Tactical keris

A. G. Maisey · 18th September 2008, 02:09 AM

Sjors, I think I have already answered your question in my earlier post, however, put simply, the answer to your question depends upon the standard being applied.

I do appreciate that English is not your first language, and I may have been insufficiently direct in my earlier post, however, the question comes down to what standards one wishes to apply.

There is no doubt at all that your keris is of the correct form and construction to be called a keris.

However, as whether it is a "real" keris or not, well that depends on the standard being applied.

If one is inclined to snobbishness, then I'm sorry, your keris fails as a "real" keris for any number of reasons.

If one is not inclined to snobbishness, then yes, it is most definitely a real keris, and a fair example of its type.

sjors · 18th September 2008, 07:38 AM

Dear Mr. Maisey,

Your first answer was very clear to me; I only tried to explain the reason why I asked that question or brought up the subject. Sorry about that...

@Marcokeris
I was wondering about the sarong and ukiran because, if I compare them with other Madurakeris of the same type, a soft and light kind of wood is used.
They are less than half the weight of other sarong and ukiran.

Marcokeris · 18th September 2008, 08:31 AM

Sjors of course from your (little

) pic i can only see that the quality of wood's work seems to me good (the carving of horse and the others lines seem well done).
About the kind of wood: between a nice/hard wood with a bad work I prefer a nice soft wood with a good carving.
About blade from the little pic i can't understand because i see badly (for size of pic) the pamor and the dapur but if the sarong is good... i suppose probably also the blade is ok

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

18th September 2008, 02:09 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,188	Sjors, I think I have already answered your question in my earlier post, however, put simply, the answer to your question depends upon the standard being applied. I do appreciate that English is not your first language, and I may have been insufficiently direct in my earlier post, however, the question comes down to what standards one wishes to apply. There is no doubt at all that your keris is of the correct form and construction to be called a keris. However, as whether it is a "real" keris or not, well that depends on the standard being applied. If one is inclined to snobbishness, then I'm sorry, your keris fails as a "real" keris for any number of reasons. If one is not inclined to snobbishness, then yes, it is most definitely a real keris, and a fair example of its type.

18th September 2008, 07:38 AM	#2
sjors Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 68	Dear Mr. Maisey, Your first answer was very clear to me; I only tried to explain the reason why I asked that question or brought up the subject. Sorry about that... @Marcokeris I was wondering about the sarong and ukiran because, if I compare them with other Madurakeris of the same type, a soft and light kind of wood is used. They are less than half the weight of other sarong and ukiran.

18th September 2008, 08:31 AM	#3
Marcokeris Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Italy Posts: 928	Sjors of course from your (little ) pic i can only see that the quality of wood's work seems to me good (the carving of horse and the others lines seem well done). About the kind of wood: between a nice/hard wood with a bad work I prefer a nice soft wood with a good carving. About blade from the little pic i can't understand because i see badly (for size of pic) the pamor and the dapur but if the sarong is good... i suppose probably also the blade is ok