What pamor is this?

[A. G. Maisey]

I find these exchanges very interesting.

In fact, so interesting that I'm going to refrain from comment. Its not often I get this level of entertainment.

[Jean]

I just found that this kris is shown on page 132 of the book "Tafsir Keris", and is said to have belonged to the late General Subroto. It is described as having a dapur Pasopati and pamor Wos Wutah and to have been made by Empu Supo in Blambangan.
Regards

[Gustav]

I must say, I also have some reasons to be entertained now.

[David]

Originally Posted by Jean

I just found that this kris is shown on page 132 of the book "Tafsir Keris", and is said to have belonged to the late General Subroto. It is described as having a dapur Pasopati and pamor Wos Wutah and to have been made by Empu Supo in Blambangan.
Regards

hmmm....interesting indeed...

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by David

hmmm....interesting indeed...

well I must say I'd like to be entertained.
we must not consider the sandangan as a guide to 'tangguh'
lets just observe the keris.

Let us see the gandik, its tall and "rubuh"....which mean this gandik must have a "kembang kacang''. and it have kembang kacang indeed.
the question is " should it be POGOG or the normal shape?"
the front wadidang looks funny to me. I can imagine if only it has a normal shape of kembang kacang. it would be much-much better in shape. specially tha shape of front wadidang. its quite common that kembang kacang pogog would be a so nicely combined with a straight gandik. in other hand...kembang kacang pogog and a gandik rubuh (sloping gandik) like this one is a terrible combination.

then we can see the ODO-ODO.
it looks quite tall since the sogokan is also very very deep, tall, and looks wide also. the blade is thin so the odo-odo looks tall.

we can say that since the blade it self looks clean, (needs warangan).
but we can see the pamor is applied in a thin layers. this style of pamor application is very balinese .

how about the greneng? is it indicate an original shape or not? in my opinion its fine alright. its still original in shape.

honestly, I dont see any thing at all that indicate this keris revers to blambangan.

[Jean]

According to the book, this kris is deemed to have very strong magical powers and to select its owner, and it is only said to have been made in Blambangan by Empu Supo, not to be attributed to tangguh Blambangan.
I attach the picture of another kris with dapur Pasopati and having some similar features (and differences of course), it was made somewhere and some time ago by Empu Tartempion (well-known to French collectors only ) and it selected me as its new owner

[David]

Originally Posted by ferrylaki

well I must say I'd like to be entertained.
we must not consider the sandangan as a guide to 'tangguh'
lets just observe the keris.

Let us see the gandik, its tall and "rubuh"....which mean this gandik must have a "kembang kacang''. and it have kembang kacang indeed.
the question is " should it be POGOG or the normal shape?"
the front wadidang looks funny to me. I can imagine if only it has a normal shape of kembang kacang. it would be much-much better in shape. specially tha shape of front wadidang. its quite common that kembang kacang pogog would be a so nicely combined with a straight gandik. in other hand...kembang kacang pogog and a gandik rubuh (sloping gandik) like this one is a terrible combination.

then we can see the ODO-ODO.
it looks quite tall since the sogokan is also very very deep, tall, and looks wide also. the blade is thin so the odo-odo looks tall.

we can say that since the blade it self looks clean, (needs warangan).
but we can see the pamor is applied in a thin layers. this style of pamor application is very balinese .

how about the greneng? is it indicate an original shape or not? in my opinion its fine alright. its still original in shape.

honestly, I dont see any thing at all that indicate this keris revers to blambangan.

So Ferrylaki, if i understand you correctly, from this one overall photo viewed on a computer screen you have been able to determine the following:
1. The gandik has been re-formed
2. the pamor layers are thin, which means this is a Bali keris
3. the blade is thin which makes the odo-odo look tall
4. The sogokan are "very, very deep"
5. the greneng has not been re-formed (does this look like Bali greneng to you?)
6. the tagguh is not Blambangan (though that was never stated)

You can really see all that in this one photograph? I am quite impressed by this skill.
Do you have any provenanced Bali keris to show us to help support your belief that this is an old Bali keris? Can you support your ideas in any way other than your own observations based on this one photograph?
Do you have any response to the fact that the very keris in question apparently appears in a notable book on keris attributed to Mpu Supo and described as Dhapur Pasopati with pamor Wos Wutah?

[ferrylaki]

Originally Posted by David

So Ferrylaki, if i understand you correctly, from this one overall photo viewed on a computer screen you have been able to determine the following:
1. The gandik has been re-formed
2. the pamor layers are thin, which means this is a Bali keris
3. the blade is thin which makes the odo-odo look tall
4. The sogokan are "very, very deep"
5. the greneng has not been re-formed (does this look like Bali greneng to you?)
6. the tagguh is not Blambangan (though that was never stated)

You can really see all that in this one photograph? I am quite impressed by this skill.
Do you have any provenanced Bali keris to show us to help support your belief that this is an old Bali keris? Can you support your ideas in any way other than your own observations based on this one photograph?
Do you have any response to the fact that the very keris in question apparently appears in a notable book on keris attributed to Mpu Supo and described as Dhapur Pasopati with pamor Wos Wutah?

I must say that
1. the gandik it just fine. it hasn't been re-formed.
2. the pamor is consist of only a few layers of thin pamor which indicate it is a bali keris. since bali keris applied this method of pamor making cinsistently.

3. yes I can see that all in a slight view from a photograph. and I've been study keris like crazy this last three years. I found that there is a very remarkable consistent keris making method is applied in each era and tangguh. even in the same periode of time and the same region as PBIX and mangkubumen the keris making methode on appliying pamor is quite different.

Lets continue abaout the picture of pasopati.I'd like to ask you all to observe the pamor. how many layers are they? howe thin every layer is. how is the tipe of wos wutah pamor applied? in point of view, the wos wutah is quuite different from javanese wos wutah , sultan agung or senopaten or majapahit tipe of wos wutah. off course this keris can't be a nomnoman .

these are some picture I found from the internet shiwing the consistent Bali wos wotah would look like.

[David]

Well Ferry, i would not argue that any of these examples you have now posted are from Bali (or Lombok). That much is clear in these examples though none of them are the same pasopati dhapur. I will continue to argue that the original example in this post is not from Bali....that there is very little you can discern from the one image we see about the true nature of the pamor...that it is a blade out-of stain anyway and could use some warangan to show it's true form and construction....that the dhapur of this original keris does not look Balinese and that when you compare the gandik, the form of the lambe-gajah, the form and shape of the greneng, the type of pamor present on the gonjo, the over shape of the gonjo.....sorry, this just does not read as a Bali blade to me at all. Even if it were possible to tell more about this pamor from the photo and it does use the lesser layers of the Balinese technique, i would still doubt a Bali origin for this.
Of course, you have also failed to address the fact brought forth by Jean that this very same keris is identified on page 132 in Tafsir Keris and that the blade apparently has some provenance. The book apparently lists not only the owner, but claims to know the Mpu as well.