Interesting Philippine Sundang for comment

Amuk Murugul · 30th April 2014, 05:56 AM

redundancy

CharlesS · 30th April 2014, 12:09 PM

Hi Drac and Dave,

Regarding age, Dave your example is made without a separate 'ganja' and I do believe that one is a later one, but Drac's example has the separate ganja and the workmanship(chiseling and silver inlay) seems a bit crisper, though the curves do seem awfully 'extreme' for an earlier example.

I think that example is more likely early 20th century though the blade's exaggerated curves, especially at the forte, seem to argue against it a bit.

DaveS · 30th April 2014, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Hi Drac and Dave,

Regarding age, Dave your example is made without a separate 'ganja' and I do believe that one is a later one, but Drac's example has the separate ganja and the workmanship(chiseling and silver inlay) seems a bit crisper, though the curves do seem awfully 'extreme' for an earlier example.

I think that example is more likely early 20th century though the blade's exaggerated curves, especially at the forte, seem to argue against it a bit.

Charles: After looking much closer at his pictures, it does indeed have a two piece ganja. With just a quick look i missed it. It probably does place it a generation or two earlier than at first glance. Apparently sharp lucs might not always be an indicator of later pieces............Dave.

Sajen · 30th April 2014, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveS

Charles: After looking much closer at his pictures, it does indeed have a two piece ganja. With just a quick look i missed it. It probably does place it a generation or two earlier than at first glance. Apparently sharp lucs might not always be an indicator of later pieces............Dave.

I also noticed the seperate ganja at first, so I have to agree with Dave.

David · 30th April 2014, 10:51 PM

Gentleman, is it beyond reason to believe that a post WWII kris could be crafted WITH a separate gangya? Sure, it's probably a rare occurrence, but then so is a pre-WWII kris with pointy luks. Another clue might be found in the metal itself. Is this laminated or mono steel? I'm fairly certain that is just design work and that this is not a twisted core. Can't really see any definite lines of lamination throughout either. If it is mono steel AND has pointy luks i would be more inclined to a later dating.

RSWORD · 1st May 2014, 02:37 AM

What I find interesting about Dave's kris is that it has a mixture of sharp pointy luk and more typical late 19th, early 20th century smoother flowing luk. If you look at all the pictures, not all the luk are pointy. In my experience, the later pieces have ALL pointy luk. I think the provenance is solid enough on this piece. To name an individual and the fact that the items were in storage since the 1930's I don't think was provided loosely. Auction houses rarely list that kind of provenance. If they didn't have a certain degree of certainty I don't think they would have mentioned that. Then again, I have seen auction houses out and out lie but I don't think that is the norm, I think that tends to be the exception. I think they misidentify way, way more but in this particular case I would have more confidence in the provenance and would say this kris is 1900-1920. Without the provenance, I personally would have placed that sword circa 1930-40 so we are only talking a 20-30 year difference. Where did the dating philosophy of pointy luk originate? Has it ever been challenged? Are there other provenance examples that show pointy luk that pre-date WW2? I think this piece stands on its own and whether it is 1920 or 1950 is pretty inconsequential to its appeal as is.

David · 1st May 2014, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RSWORD

What I find interesting about Dave's kris is that it has a mixture of sharp pointy luk and more typical late 19th, early 20th century smoother flowing luk. If you look at all the pictures, not all the luk are pointy. In my experience, the later pieces have ALL pointy luk. I think the provenance is solid enough on this piece. To name an individual and the fact that the items were in storage since the 1930's I don't think was provided loosely. Auction houses rarely list that kind of provenance. If they didn't have a certain degree of certainty I don't think they would have mentioned that. Then again, I have seen auction houses out and out lie but I don't think that is the norm, I think that tends to be the exception. I think they misidentify way, way more but in this particular case I would have more confidence in the provenance and would say this kris is 1900-1920. Without the provenance, I personally would have placed that sword circa 1930-40 so we are only talking a 20-30 year difference. Where did the dating philosophy of pointy luk originate? Has it ever been challenged? Are there other provenance examples that show pointy luk that pre-date WW2? I think this piece stands on its own and whether it is 1920 or 1950 is pretty inconsequential to its appeal as is.

Rick, it sounds like you are talking about Drac2k's kris, not Dave's. Is that correct? Sounds like you are. If so, i don't think anyone is denying that this kris has "appeal" based upon it's age. I agree that it's a really nice item regardless of the exact age. I also agree that many of our assumptions about judging age on these weapons should be challenged. It seems that most of what we tend to think in this regard is all based on one book, Cato. So i think there is always room for questions. I think there are certainly examples of pre-1930s kris that don't have a separate gangya and certainly there are some examples of newer kris that do.
I would still be interested to know if this blade is laminated or mono steel. Drac2k, you don't need to be particularly skilled to do a mild etch on this blade. Vinegar can act as a gentle etching agent, enough at least to show laminations in the blade if they exist. It is also very easy to polish the effect off. Kind of hard to ruin the blade with this method. I still think knowing whether it is laminated or mono steel will go a long way in helping top determine the age of this kris. While i think there are some examples out there of older mono steel pieces, most older kris are laminated and most recent examples tend to be mono steel. Again, if it is indeed mono steel AND has pointy luks it seems a good indication for a later dating.

CharlesS · 1st May 2014, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveS

Charles: After looking much closer at his pictures, it does indeed have a two piece ganja. With just a quick look i missed it. It probably does place it a generation or two earlier than at first glance. Apparently sharp lucs might not always be an indicator of later pieces............Dave.

Dave,

I learned a long time ago that as soon as we make "rules" about things such as origins, age, terminology, etc., within no time something will come along to challenge the 'rule', so I am always open to possibilities of variations, and
"no rules" when it comes to analyzing things now...I am sure you know what I mean!...and this certainly could apply to this kriss.

30th April 2014, 05:56 AM	#1
Amuk Murugul Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Kaboejoetan Galoenggoeng Mélben Posts: 484	Additional Info redundancy Last edited by Amuk Murugul; 30th April 2014 at 06:12 AM. Reason: redundancy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

30th April 2014, 12:09 PM	#2
CharlesS Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 1,854	Hi Drac and Dave, Regarding age, Dave your example is made without a separate 'ganja' and I do believe that one is a later one, but Drac's example has the separate ganja and the workmanship(chiseling and silver inlay) seems a bit crisper, though the curves do seem awfully 'extreme' for an earlier example. I think that example is more likely early 20th century though the blade's exaggerated curves, especially at the forte, seem to argue against it a bit.

30th April 2014, 10:51 PM	#5
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,297	Gentleman, is it beyond reason to believe that a post WWII kris could be crafted WITH a separate gangya? Sure, it's probably a rare occurrence, but then so is a pre-WWII kris with pointy luks. Another clue might be found in the metal itself. Is this laminated or mono steel? I'm fairly certain that is just design work and that this is not a twisted core. Can't really see any definite lines of lamination throughout either. If it is mono steel AND has pointy luks i would be more inclined to a later dating.

1st May 2014, 02:37 AM	#6
RSWORD Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greensboro, NC Posts: 1,099	What I find interesting about Dave's kris is that it has a mixture of sharp pointy luk and more typical late 19th, early 20th century smoother flowing luk. If you look at all the pictures, not all the luk are pointy. In my experience, the later pieces have ALL pointy luk. I think the provenance is solid enough on this piece. To name an individual and the fact that the items were in storage since the 1930's I don't think was provided loosely. Auction houses rarely list that kind of provenance. If they didn't have a certain degree of certainty I don't think they would have mentioned that. Then again, I have seen auction houses out and out lie but I don't think that is the norm, I think that tends to be the exception. I think they misidentify way, way more but in this particular case I would have more confidence in the provenance and would say this kris is 1900-1920. Without the provenance, I personally would have placed that sword circa 1930-40 so we are only talking a 20-30 year difference. Where did the dating philosophy of pointy luk originate? Has it ever been challenged? Are there other provenance examples that show pointy luk that pre-date WW2? I think this piece stands on its own and whether it is 1920 or 1950 is pretty inconsequential to its appeal as is.