Ivory hilted keris for discussion and id please

Jean · 19th November 2018, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

The blade is not Javanese, it is Madura, the tells are the kembang kacang, the relatively long point, the greneng, the way in which the material has been handled, the pawakan. It is fairly recent, I think possibly 1980's, but it could be +/- 1900 - 1940. Not any older, unlikely to be any younger. Yes, stylistically it is reminiscent of a Javanese blade, but it is not of Javanese manufacture.

Hello Alan,
Thank you for your detailed expert opinion, I was not certain about the Javanese origin but the blade features were not specific enough for me to assume that it could be Madurese. I concur with your age estimate although I also could not tell myself.
Regards

chiefheadknocker · 19th November 2018, 09:19 AM

Thank you all for your comments ,some great insight into this piece , just one question is that the ivory hilt does look older than the blade do you think is the case or maybe made at the same time ? I have added a few more pics of the hilt

A. G. Maisey · 19th November 2018, 11:16 AM

I reserved comment on the hilt because of one very specific reason:- I am not able to judge just how old, or how genuine this hilt might be from a photo.

One thing that is done with old ivory hilts is that they are re-carved --- ie, the original carving is deepened and "refreshed", then the hilt is artificially patinated. I cannot see the tells for this in a photo.

The far more dangerous falsification is something that has been going on spasmodically for a long time, I mean like more than 30 years, maybe longer, and that is that bone, and occasionally ivory, but mostly bone is very carefully joined to hide the porous ends, and then it is carved in old style to a very high standard and artificially patinated. I've been fooled by both these things when I've had the hilt in my hand, I would not even consider giving an opinion from a photo. I don't get fooled any more, because I've seen a lot of these falsifications now, and I know what to look for, but there is no way I would give an opinion either one way or the other on the basis of a photo.

19th November 2018, 09:19 AM	#2
chiefheadknocker Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Posts: 143	Thank you all for your comments ,some great insight into this piece , just one question is that the ivory hilt does look older than the blade do you think is the case or maybe made at the same time ? I have added a few more pics of the hilt Attached Images

19th November 2018, 11:16 AM	#3
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	I reserved comment on the hilt because of one very specific reason:- I am not able to judge just how old, or how genuine this hilt might be from a photo. One thing that is done with old ivory hilts is that they are re-carved --- ie, the original carving is deepened and "refreshed", then the hilt is artificially patinated. I cannot see the tells for this in a photo. The far more dangerous falsification is something that has been going on spasmodically for a long time, I mean like more than 30 years, maybe longer, and that is that bone, and occasionally ivory, but mostly bone is very carefully joined to hide the porous ends, and then it is carved in old style to a very high standard and artificially patinated. I've been fooled by both these things when I've had the hilt in my hand, I would not even consider giving an opinion from a photo. I don't get fooled any more, because I've seen a lot of these falsifications now, and I know what to look for, but there is no way I would give an opinion either one way or the other on the basis of a photo.