[David]

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

I may be peremptorily dismissing out of hand any keris with a pendok upon which a date is engraved/stamped/chiseled, but...I usually do the same with pendok showing any lambang keraton...

There probably are in existence pendok with bona-fide dates on them, but almost all the examples I've seen are [to me] obviously bogus. I don't have time to get into what I consider to be telltale signs of fakery. Perhaps I should do so, however, when I have more time.

Instead of general discussion about fakes why don't we stick to the specific case here with the keris at hand? It is a pendok that does indeed display some age. How much is debatable. The numbers on the back (1807) do appear to have been inscribed there generally about the same time as the engraved designs. Could this pendok be as old as 1885 (the conversation if this was a date)? I'd wouldn't count that out. Are there really telltale signs with THIS pendok that make you think it is bogus? It is what you seem to be implying in you post. If so, maybe you could specifically talk about THIS pendok and the telltale signs to see that make it bogus for you. I mean, when you feel you have time.
But what you have failed to take into account is that it is just as likely that 1807 isn't a date at all, but rather some bit of numerology added to this pendok by the owner for reasons you and i will never know. We can't assume it is a date and so it might well be a mistake to dismiss it out of hand...certainly not "peremptorily".

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

I may or may not have mentioned previously that I immediately lose all interest in any keris described as "previously owned by a senior abdi dalem of the court of Solokarta", again for reasons I don't have time to get into.

Yeah, i would also be skeptical if someone made claims using the term "Court of Solokarta".

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

I once saw for sale a ploncon with a prominent date on the front [from the 1800s] in Javanese script, for an even number of keris. Perhaps it was completely genuine; it's possible. There was no way in hell that I was even going to bother calculating the exchange rate for this particular article, however, for reason(s) which I may get into if asked to do so, at some future time. (And my reasons may be completely wrong).

Well, i collect keris, not ploncon. For me a ploncon is simply a device to display keris. I might be a little bit concerned if the ploncon in question only held an even number of keris, given that everything to do with male oriented things in Javanese culture should be odd, but if the price was right even that might not matter in the end...or it might. But i would be less concerned about any dates inscribed on the wood.

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

Now that I think about it, perhaps I really should write up a list of all the features which I (as an inexperienced keris accumulator, not a knowledgable collector) consider to be telltale indicators of fakery, as well as my reason(s).

There may well be a thread regarding this subject in the forum already; I'd be surprised if there was not. Or...now that I think about it...perhaps there isn't... Short of carbon dating and other forensic techniques...so much comes down to experience and education, and even with keris Sombro, it's not like we have her fingerprints to verify the genuine keris with...

I'm not sure what Mpu Sombro's fingerprints have to do with anything. Are you confusing Keris Picit with Keris Sombro? Keris Sombro do not necessarily present picit features. So i don't see how her fingerprints come into play. It is also pretty well accepted that Keris Sombro is usually used to describe a category of keris, a type, that displays certain features that may or may not include a hole in the end of the pesi. A Keris Sombro might display picit, but even if it did you could hardly lift a fingerprint from it. I don't believe most collectors believe that all, or even most keris that display these features were actually made my the legendary female mpu. So when someone is selling a Keris Sombro i don't think it can be called a fake just because it can't actually be traced to Mpu Sombro. BTW, I also doubt that most collectors believe the legend that she quenched here blades with her vulva...but i could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

I have one or two hilts which I believe to be carved from bone. I suspect that the prominent burn/ scorch marks on both of them are from a previous owner trying to ascertain whether or not they are synthetic...

It is generally not too difficult to tell the difference between resin and bone/ivory/horn on close examination of a hilt, but if you are really not sure there is the hot pin method. I can't image a collector with any brains at all applying the hot pin in any prominent area of the keris in question, but even so i don't think it would leave anything so severe that it could be described as "scorch marks". Maybe these hilts were caught in a fire. I have recently seen quite a few resin hilts popping up on ePray. Even in bad internet auction photos they seem obviously fake. I'm not sure we need to take too much time talking about them.

Originally Posted by Mickey the Finn

Perhaps I should have just kept quiet; but it's 03:51 and I've spent too much time writing this to not post it.

Well, it seems i, as well, have spend far too much time writing this not to post it, but i felt there were a number of misconception that needed clearing up in your post and since no one else wanted to take it on...