An interesting Bali keris for sharing

[Sajen]

Just want to show you a Bali keris just sold here in Germany. !5 luk, 70,5 cm overall, blade 46,4 cm.

[Sajen]

More pics.

[HughChen]

I have seen a similar one in China.

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Just want to show you a Bali keris just sold here in Germany. !5 luk, 70,5 cm overall, blade 46,4 cm.

Hello Sajen,

Can you reveal to us how much does that one sold? purely interested.(is this kind of question allowed in the forum?)

[David]

Originally Posted by HughChen

I have seen a similar one in China.

The only thing that is similar in this keris you saw in China is the hilt. The rest of this keris (blade and sheath) is Javanese and this is a mismatched ensemble, possibly thrown together by an uninformed dealer or collector.

[David]

Detlef, it's a bit too dirty to tell in the photos, but, do you think the sheath material her is ivory?
Its seems like a nice keris that needs a little bit of TLC.
I have one with a similar dhapur (though mine is 11 luk). Luk are less deep on mine with a wider blade, but all the same ricikan at the base of there blade. Also a similar "Bayu" hulu, but a completely different style sarung.

[David]

Originally Posted by HughChen

Can you reveal to us how much does that one sold? purely interested.(is this kind of question allowed in the forum?)

We try not to discuss prices on the forum whenever possible.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by HughChen

Hello Sajen,

Can you reveal to us how much does that one sold? purely interested.(is this kind of question allowed in the forum?)

Hi HC,

No, it's not allowed to discuss prices at this place!

Best regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

Detlef, it's a bit too dirty to tell in the photos, but, do you think the sheath material her is ivory?
Its seems like a nice keris that needs a little bit of TLC.
I have one with a similar dhapur (though mine is 11 luk). Luk are less deep on mine with a wider blade, but all the same ricikan at the base of there blade. Also a similar "Bayu" hulu, but a completely different style sarung.

Hello David,

I was the second highest bidder on this keris. It was rather cheap but sadly I am not able to bid higher for the moment. And yes, I guess that the cross piece is from ivory, at least I don't see any bubble you can see by some fake hilts from some sort of plastic we all have seen before and the overall condition and materials let me think that all is old and original, late 19th to early 20th century would be my guess. Sadly most of the gold wash is gone.
And yes, this keris needs some TLC.

Regards,
Detlef

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hi HC,

No, it's not allowed to discuss prices at this place!

Best regards,
Detlef

Thank you for reminding !

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello David,

I was the second highest bidder on this keris. It was rather cheap but sadly I am not able to bid higher for the moment. And yes, I guess that the cross piece is from ivory, at least I don't see any bubble you can see by some fake hilts from some sort of plastic we all have seen before and the overall condition and materials let me think that all is old and original, late 19th to early 20th century would be my guess. Sadly most of the gold wash is gone.
And yes, this keris needs some TLC.

Regards,
Detlef

Hello all,
Is this hlit also ivory? It's not as dark.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by HughChen

Hello all,
Is this hlit also ivory? It's not as dark.

I don't think that it's elephant ivory but not certain about the material. I would need to handle it.

Regards,
Detlef

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello David,

I was the second highest bidder on this keris. It was rather cheap but sadly I am not able to bid higher for the moment. And yes, I guess that the cross piece is from ivory, at least I don't see any bubble you can see by some fake hilts from some sort of plastic we all have seen before and the overall condition and materials let me think that all is old and original, late 19th to early 20th century would be my guess. Sadly most of the gold wash is gone.
And yes, this keris needs some TLC.

Regards,
Detlef

Detlef,

I doubt such carvings in th crosspiece were done until WWII, but when they were done, sometimes on old ivory crosspieces. I don't particularly like this kind of things, but that goes together with how "traditional" art developed in Bali.

If we compare blades of this Keris and David's, I would say, David's is easily four, five times more worth.

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Detlef,

I doubt such carvings in th crosspiece were done until WWII, but when they were done, sometimes on old ivory crosspieces. I don't particularly like this kind of things, but that goes together with how "traditional" art developed in Bali.

If we compare blades of this Keris and David's, I would say, David's is easily four, five times more worth.

Hello,Gustav

Why don't you like it?

[Gustav]

Originally Posted by HughChen;292688

Hello,Gustav

Why don't you like it?

Hugh,

the quick answer would be - because of my personal taste.

The somewhat longer one - I doubt, somebody interested primarily in Bali, how it was before 1908, when the order changed, would like this kind of ivory crosspiece carving.

If somebody, who has visited Bali in recent times, would have chance to visit Bali around 1900, he most probably would be astonished, how much of "traditional" Bali is missing - music, dances, stone and wood carvings. All of this did exist back in this time of course, yet in a completely different style and with completely different expression.

On the other hand, this style of crosspiece carving is a genuine part of Balinese art of, let's say, 1950 - 1965, as such it is completely acceptable and genuine. It is kind of "aristocratic" version of the dancer's Keris.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=dance+keris

For anybody interested in changes of Balinese society and art during the XX century, I recommend the book by Hildred Geertz, "The Life of a Balinese Temple. Artistry, Imagination, and history in a Peasant Village".

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Hugh,

the quick answer would be - because of my personal taste.

The somewhat longer one - I doubt, somebody interested primarily in Bali, how it was before 1908, when the order changed, would like this kind of ivory crosspiece carving.

If somebody, who has visited Bali in recent times, would have chance to visit Bali around 1900, he most probably would be astonished, how much of "traditional" Bali is missing - music, dances, stone and wood carvings. All of this did exist back in this time of course, yet in a completely different style and with completely different expression.

On the other hand, this style of crosspiece carving is a genuine part of Balinese art of, let's say, 1950 - 1965, as such it is completely acceptable and genuine. It is kind of "aristocratic" version of the dancer's Keris.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ht=dance+keris

For anybody interested in changes of Balinese society and art during the XX century, I recommend the book by Hildred Geertz, "The Life of a Balinese Temple. Artistry, Imagination, and history in a Peasant Village".

Thank you, Gustav! I can learn a lot from your answer. I just visited Bali just last month, a beautiful place! I also visited a Keris museum called Neka Art Museum. But all Keris there seems new and not very attracting to me.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Detlef,

I doubt such carvings in th crosspiece were done until WWII, but when they were done, sometimes on old ivory crosspieces. I don't particularly like this kind of things, but that goes together with how "traditional" art developed in Bali.

If we compare blades of this Keris and David's, I would say, David's is easily four, five times more worth.

Hello Gustav,

I agree with you that the keris from David is the better one and when I would get the chance to choose one I would take the one from David.
But my intention was to show this keris and not to compare it with others.
A similar one was shown in the publication shown in the pic.
I think that this style appears in the sec. quarter of the 20th century and is a legit type of Balinese keris style.

Regards,
Detlef

[HughChen]

All are very attracting Keris, very rare. If I found one, I would definitely try to have it.

[HughChen]

But that blade looks very old in it's condition.

[Gustav]

Detlef,

just, when David posted his Keris noting the similarities, my fingers itched to disclose the differences, sorry for that!

The sheath from publication is similar only in that the crosspiece also is carved in this horror vacui manner. Material, sheath form, carving style are completely different and even later then the initial Keris of this thread - made quite unlikely before the 1980ties. The dress age attributions in this publication are sometimes quite adventurous, and were even more adventurous in lot descriptions of the auction, where some of the items published were sold.

Legit style - of course, for it's time.
Before WWII - maybe, in my opinion rather not.

[David]

Originally Posted by Sajen

I agree with you that the keris from David is the better one and when I would get the chance to choose one I would take the one from David.
But my intention was to show this keris and not to compare it with others.
A similar one was shown in the publication shown in the pic.
I think that this style appears in the sec. quarter of the 20th century and is a legit type of Balinese keris style.

Just to be clear, my own intention in showing my example in this thread was not to show a "better" example, but rather a similar dhapur, as well as a similar hilt.
Detlef, i believe i am more inclined to agree with Gustav that your sheath is probably more likely post WWII. The blade, of course, is older than that. I would also have pegged the example you show from publication above to also be post WWII. I don't believe that make it illegitimate as a Balinese style, but it seems more recent to me.

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by David

Just to be clear, my own intention in showing my example in this thread was not to show a "better" example, but rather a similar dhapur, as well as a similar hilt.
Detlef, i believe i am more inclined to agree with Gustav that your sheath is probably more likely post WWII. The blade, of course, is older than that. I would also have pegged the example you show from publication above to also be post WWII. I don't believe that make it illegitimate as a Balinese style, but it seems more recent to me.

Hello David,

I was well aware of why you showed your keris and am grateful to you for it.
The gandik area is actually almost the same, the difference is the number of luk.
However, I think that the keris I have shown has a significantly older sheath than the one in the IFICA publication, especially if it's actually ivory. I am not the new owner of this keris. I just wanted to show it.

Regards,
Detlef

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Gustav

Detlef,

just, when David posted his Keris noting the similarities, my fingers itched to disclose the differences, sorry for that!

The sheath from publication is similar only in that the crosspiece also is carved in this horror vacui manner. Material, sheath form, carving style are completely different and even later then the initial Keris of this thread - made quite unlikely before the 1980ties. The dress age attributions in this publication are sometimes quite adventurous, and were even more adventurous in lot descriptions of the auction, where some of the items published were sold.

Legit style - of course, for it's time.
Before WWII - maybe, in my opinion rather not.

No problem Gustav!
As I said, I just wanted to show the piece and I am fully aware that the cross piece of the keris in question are probably not actually antique and that the piece in the IFICAH publication is significantly younger than the one shown. If it is indeed from ivory, it is certainly a valuable piece, even if the quality of the carving is not the best. We all know now that you don't like this type of scabbard/sarung.
I personally would be quite happy if I had a piece like the scabbards shown from "Keris Bali Bersejarah" on page 114. Of course, the quality of the carving cannot really be compared.

Regards,
Detlef

[Gustav]

Detlef,

this kind of carved crosspiece actually lets me quite indefferent, because it is outside of my area of interest. What upsets me, is, when somebody says, it is "late 19th to early 20th century".

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by Sajen

I don't think that it's elephant ivory but not certain about the material. I would need to handle it.

Regards,
Detlef

Thank you Sajen. I think it's deer antler. But I cannot ID if it's sambar antlers or American moose antlers.

[David]

Originally Posted by HughChen

Thank you Sajen. I think it's deer antler. But I cannot ID if it's sambar antlers or American moose antlers.

For me it does not have the appearance of moose antler, which has become a popular carving material in Bali in recent years. Frankly it looks more like bone to me, but i would have to see sharper, more detailed photos to be sure. But it appears to have some porous areas that could indicate bone.

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by David

For me it does not have the appearance of moose antler, which has become a popular carving material in Bali in recent years. Frankly it looks more like bone to me, but i would have to see sharper, more detailed photos to be sure. But it appears to have some porous areas that could indicate bone.

Thank you David! Here are some detailed photos. Since it's quite impossible to identify the age of this Keris through it's blade, I think maybe the estimate work can start with the hilt. Maybe the material of hilt can give a hint to the age of this Balinese Keris which was asserted by the former owner that it's more than 200 even300 hundred years old.

we can find porous areas in his left arm , four holes in the back of his head. But the porous areas are not evenly distributed, but concentrated in the center, which indicated antlers I believe.

since the moose came from north part of the world, if the material is moose, then the hilt may not be too old!

[David]

Originally Posted by HughChen

Since it's quite impossible to identify the age of this Keris through it's blade, I think maybe the estimate work can start with the hilt. Maybe the material of hilt can give a hint to the age of this Balinese Keris which was asserted by the former owner that it's more than 200 even300 hundred years old.

we can find porous areas in his left arm , four holes in the back of his head. But the porous areas are not evenly distributed, but concentrated in the center, which indicated antlers I believe.

since the moose came from north part of the world, if the material is moose, then the hilt may not be too old!

Thanks for the better photos. If nothing else they do seem to rule out ivory as the material.
I am afraid that an estimate of the age of the hilt is no help whatsoever in determining the age of the blade. Hilts come and go and there is no telling when this ensemble came together. That said i doubt the hilt is much older than a century. From what i can see i would still say it is probably bone. If the hilt could be removed from the blade and photographed from the bottom we might have a more definitive answer.
Obviously we cannot judge the exact age of a blade, but i doubt yours is as old as 300 years. This blade seems most likely top fall somewhere into the 19th century.

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by David

Thanks for the better photos. If nothing else they do seem to rule out ivory as the material.
I am afraid that an estimate of the age of the hilt is no help whatsoever in determining the age of the blade. Hilts come and go and there is no telling when this ensemble came together. That said i doubt the hilt is much older than a century. From what i can see i would still say it is probably bone. If the hilt could be removed from the blade and photographed from the bottom we might have a more definitive answer.
Obviously we cannot judge the exact age of a blade, but i doubt yours is as old as 300 years. This blade seems most likely top fall somewhere into the 19th century.

Thank you David, it seems that the hilt is glued to the blade. And my friend told me that he kept it for 30 years and the hilt has never been removed.