Keris Bali Luk 21

[Rick]

A lovely keris !
I had been watching this one .
I'm very glad to see that a fellow member was able to acquire it .
Congratulations, Gustav .

[Gustav]

Dear Rick,

it isn't mine, I really wanted just to post it for dicussion, for it is an interesting piece worth of it

[Rick]

Ah, well .

[David]

I was also watching this with some interest, especially because of this beautiful blade. What i was wondering about is the hilt and when it might have been made. I have not seen many figurative copper hilts from Bali. It seems like an unusual metal to use with a keris of this quality. The "jewels" look much more like glass to me than the precious rubies the seller claimed them to be, but that's hard to tell from the photos. Of course, not at all unusual to see pastes used on high-end Bali keris as the Balinese saw nothing wrong with placing fake gems next to real if the effect was right. But i still have a feeling that this blade if more likely early 1900s and the hilt much later. Still a very attractive piece.

[Gustav]

Actually I find this blade not so fantastic. Of course 21 luk are really scarce, it appears to have original polish and stain. Yet amount it reached seems to be to high to me.

I will explain a little my points. The pictures of the other keris are raided from Artzi's site, this blade has "only" 17 luk, yet the problems and solutions for the sorsoran are similar.

On Artzi's blade greneng and jenggot are typical Bali, on Ebay blade they are rather small and week, compare to the short and big sogokan. Wadidang seems to be disturbed.

I am perhaps a little bit paranoic towards gonjos on Bali keris, yet on both examples they actually don't reach the quality of the blade, even on Ebay keris.

Regarding the pamor layers, on Ebay blade they are very thin and the thickness seems to be very uniform to me - please compare to the layers on Artzi's blade. Could this be a hint on sheets (or something similar) of industrially made pamor material, which would place this keris later then around 1900?

The sheath is old, yet the fit to the blade, from what I can see from the pictures, is not of high quality.

Hilt seems to me nothing really special, I would say post-1908.

[A. G. Maisey]

I feel that both these keris --- the ebay and Artzi's one --- are Lombok origin. Certainly Bali style, but Lombok origin.

As to quality, Artzi's does seem marginally better quality, and marginally better condition, however, both keris are extremely desirable simply because of the extreme rareity of old Balinese keris of any quality, whether Bali origin or Lombok origin.

The "rubies" are pastes, probably clear glass with a red foil underlay. The give-away is the one on the right shoulder as the image faces you; look closely, it is flat topped with a little dimple:- glass. Hilt probably dates from 1920's - 1930's, both blades probably second half 19th century.

I feel that the buyer will probably return the ebay one to the seller when he finds that he has bought glass, not natural stones --- if they were natural stones the price paid would have been very, very low. Check out the value of natural cab rubies some time.

Actually natural red stones in Indonesian settings are a real trap. The dealers use the same word for rubies, red tourmalines and garnets:- mirah. You need some gemological training to tell the difference, particularly if you're buying on your feet in a badly lit market.

[Jean]

I communicated with the seller and told him my extreme doubts that the stones are rubies and he did not deny it but did not amend his description. I would not expect an experienced buyer to believe that a common quality copper hilt could be fitted with top quality precious stones!

[Jean]

Originally Posted by Rick

Ah, well .

I placed few bids on this piece but 2 guys fiercly competed for it and the bids went much too high IMO in spite of the good blade (but with one corroded edge). The copper hilt and sheath look more recent and of common quality. No regrets....
Regards