Comment?

A. G. Maisey · 23rd November 2018, 06:45 AM

Yes Bill, I do not doubt that I mentioned Empu Suparman(Alm.) he was the ranking Mpu in the Karaton Surakarta during the 1980's and early 1990's, and he was my teacher for the last 15 years of his life. Without his help I would not now know a fraction of what I do know.

Yes, I recall the bethok very clearly. Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo (Alm.) made three of these keris, and I bought all three, they were amongst the last keris he made before he became too ill to work. The pamor is an experimental one that he named "Pamor Kalpataru" . The Kalpataru Tree in Hindu belief is a sacred, wish granting tree, but in Javanese belief it is aligned with the Gunungan, Mt. Meru, and the Tree of Life. So, when Pauzan named this pamor Kalpataru he was in fact referencing the alignment of the Keris with Mt. Meru. I sold one of these keris to you, I sold one to another very respected collector, and I kept one for myself.

The other keris I do not remember, but it has the look of Pauzan's work. After Pauzan ceased work I bought all his unsold keris and sold most of them over about a 20 year period. This keris definitely does look like his work but I cannot remember it. The wrongko looks like Sutejo's work, the pendok I am virtually certain is Dayadi's work, but I would need to handle it to be certain, it is almost certainly .925 silver --- this class of work is not done in brass --- the jejeran is from either Sutejo or Suroso. All this dress is absolute top drawer, and the blade is classic Surakarta.

I knew Pauzan from 1974 until the time of his passing. He was one of the finest men I have ever known, kind, and gentle to a fault, the very epitome of a gentleman, I was fortunate to count him as a good friend.

Jean · 25th November 2018, 09:14 AM

I also appreciate the fineness of this type of bright nginden/ chatoyant pamor covering most of the surface of the blade and often found on contemporary krisses.
However I find that these pamor patterns look "busy" because they include much less iron than the conventional ones and are "floating" (not deeply embedded) into the blade core (see the 5th pic down from Bill for instance). Personally I prefer the older blades with more subtle pamor patterns with more apparent iron and better mixing into the blade core.
Regards

Bill M · 25th November 2018, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jean

I also appreciate the fineness of this type of bright nginden/ chatoyant pamor covering most of the surface of the blade and often found on contemporary krisses.
However I find that these pamor patterns look "busy" because they include much less iron than the conventional ones and are "floating" (not deeply embedded) into the blade core (see the 5th pic down from Bill for instance). Personally I prefer the older blades with more subtle pamor patterns with more apparent iron and better mixing into the blade core.
Regards

Post one of yours so we can comment. I have many keris blades also.

A. G. Maisey · 25th November 2018, 11:13 AM

Jean, what you are talking about here is the difference between eras, the effect of time, and differences in post production processing. It is simply a matter of preferences.

In very simple terms, we cannot have a blade that was made only 30 or 40 years ago, or even within the last 100 years or so, that looks like a blade that was made 150 to 200 years ago. It was be very nice if we could get newly made blades that looked like 19th century Surakarta or late Mataram, but regrettably we cannot. The reason being, that the current local Indonesian buyers seem to prefer blades that look like Bill's keris, rather than ones with a Bali style finish --- and it is the Bali style finish that is required in the beginning in order to have that flat mature surface a couple of hundred years down the track.

The effect in that 5th pic of Bill's is the result of the deep etching process that is required by local Indonesian buyers of these keris. The method of construction of Bill's blade and a late 19th century Surakarta blade is the same, the pamor is not "deeply embedded", nor is there any "mixing into the blade core", the older blades have a less deeply etched surface, and there is a degree of mechanical reduction caused by wear. That is the only difference.

In a blade that has been made using the reverse V construction, what we effectively have is an inlaid edge, and this permits less topographic relief in a blade that has a pure pamor body, but a body such as this is rare, normally there is a very thin layer of pamor over plain iron. It is unusual to find this reverse V construction in blades later than about 1800, and they are pretty scarce.

However, it is possible to get older blades that have the superb pamors of the current era, along with the crisp garap of keris made during this revival era. The problem is that to even get one of these blades offered to you, you need the right connections, and then to actually obtain something, like, say, a Jayasukadgo, you need very deep pockets indeed.

It does help to bring us back to reality if we can examine closely the pre-17th century keris held in some of the old European museum collections. Most of these keris that I have examined were new or close to it when they were collected, and if they were to be stripped of their dress, and laid side by side with an equal number of revival era blades it would be a very perceptive man indeed who could separate the new from the old.

Jean · 25th November 2018, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A. G. Maisey

Jean, what you are talking about here is the difference between eras, the effect of time, and differences in post production processing. It is simply a matter of preferences.

In very simple terms, we cannot have a blade that was made only 30 or 40 years ago, or even within the last 100 years or so, that looks like a blade that was made 150 to 200 years ago. It was be very nice if we could get newly made blades that looked like 19th century Surakarta or late Mataram, but regrettably we cannot. .

Hello Alan,
I agree with you, however it seems to me that there are some apparently recent blades without this deep etching process.
The first blade which I am showing is Balinese (or in balinese style) and probably recent, and it shows a full and fine pamor pattern Beras Wutah.
The second blade is estimated to originate from Banten or Blambangan and to date from 17th century and it shows a very fine and intact pamor pattern after warangan as if it was newly made (bottom pic).
Regards

A. G. Maisey · 25th November 2018, 10:05 PM

Yes Jean, true, some current era blades are not deeply etched, in fact, some are not etched at all, but local buyers still seem to prefer that deep aggressive etch.

Your couple of examples demonstrate pretty well what I was talking about in my previous post:- old blades and new blades can look very close to the same when presented in similar condition and mixed together.

Gustav · 30th November 2018, 11:35 AM

Actually Blumbangan of initial Keris doesn't look Mboto Adeg (as it should be with Surakarta Keris), it could be square, in pictures it looks almost Rubuh, perhaps also some strange image deformation (the pictures look really distorted).

Kembang Kacang looks like Madura.

Poyuhan is disturbed.

As the name Jayasukadgo was mentioned (of course, having nothing to do with the initial Keris), attached a picture of a part of Keris which has been attributed to Jayasukadgo.

A. G. Maisey · 30th November 2018, 12:40 PM

You are correct Gustav, the blumbangan of the current era nginden keris does not appear to be textbook Surakarta, however the only keris that do stay more or less strictly within the parameters of tangguh indicators are those that have been made by a karaton empu for use within a karaton, with all other keris there can be greater or lesser degrees of deviation from the guidelines that provide our indicators. When this deviation is present it becomes a matter of forming an opinion based upon the weight of evidence. "Tangguh" means "opinion".

There is another thing that also needs to be understood in assessing the form of a blumbangan, it is sometimes not really possible to assess form from a photograph, the internal barrier of the blumbangan can vary, depending upon how the palemahan and the bungkul have been carved, so a blumbangan that appears to be one form in a photo, can be different in the hand.

In the case of the keris under discussion the weight of evidence points firmly at Surakarta. Bear in mind, this is a current era keris. In other words it was made by somebody who is still living or has only recently passed away. We know where keris of this type were produced. We know the people who were capable of producing a keris like this. In the applicable period, those who were capable of producing this keris lived in Surakarta. Nowhere else. Just Solo.

Then we have the ron dha. In a young keris this form of ron dha is uniquely Surakarta. Couple the ron dha with the pawakan and you have an inarguable attribution of Surakarta, even without any other indicators being in compliance.

The agreed characteristic of a Madura kembang kacang is that it is whispy, one of the characteristics of a Surakarta kembang kacang is that it is substantial and heavy through its base. The KK on this keris is not at all typical of a Madura KK.

In respect of the work of Jayasukadgo. He was renowned for being able to do anything with pamor, however, he did not only produce keris that bore pamor, for those who could not afford his highest quality work he produced keris with no pamor, and with deviant features.

For the last 40 years I have been the custodian of one of these Jayasukadgo keris that has no pamor and possesses deviant characteristics. I do not own this keris, it is a pusaka keris, the previous family custodians are known, the maker is known. I have been entrusted with the care of this keris until the person who should have it is ready to accept it. Regrettably, although this person is already 50 years old he is still not ready to accept responsibility for his family's keris.

This keris is very definitely a Jayasukadgo, the family knows who made it, it has been recognised as Jayasukadgo by Javanese people who are sufficiently well educated to reliably recognise his work. But although it is a Jayasukadgo, and although it is recognisably Surakarta, it has some characteristics that are not typically Surakarta.

We really do need a very great depth of hands on experience to be able to apply the indicators that we use in classifying a keris.

Jean · 30th November 2018, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gustav

As the name Jayasukadgo was mentioned (of course, having nothing to do with the initial Keris), attached a picture of a part of Keris which has been attributed to Jayasukadgo.

The pamor pattern of this kris looks very similar to te one belonging to Bill?

Regards

25th November 2018, 09:14 AM	#2
Jean Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,740	Question of taste.... I also appreciate the fineness of this type of bright nginden/ chatoyant pamor covering most of the surface of the blade and often found on contemporary krisses. However I find that these pamor patterns look "busy" because they include much less iron than the conventional ones and are "floating" (not deeply embedded) into the blade core (see the 5th pic down from Bill for instance). Personally I prefer the older blades with more subtle pamor patterns with more apparent iron and better mixing into the blade core. Regards

30th November 2018, 11:35 AM	#7
Gustav Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 1,295	Actually Blumbangan of initial Keris doesn't look Mboto Adeg (as it should be with Surakarta Keris), it could be square, in pictures it looks almost Rubuh, perhaps also some strange image deformation (the pictures look really distorted). Kembang Kacang looks like Madura. Poyuhan is disturbed. As the name Jayasukadgo was mentioned (of course, having nothing to do with the initial Keris), attached a picture of a part of Keris which has been attributed to Jayasukadgo. Attached Images Last edited by Gustav; 30th November 2018 at 11:55 AM.

30th November 2018, 12:40 PM	#8
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	You are correct Gustav, the blumbangan of the current era nginden keris does not appear to be textbook Surakarta, however the only keris that do stay more or less strictly within the parameters of tangguh indicators are those that have been made by a karaton empu for use within a karaton, with all other keris there can be greater or lesser degrees of deviation from the guidelines that provide our indicators. When this deviation is present it becomes a matter of forming an opinion based upon the weight of evidence. "Tangguh" means "opinion". There is another thing that also needs to be understood in assessing the form of a blumbangan, it is sometimes not really possible to assess form from a photograph, the internal barrier of the blumbangan can vary, depending upon how the palemahan and the bungkul have been carved, so a blumbangan that appears to be one form in a photo, can be different in the hand. In the case of the keris under discussion the weight of evidence points firmly at Surakarta. Bear in mind, this is a current era keris. In other words it was made by somebody who is still living or has only recently passed away. We know where keris of this type were produced. We know the people who were capable of producing a keris like this. In the applicable period, those who were capable of producing this keris lived in Surakarta. Nowhere else. Just Solo. Then we have the ron dha. In a young keris this form of ron dha is uniquely Surakarta. Couple the ron dha with the pawakan and you have an inarguable attribution of Surakarta, even without any other indicators being in compliance. The agreed characteristic of a Madura kembang kacang is that it is whispy, one of the characteristics of a Surakarta kembang kacang is that it is substantial and heavy through its base. The KK on this keris is not at all typical of a Madura KK. In respect of the work of Jayasukadgo. He was renowned for being able to do anything with pamor, however, he did not only produce keris that bore pamor, for those who could not afford his highest quality work he produced keris with no pamor, and with deviant features. For the last 40 years I have been the custodian of one of these Jayasukadgo keris that has no pamor and possesses deviant characteristics. I do not own this keris, it is a pusaka keris, the previous family custodians are known, the maker is known. I have been entrusted with the care of this keris until the person who should have it is ready to accept it. Regrettably, although this person is already 50 years old he is still not ready to accept responsibility for his family's keris. This keris is very definitely a Jayasukadgo, the family knows who made it, it has been recognised as Jayasukadgo by Javanese people who are sufficiently well educated to reliably recognise his work. But although it is a Jayasukadgo, and although it is recognisably Surakarta, it has some characteristics that are not typically Surakarta. We really do need a very great depth of hands on experience to be able to apply the indicators that we use in classifying a keris. Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 30th November 2018 at 12:51 PM.

23rd November 2018, 06:45 AM	#1
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes Bill, I do not doubt that I mentioned Empu Suparman(Alm.) he was the ranking Mpu in the Karaton Surakarta during the 1980's and early 1990's, and he was my teacher for the last 15 years of his life. Without his help I would not now know a fraction of what I do know. Yes, I recall the bethok very clearly. Empu Pauzan Pusposukadgo (Alm.) made three of these keris, and I bought all three, they were amongst the last keris he made before he became too ill to work. The pamor is an experimental one that he named "Pamor Kalpataru" . The Kalpataru Tree in Hindu belief is a sacred, wish granting tree, but in Javanese belief it is aligned with the Gunungan, Mt. Meru, and the Tree of Life. So, when Pauzan named this pamor Kalpataru he was in fact referencing the alignment of the Keris with Mt. Meru. I sold one of these keris to you, I sold one to another very respected collector, and I kept one for myself. The other keris I do not remember, but it has the look of Pauzan's work. After Pauzan ceased work I bought all his unsold keris and sold most of them over about a 20 year period. This keris definitely does look like his work but I cannot remember it. The wrongko looks like Sutejo's work, the pendok I am virtually certain is Dayadi's work, but I would need to handle it to be certain, it is almost certainly .925 silver --- this class of work is not done in brass --- the jejeran is from either Sutejo or Suroso. All this dress is absolute top drawer, and the blade is classic Surakarta. I knew Pauzan from 1974 until the time of his passing. He was one of the finest men I have ever known, kind, and gentle to a fault, the very epitome of a gentleman, I was fortunate to count him as a good friend.

25th November 2018, 11:13 AM	#4
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Jean, what you are talking about here is the difference between eras, the effect of time, and differences in post production processing. It is simply a matter of preferences. In very simple terms, we cannot have a blade that was made only 30 or 40 years ago, or even within the last 100 years or so, that looks like a blade that was made 150 to 200 years ago. It was be very nice if we could get newly made blades that looked like 19th century Surakarta or late Mataram, but regrettably we cannot. The reason being, that the current local Indonesian buyers seem to prefer blades that look like Bill's keris, rather than ones with a Bali style finish --- and it is the Bali style finish that is required in the beginning in order to have that flat mature surface a couple of hundred years down the track. The effect in that 5th pic of Bill's is the result of the deep etching process that is required by local Indonesian buyers of these keris. The method of construction of Bill's blade and a late 19th century Surakarta blade is the same, the pamor is not "deeply embedded", nor is there any "mixing into the blade core", the older blades have a less deeply etched surface, and there is a degree of mechanical reduction caused by wear. That is the only difference. In a blade that has been made using the reverse V construction, what we effectively have is an inlaid edge, and this permits less topographic relief in a blade that has a pure pamor body, but a body such as this is rare, normally there is a very thin layer of pamor over plain iron. It is unusual to find this reverse V construction in blades later than about 1800, and they are pretty scarce. However, it is possible to get older blades that have the superb pamors of the current era, along with the crisp garap of keris made during this revival era. The problem is that to even get one of these blades offered to you, you need the right connections, and then to actually obtain something, like, say, a Jayasukadgo, you need very deep pockets indeed. It does help to bring us back to reality if we can examine closely the pre-17th century keris held in some of the old European museum collections. Most of these keris that I have examined were new or close to it when they were collected, and if they were to be stripped of their dress, and laid side by side with an equal number of revival era blades it would be a very perceptive man indeed who could separate the new from the old.

25th November 2018, 10:05 PM	#6
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,048	Yes Jean, true, some current era blades are not deeply etched, in fact, some are not etched at all, but local buyers still seem to prefer that deep aggressive etch. Your couple of examples demonstrate pretty well what I was talking about in my previous post:- old blades and new blades can look very close to the same when presented in similar condition and mixed together.