Balinese/Lombok pedang

[VVV]

It is interesting that the other pedang classified as Lombok by the auction house also seems to have the features of Lombok according to my earlier post.
Maybe the tags are the original collection tags (no joke anymore about this) and that they both actually were collected in 1945 on Lombok by the original owner?

Michael

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by VVV

Maybe the tags are the original collection tags (no joke anymore about this) and that they both actually were collected in 1945 on Lombok by the original owner?

Michael

The tags could indicate a year or could not: look through the other tags of this collection.

Honestly said, if there would be a tag, which explicitly states, the item has been collected 1945, I would believe it in the same degree as I believe in the authenticity of the most other items of this collection. To me this collection simply is not serious enough. We should look on the item and not on the tag. I stated my opinion about this item in the previous post and have nothing more to add to this thread.

Thanks!

[CharlesS]

VVV,

I believe I see what you are saying about the varying, but similar hilt styles.

Would you say that the top example here is more likely Lombok, while the bottom one is more likely Sumatra??

There is a real difference in the angles(with the Lombok example sharper) and detail in the horn carving.

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by Gustav

To me this collection simply is not serious enough. We should look on the item and not on the tag.

To me we should discuss this pedang and not the other items.
Than we wouldn't have a deflected discussion.
And it is a fact the tag was on the item, so it's not bad discussing the label also.

Originally Posted by Gustav

Maurice, you probably have seen the other indonesian items from the original auction. These items surely weren't collected before 60ties.

Yes I do have. Maybe you're right about the kerisses, as I have limited knowledge about them and I don't collect them myself. According other items I disagree in some cases. There were also some good 19th century pieces (not krisses) which would be good collection items They could be collected way earlier before the 60's. But maybe they're collected a month ago but are 19th century?

Originally Posted by Gustav

Especially the kerisses have touch of beeing made to catch a colector with some bigger money, yet not so good understanding of materia.

I'm not collecting kerisses and I must agree I didn't like all of them either, but irrelevant to the pedang.

Originally Posted by Gustav

You also see, how many indonesian items are returned to the auction house.

Yes, but here again. What does it have to do with the discussed pedang in this thread?
What does this imply to you then?
I wouldn't have bought those "returned" pieces in the first place, so I wouldn't have to return them afterwards.
And f.i. the returned rencong is a good original old one, though not fancy!?
Maybe it was only one "non seriously buyer" who bid on the all later "returned" items? Who knows?

Originally Posted by Gustav

I would believe it in the same degree as I believe in the authenticity of the most other items of this collection.

What do you think about the pedang item nr. 51? And the authenticity of the rencong? Both also 60's?
My opinion is that these are both good old ones, and the "pedang" nr. 51 is very attractive also in my opinion and worthy in a good collection! But......not relevant to my pedang which I put up for discussion here in the first place. So I leave it with this!

Originally Posted by Gustav

For comparison some other stuff coming out of Lombok these days.

Now here we have something relevant! I agree this one is as extensively inlaid as mine, and looks like the same craftmanship! This is relevent material to compare! Thanks for posting this one!

Originally Posted by Gustav

I stated my opinion about this item in the previous post and have nothing more to add to this thread.

OK. Thanks!

[asomotif]

To blur the discussion maybe even more.
Here is another Pedang from the same auction.

Lombok or Sumatra ? and why ?

[Maurice]

Originally Posted by asomotif

To blur the discussion maybe even more.
Here is another Pedang from the same auction.

Lombok or Sumatra ? and why ?

Bali/Lombok I guess according the decorations at the scabbard.

[VVV]

Of course these observations are only indications but altogether they seem to point to Lombok.

The squarish hilt is Lombok style.
The motifs on the silver resembles those seen on other Lombok weapons.
A fuller and no intricate pamor are features often seen on Lombok.

Michael

PS Charles, mail me if you want to further discuss any of your own pedang/kelewang.

[Gustav]

By pure chance looked through this thread (I suppose it's not relevant anymore; as I understand Maurice has sold this Pedang), and have found an interesting detail.

It seems to have a twistcore pamor, which means a couple of things:

almost surely

A) the blade (if old) is of Lombok origin;

B) the fullers are not original or at least not originally intended;

C) the inlays are not original.