Is it a real Keris?

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

OK --- got it.

No, it is not weird, nor is the style modern, it is totally legitimate, but it is the type of thing that modern makers in East Jawa/Madura like to produce, and to my eye, there are a couple of characteristics that do not say "old" whilst other characteristics do say "old".

From the pics I cannot form a defensible opinion.

Alan, can you tell us what old characteristics and young characteristics have you seen?

[A. G. Maisey]

This is what I wrote:---

"--- I believe that we are looking at an East Javanese keris, or possibly Madurese. I had that thought that it might be current era, but I am now not so sure.

To form any sort of defensible opinion on age I would need to handle this keris,---"


If i look at the gonjo there is virtually no erosion of the greneng & the joint between blade base and gonjo has not opened up, there is no real gap at the wadidang between gonjo & blade, and the core seems to be pretty thick. All this impresses me as recent, maybe even current.

The overall impression is one of age, the pawakan is Ok for age, the twin nagas are an older style of motif but the erosion here is uneven.

As we move towards the point the erosion looks more severe, if this is an older blade the heavier erosion could be because of hardening of the front part of the blade, but if it is a more recent blade --- and I'm thinking post 1980ish --- the erosion is because of false aging that was poorly managed.

I cannot tell with certainty what I'm looking at from the photo, but I sure wouldn't gamble money on it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with recent, current era keris, taken as they are, they are just as collectable as older keris, in many ways, perhaps more so, but when some entrepreneurial dealer decides he wants to make that perfectly good recent keris look 200 years older than it really is, well, to me that is criminal behaviour.

[HughChen]

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

This is what I wrote:---

"--- I believe that we are looking at an East Javanese keris, or possibly Madurese. I had that thought that it might be current era, but I am now not so sure.

To form any sort of defensible opinion on age I would need to handle this keris,---"


If i look at the gonjo there is virtually no erosion of the greneng & the joint between blade base and gonjo has not opened up, there is no real gap at the wadidang between gonjo & blade, and the core seems to be pretty thick. All this impresses me as recent, maybe even current.

The overall impression is one of age, the pawakan is Ok for age, the twin nagas are an older style of motif but the erosion here is uneven.

As we move towards the point the erosion looks more severe, if this is an older blade the heavier erosion could be because of hardening of the front part of the blade, but if it is a more recent blade --- and I'm thinking post 1980ish --- the erosion is because of false aging that was poorly managed.

I cannot tell with certainty what I'm looking at from the photo, but I sure wouldn't gamble money on it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with recent, current era keris, taken as they are, they are just as collectable as older keris, in many ways, perhaps more so, but when some entrepreneurial dealer decides he wants to make that perfectly good recent keris look 200 years older than it really is, well, to me that is criminal behaviour.

Thank you Alan, Very useful tips on judging the age of a keris. It's a very important ability for collectors in an environment where almost every Keris is alleged to be of 19th century.