|  | 
|  | 
|  20th July 2013, 10:21 AM | #1 | 
| Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Netherlands 
					Posts: 1,462
				 |   
			
			Barry, thank you for your contribution here! The one you have with inlaid blade looks also nice. Hopefully you can get more clear and blown up images like Kai suggests? Maurice | 
|   |   | 
|  22nd July 2013, 08:21 PM | #2 | 
| Member Join Date: Jun 2009 
					Posts: 1,295
				 |   
			
			I am sorry, yet also to me the inlays of the initial Pedang seem to be done at least after the WWII. Maurice, you probably have seen the other indonesian items from the original auction. These items surely weren't collected before 60ties. http://katalog.auktionshaus-wendl.co...at/h/119/a/76/ Especially the kerisses have touch of beeing made to catch a colector with some bigger money, yet not so good understanding of materia. You also see, how many indonesian items are returned to the auction house. For comparison some other stuff coming out of Lombok these days. | 
|   |   | 
|  22nd July 2013, 10:27 PM | #3 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Sweden 
					Posts: 1,637
				 |   
			
			It is interesting that the other pedang classified as Lombok by the auction house also seems to have the features of Lombok according to my earlier post. Maybe the tags are the original collection tags (no joke anymore about this) and that they both actually were collected in 1945 on Lombok by the original owner? Michael | 
|   |   | 
|  23rd July 2013, 08:46 AM | #4 | |
| Member Join Date: Jun 2009 
					Posts: 1,295
				 |   Quote: 
 Honestly said, if there would be a tag, which explicitly states, the item has been collected 1945, I would believe it in the same degree as I believe in the authenticity of the most other items of this collection. To me this collection simply is not serious enough. We should look on the item and not on the tag. I stated my opinion about this item in the previous post and have nothing more to add to this thread. Thanks! | |
|   |   | 
|  23rd July 2013, 03:37 PM | #5 | 
| Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Greenville, NC 
					Posts: 1,854
				 |   
			
			VVV,  I believe I see what you are saying about the varying, but similar hilt styles. Would you say that the top example here is more likely Lombok, while the bottom one is more likely Sumatra?? There is a real difference in the angles(with the Lombok example sharper) and detail in the horn carving. | 
|   |   | 
|  23rd July 2013, 03:37 PM | #6 | |||||||
| Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Netherlands 
					Posts: 1,462
				 |   Quote: 
 Than we wouldn't have a deflected discussion. And it is a fact the tag was on the item, so it's not bad discussing the label also. Quote: 
 Quote: 
 Quote: 
 What does this imply to you then? I wouldn't have bought those "returned" pieces in the first place, so I wouldn't have to return them afterwards. And f.i. the returned rencong is a good original old one, though not fancy!? Maybe it was only one "non seriously buyer" who bid on the all later "returned" items? Who knows? Quote: 
   My opinion is that these are both good old ones, and the "pedang" nr. 51 is very attractive also in my opinion and worthy in a good collection! But......not relevant to my pedang which I put up for discussion here in the first place. So I leave it with this! Quote: 
 Quote: 
  OK. Thanks! | |||||||
|   |   | 
|  23rd July 2013, 11:04 PM | #7 | 
| Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands 
					Posts: 2,237
				 |   
			
			To blur the discussion maybe even more. Here is another Pedang from the same auction. Lombok or Sumatra ? and why ? | 
|   |   | 
|  24th July 2013, 12:22 AM | #8 | |
| Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: The Netherlands 
					Posts: 1,462
				 |   Quote: 
 | |
|   |   | 
|  | 
| 
 | 
 |