![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,857
|
![]()
The pamor is brilliant.
The rest of this keris is out of proportion, poorly carved and just plain ugly, in a word:- kaku. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,238
|
![]()
And here for comparison the original Keris, auctioned earlier this year.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 459
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,857
|
![]()
and what a difference we have, the original is something pretty nice, just the difference in detail & proportion destroys the copy.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 459
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,100
|
![]()
Well, i'm jumping on the "ugly" train here as well. As stated, the pamor is pretty brilliant, but the rest of this keris is just not attractive.
Another thing that i find disturbing is the way the pamor simply runs right over the ganan figure on the gandik rather than working with the contours of the carved figure there. This figure also seems stiff and cartoonish compared to the original model. The greneng seems to not understand how ron dha should be shaped. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,857
|
![]()
maybe the angle of the photograph has contributed a lot to this perception of ugliness, I feel that if this photo had been taken with the camera positioned 90 degrees at mid-blade, & with a small F-stop we might be seeing something different here.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|