Bali Ivory Keris (eBay)

Battara · 8th February 2011, 06:44 AM

Very helpful thank you folks.

Jean · 8th February 2011, 09:44 AM

Nice piece indeed and it would have fetched about 50% more in Europe. However and from the pictures I would not discard the possibility that the dark stains on the cross-piece and the gandar are actually dyed and not original.

Best regards

David · 8th February 2011, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

Nice piece indeed and it would have fetched about 50% more in Europe. However and from the pictures I would not discard the possibility that the dark stains on the cross-piece and the gandar are actually dyed and not original.

Best regards

I don't think the photos are really good enough for me to make a determination like that, however, from my own logic i would put forth, why go to the trouble to adding an inlaid veneer of wood down the gandar if you are going to fake this with staining? As i stated before, these timoho veneers are fairly common because it is a rare wood and using less in a veneer down the front is both attractive and economical.

A. G. Maisey · 8th February 2011, 11:52 AM

They could well be Jean, and this possibility is reflected in my upper and lower levels of estimated value, however, I am just not good enough to know whether this is natural timoho or a stained pattern from net photos.

David's logic is spot on.

Jean · 8th February 2011, 01:22 PM

Attached is a picture (not very good but sufficient for the needs) of an East Java kris with the hilt made from genuine timoho pelet and the warangka from dyed timoho (I tested it), can you see the difference and tell us which it is? I apparently see the same feature on the Bali kris cross-piece especially, within the limitation of the picture of course.

David · 8th February 2011, 03:24 PM

Yes Jean, i can clearly see why you would say this about this East Jawa example that you are showing us here. I am afraid that i still cannot say the same based upon the photos provided of the Balinese example and no presentation of other photos of completely different examples will do much to change my mind.
It also still seems odd that someone would go to the trouble of adding a veneer to the front of the gandar to present a fake pelet pattern when they could more easily apply the stain directly on the un-veneered gandar surface.

asomotif · 8th February 2011, 09:52 PM

Davids logic was also my direct conclusion. You do not make fake veneer.
As for the wrangka. This does not look fake to me already based on the small spots. Fake timoho often only consist of large dark spots and not the smaller spots.
But also the back side if the wrangka gives me a good feeling.
The stains on the back side are consistent with the front.

I am quite convident that the buyer has a very good deal with this keris.

A. G. Maisey · 8th February 2011, 10:20 PM

Jean, it is simply not possible to determine if timoho is real or simulated from a photograph.

Well done simulated timoho can appear real, real timoho can appear to be simulated. I could show examples of both these cases. The only way to truly know is by close physical examination.

8th February 2011, 01:22 PM	#5
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Attached is a picture (not very good but sufficient for the needs) of an East Java kris with the hilt made from genuine timoho pelet and the warangka from dyed timoho (I tested it), can you see the difference and tell us which it is? I apparently see the same feature on the Bali kris cross-piece especially, within the limitation of the picture of course. Attached Images

8th February 2011, 09:52 PM	#7
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,235	Davids logic was also my direct conclusion. You do not make fake veneer. As for the wrangka. This does not look fake to me already based on the small spots. Fake timoho often only consist of large dark spots and not the smaller spots. But also the back side if the wrangka gives me a good feeling. The stains on the back side are consistent with the front. I am quite convident that the buyer has a very good deal with this keris. Attached Images

8th February 2011, 06:44 AM	#1
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,280	Very helpful thank you folks.

8th February 2011, 09:44 AM	#2
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Nice piece indeed and it would have fetched about 50% more in Europe. However and from the pictures I would not discard the possibility that the dark stains on the cross-piece and the gandar are actually dyed and not original. Best regards

8th February 2011, 11:52 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	They could well be Jean, and this possibility is reflected in my upper and lower levels of estimated value, however, I am just not good enough to know whether this is natural timoho or a stained pattern from net photos. David's logic is spot on.

8th February 2011, 03:24 PM	#6
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,218	Yes Jean, i can clearly see why you would say this about this East Jawa example that you are showing us here. I am afraid that i still cannot say the same based upon the photos provided of the Balinese example and no presentation of other photos of completely different examples will do much to change my mind. It also still seems odd that someone would go to the trouble of adding a veneer to the front of the gandar to present a fake pelet pattern when they could more easily apply the stain directly on the un-veneered gandar surface.

8th February 2011, 10:20 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,015	Jean, it is simply not possible to determine if timoho is real or simulated from a photograph. Well done simulated timoho can appear real, real timoho can appear to be simulated. I could show examples of both these cases. The only way to truly know is by close physical examination.