Thanks for everyone's welcome! That was my first guess, that it's a late 1800 sword, when I saw it the first time, but there's something about the way it handles. Also I forgot to mention that the length of just the blade itself is 19", smaller that the typical krisses that was common during the revolutionary/phil-am war and later era, when these swords were more flamboyant and bigger.
As far as what you mentioned Bill, in regards to the smaller cockatoo pommels; that's exactly what I was trying to say, that the smaller ones (smaller that what I have) are truly archaic, perhaps late 1600's/early 1700's, and at some point there has to be a transitional period and I am assuming that this type of cockatoo pommel are the missing link. That is just my opinion , though. And yes, I have etched this, and a few 'marbled pattern' appeared, but I've decided to leave it as it is, since I don't really see the point of the pattern over-riding the inlay pattern. Btw, can you tell me more about the inlay? The Indonesian angle is a possibility as well, but I really don't have any provenanced example to compare it with.
As far as what you mentioned, Battara, the handle wrap is old, and again, I would assume it's original to the sword rather that a rewrapped in the later period.
Quote:
|
but the profile of this blade is nothing like the "archaic" kris from the 1700s.
|
David, could you please explain what an archaic kriss profile would be? I would like to compare this with what I have. Thank you in advance.
Quote:
|
This looks like a late 19th/early 20th C kris with an even more recent hilt.
|
Ian, I was under the impression that later hilts were bigger and more flamboyant, therefore I would respectfully disagree that the smaller ones are recent.
Again, thank you for everyone's assessment, More comments would be truly appreciated.