Too Tiny?

[David]

Originally Posted by T. Koch

I think Roy means it as he says it. If the small one of Roy's is indeed Tridacna it looks very similar to the material of this keris-hilt from the Tridacna-thread you linked to, David:



Notice the similar haze'y streaks? Couldn't it be that some parts of the clam-shell exhibit these bands - maybe the inner part of the shell near the animal itself? As you point out David, the material looks a lot like mother of pearl (MOP), however Tridacna doesen't produce MOP per sé, but the shell does get very porcelain-like layers on the very inside. I also seem to remember seing Go-stones with similar bands. The problem is that I've never actually made anything out of Tridacna, I've only whacked it with a hammer.

Yes Thor, i agree, Roy means it as he says it. Please read his words again.
"I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example."
In other words, if the "bone" (the larger one) looks very similar to Lofty's example, and Lofty's example is indeed tridacna, then perhaps the Roy's larger hilt is also tridacna.
I am as sure as i can possibly be without having it in hand that Roy's smaller example is indeed MOP and i completely disagree that this material looks like the higher grade tridacna keris hilt that is in the thread i linked to. That hilt is a cream color (not white like Roy's) and does not exhibit the opalescence seen in Roy's smaller gunong.

[VANDOO]

http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/edi...9_11_pick.html

THIS ATTACHMENT IS THE STORY OF THE LARGEST PEARL IN THE WORLD. IT CAME FROM A TRIDACNIA GIGAS SHELL AND IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY HEARD THE STORY IT IS A GOOD ONE. AND NO ONE HAS TOPPED THIS 14 POUND PEARL YET.
THESE SHELLS CAN GET UP TO AT LEAST 5 FEET LONG AND CLOSE TO 500 POUNDS. I PERSONALLY HAVE SEEN TWO THIS SIZE ONE ALIVE AND ONE DEAD AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS IN THE 200 TO 300 POUND RANGE.
THE PURITY OF THE SHELL DEPENDS ON THE LOCATION AND PURITY OF THE WATER WHERE THE CLAM GROWS. INSIDE LAGOONS IN SHALLOW WATER IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE INCLUSIONS LIKE YOUR EXAMPLE. OUTSIDE REEFS WHERE THERE IS GOOD CURRENTS MAKES FOR BETTER SHELL. I VOTE CLAM SHELL FOR THE HILT. ANTLER AND BONE MAY GET CONTAMINATION IN THE PORES BUT IT IS VERY SELDOM AN INCLUSION AND THE FINISH IS DIFFERENT FROM CLAM SHELL.

[David]

Thanks Barry. Here is another link. It's a shame that this pearl isn't iridescent like regular pearls are. Now that would be a sight. Still the size is amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_of_Lao_Tzu

[T. Koch]

Originally Posted by David

Yes Thor, i agree, Roy means it as he says it. Please read his words again.
"I have always thought that the larger of these is bone and the other is shell ( with the opalescence ). The "bone" looks very similar to Loftey's example."
In other words, if the "bone" (the larger one) looks very similar to Lofty's example, and Lofty's example is indeed tridacna, then perhaps the Roy's larger hilt is also tridacna.
I am as sure as i can possibly be without having it in hand that Roy's smaller example is indeed MOP and i completely disagree that this material looks like the higher grade tridacna keris hilt that is in the thread i linked to. That hilt is a cream color (not white like Roy's) and does not exhibit the opalescence seen in Roy's smaller gunong.

Aha David, I see what you mean now. The first time around I had considered the opalescence to be an artifact of the camera's flash, but after seing it on a real screen, as opposed to my laptop, I see what you mean! Do you have a guess at which species could have supplied the shell on Roy's little gunong?

Vandoo, you are indeed right. On the biochemical level formation of molluscan shells is an extremely complex network of processes that all influence the outcome of each other. Like you say, purity of the water plays an enormous difference as well as temperature, currents, availability of oxygen and food, the mollusc's own hormonal fluctuations etc. all resulting in a wide range of possible shell qualities.


Best wishes, - Thor

[Ferguson]

This one decided to come to live with me. It's the smallest I have. The shell hilt is .307" thick (7.8mm). the diameter of the ferrule just behind the guard is .278" (7.04mm). It has a nicely made monosteel blade that is .076" thick (1.93mm).

I'm not sure if it's a childs piece or a miniature. The materials and workmanship are good. Thanks to Lotfy for letting it come home with me.

Steve

[A.alnakkas]

Hey Steve,

I am really glad you like it! atleast now I know the normal size of a gunong with that comparison picture hehe

[Battara]

Originally Posted by Ferguson

This one decided to come to live with me. It's the smallest I have. The shell hilt is .307" thick (7.8mm). the diameter of the ferrule just behind the guard is .278" (7.04mm). It has a nicely made monosteel blade that is .076" thick (1.93mm).

I'm not sure if it's a childs piece or a miniature. The materials and workmanship are good. Thanks to Lotfy for letting it come home with me.

Steve

Glad you have it. It is a child's gunong. I have seen a picture of such a piece on a Moro datu son in the arms of an American.

[Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Battara

Glad you have it. It is a child's gunong. I have seen a picture of such a piece on a Moro datu son in the arms of an American.

Thanks Jose. That's good to know.

Lotfy, that's not a normal gunong, it's the biggest one I've ever seen. LOL Those are the extremes of my collection.

Steve

[A.alnakkas]

LOL well if its a child's gunong would it be safe to assume that it was to an important child? considering the rare hilt material.. other fittings seem normal though.

[David]

Originally Posted by A.alnakkas

LOL well if its a child's gunong would it be safe to assume that it was to an important child? considering the rare hilt material.. other fittings seem normal though.

I would think so...probably a datus child...