As a man and his wife become older they can sometimes, perhaps often, drift apart and no longer follow exactly the same path that they did in their prime years, and if the fit of man to woman was perhaps a little less than perfect when they were young, this can become even more obvious as they get older.

The same thing applies with a keris:- if an old blade and an old scabbard no longer fit particularly well, even to the point of becoming a bad fit, this does not necessarily indicate that the scabbard was not originally made for the blade.

There are other factors to consider in this matter of the fit of a scabbard to a blade.

It is my experience that an old keris in an old scabbard, both of which have remained in their original societies, very seldom display a degree of fit that would indicate that the scabbard was originally made for the blade which it now houses.

This is particularly the case where the scabbard is exceptionally beautiful. These truly beautiful scabbards tend to gravitate to particularly good blades. Again, we can use the human parallel:- superior women tend to gravitate to superior men.

In point of fact, there is virtually no really outstanding material left for making a new scabbard, and when a really excellent piece of wood does come on to the market, the price is always extremely high. Under these conditions good scabbards inevitably get recycled, and an old scabbard of very good material will inevitably command a very high price.

So when we look at a keris, and we ask the question:- "was the scabbard made for the blade?"

There is great deal more to consider than just this bare fact.

My own value system is this:-

A) if both blade and scabbard have some age, I look for a broadly acceptable fit of blade to scabbard, and I assess each part of the complete keris individually, then as a coherent whole.

B) if the scabbard is new, or recent, I look for a good fit of blade to scabbard

C) I accept that keris of differing overall quality, and from different areas have different standards that govern fit of gonjo to scabbard.

This standard that I use is what I have gradually adopted from people who have far greater knowledge than I do in the application of the value systems of the societies that can be considered as keris carrying societies.

Fit of scabbard to blade is often an overrated parameter with keris people in Western societies. There are probably more old keris in perfectly fitting, original scabbards in the West than anywhere in SE Asia. Why? Because these keris were bought new in SE Asia 100 years and more ago, and have grown old in a society outside their society of birth.

In the appraisal and understanding of the keris it is always useful to think of the keris as a man and the scabbard (wrongko) as a woman.

To return to your acquisitions Ron.

Very nice keris, and a wonderful entry to The World of the Keris. All three keris are very pleasing and artistic examples of the Balinese keris. The two darker blades are good examples of middle quality Balinese blades, the blade that is out of stain is very probably Madura, I would need to handle it to be certain, but it displays a number of Madurese physical qualities.

I apologise for the length of this post, I did not set out to write as much as this, but once I began I couldn't stop.

Alan, you should never apologize for long posts when you are imparting such interesting and pertinent information on the forum. This was a wonderful summary of a subject we have touched upon here and there, but has not been expressed enough times.
To be clearer, my inquiry into fit was not meant to be disparaging of loose fit or adapted sheaths. I was merely trying to determine the timeline for when these sheaths might have been made, so if later, at what period. For instance, the sheath of the out of stain (possibly Madura) keris. The wood seems older than the pendok to me. Perhaps this sheath was adapted and decorated later as Detlef suggests. The reproussé work does not seem to be of a particularly high caliber and i was wondering if that is partly because it is newer work. :shrug:
What do you think about the work on the silver dress? To me it seems older. I realize that a lot of good silver work is still done in Bali, but i guess i have a tendency to assume that quality work in this sphere is more likely to be older. But that my well be the wrong impression on my part.
I also wondered if there is any chance the out of stain keris was of Lombok origin as they sometimes diverge from what we generally think of as Bali style keris.

Yeah, that out of stain keris could be Lombok, and I considered adding this possibility, but then I had another look at that wimpy little kembang kacang, and I decided that I'd opt for Madura. Madura has been a supplier of keris to lots of places for a long time. I have a 19th century Brunei keris that gives every indication of being Madura work.

I wasn't targeting you David, with my remarks on fit, I read the fit comment, but as is usual with me, I'm nearly always in too much of a hurry to read who wrote what, I just scan down and then dash off a comment, often I don't know who I'm commenting on --- a comment generates my response, but the person who comments doesn't always register.

Yes again, the wood is possibly older than the pendok, but this means nothing, because parts get changed constantly. Quality of workmanship is not necessarily a good indicator of age of anything, very often the very best quality work is done right now --- as well as the lousiest work.

The silver dress is probably 1980's forward. Its good work, and the early full silver stuff from Bali was pretty primitive. Right now it seems to have slipped back in quality, but during the 1980's it was very good. I've had a few of these, some I thought were probably older, some I knew were 1980's.But is the age important? To me its not. Its not even relevant. This is art. If you want first quality Bali bling that's old you need to be looking at royal keris, and old Bali royal keris mean very, very big dollars, and there are very, very few of them.

If you're happy with royal quality of yesteryear, but made some time since about 1960 you're looking at something that even a bloke who stacks supermarket shelves can afford --- yeah, he'll have to cut the after work drinks for a while, but he can get it if he wants it.

The best Bali silver work that has ever been done is done right now. But it costs.
Same with quality wood carving. The best ever is done right now, but if you want to own the best you're looking at prices in Bali that approximate London and New York gallery prices. The best Bali work has been out of my reach for more than 25 years now. Don't know who buys it, but I can't afford it.

What this whole discussion on age and additions, alterations, modifications etc, etc, etc comes down to is this:-

If we want an old totally original keris in good condition, there is only one way to get hold of that, you trawl the general antique dealers and general auctions in Europe and look for something that came to Europe +100 years ago, and then pay the expected price.

For some time now Javanese finders have been doing exactly this and taking the best of these pieces back to sell on the Javanese market. Do we learn anything from this?

If something has come out of SE Asia any time since WWII you can bet that it has been performing a social function during its entire life in its home country, and that means that as the situation of the owner has changed, so has the dress on his keris.

Keris are items of dress:- nobody goes out in formal dress with a keris that does not suit his position. Scabbards, and to a lesser extent hilts get changed all the time --- these changes do not necessarily mean that brand new dress is created for the keris, if the wrongko can be improved with a better quality used wrongko or hilt, this will be done.

Alan, thank you so much for imparting this wisdom. it's so amazing how these weapons is so deeply intertwined with the culture, so in essence these artifacts are the "books" from the past.
as far as the kerises, thank you for the assessment! as i have mentioned to David, i'm still trying to get the "eye" on what differentiate a great blade from a good blade. the dress is not so hard to discern.
i'm always partial to silver and ivory, reason why i got attached to the two kerises. as far as the third one, i was enamored by the carving on the pendok. with all three, i have a varied example on wrangkas.

Ron, the keris is a multi facetted cultural artifact, and what it is depends upon the period against which it is being considered, and the mind-set of the person doing the considering.

What is true for one person in one place may not be true for another person in a different place, or a different time.

Some present day Javanese people will describe the keris as a "prayer in steel". I do not know what thoughts have given rise to this idea, but if we examine the origins of the Modern Keris, during the Majapahit Period, this does seem to me to be a particularly apt description.

Probably the Javanese people who have coined this phrase did not have in mind the same things that I had in mind when I wrote "Interpretation", but the feelings involved may well be similar.

As to the differences between a great blade, and an ordinary blade, well, that is something that most people never really discover.

Technically it is probably not all that difficult to lay out the parameters for appraisal, but the idea of "great" requires that some indefinable extra comes into play, and that is the difficult part. It is perhaps a bit like the effect that a "great" painting or sculpture has upon us, something that is felt, and probably defies analysis.