When we talk about blades with cores, and blades with no cores, we need to keep a few things in mind.
First is the age of the blade. Is it old? Current era? Brand new?
If it is an old blade, and it has a manipulated pamor, it will most certainly have a core.
However, a new or current era blade might have a core, or might not.
The blade with the core will be the superior blade to the one with no core, however, the blade with no core could well be a superbly made blade, with no weld flaws, and with beautifully executed pamor.
What you get, should be reflected in the value of the blade.
The new or current era blade with no core should cost less than an equally well made new or current era blade that has been constructed with a core.
Now, if we talk about older blades, and we look at manipulated pamors, those blades will often not be as well made as the more recent blades, they will certainly be in a lesser state of preservation, and if they are any good at all, the value will be multiples of the new or current era blade.
We need to be realistic in the appraisal of a keris.
Its no good simply saying that something is "good", or "bad", or anything else for that matter.
We need to appraise the blade within its applicable parameters.
This blade that Scratch has shown us is a current era blade; it appears not to have a core, however, the pamor has been well managed, and I cannot see any obvious flaws in the welding; the garap (coldwork) is good. Overall this is a good example of its type.
Yes, I agree, if it had been made on a core it would better. If it was pre-WWII it would also be better.
However, I'll put money on it that Scratch did not pay the price of a current era keris made on a core, nor did he pay the price of a pre-WWII keris.
This is a good example of its type, and it should not be criticised for being what it obviously is not.
|