![]() |
![]() |
#31 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Posts: 312
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: zamboanga city, philippines
Posts: 132
|
![]()
Concerning modern made Sulu krises, I understand that among the questions a mananasal (smith) asks an owner when commissioning a kris is whether if it is for show or for use . If it is for show, a separate gangya is produced - much like the boy's kris shown. But there are of course many other options depending on the request of the owner.
Which leads me to the question : how will a good kris with a separate gangya stand-up to a direct blow (to the gangya) from a good barong? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Posts: 312
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 338
|
![]() Quote:
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,252
|
![]() Quote:
Regards, Kai |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 7,189
|
![]()
Also, the reproduction/non-traditionally made ones do not interest the Moros today.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 338
|
![]()
Noted. Thank you kai and battara!
technically the pira I own is not a reproduction, however. It's not the nicest piece in terms of finishing, either, but it is traditionally made and it's a great conversation piece. No power tools were used to make it, which in the Phillippines is a very very rare thing. Grind marks from sharpening on a stone can still be seen in fact. I am diverting from the topic at hand, however. I apologise. perhaps I may begin a new conversation about this at a later time. (Does Caloy have an E-mail address that I may contact him with? I would love to get his perspective on various things. Someone let me know please and thanks!) I do think a lot of this discussion begs the question: "What do you consider a fake"? We have all discussed various definitions: low-quality blades made to be buried in the dirt to speed up some artificial patination, Modern-made blades made outside of the appropriate culture, anriques refitted with more luxuious materials in addition to a forced patination. Which is a definition of 'fake' that most of us can agree upon? I think (if there are any willing participants) we can have a more enriched (or at least more streamlined) discussion about Fakes if we can find time to define the term in one specific way (or multiple specific ways even, so as not to be vague in our discussion) so we have a point of reference. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 | |
Keris forum moderator
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 7,096
|
![]() Quote:
As for refitted old blades again i think representation is the issue when deciding what is fake. When an old beater is fixed up with an elaborate hilt with silver and ivory and passed off as a datu kris i would call that a "fake". If the seller is clear that the blade is a rehilted old beater i would just call it inappropriate and misguided. ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|