Bali keris pamor

[henri]

Thank you guys for your comments .
From " fake " to " painted " or etch applied " .... when I take this keris on hand and look at this pamor very very closely I can assure the pamor is real but yes the nickel is not dep into the blade ( photos below ) . This keris was part of a lot of 10 I bought sometimes ago to a collector in the UK who passed away and pretty sure he has not bought this one in a tourist shop during a visit in Bali ! But .... never never know !
Henri

[Jean]

I hope that Alan will give us a clue when he returns from Europe.
Regards

[Jean]

I returned home and checked 2 items:
1. According to the EK, pamor tangkis would be the correct description for this blade (one side with pamor, one side without pamor or kelengan). The correct name in case of 2 different pamors on each side is pamor slewah.
2. I could not find a similar pamor motif in my reference books but they refer to Javanese blades only.
Regards

[henri]

Thank you Jean . After consulting some documentations I agree we could called this one "tangkis" . I have got in the past a similar pamor on a Bali keris but both sides of the blade . I am still surprised by the very thin layer of nickel for this pamor . Not painted ! Not an easy job for the swordsmith to shape and keep the pamor ...
Henri

[A. G. Maisey]

A bit late with this post. Sorry, just noticed the thread.

According to my understanding this is not pamor tangkis.

Pamor tangkis is a different pamor on each blade face.

This keris has a small seemingly accidental patch of pamor on one blade face only, the other blade face has no pamor.

This cannot be classified as pamor tangkis.

[Jean]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Pamor tangkis is a different pamor on each blade face.

This keris has a small seemingly accidental patch of pamor on one blade face only, the other blade face has no pamor.

This cannot be classified as pamor tangkis.

Alan's statement is in accordance with the book "Keris Jawa" from Haryoguritno (page 412) but not with the EK (pages 463/464), hence the source of the confusion but after all the names are not important
Regards

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

Alan's statement is in accordance with the book "Keris Jawa" from Haryoguritno (page 412) but not with the EK (pages 463/464), hence the source of the confusion but after all the names are not important

Not sure that i would go so far as to say that names are not important. Just because there is some disagreement in the interpretations of 2 highly regarded books does not mean a proper definition of "tangkis" is not possible. From my perspective and understanding of the term this keris is not "tangkis". If such a pamor does indeed hold the intent for it's owner to act as a talisman against black magic and this blade is not tangkis, then i suppose it will not fulfill that need for it's owner. Names are descriptors that are used with some concensus of community. We may never know the exact intent and purpose of the pamor of this keris, but i do believe that what we call it now does hold some importance and significance to our understanding of this blade.