![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 56
|
![]()
just a part of my private collection with length 20 inch, any comments are welcome
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,284
|
![]()
The pamor is interesting .
I usually associate thinner lines with this type of keris . ![]() Probably showing my ignorance . ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,232
|
![]()
The Kembang Kacang Pogog Robyong (I apologise for using Javanese terms for a non-Javanese keris) looks to me like later reshaped from remnants of the original Kembang Kacang - becouse it's to small, also the features on it (jenggot?) are of completely other size (compare the Dha's) then on Greneng. Yet the Greneng itself is somewhat strange - Ron Dha Nunut is okay (the first Ri Pandan, if we call this feature so, is missing), yet at Gonjo side of it there is no Dha at all. These liberties in details, pamor work and probably the bigger size let me think more of Lombok then Bali.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 56
|
![]()
[QUOTE=Rick]The pamor is interesting .
I usually associate thinner lines with this type of keris . ![]() Dear Rick and Gustav.. more picture for detail |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,819
|
![]()
Has anybody considered the possibility that this gonjo is a replacement?
Have a look at the front of the gonjo, above the gandhik. This is clumsy work that lacks flow, it is inconceivable that this was carved by the same person who created the ricikan in the rest of the blade. Then there is the amateurish work in the greneng where it exists on the gonjo. The blade point has been re-cut to buntut tumo. Gustav, I'm not so sure that the kembang kacang has been re-shaped. Certainly it may have been, when we consider the other alteration work that has very probably been done, but if it has been re-carved, the original KK must have been very large, and if you add in the necessary transitional flows, a normal KK on this blade would have been much out of proportion. On the other hand, the variation in surface textures of the KK and the blade surface alongside it do seem to indicate that there has been some fiddling going on in this area. I think that for me, this falls into the area where I would need to handle the blade before I declared myself one way or the other. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,232
|
![]()
Yes Alan, I also thought of this posibility, also like you becouse of interrupted Gandhik line and strange Greneng. Yet the joint of blade and Gonjo at pidakan and tungkakan is not so bad, which would probably be more difficult to master. That's why I actually don't understand this fault at Gandhik. It is probably about 1mm or even smaller, yet very exposed.
I also noticed the differences of surface texture. I really thought, there could be the required place for a normal KK (there could be of course also possibility, the original KK was also Pogog). Excuse me please for the very bad drawing, I also will let away the Jenggot. Last edited by Gustav; 9th April 2011 at 10:55 PM. Reason: some repeated verbs |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,819
|
![]()
Fitting a gonjo is a test of skill with tools, not really so difficult. But achieving a flow from gandhik to gonjo and carving a rondha or greneng is not only evidence of skill with tools, but evidence of understanding. Put it this way:- a competent fitter/machinist, or tool maker working in a factory in Chicago could fit a gonjo as well as, or better than, any great mpu, but he would not have the vaguest idea of what was necessary in the production of a greneng, nor of the required flow from gandhik to gonjo.
Gustav, what do you see as the fault at the gandhik? Looking at the KK you've drawn in, yes, I guess it might work if the original had had a jenggot. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|